The Boys' School Critics.

THE BOYS' SCHOOL CRITICS .

WITHOUT for one moment wishing to imply that Bro . Philbrick and those who were associated with him in the inquiry they recently conducted into the affairs of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys

are unable to answer the criticisms which have followed on their Report , we unhesitatingly characterise the reply of Bro . Philbrick , which appeared

in the Freemason last week—and we presume he acts on behalf of the whole Committee of Inquiry—as no response to the challenge of Bro . A . F . Godson , who ,

in our issue of the 15 th inst ., touched upon somo few of the most important matters advanced in the Report . We know that a full copy of Bro . Godson ' s letter was addressed to our contemporary , the

Freemason , the editor of which journal , m the exercise of his discretion , mutilated it by cutting out the paragraphs relating to the evidence which Bro . Godson says was considered " unreliable , " and which was ordered to be " struck out . " This was really

the most important item in the communication ; at least we so regarded it , and our opinion has been endorsed by many supporters of the Institution . Bro . Philbrick is too good an advocate not to take advantage of this mutilation , and we can only hope

that on some future occasion he , or some other member of the Inquiry Committee , will give the Craft their version of the point at issue . Of course we must give Bro . Philbrick the benefit of the

doubt , and accept his view when he tells us—as he probably will—that the omitted paragraphs never came under his notice , but we can scarcely believe he was unaware that Bro . Godson especially challenged this " unreliable" and "struck oufc" evidence , for ,

in addition to the publication of Bro . Godson ' s remarks in our pages , some thousands of copies of the complete letter have been circulated

throughout the country . We suppose Bro . Philbrick and the other members of his Committee do not read everything that is addressed to them , else

we should be convinced they had a knowledge of this particular matter . However , as it stands , there is a charge against the Committee of having acted on

evidence which they considered unreliable , and which they had ordered to be " struck out , " and as they are in a position to at once set at rest all doubt on this point , it is not asking too much to expect from them an

early explanation . In other respects the reply of Bro . Philbrick reads very much like the work of a man who feels he has

might" at his back , and who treats those who question his views as being on the losing side ; accordingly , open to all and to any taunts he may

choose to level at them . He and his fellow workers on the Committee of Inquiry have made out a case for themselves , and have won the approval of

the " mob ; " we have yet to see what benefits will result from the very high handed way in which they

The Boys' School Critics.

drew up their Report , or whether the actual supporters of the Institution will stand by and give these conclusions the full measure of their encouragement .

We are told the Committee of Inquiry undertook a laborious ancl a thankless office , and that it would have been easier , and far more agreeable for them , to

make matters pleasant all round . This latter they were not asked to do , but we still question the expediency , or the justice , of attacking men and Committees , as they have done , without first telling those men what they intended to do . They were not supposed to be a bench of judges , trying a band of hardened criminals , but an assemblage of gentlemen ,

inquiring into the actions and duties of other gentlemen , equally entitled to consideration as themselves ; and , for all we at present know , as likely to be right as their " savage critics . "

If the work of inquiry was laborious and thankless , how much more so is that which devolved on the House and other Committees , month after month , in the management of the Institution . It would have been far different if a number of paid officials

alone had to be considered ; then , perhaps , hard words might be used by those who regarded themselvesfor the time beine as masters ofthe situation :

, but when one Honorary Committee takes upon itself to severely condemn the actions of another Honorary Committee , we think a little common

courtesy might be introduced , even if we leave out of the question any consideration of Masonic spirit , or brotherly regard . The members of the tneir tne

Uommittees attacKeu nave snown leenng m matter , by throwing up all responsibility in regard to the future , and were it not that silence on their part might have been misunderstood , we should have

advised them to say nothing m reply to the Committee's Report;—they should simply have resigned their offices , and have left the Craft to find out

whether or no they deserved the severe , and , in a manner of speaking , harsh criticisms heaped upon them . The Report is most unjust ; it makes grave charges against a number of individuals , which

charges have been widely circulated , while it is next to impossible to ensure similar publicity for any defence , unless indeed the men who are attacked ± 15

care to spend a matter ot , -fclUU or ( J , in printing and postages , to place their views with equal prominence before the Craft . If this is meting out justice with an even hand it is certainly a surprise to

us , and we do not wonder that those who have been attacked should feel annoyed at the treatment they have received .

The animal meeting of the Prov . G . Lodge of Suffolk will be held at the Town Hall , Beccles , on Wednesday next , the 3 rd July . Prov . Lodge will be opened at 12 * 30 .

The Great Eastern Railway Company will issue " privilege " tickets for Beccles , at a reduced rate , at any of their principal stations , on production of the summons .