Lodge Finances.

LODGE FINANCES .

SOME sensational statements have recently been made as to tbe standing of one of tbe largest friendly societies of tbe country , and although the position in which tbat society now finds itself—with a deficiency on one oi its accounts of close on three millions—is impossible in connection with

Freemasonry , for the reason that our society is not a

benefit one , it yet behoves all members of similar organisations to look very carefully how far their reputation ancl standing is affected by their association with a large number of Lodges and individual members . Every Mason has a voice in the

management ot tne aflairs ot his own Lodge , anti ii he objects to the financial programme of his leaders he may at least express his views , and does not sacrifice very much if he has eventually to resign his Lodge in consequence of his inability to endorse tbe financial proceedings of the majority . This step may be ,

and possibly is , extremely rare , but , as we have said , it does not cost very much to put it into practice if absolutely necessary , but the same cannot be said in regard to a society which bargains to give its members certain benefits in case of sickness and death .

and the amount of which benefits depend , to a very great extent , on the number of years during which the payments have been kept up . In those cases retirement means the sacrifice of advantages won by payment in years gone by , and not unfrequently

withdrawal means entire forfeiture of rights , without any chance of securing similar advantages in other quarters , for experience has taught tho majority of the societies established for the purpose of giving sick and death grants that they must not accent risks on

an aged life at the same terms as on a younger one . As , however , Freemasonry holds aloof from anything in the form of sick or death grants as a matter of right , it would be useless to carry comparison further than to ask our brethren to consider , for a few

moments , how far their reputation is pledged , not only as regards their individual Lodges , but rather in relation to the whole Craft of England , for be it

remembered that any calamity which may come upon a section of the Order will make itself felt , in

proportion to its importance , throughout the country . J-be Lodges of the friendly society we have already referred to are not all in a state of insolvency , ancl possibl y the worst among their number do not look upon their deficiency as anything very serious ;

perhaps a levy of a few shillings per member would in most cases put matters on a fairly sound financial oasis ; but taken together , and treated from a woroughl y business point of view , it is reported the order stands with liabilities of close on three millions

^ -- ' --ng . against which there is a comparatively insignincant provision , unless funds set aside for other Purposes are drawn upon . What we should like to UOAV is , how would Freemasonry emerge from a ai -ut and impartial audit of the affairs of its private

Lodges ? We know a very large proportion of them possess funds -which are amply sufficient to meet all liabilities , but it must bo noted that in some such cases the surplus is locked up in the form

of a Benevolent Fund , and the members have no right to reckon it as an asset , although it is so reckoned , while in some cases our Lodges —as we have pointed out in the past—are

virtually insolvent , quite unable to show a legitimate surplus if put to the test . Although they may present a fairly square balance-sheet from time to time , it is no secret they could not

produce a surplus if challenged at any particular moment . How far this deficiency extends , or how much it would amount to if summarised throughout the country , it is quite impossible to say , but we have

an example before us of an English society whose Lodges , through many small discrepancies , has established in the entire body a deficiency of enormous extent , and we repeat it is well for the

members of the Masonic Order to look around and see if they stand wholly secure . The governing body of English Freemasons exercises no control over its subordinates in matters of finance , and this fact , coupled with the weakness of

indulgent Treasurers , ancl more indulgent caterers , opens the door for grave irregularities if they are desired by individual Lodges or members . We should be sorry to urge anything like a strict regulation

of the expenditure of private Lodges by the Grancl Lodge of England , but , as we have urged in the past , we think it would be well if the authorities introduced something like a mild supervision of the accounts of its subordinates , reserving the right of checking

any Lodge working on a really unsound basis ; it would at least be a move towards preventing such a scandal in Freemasonry as has recently come to light elsewhere , or anything approaching thereto . Freemasonry has too much to lose to be enabled to run

any risk m this matter , and for that reason alone careful consideration should be given to the whole subject of finance . It cannot be denied that any flaw existing under such a head , in even a few of the

Lodges , must some clay seriously affect the whole body of the Craft , if the need ever arises for a general balancing up , or estimation of the resources of the Order . Whether that need will ever arise , or what will be its outcome , it is impossible to say , but it is

never too early to proht oy the experience oi others , ancl in this case a careful scrutiny may be the means of remedying any small amount of irregularity already existing , as well as prevent anything like serious trouble in years to come . Experience is very

cheap if purchased at the expense of some one else , but often very dear if forced harshly upon ourselves . Let us then look around , and sec if the troubles discovered by the society already referred to have any

analogy in Freemasonry , and if so let us set to work to remove them long before their presence is forcibly impressed upon us .