-
Articles/Ads
Article ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION LIST. Page 1 of 3 Article ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION LIST. Page 1 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Analysis Of The Subscription List.
ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION LIST .
IT may suit some people to sneer at the analytical articles which we have latterly been in the habit of placing before onr readers . Nothing , after all , it is urged , can surpass in value the simple list itself . No regrouping the figures will affect the total , and , moreover , anybody can
analyse if ho chooses . Nevertheless , we humbly submit that , while it is quite possible for people to make their own analyses , if only they know how to set about them , ours have not been without their value . They have called forth criticisms sometimes favourable , sometimes unfavourable .
One of them was , on one occasion , publicly assailed by a distinguished brother , who , on grounds we were at once able to point out were erroneous , imagined we had written something intentionally disparaging to his province . We know , too , they are very narrowly scanned , and the slightest
mistake , be it an obvious slip of the pen or a mere clerical error , is immediately brought to our notice . Were these analyses of little or no value , they would pass unnoticed . If they were written with a view to give offence , they would be contemned by all , nor would any brother who had any
selfrespect condescend to notice them . But they are written impartially , temperately , and with the sole desire to promote the cause of our Charitable Institutions . They are what they profess to be—simple records of facts and nothing else . We point out what has been clone by certain
in sundry places , we make apparent what has not been done in other places . We praise where praise is due . We offer every palliation and excuse we can think of for any shortcomings which may be noteworthy . Under these circumstances we feel we have reasonable grounds for con
tinuing these articles ; at all events , so long as the kind attention paid them by our readers justifies their continuance . And it is in this spirit we set about onr task in the present instance , and the one return we ask for is , that our
readers will give ns credit not only for that impartialit y we have always , and not unsuccessfully , striven to show , but , likewise , that our one object in criticising the list is to benefit our Institutions .
We will , first of all , draw attention to one of those errors which will occur even in the best regulated institutions . Indeed , in the hurry ancl excitement of the Festival , ancl considering that fresh lists aro being received up to the very last moment , we are surprised these mistakes are
not of more frequent occurrence . As our readers are aware , the sum announced to have been contributed was £ 11 , 090 9 s 6 d , and there were nine lists to be sent in . This amount was distributed as follows : —Metropolis , with 116 Stewards , £ 6 , 062 7 s ; Provinces , with 104 Stewards
£ 4 , 969 4 s - Cd ; Colonial , one Steward , £ 58 18 s . The actual figures should have been : —Total , £ 10 , 936 7 s , of which £ 6 , 003 4 s Metropolitan , £ 4 , 874 5 s Provincial , and £ 58 18 s Colonial . Thus the true total is less by £ 154 2 s 6 d than the announced total . The list as it appeared in these
columns last week has been cast and recast . We have taken the precaution to have our own totals officially verified , and the result is what we have stated . The separate items were in every case correct to date , but , in the hurry of the moment , the aggregate was overstated . However ,
if we may judge from the experience of previous Festivals , there is every reason for believing that the total sum as it was given in the first instance will be exceeded . The outstanding lists have yet to be furnished , while those already sent in are being swelled by smaller or larger
Analysis Of The Subscription List.
amounts , which keep passing into the coffers , or , at all events , to the credit of the R . M . B . I ., by driblets . Thus we have no grounds for changing our opinion that Bro . Terry and his Board of Stewards have every reason to be satisfied with the result of their very laudable efforts . Over £ 11 , 000
must be set down as the net proceeds of the Festival just passed , ancl under the circumstances in which the country is placed , we may fairly state this as magnificent . So much for the general result . We pass now to the amount as distributed , and we find that the number of Metropolitan
Lodges which sent representatives to the Festival was 108 , for one of which two members acted , ancl there were four Chapters which sent up Stewards . The honour of having contributed the highest individual amount in these Lodges belongs to Bro . T . S . Taylor of the Yarborough Lodge ,
No . 554 , of Stepney , whose list reached the handsome total of £ 260 . Friends in Council , No . 1383 , by the hands of Lt .-Colonel ShadAvell Gierke sent £ 202 . Bro . H . Vickery of Peckham Lodge , No . 1475 , followed closely , with the sum of £ 192 Is , ancl then came Bro . C . A . Murton , representing
the United Lodge of Prudence , No . 83 , the members of which made his list up to £ 188 . The other Stewards who sent in three figure lists were Bro . Daniel Holmes of the Islington Lodge , No . 1471 , with £ 165 ; Bro . Wm . Hallett of tho Merchant Navy Lodge , No . 781 , of Limehonse ,
£ 158 10 s ; Bro . J . Matthew Klenck of Paxton Lodge , No . 1686 , Sydenham with an even £ 150 ; J . I . Cantle of the Ivy , No . 1441 , Camberwell , with £ 133 5 s ; Comp . John Newton of the Rose of Denmark Chapter , 975 , of Kew , with £ 120 ; Bro . George J . Grace of Mount Lebanon Lodge , No . 73 ,
Southwark , £ 116 10 s ; Bro . Chas . J . Perceval of Sincerity , No . 174 , £ 109 15 s ; ancl Bro . James Hill of United Strength Lodge , No . 228 , with £ 100 . Thus , in the Metropolis the honour of heading the list belongs to an East End Lodge . The West End had an able representative , ancl did its duty
so well as to take the second place . Then followed a Southern Lodge , while a Northern Lodge stood fifth , so that contributions flowed in liberally from all quarters . The number of Lodges represented rather better than two-fifths of the total number in the Metropolitan district , and of
these we find that Nos . 2 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 33 , 179 , 256 , and 657 , which have been represented at each of the three Festivals during the past three years , again figure in the list . Others again , if not regularly represented , are
very frequently , while some few are , unfortunately ancl invariably , conspicuous by their absence , though it by no means follows as a matter of course that they do not contribute either to this or our other Charities . As onr readers
know well , absence from the Festival does not imply absence from the list , published annually , of donors ancl subscribers to the Charity . It is further worthy of mention , that of the new Lodges consecrated only last year no less than seven sent up Stewards , and one of these brethren is a three-figure representative ( Bro . Klenck , No . 1686 , £ 150 ) .
We must now direct our attention to the Provinces , of which there are forty-one , besides three groups or districts which have no Provincial Grand Lodge . Twenty six of these sent representatives , so that thore were eighteen absentees , of which four , namely , Bedfordshire
with five Lodges , Cambridgeshire with four Lodges , Worcestershire with ten Lodges , and the Isle of Man with three Lodges , have not been represented at any of the Festivals
which have taken place since the CHRONICLE was first published . The other absentees are as follow : —Cumberland and Westmoreland ( nineteen Lodges ) , but it was represented last year , and also at the Boys' Festival in
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Analysis Of The Subscription List.
ANALYSIS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION LIST .
IT may suit some people to sneer at the analytical articles which we have latterly been in the habit of placing before onr readers . Nothing , after all , it is urged , can surpass in value the simple list itself . No regrouping the figures will affect the total , and , moreover , anybody can
analyse if ho chooses . Nevertheless , we humbly submit that , while it is quite possible for people to make their own analyses , if only they know how to set about them , ours have not been without their value . They have called forth criticisms sometimes favourable , sometimes unfavourable .
One of them was , on one occasion , publicly assailed by a distinguished brother , who , on grounds we were at once able to point out were erroneous , imagined we had written something intentionally disparaging to his province . We know , too , they are very narrowly scanned , and the slightest
mistake , be it an obvious slip of the pen or a mere clerical error , is immediately brought to our notice . Were these analyses of little or no value , they would pass unnoticed . If they were written with a view to give offence , they would be contemned by all , nor would any brother who had any
selfrespect condescend to notice them . But they are written impartially , temperately , and with the sole desire to promote the cause of our Charitable Institutions . They are what they profess to be—simple records of facts and nothing else . We point out what has been clone by certain
in sundry places , we make apparent what has not been done in other places . We praise where praise is due . We offer every palliation and excuse we can think of for any shortcomings which may be noteworthy . Under these circumstances we feel we have reasonable grounds for con
tinuing these articles ; at all events , so long as the kind attention paid them by our readers justifies their continuance . And it is in this spirit we set about onr task in the present instance , and the one return we ask for is , that our
readers will give ns credit not only for that impartialit y we have always , and not unsuccessfully , striven to show , but , likewise , that our one object in criticising the list is to benefit our Institutions .
We will , first of all , draw attention to one of those errors which will occur even in the best regulated institutions . Indeed , in the hurry ancl excitement of the Festival , ancl considering that fresh lists aro being received up to the very last moment , we are surprised these mistakes are
not of more frequent occurrence . As our readers are aware , the sum announced to have been contributed was £ 11 , 090 9 s 6 d , and there were nine lists to be sent in . This amount was distributed as follows : —Metropolis , with 116 Stewards , £ 6 , 062 7 s ; Provinces , with 104 Stewards
£ 4 , 969 4 s - Cd ; Colonial , one Steward , £ 58 18 s . The actual figures should have been : —Total , £ 10 , 936 7 s , of which £ 6 , 003 4 s Metropolitan , £ 4 , 874 5 s Provincial , and £ 58 18 s Colonial . Thus the true total is less by £ 154 2 s 6 d than the announced total . The list as it appeared in these
columns last week has been cast and recast . We have taken the precaution to have our own totals officially verified , and the result is what we have stated . The separate items were in every case correct to date , but , in the hurry of the moment , the aggregate was overstated . However ,
if we may judge from the experience of previous Festivals , there is every reason for believing that the total sum as it was given in the first instance will be exceeded . The outstanding lists have yet to be furnished , while those already sent in are being swelled by smaller or larger
Analysis Of The Subscription List.
amounts , which keep passing into the coffers , or , at all events , to the credit of the R . M . B . I ., by driblets . Thus we have no grounds for changing our opinion that Bro . Terry and his Board of Stewards have every reason to be satisfied with the result of their very laudable efforts . Over £ 11 , 000
must be set down as the net proceeds of the Festival just passed , ancl under the circumstances in which the country is placed , we may fairly state this as magnificent . So much for the general result . We pass now to the amount as distributed , and we find that the number of Metropolitan
Lodges which sent representatives to the Festival was 108 , for one of which two members acted , ancl there were four Chapters which sent up Stewards . The honour of having contributed the highest individual amount in these Lodges belongs to Bro . T . S . Taylor of the Yarborough Lodge ,
No . 554 , of Stepney , whose list reached the handsome total of £ 260 . Friends in Council , No . 1383 , by the hands of Lt .-Colonel ShadAvell Gierke sent £ 202 . Bro . H . Vickery of Peckham Lodge , No . 1475 , followed closely , with the sum of £ 192 Is , ancl then came Bro . C . A . Murton , representing
the United Lodge of Prudence , No . 83 , the members of which made his list up to £ 188 . The other Stewards who sent in three figure lists were Bro . Daniel Holmes of the Islington Lodge , No . 1471 , with £ 165 ; Bro . Wm . Hallett of tho Merchant Navy Lodge , No . 781 , of Limehonse ,
£ 158 10 s ; Bro . J . Matthew Klenck of Paxton Lodge , No . 1686 , Sydenham with an even £ 150 ; J . I . Cantle of the Ivy , No . 1441 , Camberwell , with £ 133 5 s ; Comp . John Newton of the Rose of Denmark Chapter , 975 , of Kew , with £ 120 ; Bro . George J . Grace of Mount Lebanon Lodge , No . 73 ,
Southwark , £ 116 10 s ; Bro . Chas . J . Perceval of Sincerity , No . 174 , £ 109 15 s ; ancl Bro . James Hill of United Strength Lodge , No . 228 , with £ 100 . Thus , in the Metropolis the honour of heading the list belongs to an East End Lodge . The West End had an able representative , ancl did its duty
so well as to take the second place . Then followed a Southern Lodge , while a Northern Lodge stood fifth , so that contributions flowed in liberally from all quarters . The number of Lodges represented rather better than two-fifths of the total number in the Metropolitan district , and of
these we find that Nos . 2 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 33 , 179 , 256 , and 657 , which have been represented at each of the three Festivals during the past three years , again figure in the list . Others again , if not regularly represented , are
very frequently , while some few are , unfortunately ancl invariably , conspicuous by their absence , though it by no means follows as a matter of course that they do not contribute either to this or our other Charities . As onr readers
know well , absence from the Festival does not imply absence from the list , published annually , of donors ancl subscribers to the Charity . It is further worthy of mention , that of the new Lodges consecrated only last year no less than seven sent up Stewards , and one of these brethren is a three-figure representative ( Bro . Klenck , No . 1686 , £ 150 ) .
We must now direct our attention to the Provinces , of which there are forty-one , besides three groups or districts which have no Provincial Grand Lodge . Twenty six of these sent representatives , so that thore were eighteen absentees , of which four , namely , Bedfordshire
with five Lodges , Cambridgeshire with four Lodges , Worcestershire with ten Lodges , and the Isle of Man with three Lodges , have not been represented at any of the Festivals
which have taken place since the CHRONICLE was first published . The other absentees are as follow : —Cumberland and Westmoreland ( nineteen Lodges ) , but it was represented last year , and also at the Boys' Festival in