-
Articles/Ads
Article THE PROPOSED BOYS' SOHOOL INQUIRY. Page 1 of 2 Article THE PROPOSED BOYS' SOHOOL INQUIRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Proposed Boys' Sohool Inquiry.
THE PROPOSED BOYS' SOHOOL INQUIRY .
IN our last issue we published tlie terms oi a proposition which the House Committee of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys intend to submit to the supporters of the Institution at the Quarterly enerai uourt to neia i nexttne
u- oe on . riciay , z . tn inst . It is difficult to say which is the best course to adopt in regard to this proposition , which invites the Grand Registrar of England ( V . W . Bro . F . Philbrick Q . C . ) to associate with himself such members of the
Craft as he may think proper , for the purpose of inquiring into the discipline and administration of the Charity . There is much to be said both for and against the appointment of this Commission of oi tne oi tne
inquiry , ana we are opinion supporters Institution will do well if they carefully consider the matter from its several points of view . In the first place , the House Committee are of opinion that in the interests of the Institution it is
desirable that an impartial investigation should be undertaken , in order to answer certain charges which have recently been brought against the management . Of course they do not recognise in the least that the charges are in any degree well founded , ancl there
are some who will say they are attaching too much weight to these charges—which , in all important respects , have been made anonymously—in thus advocating an inquiry . "We say that in all important respects the charges have been made anonymously , nnnnnnA -r * rr \ w _ n _ .+ < - _ - * ¦ * - __ « v \ l + T-k * - _ r . i _ . l __ i ______ i —— _ . 1 __ . _! —1 __ !___ .. _ iiiiaiaiBiueii lids
_ _ » ov . < a . uBo wc ___ u » u cAuepo e u WHICH been put forward by Bros . Greatbach , Hammersley , and other Staffordshire brethren , and a copy of which appears in the advertising columns of our present issue . This consists of an analysis , showing the
expenditure at the Koyal Masonic Institution for Boys during the past year , as compared with that at other Institutions during the same period . It is not our intention to here criticise the figures therein
shown , but we have little doubt that in this case , as in most others , figures can be made to prove anything . At first blush it would appear from this statement that the Royal Masonic Institution for
£ > oys is the most extravagant Charity in the Kingdom , and while we cannot for one moment doubt the sincerity of the brethren who have compiled the table , we think it is apparent they started with a
specific object in view—to prove the expense of the Boys' School—and selected their illustrations accordingly . Are there no Institutions of a similar
character whose expenditure exceeds that of the Boys ' School ? and are there not special features in connection with that Charity to account for much of the
excess which is here pointed out ? We think there are , and there are many subscribers to the Institution who are of the same opinion . No doubt the House Committee are adopting the more manly and j strai ghtforward course when they ask for a Com- '
The Proposed Boys' Sohool Inquiry.
mittee of Inquiry to answer their anonymous slanderers , —the signed statement of Bro . Greatbach is not here included , —but why should the Institution be put to the expense , and its friends to the trouble of an inquiry , just to satisfy two or three objectors ,
whose case has been tried and tried again , always with a result favourable to the management of the Institution ? The origin of all this trouble is a strong exemplification of the difficulties which may arise from a comparative trifle . Some months back a lad
was excluded from the School , for good and sufficient reason . His friends have brought the matter before every tribunal open to them , and have always been defeated ; they have not , however , accepted their discomfiture with a good grace , for some of them , at least ,
have departed from legitimate tactics m favour of anonymous libel and slander , with the result now before us . It is , then , mainly to answer the anonymous attacks of these objectors , and to re-open the question of this lad ' s exclusion , that the present
action is deemed desirable , li this is all that could be said on the matter we should strongly urge on the Quarterly Court the desirability of rejecting the proposition , as being the most forcible way of expressing confidence in the management of the Institution , and at tne unciernanci oi its detractors
disgust practices , but perhaps it may be well to look at the matter from another standpoint . The men who have made these anonymous attacks
no doubt Imow what their object is , and they are aware they have only to make disturbance enough to excite some attention—especially as they regard neither truth nor honesty in the statements they
choose to circulate . Unfortunately there are many men who have read their circulars , who , lacking time or desire to sift the matter for themselves , are content to consider there must be some amount of truth in
the statements put lorward ; others seem to go out ol their way to prove there is actually a basis for complaint , never for one moment evincing a desire or an inclination to suggest the contrary . It is because these two classes are so numerous that others who
consider all is satisfactory are willing to allow an inquiry , and no doubt if the result is as they expect , the money spent over such inquiry will prove a most profitable investment . Indeed we may say that an
impartial and thorough investigation is bound to benefit the Institution , as , if there is really anything wrong it will be found out , and if all is right there will be a strong reaction in favour of the Charity on
the part oi those who now regard it with sus ] j _ cion . Such being the case it is politic for us to advise the appointment of the proposed Commission , but in doing so it should be distinct ! v understood that the obiects
of the inquiry are to investigate the general working of the Institution , and not the particular events which led to the exclusion of a lad towards the close of
last year . If this inquiry is needed it is required for all , and not for an individual case , and on such lines it must be conducted if it is to result satisfactorily .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Proposed Boys' Sohool Inquiry.
THE PROPOSED BOYS' SOHOOL INQUIRY .
IN our last issue we published tlie terms oi a proposition which the House Committee of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys intend to submit to the supporters of the Institution at the Quarterly enerai uourt to neia i nexttne
u- oe on . riciay , z . tn inst . It is difficult to say which is the best course to adopt in regard to this proposition , which invites the Grand Registrar of England ( V . W . Bro . F . Philbrick Q . C . ) to associate with himself such members of the
Craft as he may think proper , for the purpose of inquiring into the discipline and administration of the Charity . There is much to be said both for and against the appointment of this Commission of oi tne oi tne
inquiry , ana we are opinion supporters Institution will do well if they carefully consider the matter from its several points of view . In the first place , the House Committee are of opinion that in the interests of the Institution it is
desirable that an impartial investigation should be undertaken , in order to answer certain charges which have recently been brought against the management . Of course they do not recognise in the least that the charges are in any degree well founded , ancl there
are some who will say they are attaching too much weight to these charges—which , in all important respects , have been made anonymously—in thus advocating an inquiry . "We say that in all important respects the charges have been made anonymously , nnnnnnA -r * rr \ w _ n _ .+ < - _ - * ¦ * - __ « v \ l + T-k * - _ r . i _ . l __ i ______ i —— _ . 1 __ . _! —1 __ !___ .. _ iiiiaiaiBiueii lids
_ _ » ov . < a . uBo wc ___ u » u cAuepo e u WHICH been put forward by Bros . Greatbach , Hammersley , and other Staffordshire brethren , and a copy of which appears in the advertising columns of our present issue . This consists of an analysis , showing the
expenditure at the Koyal Masonic Institution for Boys during the past year , as compared with that at other Institutions during the same period . It is not our intention to here criticise the figures therein
shown , but we have little doubt that in this case , as in most others , figures can be made to prove anything . At first blush it would appear from this statement that the Royal Masonic Institution for
£ > oys is the most extravagant Charity in the Kingdom , and while we cannot for one moment doubt the sincerity of the brethren who have compiled the table , we think it is apparent they started with a
specific object in view—to prove the expense of the Boys' School—and selected their illustrations accordingly . Are there no Institutions of a similar
character whose expenditure exceeds that of the Boys ' School ? and are there not special features in connection with that Charity to account for much of the
excess which is here pointed out ? We think there are , and there are many subscribers to the Institution who are of the same opinion . No doubt the House Committee are adopting the more manly and j strai ghtforward course when they ask for a Com- '
The Proposed Boys' Sohool Inquiry.
mittee of Inquiry to answer their anonymous slanderers , —the signed statement of Bro . Greatbach is not here included , —but why should the Institution be put to the expense , and its friends to the trouble of an inquiry , just to satisfy two or three objectors ,
whose case has been tried and tried again , always with a result favourable to the management of the Institution ? The origin of all this trouble is a strong exemplification of the difficulties which may arise from a comparative trifle . Some months back a lad
was excluded from the School , for good and sufficient reason . His friends have brought the matter before every tribunal open to them , and have always been defeated ; they have not , however , accepted their discomfiture with a good grace , for some of them , at least ,
have departed from legitimate tactics m favour of anonymous libel and slander , with the result now before us . It is , then , mainly to answer the anonymous attacks of these objectors , and to re-open the question of this lad ' s exclusion , that the present
action is deemed desirable , li this is all that could be said on the matter we should strongly urge on the Quarterly Court the desirability of rejecting the proposition , as being the most forcible way of expressing confidence in the management of the Institution , and at tne unciernanci oi its detractors
disgust practices , but perhaps it may be well to look at the matter from another standpoint . The men who have made these anonymous attacks
no doubt Imow what their object is , and they are aware they have only to make disturbance enough to excite some attention—especially as they regard neither truth nor honesty in the statements they
choose to circulate . Unfortunately there are many men who have read their circulars , who , lacking time or desire to sift the matter for themselves , are content to consider there must be some amount of truth in
the statements put lorward ; others seem to go out ol their way to prove there is actually a basis for complaint , never for one moment evincing a desire or an inclination to suggest the contrary . It is because these two classes are so numerous that others who
consider all is satisfactory are willing to allow an inquiry , and no doubt if the result is as they expect , the money spent over such inquiry will prove a most profitable investment . Indeed we may say that an
impartial and thorough investigation is bound to benefit the Institution , as , if there is really anything wrong it will be found out , and if all is right there will be a strong reaction in favour of the Charity on
the part oi those who now regard it with sus ] j _ cion . Such being the case it is politic for us to advise the appointment of the proposed Commission , but in doing so it should be distinct ! v understood that the obiects
of the inquiry are to investigate the general working of the Institution , and not the particular events which led to the exclusion of a lad towards the close of
last year . If this inquiry is needed it is required for all , and not for an individual case , and on such lines it must be conducted if it is to result satisfactorily .