The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-14 00:00:00

ft_ sm.

Tut ARTISTS' ANNUITY FUND.—Sir,—There lately
appear din the Observer what warmed to be a statement of
facts relative to a recent embezzlement by the secretary of a
society to which I have the honour to belong. This article,
omitting the Observer's comments, was copied into your paper,
I therefore claim your indulgeneo to stall: that, index es for as
regards the fact of the embezzlement, thn amount of that
embezzlement, and the name of the defaulter, the article is
written in ignorance. I will not presum.. on your space by
entering into any of the particulars of this utdoitunate
affair, because I believe the public have no right to be in-
formed of the transactions of a private society ; hut I will
just state—First. That the name of that society is erroneously
given. It should have been the " Artists' Annuity Faunal"
and not the "Artists' Fund Benevolent Society."—SS y.
When the Observer states that the " public should interpose
to cause the artists to relinquish the entire miteag• meat of a
society, for the management of which they have shown
themselves utterly incompetent," he seems not to he aware
that the public have as little right to interfere in the affairs
of the " Artists' Annuity r und," as in the management of
Magi. Coutt's and Co.'s banking-house. There is not one
penny of public money in it. It is • mutual assur-
ance society, to which the members alone are subscribers.—
Thirdly. I take leave to say, that however annoying it may
be to be robbed of 8261., we are not in such a state of pau-
perism as to look to this sum as " the last twig upon which
to rest for support during • dreary winter," since we have
funded property to somewhere about the amount of 16,00 I.—
Fourthly . It is not true that the late secretary, alter his fol.
mer detalcation " stood again as a candidate with others,"
and was re-elected: under such circumstances.—Fifthly. It
is not true that we have in our society the " selfish and un-
wise law that none but a member can be elected le eretary."
On the contrary this is,'l bell AC. the first instance of a mem-
ber's election to that efilee ; end he was so elected, because
the majority who voted for him believed • member would
take more interest in the well-being of the society.
Sixthly, it is not true that t. to defraud the swiety does not
deprive a member of privileges ;" and the " sequel " will
show the contrary in this inetance.—Seventhly. It is not true
that 1501. was all the security the society 'squired for the
secretary's honesty. And now to conclude, I will just odd,
that when the writer of the article which you t eve repub-
lished throws such sweeping censure en those who have the
management of the society's affairs, and upon artists in ge-
neral, he proves his ignorance of the means by wi ich the
embezzlement was effected, and his incompetency to inform
the public on a matter which, unLoris throu4h a court of law,
should not have been brought before their notice.—l am, sir,
&c., J. H. LYNCH, 3, Polygon, Clarendon-square.
[We have thought it right to leave out certain passages in
this letter, not one, however, which in any way affected the
general argument. If the article in the Observer he likely to
mislead the public, Mr. Lynch's letter will not clear up the
ea=lt is quite true, as Mr. Lynch states, that the
' Annuity Fund" so a mutual assurance society, and
that there "is not one penny of public money in it." But
he has forgotten to qate that there is attached to the society
"The Artists' 13-nevolent Fund," every shillirg of whose
funds—about 1.0001. per annum—is contributed by the
public for the sole purpose of granting annuities, not to
artists generally, but exclusively to the widows and children
of the subscribing member. e, th.. Annuity Fund.]