Royal Arch.

E . Comp . J . P . Hewitt I . P . Z . 139 invited the Grand Superintendent to hold the Annual Convocation under the banner of Paradise Chapter , No . 139 , Sheffield . Moved by the Acting Grand Superintendent , seconded

by the Prov . Grand H ., and resolved , " That a very hearty vote of thanks be accorded to the Z . and Companions of Sincerity Chapter , No . 61 , for their excellent arrangements . Prov . G . Chapter was closed at 4 ' 45 p . m .

Tea was provided afterwards , and abont 50 Companions sat down , E . Comp . Rev . Dr . T . 0 . Smyth Acting Grand Superintendent presiding .

EXAMPLE OF LIFE ASSURANCE PROFITS . —The Mutual Life Assurance Society of London haa just paid a claim of £ 5 , 000 , to whioh was added a Bonos of £ 4 , 743 , making the total amount received by the family nearly doable the original sum assured . The Policy was taken out iu 1847 , so that it had only been in existence about 44 years .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

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

ARTICLE 219 . To the Editor of the FREEMASONS' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In view of the probability that Grand Lodge will before long be asked to formally decide what is the true construction of this law , I trust you will pardon an attempt to again pat the matter shortly before your readers , the question being an important one .

Article 219 reads thus : "Should the majority of any Lodge determine to retire from it the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members , but should the number of members remaining at any time be leas than three the warrant becomes extinct . " The wording of this law seems clear enough ; but the question has arisen whether it applies to the case of the majority of the members

wishing to transfer their allegiance to a newly-formed body and to take the Lodge warrant with them , so as to deprive the minority , though consisting of three or more , of the protection of this law . Til very recently it bas , I believe , always been held that the law did apply to this case , as may be seen by reference to Bro . Lamonby ' s letter as to the Combermere Lodge , No . 752 ( Freemason , Vol . 26 ,

p 231 ) , where the rights of the minority were upheld , and the charter restored to them by the M . W . G . M . of Victoria . Iu the recognition of , I believe , every new Grand Lodge of late , the speakers iu favour of recognition have insisted on the necessity of upholding the rights of the minorities . Quite lately , however , a new interpretation has been adopted , and

it has been " ruled " that the law was not intended to apply to a case where " the majority of the Lodge aro not retiring from the Lodge but are taking it with them . » "I am not aware of any law of the Craft , written or unwritten , whioh allows a majority of the Lodge to renounce the allegiance of the Lodge to its Mother Grand Lodge .

On the contrary , I think that the history , as far as I can trace it , of this Art . 219 distinctly proves the contrary . In the Constitutions of 1871— "Of Private Lodges , Law 29 , " 1861 and 1855 , the law reads as follows : " Should the majority of any Lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members who adhere to their allegiance , but if

all the members of a Lodge withdraw , the warrant becomes extinct . " In Williams' Constitutions of 1815—the first after the Union—Art . 34 , Private Lodges , reads : " As every warranted Lodge is a constitnent part of the Grand Lodge , in which assembly all the power of the Fraternity resides , it is clear that no other authority can destroy the power granted by a warrant ; if , therefore , the majority of the Lodge shonld determine to quit the Society , the con .

stitation , or power of assembling , remains with the rest of the members who adhere to their allegiance . If all the members of a Lodge withdraw themselves , their constitution ceases and becomes extinct , and all the authority thereby granted or enjoyed reverts to the Grand Lodge . " This is , so far as I am aware , the first appearance of a law on the point , though it is not improbable that Noorthouck's edition of 1786 , the last before ths Union , may deal with the question , but I do not

possess a copy . Now , were those words " who adhere to their allegiance " inserted without meaning ? Or , was this article inserted in consequence of , the dispute between Grand Lodge and the Lodge of Antiquity ? In 1777 the Lodge of Antiquity , for reasons fully set out in

Preston ' s Illustrations , and quoted in Gould's Four Old Lodges , came to a rupture with the Grand Lodge , " discontinued the attendance of its Masters and Wardens at the Committees of Charity and Quarterly Communications as its representatives ; published a manifesto in its vindication ; notified its separation from the Grand Lodge ; and avowed an alliance with the Grand Lodge of All England held in the Cit

y of York The Grand Lodge enforced its edicts , and extended protection to the brethren whose cause it had espoused . Anathemas were issued , several worthy men in their absence expelled Tom the Society for refusing to surrender the property of the Lodge to three persons who bad been regularly expelled from it , " & c . " To justify the proceedings of the Grand Lodge , the following resolution of the Committee of Charity , held in February 1779 , was

Correspondence.

printed and dispersed among the Lodges : Resolved—That every private Lodge derives its authority from the Grand Lodge , and that no authority bat the Grand Lodge can withdraw or take away that power . That though the majority of a Lodge may determine to quit the Society , the constitution or power of assembling remains with , and is vested in the rest of the members who may be desirous

of continuing their allegiance ; and that if all the members withdraw themselves , the constitution ia extinct , and the authority reverts to the Grand Lodge . " Gould ' s " Four Old Lodges , " p 21 . The schism lasted ten years , till 1789 , when Preston and those expelled with him by Grand Lodge from the Society made submission , and were restored to their privileges . " It has been said that

Preston came out of this dispute a victor . Such was far from being the case . The attitude of the Grand Lodge of England was the same from first to last—that is to say with regard to the great question of privilege raised by the senior Lodge on its roll . " Gould ' s " History of Freemasonry , II ., p 428 . I say it is not improbable that Noorthouck ' s Constitutions of 1786

contain some provision on the point . Looking at the date , and the fact that Noorthouck was one of the expelled minority from the Lodge of Antiquity whose cause the Grand Lodge had espoused , I think it is most probable ; but , aa I said , I do not know . Any bow , comparing the wording of Williams' Constitutions with that of the resolution of the Committee of Charity above quoted , it does seem to me that the Article was originally inserted to meet the

case of the majority of a Lodge wishing to transfer its allegiance , and " take the warrant with them , " and I trust that if tbe question ever comes before Grand Lodge again we shall find the Grand Lodge of to-day as staunch in supporting minorities who wish to adhere to their allegiance as was the Grand Lodge of 1779 . Yours fraternally , LEX SORIFTA . 24 th November .

" A Curious Piece Of China."

" A CURIOUS PIECE OF CHINA . "

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In your last issne a description is given of a curious piece of china " probably a punch bowl , " supposed to be over one hundred years old . Its ornamentation , according to the particulars given , is very interesting ; but sorely there must be some mistake iu the dimensions stated . One can hardly imagine that , even in the drinking

days of the latter half of the eighteenth century , oar brethren received their supply of " refreshment" from so Brobdignagian receptacle as a bowl nine feet five inches in diameter , and four feet six or eight inches in depth ! If it really be so the record is worth perpetuation amongst brethren of the mystic tie , aud the bowl itself worth a long journey to see . Yours fraternally , A SCEPTIC .

The Fee System At Theatres.

THE FEE SYSTEM AT THEATRES .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . , SIR , —In reply to constant complaints I am receiving with regard to the fees charged for cloak-rooms and programmes at the Avenue Theatre , will you let me make the following explanation ? When I took the Avenue Theatre I was told there was a contract for

refreshments , but I did not understand that this included the right to charge for programmes . After I had made all my engagements , and when it was too late to withdraw , I discovered , to my intense chagrin that tho refreshment contract included the right to charge all the visitors to the theatre a fee for programmes . I tried to come

to terms with the holder of the contract , and actually paid him £ 10 for the privilege of presenting a free programme to my first-night visitors . Since then I have vainly endeavoured to arrange the matter with him , so that I could give away to my patrons a wellprinted programme unemonmbered with irrevelant advertisements .

For this privilege a sum of £ 10 a performance , or £ 70 s-week , is demanded from me . In view of my very large nightly expenditure I am not justified in handing over such an amount , whioh , capitalised , represents a sum exceeding the whole value of the theatre , and the ground on which it stands .

I do not understand that condition of mind whioh allows a man to charge the pnblio sixpence for a badly-printed piece of paper , whioh costs him a mere fraction of a farthing , but since there is a contract it must be respected .

I am , however , most anxious to clear myself from all suspicion of participation in the profits of so detestable a system . Of all the greedy and ngly exhibitions of the " middleman" or " parasite " spirit , the fee system seems to me one of the most outrageous and indefensible .

I am , Sir , yonr obedient servant , HENRY ARTHUR JONES . [ We have much pleasure in publishing Mr . Jones' letter , and heartily sympathise with him in his dilemma . Whatever may be said in favonr of cloak-room fees , nothing has

yet been brought forward to justify the charge of sixpence for the " badly-printed piece of paper " which lately consists more than half of advertisements . For such managers as are placed in a similar position we can only suggest as

a remedy the advertisement of the full programme in the daily newspapers , which , though doubtless expensive , would by no means be so costly as the sum mentioned by Mr . Jones , while the majority of patrons would be at no expense , as a newspaper forms part of a man ' s dail y necessities—DBAMATIC C BITIC F . C ]