Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters mnst bear the name anl address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith .

MASONIC CHARITY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —It is unnecessary to say that your statement of the year ' s work for our Charities is exceedingly gratifying . Would it not havo been as well to include the large sum voted to

varions cases by the Board of Benevolence , amounting , I suppose , to between £ 11 , 000 and £ 12 , 000 . If to this we add the sums bestowed on casual relief by the Lodges , as well as Lodge subscriptions to local charities , the sum total would amonnt to something like £ 65 , 000 or £ 70 , 000 .

Yours fraternally , T . B . WHITEHEAD . [ Our worthy correspondent is quite right in pointing out that the work done by our institutions is very far from being a complete account of what is done by Freemasonry

in aiding indigent brethren , the widow , and the fatherless . The total incomes , from all sources , of our three Charities for the year 1880 , as stated last week , amounted in the aggregate to £ 49 , 762 lis 5 d . If to this we add the grants for the year made by the Lodge of Benevolence , which , as

stated in the previous week , reached the sum of £ 9 , 223 , we have a total of £ 58 , 985 lis 5 d . We must further take into account the Benevolent organizations which exist in so many of our Provinces , such as those of the two Lancashires , Cheshire , Warwickshire , Cornwall , Devon , & c , & c . These

have largo accumulated funds , the interest on which is distributed annually in the relief of distress , or the education , maintenance , or advancement of the children of poor or deceased brethreu . Very many Lodges have their own Benevolent Funds . There is hardly a Lodge at which , on

the occasion of their different meetings , the charity box is not circulated , and most , if not all of them , in the course of the year freely give pecuniary help to worthy but distressed Masons . Lastly , there is the immense amount of casual relief bestowed by individual brethren , of which we

hear nothing , for the kindly deeds are done in secret . If , then , we add the amounts thus distributed , which for obvious reasons are indeterminable , to the £ 58 , 985 stated above , we are inclined to the belief that even Bro . Wbytehead ' s estimate of between £ 65 , 000 and £ 70 , 000 is

considerably within the mark . Indeed , we do not think we shonld be exaggerating if we estimated the total at little short of £ 100 , 000 . Bnt even his idea of close on £ 70 , 000 speaks well for the good deeds of Freemasonry , and offers

the grandest possible justification tor its existence , as well as the most complete answer to those who go out of the way to abuse it . —ED . F . C . ]

Withdrawal Of Visitors.

WITHDRAWAL OF VISITORS .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —It is highly amusing to note the hubbub my letter on this subject has caused . Bro . John Constable is in a fit of indignation bordering on frenzy , just as he might have been had ho been for tho second time invited to retire while certain business which did not concern a stranger was being transacted . Bro .

Gottheil , liko an old-fashioned line-of-battle ship , is pounding away at the different Craffc—Craft Principles , Craft Professions of Faith , Obligations , Craft Conrtesy , and the like—by which for years past he has been surrounded , and knocking them , figuratively , into " cocked hats , " all because I , the unfortunate , but " IRREPRESSIBLE TOM KINS , " havo had the hardihood to criticise certain conduct

imputed , rightly or wrongly , to Bro . Constable during his sojourn some two years since in South Africa . Am I to blame , because in the year of grace 1878—which is only a couple of years less graceful than 18 S 0—Bro . Constable , having been invited for certain reasons to retire for a short time from a Port Elizabeth Lodge—as other visitors , I presume , before him had been—quitted the said Lodge in

high dudgeon , after having first refused the olive-branch of peace , hold out to him by the Worshipful Master of the Lodge ? Or , if the second is the correct account of the incident , is it my fault that Bro . Constable worked himself into a fever heat of indignation , because ho was asked to leave the Lodge during the transaction of business " which did not concern a stranger ? " Am I responsible for the

revival of " a half-forgotten matter , of no very great importance to the high interests of the Craft ? " And yet , writes Bro . Gottheil , when firing his first broadside at poor unhappy me , no one who has read " my waggishly signed" letter , " can fail to perceive that , in penning his remarks , the writer was clearly animated by an unfriendly , and by no means fraternal spirit . " As if this were not terrible enough ,

Withdrawal Of Visitors.

he keeps on blazing away , and suggests that this " half-forgotten matter , " which was mentioned "incidentally" in your reporter ' s account of the Tranquillity Lodge , " afforded " me " the opportunity of venting a probably long-snppressed anger upon the devoted head of a , most likely , innocent offender . " I feel , after all this , that it ia a most " unwarrantable proceeding" on my part to be still alive .

Yet I am happy to say I still survive , and , with your permission , will take this opportunity of inquiring if Bro . Gottheil has ever heard of Logic and the ill-treatment it receives from those who argue from false premisses , who jump hastily to conclusions whioh nothing in the circumstances will warrant , who delight in the enunciation of fallacies . & c , & o . ? Well , on the strength of a certain statement which

appeared in your columns , the accuracy of which I was fully justified in assuming , I have had the audacity to criticise the conduct of a brother—it happened to be Bro . Constable , but I should have done the same had it been Bro . Anybody Else—as described in that instance . Forthwith appears on the scene Bro . Gottheil , who writes that it must be evident to all who have read my letter that it was

written in " an unfriendly , and by no means fraternal spirit , " and that it gave me the " opportunity of venting a probably long suppressed anger npon the devoted head of a , most likely innocent offender "— " innocent , be it remarked , is in italics , for the purpose , I presume , of giving increased force to the argument (?) . This , no doubt , is very friendly and very fraternal towards the " innocent

offender , " but may I take the liberty of asking Bro . Gottheil , what has become of his logic ? I must point out to him that my criticism was based on a statement of your reporter ' s , and I remarked that , if Bro . Constable did what he was said to have done , he acted very foolishly— " it was a silly exhibition of spleen on his part" were , I believe , the exact words I used . I went on to point out that at Lodge

meetings , as at family gatherings , it was only natural that business of a private nature should occasionally come under consideration , and that it would be indelicate on the part of any mere visitor to insist on remaining during the discussion of such private business . I further hinted that , had I been Bro . Constable , I shonld have wished your reporter at Jericho rather than that he should have referred

to what Bro . Gottheil himself has since described as " a half-forgotten matter , of no very great importance to the high interests of the'Craft . " Now , I ask you , Dear Sir and Brother , and your readers likewise , to bear with me while I describe these matters in brief , but in the regular order of their occurrence . A . B . C . ( Bro . Reporter ) describes an "incident" which occurred during the visit of D . E . F .

( Bro . Constable ) to a Port Elizabeth Lodge , the said D . E . F . being a member of a Lodge in England . G . H . K . ( that is I , the muchabused " IRREPRESSIBLE TOMKINS " ) , with yonr kind permission , points out that if D . E . F . acted as he was described by A . B . C . to have acted , he was wrong . Thereupon , up jumps L . M . N . ( Bro . Gottheil ) , who at once goes bounding about all over the field of illogical

assertion , and deliberately affirms that G . H . K . wrote in a very unfriendly spirit , and had taken the opportunity of emptying the vials of a long bottled-up anger on the devoted head of the innocent D . E . F . May I ask Bro . Gottheil to point out where in this case is the sequitur ? D . E . F . does something j A . B . 0 . reports his version of it , and G . H . K . criticises that version . Ergo , G . H . K . ' s criticism is unfriendly ,

unfraternal , and neither more nor less than a furious outburst of long suppressed anger against D . E . F . Really , Bro . Gottheil , this is too absurb . I am sorry to say I have been obliged to laugh—and that , you know , was very rude on my part , was ifc nofc ?—afc what yon , no doubt , honestly and honourably intended , in all sober seriousness , to be a most chivalrous defence of a " very innocent offender . " Let

me advise you , my Dear Sir and Brother , before yon again venture into the arena of argument for the purpose of engaging in a conflict with an unknown brother , who is innocent of all offence towards yon , as he is assuredly innocent of all offence towards him whose imputed conduct has caused all this row-di-dow ; I say , let me adviseyou before you again so venture forth , to go home , or to the British

Museum , or the nearest available library , and there renew your acquaintance with the works of the late Stuart Mill , Whateley , Aristotle , or some other logician of repute . Tour native sense , thus refreshed and invigorated , will make you a most formidable champion , and your opponent will have some trouble and no little good fortune if be succeeds only in holding his own .

Passing over the second paragraph of Bro . Gofcfcheil's letter—as ifc concerns the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHKONICE , not me—I come to the third and last , in which I find myself described as an " atrocity , " because , in criticising the conduct of a certain brother , as described by a certain reporter , I have adopted a pseudonym . Had I , under an assumed name , made a personal attack on Bro . Constable's character ,

had I maligned him , imputed to him evil motives , or wilfully distorted the facts of some incident in which he figured , I should merit the severe censure passed upon me by Bro . Gottheil . But I have merely criticised certain conduct of his as described by a reporter . I have said , and I repeat , that what he is alleged to have done was wrong , that his indignation was uncalled for , and looked more like " a silly

exhibition of spleen " than anything else I could think of ; and further , that the mention of it by your reporter was calculated to make him ridiculous in the sight of others . I said , and I repeat this , in the general , if nofc the " high , " interests of the Craffc ; for if Lodges find there are brethren who insist on remaining in Lodge , even dnring tbe transaction or discussion of business which does not " concern a

stranger , " they will have no alternative but to give up receiving those brethren . When Dr . Oliver complained that there were Lodges which refused to admit visitors , I take it the only reasonable , indeed , the only possible explanation of his meaning is , that thero were certain Lodges which resolutely set themselves against the admission of strange brethren—that is , members of other Lodges—and not against

their refusal to receive them during the consideration of private business . But whatever may have been Dr . Oliver ' s meaning , it is manifestly of no moment who it is , whether A . or Z ., who offers his criticism on a matter of general interest , just as in this instance ifc cannot possibly have affected the merits of the conduct thafc was criticised , whether ifc waa thafc of Bro . John Constable or any other