Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of o % ir Correspondents . All Letters must heir the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We can-not undertake to return rejected communications .

THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LONDON LODGES INTO PROVINCES . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE .

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In your leading article iu the CHRONICLE of 30 th April , headed "Election Days and Election Tactics , " there is the following sentence : — " London could do as well as any of the Provinces if the brethren would unite in the

Metropolis as they do outside it . " To paraphrase Jack Bunsby'' the bearings of that observation lays in the application on it , " not only to the subject of your article , but in even a still greater measure

to the rapidly becoming acknowledged fact that co-operation amongst the London Lodges in regard to Masonic matters generally is a large and important factor in Freemasonry conspicuous by its entire absence .

You speak of greater advantages secured by Provincial brethren as compared with those in the London district , and of the " tendency to divide the Order into two great sections—Provincial aud Metropolitan—with results which must eventually prove detrimental to the kindly feeling which has so long been a characteristic of

Freemasonry . You enlarge on that text with special reference to eleotion tactics in connection with our Masonic Institutions , and a great majority of brethren will doubtless coiucide with you in your remarks . But in many other respects this tendency "to divide the Order

into two gmit sections is manifest , and foremost amongst them that which strikes at the root of the equality amongst Freemasons , which is one of our professed principles , by compelling a certain section to provide larger funds , submit to greater restrictions , and yet be content with more neglect and less reward of merit than

the other . What anomaly can be greater than that which on the standard of equality imposes conditions which divide a body of men into " great sections" with unequal responsibilities and non-corresponding advantages ? That this is the case in the Order of Freemasonry let the following facts demonstrate .

In what is termed the London District there are upwards of three hundred and fifty Lodges , each of which , according to the regulations of the Grand Lodge , has paid half as muoh again for its warrant to the Board of General Purposes , and mnBt pay to the same fund for any required dispensation twice as much , for registration of initiates

ten-seventeentbs niore , and for registration of joining members twice as much as any Provincial Lodge is called npon to pay ; whilst to the Fund of Benevolence each London brother , that is , a member of a Lodge within a radius of ten miles from Freemasons' Hall , London , must contribute twice as mnch as any Provincial brother .

It might fairly be assumed , by those who do not know , that in return for these contributions , at least equal advantages would be accorded . But it is not so ; and hence the further anomily that those who pay the most reap the least return . For Provincial Lodges can and do receive the full benefits derivable from the funds

to which they have contributed in a lesser degree than their Metropolitan brethren , and , their numerical strength being greater , they receive those benefits in a far larger proportion—in round numbers Bay as 1000 to 350 . That these funds must be respected , and instead of suffering diminution need increase , is not for a moment to be

doubted , and no true Mason would desire that the powers of the Board of Benevolence especially should be lessened . Nor would they be , nor could any feeling of injustice arise , if each and all , Metropolitan and Provincial , contributed alike . On the contrary , * in such case the Board of Benevolence would be able to render greater

assistance than is even now rendered , and that without trenching on funded capital as has latterly been found necessary . The late Bro . Clabon ' s motion before Grand Lodge , June 1882 , " That to meet the then ( even then ) increased demands on the fund every member of a London Lodge should pay Is 6 d quarterly instead of Is , and

members of Provincial Lodges 9 dper quarter instead of 6 d , " was a good one and should have had the fullest consideration . It foreshadowed the present diminution of investments , which should have been kept up instead of suffering decrease . Bat as a reason for this difference in amount of contributions it is

said Provincial Lodges have to pay fees to their respective Provincial Grand Lodges , and the difference in money contributions is made up thereby . True , but what privileges do the Provincial Lodges receive in return whioh London Lodges do not enjoy ? Most important of all they obtain a " touch " with one another in their

respective Provinces under a supervision as to their practice of Masonio working and ritual , which , in the words of our Ancient Charges , tends to " promote peace and cultivate harmony , concord and brotherly love . " And this supervision is not of a perfunctory character . The Provincial Grand Masters or their Deputies , or

members qualified and delegated by the Provincial rulers , visit the several Lodges in due order , and control and report on proceedings to the general advantage of the aggregate body they have iu charge . Have London Lodges any such " touch" or supervision ? No ! There is no cohesion amongst them ; each goes its own way , perfectly

independent of all other Lodges , and , beyond that , more or less negligent and careless of oontrol from any superior authority , which in its turn is carele ^ B as to what may or may not be done within its

jurisdiction . All this must tend to the disadvantage of Freemasonry and , to nae your own words , " must eventually prove detrimental to the kindly feeling which has so long been its characteristic . " The suggested sub-division of the Metropolitan area either into

Correspondence.

sections which shall have the same privileges as Provinces , or by absorption into contiguous existing Provinces , each of whioh if too largely increased by such absorption might be divided as are the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire , is not a mere question of the purple , as has been most disingenuously represented ; and it is a very

unworthy argument to use against those who wish to see justice done , equality maintained , and the good of the Craft advanced , that their motive is self aggrandisement aud grandeur . Londoners are apt to boast of their " excellent working" and knowledge of Masonic symbolism and ritualiatio teachings , and

yet find contradictions in practice amongst their Lodges which tend to confuse rather than to instruct . Each Lodge adopts its own stand-point of Masonio " work , " and will either hold fast thereto for many years , or ohange and change again as the caprice of any individual possessing the power of direction within the Lodge may

influence its members from time to time . And why ? Because there is no controlling power exercised over all ! This is not so outside the metropolitan area , and whatever may be the differences in " working" and management between Provinces , the Lodges in each Province at least observe one and the same system , enforced by their

recognised authority , the Grand Lodge of the Province in which they are enrolled . Hence it is that better work and greater respeot for the principles of Freemasonry , a stronger bond of union and advantageous co-operation , a more liberal encouragement of efforts and preferment of merit , and far more social harmony and concord

are to be found in the Lodges outside the radius of " ten miles from Freemasons' Hall " than within it . For the present let these arguments in favour of the suggested sub-division suffice ; there are many others which could be advanced , but probably none of greater importance . What is wanted is the

reduction into manageable bodies of an aggregate of Lodges each separate and distinct as between one another , and beyond supervision and control because of the magnitude of the area they cover . How this can be effected it should be quite in the power of the Grand

Lodge to determine , and as there are many of its members who share the opinions herein expressed , and do not hesitate to endorse them elsewhere , it is to be hoped that the subject may not be allowed to drop for want of support in the Council of the Order .

" Who would be free , themselves must strike the blow !" Yours faithfully and fraternally , JAMES STEVENS P . M . P . Z . 7 th May 1887 .

ELECTION DAYS AND ELECTION TACTICS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —My first impression on reading your article under the above heading was that yon had been guilty of making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill , in attaching so much importance to the few hours speut over the actual elections in

connection with the Masonic Charitable Institutions in view of the remarkably small band of subscribers who attend them , as compared with the whole number eligible to do so . On more mature consideration , however , I arrive at the conclusion you have not erred in this respect , as I came to recognise that the brethren

who attend the periodical contests were in many cases the representatives , duly appointed , of very large bodies of subscribers , iu distant parts of the country . It would be out of question to expect anything like a general attendance of voters at the elections , aud it is well that it is so :

but it must be admitted—on the basis of one of your arguments , that of the small number of unused votes—that nearly all of them take an interest in what is being done at those elections . If they do not attend personally , they send their proxies , and in many instances they specially appoint a representative to take their place and act

on their behalf . Such being the case we must recognise these representatives , and study their convenience as we should the wishes of the voters they represent . They bring up a certain number of votes and should be listened to accordingly . I hope the committees appointed by the Institutions to consider

this subject will look at the matter from my ( revised ) point of view , and not regard the few who personally attend the elections as all who take an interest in their conduct , as I am afraid I used to a certain extent to do . Yours , & c .

A . M . W . THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF TYLERS .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON s CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —When you brought out an article in your paper with the above strange-sounding title , I was at first puzzled , and then amused ; puzzled , because on handing down a dictionary I found the long and ominous-looking word was not haU '

so dreadful as I at first supposed it was , and amnserl because of your ill-concealed surprise that there should be difference of degree amongst Tylers , as though indeed there is not amongst all sorts and conditions of men . But when that brilliant effusion appeared from the pen of "An Old Tyler , " I hardly knew whether to smile at the

vanity of the writer , or to pity his Pharisaical boast of " Thank God I am not as other men are . " There is something delightfully suave and complacent about the picture " An Old Tyler" draws of himself . How I should like to meet my " most potent , grave , and reverend "

compeer , in order that 1 might learu a few of his vefcerau antidotes for " idiosyncrasy ! " He starts with disavowing any intention of" blowing his own trumpet with unnecessary vehemence , " and forthwith proceeds to do BO in the most stentorian fashion . Eheu ! how perfectly a master he is of that instrument , to be sure . He certainly does allow that