Candidates For The Schools And Their Parents' Benevolence.

CANDIDATES FOR THE SCHOOLS AND THEIR PARENTS' BENEVOLENCE .

OUR last few issues have contained references to a question which has heen the subject of comment in the Masonic Charity World almost as long as we can remember—the question of giving some special advantages to those candidates for the Masonic Schools whoso parents

are accredited with having supported one or other of the Institutions during their lifetime . It seems to us that , as election after election comes round , this subject is regularly brought forward and discussed only to be as regularly

lost sight of again nntil the issuing of another balloting list reopens the question , when the same routine is gone through and the same arguments brought forward as have been used for years past , with , so far , no practical result .

Opinion is very much divided as to whether or not any notice should be taken of past services on the part of parents when a child comes forward as a candidate for the

benefits offered through the liberality of the Craft , and much may be said on both sides of the question . It appears very hard that a child whose parent liberally supported the Charities in the time of his prosperity should , in his time of need , have to give place to the offspring of one who

systematically ignored the claims of our Institutions , and however much the true principles of Freemasonry may be opposed to making distinctions from anything like a monetary point of view , we are yet inclined to favour the proposal that some distinction should be observed , although

we frankly admit that we consider it all but impossible to make any arrangement which shall apply with equal force in all cases , or which may not perhaps lead to charges of greater unfairness than the present system of making no distinction whatever .

Those who are in favour of continuing the present system argue , that if a preference were given to children whose fathers had been supporters of the Charities , it would virtuall y transform Freemasonry into an ordinary benefit societ y . We cannot endorse this view , unless

anything like a ri ght of admission is secured to the child of a subscriber , and that we know is an absolute impossibilit y . Besides this , we have sufficient faith in the general body of Freemasons to believe that they would continue their support of the Charities from other than

mercenary or unworthy motives , just the same as initiates continue to swell the ranks of the Order . Is there any one who really believes a brother would subscribe , say ten guineas , to one or other of our Institutions on the bare chance that in the event of his children being left destitute ,

years after , they would be entitled to some little extra consideration over the children of his fellow members who did not so subscribe ? We think not . Our opinion ls , that very few men are disposed to invest sums of

" * uiiey during their days or prosperity to form provision tor possible days of adversity , more particularly when the chances of benefit by such an outlay are as remote as they juust of necessity always be with regard to our Schools , i-ne number of children which can be provided for by our

usntutions is so infinitesimal , as compared with the lumber of subscribers annually required to provide the sum needed to maintain them , that it is absurd to think ne idea of future benefit for one ' s own family can e ver become a favourite inducement to men to subscribe

Candidates For The Schools And Their Parents' Benevolence.

while there is the further additional drawback to such an unworthy feeling ever becoming popular , that the benefits are , really , not available until after tho death of the subscriber , or at least until something almost as bad as death has overtaken him . Adopting for the moment a jocular form of

argument , we are reminded of the story of the man who thought to provide an independence for himself and family by insuring his life in some dozen or more offices , and then getting killed , forgetting that he would not be present to take his share of the " plunder . " Very few men would

care to invest money in a way that could be of little service to their family except in the event of their own death occurring within some eight or ten years , and on this ground alone we may dismiss the argument that Freemasonry would become a benefit society simply because its great educational

Institutions offered some return for past support to those who in after years might themselves be in need of it . Masonry , it is argued , is free—free alike to the rich and to the poor ; but , however true this may be from a symbolical point of view , there are many instances in

which the equality ceases as soon as poverty sets in ; and if the Charities of the Order choose to set up restrictions based on mercenary ideas they will but be acting in accordance with the practice of the Craft itself , which deprives a Mason of very many of his privileges

so soon as be is unable to continue his subscriptions to a Lodge . The Charities are , and should be , truly Masonic ; at the same time it must be remembered that their support by Freemasons is not compulsory ; they are supported by only such as feel disposed , and have sufficient

means to humour their fancy . Why , then , it may be asked , seeing that the support of the Institutions is only optional , should the adoption by them of every Masonic principle be compulsory ? especially when it is also considered that very many persons who are not Masons have

contributed to the funds , and are at all times especially invited to do so by the inducement of extra votes being accorded them in comparison with what is given to members of the Order when contributing similar amounts . Brit is the practice of helping those who have helped us

opposed to the principles of Freemasonry ? If it is not , then there can be no possible argument on the score of " principle " against conferring extra benefits on those candidates whose parents helped the Institutions when they

were in a position to do so ; and , if it is , then it would indeed be unwise to propose any deviation from the present uniform system , which also has the advantage of having worked with tolerable success for years past .

Let us now consider the case of those who are in favour

of making an alteration . The main point on which they rely is , that when a man who , in times of prosperity , has been generous and mindful of the wants of his less fortunate

fellow-creatures , is himself overtaken by adversity , he should reap some benefit from his previous liberality ; more especially so when this can be done in a manner similar to that which the unfortunate brother himself

adopted as the best means of dispensing relief . We have already disposed of the argument that brethren subscribe in the hope , or with the view , of afterwards reaping special benefit from so doing ; it is not feasible they would do so if all the facts of the case are taken into consideration , but

if a preference can be given to them they are perhaps entitled to it , just as the most thoughtful and painstaking are entitled to preference in the affairs of every-day life .