Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

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

THE CARE OF LODGE FUNDS .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAB SIR AND BROTHER , —In conversation with some brethren a few days ago on the above subject , a friendly discussion arose as to whether or not it would be benefioial to Lodges if their funds were vested in the case of Grand Lodge , i . e . if the latter wonld consent to act as bankers , and thus relieve the anxiety and responsibilities of

private Treasurers . Of course , there is much to be said on both sides of the question ; but inasmuch as your influential journal is specially designed to open up various matters connected with Freemasonry , it occurred to me that yon might be glad to bear the views expressed during the conversation to which I allude , so that others may be induced to give their opinions upon it , if so disposed . In the first

place then it was pointed out that in a great many Lod ges the office of Treasurer is a sinecure , inasmuch as the whole of the business is virtually transacted by the Secretary , that really the Treasurer has no control over the actions of the latter , and if that officer is lax in the discharge of his duty in keeping the accounts " olose up , " the Lodge suffers , and the Treasurer , who is merely an ornamental

personage , is brought to book for laches over whioh he has no control . On the other band , it was contended that if the funds of private Lodges were placed in the hands of Grand Lodge there would be a stimulating inftuenoe exeroised over them , because the officers of private Lodges would be most unwilling to appear in a weak-kneed position before the Grand Lodge , in whose favourable opinion they

are always most anxious to stand . Then , again , it waa argued , with some degree of force , that such an investment of the funds would betray a sense' of weakness on the part of individual Lodges , admitting that they were either incapable ofmanaging their finanoial affairs , or that they did not care to be bothered with the responsibility . Further than that , it would have

a tendenoy to " centralisation —that word so hatefnl to every class of persona who are connected with self-government in any form . Moreover , it was urged that to deprive a private Lodge of its own Treasurer , and to ask Grand Lodge to be the bursar of its funds , would go far to shear it of much of its dignity and importance , and to destroy that esprit de corps—that sense of " our own-ness , "

to coin a word—whioh members of every Lodge like to feel respecting the affairs whioh immediately concern themselves . There is a kind of repugnance against too much interference on the part of the powers that be : and amongst the arguments expressed this was one —that Grand Lodge , if once entrusted with Lodge funds generally , might exercise too strict a parental authority , and such as would not

be meekly borne by the brethren . For instance , they might find a Lodge whioh , in their opinion , is too lavish in the fourth degree , and not up to their standard as regards Charity , whereupon there might be—I do not say there wonld immediately—first a gentle hint , then a sharp reminder , and ultimately a peremptory command for " retrenchment and reform . " Such discipline might he good for the Lodge to which it was administered , but there is room for donbt

whether the members would submit thus to be dictated to by the ruling power . In my view , if the machinery of a Lodge is running too freely , aud the funds are not held so well in hand as should be , then the Officers themselves should set to work , and quietly replace bolts and screws that have become loose , and altogether to amend the course of procedure . To abolish the office of Treasurer in our Lodges , and to make Grand Lodge the common bank for all the funds

would , I think , be a great mistake , inasmuch as it would tend to destroy the individuality of Lodges , and do away with much of that prinoiple of self-government which is so highly prized amongst Masons . That a great many Treasurers of Lodges have been known to go wrong , there can be no disputing ; and that some Lodges are in a miserable financial plight , none who are aware of the faots

will gainsay ; but whether the system of investing the funds in the hands of Grand Lodge , allowing them a certain moral and disciplinarian influence over private members , would work well , is a matter upon which I can hardly venture to give an opinion . I rather think not ; but should be glad to hear what some of your other correspondents have to say upon the point .

I remain , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , 13 th September 1882 . ARGUS .

IS MASONRY REALLY FLOURISHING ?

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . " EAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read your remarks on the above Question , and the comments upon them by various correspondents , put have waited in vain for any argument to show decadence in the am portance , usefulness , or progress of the Craft . All the statements , 80 * as I am able to judgego to support the positive view of the

, inestion , and to strengthen the conviction which all true Masons nrost entertain , that Masonry , so far from showing any signs of falling awa y , is really'in as good , if not a better , position than ever it was . One valuable feature of the consideration of the subject in your columns has een to elicit Bundry hints as to the admission of unworthy members , exercise of discretion in the issue of new warrants , the placing of

Correspondence.

a wholesome oheok upou " Masonic mendicancy , " and those other little evils whioh have crept into the Order , and to which , as you justly point out , all societies aro liable . A careful guard against those irregularities which , it may be , have increased with the growth of Masonry , should be made a matter of thought , as it doubtless will be now that they have been so pointedly alluded to ; but so far as

the crucial point is concerned , I can see nothing in the correspond , ence which has lately taken place to show that the prosperity of the Craft has one whit abated . This is all the more satisfactory , since you have challenged an interchange of opinion on all sides of the question ; and that all the ideas expressed are uniformly a reply in the affirmative to the interrogatory which heads this letter , it may

be fairly assumed that nobody has anything to say to the contrary . For my own part , I am assured that both in London and the Provinces the brethren are as eager as ever to maintain the prestige of the Craft , to uphold its dignity and the probity of its members , and to do all they can possibly for the true interests of our Ancient and Honourable Institution . There are several points not touched upon

in the correspondence , but which perhaps it were better not to debate in the columns even of a Masonic print , and whioh can be more effectually dealt with in Lodge . In this I think your correspondents have exeroised a wise discretion , acting on the motto whioh warns us against washing our dirty linen in public . Bnt it is no nse disguising the faot that in all institutions of an extensive and cosmopolitan

character there must exist circumstances whioh will bear reform ; and if in our own midst there are laches whioh require careful and judicious treatment with a view to their eradication , it is no more than one naturally expects to find amongst every body of men assem . bled together for the promotion of any cause . But even in this respect I venture to assert that Freemasonry will bear favourable comparison with any other combination of individuals engaged in

the prosecution of a boneficent work , whilst the vast and increasing amount of good it is effeoting , both palpably and in a quiet , unoaten . tatious manner , claims for the Craft a pre-eminence abovo all other institutions in the world . Therefore , if for no other reason than that it has succeeded in proving nothing to the contrary , I am glad the subject has been mooted , and am now more than ever convinced that Freemasonry is really flourishing . I remain , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , IMMEDIATE PAST MASTER .

GRATUITIES TO WAITERS .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I scarcely know whether or not this subject is one which comes within the range of public discussion , but at all events it forms a matter of comment amongst many members of the Craft , and I would merely throw out a hint respecting it . I refer to the importunities of waiters at many of our hotels , both at

the banquet and afterwards . It is not necessary to inquire whether those useful servants who minister to our wants on such occasions are adequately paid for their services , but the inference is that at our best hotels they are remunerated for their time aud labour , and that such a practice as touting for gratuities , as is so often complained of , is unjustifiable . Yet how invariable is the practice , when dessert is

coming on , for waiters who may not have been over attentive during dinner to thrust a toothpick towards the guests , with palm so adroitly extended as to now and then suggest the coveted and expected fee . Not only so ; if a response is not promptly and liberally made , the obsequious servitor will whisper very audibly in your ear , " Have to retire now , sir , " " Hope you havo been well attended to , sir ? " and

sometimes oven " Waiter , sir 1 as though one was dining at a cookshop . I am perfectly certain the proprietors of hotels are not aware the extent to which this system of cadging—for there is no other name fcr it—is carried on , and it is just as well they should receive the hint as for the frequenters of their hotels to pay and grumble . It is not merely in Masonio gatherings we find this practice exercised ,

though , inasmuch as good prices are usually paid for Masonic banquets , the annoyance is all the more inexcusable . I do not make these remarks because I am more stingy , perhaps , than the rest of my brethren , but it becomes a bore when one is pestered , after an enjoyable dinner , by servants who ought to be sufficiently well paid to be relieved of the necessity—if it be a necessity—of ekeing out

their wages by soliciting " tips " from guests around tbe table , and sometimes with a persistency bordering very closely on impertinence . Either let it be understood that the waiters fees be included in the bill of fare , or follow the custom prevailing at the Odd Fellows' and other club dinners of " passing round the plate for the waiters . " In either case I and the other brethren would most willingly contribute

our quota , but to be compelled by sinister politeness and gentle reminders—followed by more significant hints—of your dnty to " shell out" to these gentlemen is nothing more than an offensive nuisance and should be checked as far as possible . I invariably propose in the companies I join to fee the waiter at the beginning of dinner , not because I think the custom is a judicious one in a well-conducted hotel , but in order that wo may be spared the infliction afterwards . Bub I

never would , at any rato , respond to the unwarrantable importunity , such as I refer to , and which , I am sorry to say , prevails at many of our moat frequented establishments , under the very noses of proprietors , who I am sure would discountenance it , only that they are ignorant of its taking place . Having said this much , I subscribe myself , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally ,

G EUMBLER . [ Our correspondent is perfectly justified in making his complaint , wbicli is one we have beard ourselves . We have had some tbougbt of giving to botel proprietors the hints contained in the above letter . —ED . F . C . ]