Charities And Candidates.

CHARITIES AND CANDIDATES .

FROM time to time we have discussed various matters in connection with the election of candidates to our several Charitable Institutions . We have not hesitated to express onr own views , and we have sought to evoke the opinions of others . Hitherto little earnestness on the part of the brethren has been manifested . It cannot be from

lack of interest that so few take an open part m a subject of such vital moment ; perhaps the secret lies in the fact that the question is too intricate , and involves issues so important , as to dismay many . It , nevertheless , ought to be confronted in a generous , manly spirit , in order that

some system may be established which shall lead to the selection of the fittest objects for relief . Brother 0 . H . Webb has raised the question in a definite shape ; at least we understand him to mean that something like a quid fro quo should be given to those who have subscribed to the

Charities . His motion , laid before the monthly meeting of the Committee of the Royal Benevolent Institution , held on the 12 th ult ., proposes that the Board should take into consideration what measures ( if any ) could be adopted to assist accepted candidates for election , according to the

amount of money and length of time they had contributed to the funds of the Institution . In a speech he made on the same occasion , briefly and , perhaps , imperfectly reported , he appears to suggest that the plan adopted by the Builders' Benevolent Institution , of giving ten votes to a

candidate for every guinea he subscribed , should be followed . In a letter Bro . Webb subsequently wrote to our contemporary , he says that he hoped to obtain a favourable result to the action he had taken " without resorting to bogus voting , a committee of selection , or ten votes for each

guinea subscribed , to all or either of which propositions " he is . strongly opposed . It is difficult to reconcile this statement with the terms of his motion , as far as they have as yet appeared in print . It is evident that the brethren who took part in the discussion were of opinion that a

definite scheme of the kind implied by Bro . Webb s motion was intended to be proposed . Bro . Charles Lacey is credited with saying , that " the number of candidates was very large , and something should be done to inquire what services they had rendered . " Then Bro . Dr . Jabez Hogg

quoted as an illustration the case of the Royal Medical Benevolent Institution . There it was found that the majority of candidates had never assisted it at all . He is reported to have added : " and what was more , it was found that the fathers of the candidates , although they

had been in prosperous circumstances , had not subscribed . The council of the Institution passed a rule establishing a Committee of Examiners , who carefully examined every case , and according to . their report the votes were given . " We give these quotations as showing what was in the

minds of the speakers at the time , and although Bro . Webb seems to discard the idea of a committee of selection , or of giving ten votes for each guinea subscribed , he does not

interpret his motion , nor does he say what he really does mean . No doubt , upon the ground of abstract justice , it is right that those who have subscribed to a charity shonld have the first claim upon its funds . There is an initial

Charities And Candidates.

difficulty , however , to be got over , aud it must be mot before any absolute rule can be adopted . What is meant by contributing to the funds ? Are the contributions to come direct from the father of the candidate , or from relatives and friends ? If from the former , it would be

comparatively easy to formulate a scheme that should be approximately complete . If the latter are to count , then we should like to know how the facts are to be discovered . Are services rendered to Freemasonry to be taken into account ? and are cnmnlative subscriptions of small

amounts to figure in the entire estimate ? If not , how is it possible to arrange such a system as shall be uniformly , or in the main , just ? We confess we see insuperable difficulties to any plan that shall secure anything like the principle of reciprocity between donors and receivers .

We have before pointed out that subscriptions do virtually determine elections now , to a larger extent than , perhaps , is desirable . The richer and the more generous are the friends of a candidate , so , in proportion , are his chances

increased , and to such an extent is this system carried out , that we fear many poor and deserving cases are disregarded . If the theory of reciprocity is to be established , it shonld be adopted in the selection of candidates ; but here again we are met with insurmountable difficulties . It would be

almost impossible to form a scheme which should determine the selection of candidates for the reasons that we have already advanced , for the facts necessary upon which to base a rule could not be ascertained , and if they could the

question of proportion would be as difficult to solve as a Chinese puzzle . Were it possible to arrive at a conclusion , we should not like to be the assessors , and it would not be fair to cast upon any body of men such an onerous and invidious task .

While it may be advanced that the Masonic Charities are subject to the rules that govern all other charities , it should not be forgotten that Freemasonry is based upon the principle of equality . The prince and the beggar , if worthy , stand in the same rank of Brotherhood . Our ritual

inculcates the habits of prudence and providence , but it nowhere prescribes a distinction when help is needed . No scrutiny is suggested in the time of adversity except that which is laid down by the laws of the Order and custom . It is enough to know that a brother , or one of his family ,

is in distress , to engage the active sympathy of those who can help , and the more this leading principle is kept in view the better will it be for the true interests of the Craft . It cannot be intended to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children ; such would be the case were the plan established

of . giving a premium to subscribers . We do not believe that either Bro . Webb or those who agree with him , whatever may be their views , desire to set up any unjust distinction . We are ready to admit that their first wish is to be just to all ; at the same time we cannot conceal from

ourselves the conclusion that what they suggest , as far as we understand it , would lead to greater evils than now prevail . We fear that many deserving cases are now but imperfectly considered , and sometimes rejected ; we do not

doubt that there are many anomalies in the present system . In attempting to correct these , however , there would be danger of introducing others of a worse kind . What is needed is a better mode of securing help for those

Ar00102

hjjL JL ta S ( CSTOHSG ) COCOA .