Correspondence

seeking information whcr « ver lie thought ifc would bo found , assisted by zoalona and intelligent brethren , and sparing no pains to collect All thifc was remembered of the ancient ; forms of illustration and explanation . He died in the belief that ho had left behind him a complete and orthodox formulary . To preserve it from oblivion , be , by his will , devoted a portion of his moderate means to the establish .

ment of an annual lecture , to be delivered according to the system which he had so carefully elaborated . Among his survivors in the Lodge of Antiquity wero several who had either assisted him in his valuable labours or profited by his personal instruction . To one of these , Bro . Stephen Jones , a Past Master of the Lodgo , * nd an early editor of Bro . Preston ' s book , the office of Prestonian Lecturer was

first entrusted by His Royal Highness tho Duke of Sussex , then Grand Master and Master of the Lodge of Antiquity . Bro . Jones was annually reappointed to this office for several years , and subsequently Bro . Laurence Thompson , the last surviving pupil of Preston , and well known to the older members of the London fraternity as an ardent Mason , was nominated , and continuously until bis death

delivered the lecture once in each year . In order to discharge suitably tbe honourable duty devolving on tbe Prestonian Lecturer , great care has always been taken to observe not only the arrangement , bufc the very words so far as they can be ascertained . The arrangement is preserved in the " Syllabus " long since printed by tho Lodge of Antiquity , and hitherto followed in the lecture . The

"Syllabus" is adapted to the method of question and answer , but the lecture is delivered uninterrupted by interrogations , the prescribed answers being turned into a continuous discourse . The words are taken from notes collected a quarter of a century ago from the works of Bro . Meyrick , the first Grand Registrar of the United Graud Lodge , Bro . Buckhardt , -whom senior brethren

remember for Masonic learning , and Bro . Laurence Thompson , all members of the Lodge of Antiquity , who derived their knowledge from Preston himself . Verbal differences from other systems now practised are obvious , bufc not such as to derogate from substantial uniformity , or to suggest any doubt of their common origin . Whatever opinions may be formed as to the relative merits of the systems , it must be

remembered thafc the lecture now to be delivered is restricted , by the nature of its foundation , to the very system which Preston has transmitted to us . Its simplicity and occasional quaintness are due to its antiquity , ancl there is every reason to believe that it prescribes , as nearly as may bo , the language in which the early fathers of the Craft in England were wont to give and receive Masonic instruction .

Skilful Masons will detect some differences of ritual from the forms now practised , this lecture having been compiled long before the existence of thafc Lodge of Reconciliation which in 1813 regulated the uniformity of working . In all respects the method practised in the Lodge of Antiquity ever since the foundation of the lecture is followed , as affording the surest warrant of adherence to the will of the founder . "

Such were the views of onr brethren of former times , showing the estimation in which tho labour ancl researches of Bro . Preston were held , ancl if they were valuable then—when Masonry was carried on in very circumscribed dimensions , how much mere useful might the promulgation of them bo at the present time , when tho Craft

numbers thousands in comparison with the hundreds to whom Bro . Preston ' s rich legacy was bequeathed , as a bright and shining light to others who might seek to emulate his useful example . Therefore , Dear Sir and Brother , may I again ask , if this lecture has fallen into desuetude , who is to blame ; and to what , if any , purpose is the accumulating fund applied ? I am , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , P . M . 177 AND 1158 . 9 th June 1879 .

FREEMASONRY AND ITS CHARITIES

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEMI SIR AND BROTHER , —In proposing that subscribers should havo intelligible accounts aud clear balance sheets , I neither expected my communications to meet with universal approval , nor desired that the present system should be undefended ; but I think I may fairly claim thafc adverse criticism should embrace the loading points of the correspondence , and not be limited to tho summary of facts , tabulated

from published records of contemporaneous Institutions . The num . bers and amounts of each school are those of the authorities , * and should have served as an illustration only of what I have throughout urged , the necessity of a better system of rendering the accounts of our schools . If the extracts have failed to answer this purpose , they have certainly been successful iu illustrating the old adage , "comparisons are odious . "

I am not aware that I havo , at any time , stated that the year ' s outlay was expended upon the maintenance and education of 195 children ; on the contrary , afc page 23-1 ( No . 229 ) this amount was divided into ordinary expenditure , £ 7 , 085 , and extraordinary expenditure £ 8 , 232 ; but I there questioned , as I continue to do , the policy and the charity of turning away 70 per cent , of the applicants for whoso benefit the funds have been subscribed , whilst less than

onehalf the amount was devoted to support and education , for which the money was collected . The fact remains that ; no moro than 195 children have received tho benefits of the Institution during the period in which the snm mentioned has been expended . You refer to the erecting and furnishing of additional premises . As these charges represent outlay on capital account , the responsibility for any mistake must rest with those who have charged such items to the same account as working expen-

Correspondence

ditnro . These extensions should only bo executed , if at all , with funds provided specially by thoso who may desire to contribute to such expenses , and ought nofc to be charged againsfc subscriptions collected for maintenance and education . Children cannot be fed on bricks and mortar . Land purchases will not clothe , nor furuiture educate them .

Assuming thafc all interested in the Charities desire the attainment of the same result—the greatest good to the greatest number—I havo been guilty of making , what seems at present , an unwelcome suggestion , that the accounts should be properly stated , under tho advice of practical accountants , so thafc committees and subscribers may readily see , what amounts have been , and are being , expended

on capital account , aud what aro tho legitimate working expenses . With this information before us , I am confident we should nearly all be agreed thafc tho time had arrived to place a limit on tho capital outlay . The principal opposition to this desirable change would speedily be loft to " vested interests , " and to the very few remaining

adherents to that exploded parochial principle describsd by the late Charles Dickens as , the rulo for relieving sick families with slices of cheese . Let mo add an expression of regret that the form of the quotation in other journals of a portion of my last communication should have occasioned any feelings of annoyance , aud remain , Yours truly and fraternally , H . 10 th June 1879 .

An error unaccountably crept into our editorial paragraph pointing to the unfairness of " H . ' s " analysis of certain figures which showed , comparatively , the expenditure per head incurred annually by sundry Metropolitan Charitable Institutions , among which the Royal Masonic Institution

for Curls showed to great disadvantage . The " other " expenditure was correctly stated on the authority of tho last Report as £ 1 , 556 . This , AVC said , gave an average per Girl of £ 13 , whereas it should have been £ 8 . Thus

the total amount for " ordinary " and " other " expenditure is over £ 44—about on a level with the Boys' School , and not just " under £ 50 , " as we said in tbo paragraph in question . The difference is considerable , and hence our haste to rectify the mistake . —[ Editor FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . ]

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Tho statement of your correspondent " II , " in your issue of 31 st ult ., certainly struck mo as rather strange , and on tbo first impulse 1 remarked thnt it could nob bo correct . When , however , I saw the figures reproduced in The Globe , apparently as an official statement of the FREEMASON ' S CHRON ' ICI . K , 1 looked upon

the matter more in the shape of a perversion of tho scanty materials I was already aware were supplied by thu School ba ' anrc sheet . Tho letter of your correspondent "A . E . G ., " together with tho editorial remarks in your last nnmber , confirm this latter opinion of mine , nnd I now look upon the matter as an attempt to lead to a bettor system of showing the various receipts and expenditures by subdividing

" capital account from " ordinary expenses , etc ., I feel sure this could easily be done by the officials , and would prove more satisfactory to men who look upon such questions in a purely business way . " A . E . G . " makes a bold statement afc the beginning of his letter , to the effect that " H . " shows incompetency to deal with a very plain statement of account , and then , later on , himself makes an omission of

£ 1 , 538 5 s 2 d in his account of tho payments ; that is , he gives the total expenditure , after deducting repayment of loan and balance in hand , as £ 15 , 317 8 s Id ; apportioning £ 6 , 675 18 s 6 d to extraordinary expenditure , £ 7 , 085 6 s lid to ordinary , and £ 17 17 s Gd to insurance . AVhere is the balance , £ 1 , 538 5 s 2 d ? Personally I am aware it is made

up of sundry payments which I consider should be included in the " ordinary expenditure , " bufc it is nofc every subscriber who baa the means of checking the balance sheet for himself . Those who live in glass houses should bo careful how they throw stones . Yours respectfully , A LifE GOVERNOR . 9 th June 1879 .

"WHICH IS CORRECT ?"

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In fulfilment of tho promise contained in the letter which you wore kind enough to insert last week , I pursue the task of answering , seriatim , to the best of my ability , the questions propounded by Bro . James Stevens , P . M ., P . Z . I am inclined to think " newly obligated" brother is preferable to

" duly obligated . " The words are addressed in each case to one who has just previously contracted a new obligation , and who , in that particular respect , is distinguished from the other brethren around him . It admits him for tho first time to an equality with those others j he is a neiv brother in that degree . On the other hand , the word duly appears to he somewhat of a redundancy . I havo a right to assume that where a fresh obligation is imposed ou a candidate ifc is

duly done—thafc is , m the manner prescribed by law or usage . Were the formalities of the obligation dispensed with , or improperly followed , it would be invalid . Therefore , ifc is unnecessary , though I readily admit it gives greater emphasis to the expression , to speak of a "duly obligated" brother , when " obligated" brother is sufficient . Moreover , " neivly obligated" conveys a sense of peculiar interest to my mind . Ifc reminds him to whom tho words aro ad «