The Management Of The Boys' School.

THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BOYS ' SCHOOL .

WE announced last week aprojws of a letter we published from Bro . Binckes , the Secretary to the Boys' School , that wo had received copy of a pamphlet by Bros . Tew , D . P . G . M . of West Yorkshire , and the Rev . 0 . G . D . Perrott , the late Headmaster , impugning , in the first

place , the conduct of the Secretary in his relations with the latter of the two pamphleteers , and in the next , the financial management of the governing body of the School . We stated also our intention of offerinsr some remarks on this

pamphlet . We readily confess we would rather abstain from commenting upon a question of this kind , but the subject is of far too grave a character to be passed over in silence . On the one hand , we have a clergyman of the Church of England , with a number of very honourable

testimonials to his tutorial powers , and a gentleman , holding the second place in the ranks of Masonry , in one of our most considerable and energetic provinces ; on the other hand , the several Committees and a Secretary of long standing , tried services , and immense energy , who , from the very

fact of their having been elected to the offices they severally fill , must be presumed to enjoy generally the confidence of the Vice-Patrons , Vice-Presidents , and other subscribers to this Charity . Moreover , the financial part of the question has been openly discussed at the recent meeting of

Provincial Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire , and a resolution was passed which , without imputing anything irregular to the House Committee or Managers of the Institution , lays it down that a thorough investigation of the managementand expenditure of the School is necess iry , " to the end that a

more economic system of collecting and dispensing thofunds of this institution may be arrived at , so that candidates who from time to time are excluded from its benefits by reason of the present system may , by a more judicious and less expensive management , be enabled to participate in the

benefits of the Charity . " The question , therefore , is already before the Masonic world , and we should be unmindful of our duty , as an organ of Masonic opinion , if we ignored these public differences , and gave no indication of our views as to the course to be pursued . But , in dealing with the

matter , we shall observe the strictest impartiality between the disputants . It is needless , perhaps , to say that we shall do what it is obviously our duty to do , especially as both the Secretary and Bro . Tew have at different times accused us of bias ; and when both sides question our neutrality , we

may fairly argue we have been strictly neutral . Tn the interests of fair play , we abstain from saying anything as to the merits of the rival cases ; as having deeply at heart the welfare of our Masonic Charities , we take leave to indicate the chief points at issue .

We dismiss briefly the case as between the Secretary and the late Headmaster . We cannot say that Part I . of the new pamphlet , which is devoted to the unfortunate differences between these gentlemen , throws any additional light thereon . It simply bears out what we knew already ,

that a very unfortunate state of things prevailed between these officers , but which of the two has right on his side we are , happily , not called upon , nor are we competent to decide . When the evidence adduced by either has been

thoroughly sifted , then , perhaps , it might be our duty to express an opinion , but certaiuly not till then . We make this one remark only . In Part III ., which is a kind of Appendix to Part I ., are two letters , written by the Secretary to the late Headmaster , marked Nos . 5 and 6 re-

The Management Of The Boys' School.

spectively . We say freely , and Avithout the slightest hesitation or ambiguity , no amount of provocation would justify the use by any one of such language as the Secretary has employed in these letters . It may strike some folk as a paradox , but the position is nevertheless incontrovertible .

People who quarrel should not lose their tempers . Evidently Bro . Binckes lost his temper , or he would never have condescended to pen such abusive notes . We imagine

he has long since deplored the impetuous anger to which alone Ave attribute his having so unfortunately and so conspicuously forgotten himself . So much for Parts I . and III .

In Part II . is discussed the financial management of the School , and it is to this portion of the pamphlet Ave intend for the most part to confine our remarks . Bros . Tew and

Perrott lay it doAvn , in the first instance , that the expenditure incurred in the purchase of land and the erection of the new School , amounting to over £ 56 , 000 , is greatly in excess of Avhat it should have been . The rent charge

calculated on this capital outlay at 3 j per cent , represents a sum of £ 1 , 965 15 s 3 | d , Avhich for anaverage number of 156 boys amounts to 12 guineas per annum . This is pronouneed to be an abnormally high rate in respect of rent . It is then urged that the annual grant to the Secretary of £ 200 , his

provincial travelling expenses— £ 81 9 s 6 d , and the collector ' s commission— £ 33 18 s 5 d , amounting together to £ 315 7 s lid should , as being expenditure that occurs every year , be entered , not as it is under special expenditure , but under ordinary expenditure under the head of General

Office Expenses , whereby the latter item , which is set down at £ 959 10 s lOd , Avould in reality be £ 1 , 27418 s 9 d , It is , in the next place , suggested that the sum of £ 1 , 970 16 s fid expended for farther works , architect ' s

commission , & c , should be entered separately , under "A Building Expenditure on Capital Account , " and not under the expenditure for the year , whether special or ordinary ; and also that the £ 500 transferred to the Snstentation

Fund should likewise be omitted in calculating the general outlay for the School . The result of all these several changes in the method of rendering the accounts is , that the average charge for a boy , which is set doAvn at £ 43 16 s ll ^ d , is affirmed to be £ 65 8 s 7 W . Other

portions of the report are freely criticised ; as , for instance , the outlay for pianos , the sums entered as given for outfit to boys Avho have left the Institution , & c . Now Ave do not say these criticisms are just . We say this , however . The accounts of the School havina been

once published are liable to public criticism . In fact , the report of the governing "bod y , Avhich contains the various statements of account , is the evidence , the only evidence they haA'e to offer that the duties entrusted to them have been fully and faithfully discharged . They say , in effect ,

to the Masonic world . This is the account we render of our stewardship ? judge , ye , if we have done our duty . They thus virtuall y invito criticism , but whether they do so or not , it is clearly competent for Bros . Tew and PerroJt |; to analyse the accounts and express , pnbliply if they are so

minded , any objections they may have to the various items and the method of their arrangements under the different heads of service . It is clearly competent for the province of West Yorkshire to suggest that tho management of the School may be more economicallv conducted , in

which case it is evident , that with a reduced rale of expenditure , a larger number of pupils could be educated . We shall not dwell further on these criticisms , some of which , though relating to small matters , are of a very serious character , A somewhat strong display of feeling is notice-