The Management Of The Boys' School.

able throughout the pamphlet . We cannot say we are altogether surprised at this , so far as the Rev . Mr . Perrott ' s personal grievances are concerned . It is in human nature that a man should defend his own honour warmly , though he must be careful of course to govern himself decorously ; but

in discussing therm ancial part of the q uestion there should have been displayed no animus whatever . A charge of financial mismanagement is a grave one to make , and it should be made with judicial gravity . But the non-observance , in the present or any other case , of this most Avholesome rule

is a matter of secondary consideration . The fact remains that the audited accounts of the Boys' School for the year 1874 have been publicly declared to be erroneous , and reasons , more or less momentous , are brought forward in support of this statement . The first result of this public

declaration is that West Yorkshire , one of our largest and most important provinces , Avith some sixty Lodges , and not far short of three thousand members pronounces itself in favour of inquiry into the conduct of this Charity . In doing so , this Provincial Grand Lodge has frankly disclaimed

all idea of "imputing any irregularity to the House Committee or Managers of the Institution . " Bro . Binckes , in bis letter of last Aveek , after replying to one particular criticism of Bros . TeAv and Perrott , went on to say , " equally easy of explanation is every other accusation so unjustly

charged , and equally susceptible of solution is every apparent difficulty to which allusion is made . " This being so , it appears to us to be the duty of the governing body to insist on an immediate investigation . It will never do for them to wrap themselves up in their own virtue and

treat this attack upon their management with scorn . The governing body of a charity must , like Coesar ' s wife , be above suspicion . •It is not enough for Bro . Binckes to say in reply to this pamphlet—the statements it contains are inaccurate ; he , or rather they for whom be acts , must prove

them to be inaccurate . Assertion is not argument . As the case stands at present , Bros . Tew and Perrott have made certain charges and adduced certain reasons , which may or may not be sound , in support of these charges . Bro .

Binckes indignantly denies them ; but denial is not disproof . He must go a step further , and adduce rebutting evidence , as he says he can . And to crown the whole case , there must be some tribunal Avhich shall decide Avhether

the charges have or have not been substantiated . We have said that a charge of mismanagement is a very grave one to make . We cannot believe the Avriters of this pamphlet , after the manner of two thoughtless children , have preferred this charge Avithout duly Aveighing beforehand the very

serious responsibility they incur . If their pamphlet is proved to contain a series of misstatements , the Avhole Avorld of Masonry Avill laugh them to scorn . On the other

hand , if they prove their case , the most sweeping changes in the government of the School must fOIIOAV . We confess we see no other way out of the difficulty than by a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all the circumstances .

And here we should have quitted this painful subject , but for certain remarks of our contemporary , last week . The policy it advocates is directly opposed to that we have recommended . There is nothing new , of course , in two journals , having the same interest at heart ,

recommending tAvo different lines of policy . Had this been all , we should have been content to differ and said nothing , but sundry of the grounds on Avhich it based its arguments are so monstrous that Ave can only come to one of two conclusions . Either our contemporary is joking , or it has

taken leave of its senses . It begins an article on West Yorkshire by saying , " Reflection has convinced us , even more strongly than last Aveek , IIOAV very unwise and how very unsound is the proposed motion relative to the Boys ' School" —the resolution of Prov . Grand Lodge already

referred to— "to Avhich Ave felt it to be our duty to allude . " But not only is the proposal "Unwise" as regards the time interests of the School , but Masonically we also deem it to be " thoroughly unsound in principle . " And Avhy " unsound in principle ? " Because " Bro .

CaAvthorn , " the mover of the resolution— "is , we understand , not even a subscriber to the Boys' School at all . How can he propose such a resolution ? And how can the Prov . Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire pass such a resolution ; still less hand it on to the Grand Lodge ? What possible

right has the Prov . Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire to express such an opinion as a corporate body ? " As to the first two of the ? e questions , it occurs to us our contemporary is a little behindhand in asking how certain things can be done when they have been done . The third ques-

The Management Of The Boys' School.

tion is more pertinent , though somewhat clumsily worded . The Prov . Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire expressed its opinion as a corporate body , because it is a corporate "body , and the right it had to express this particular opinion we imagine to bo thus derived . The Lodge , in its corporate

capacity , has contributed to the funds of the School . Certain of the West Yorkshire brethren , over whose interests the Prov . Grand Lodge has been deputed to watch , have also contributed to its funds . Sundry of the boys in the School have been elected mainly , if not entirely , by the

votes of the West Yorkshire subscribers . Ergo , the Prov . Grand Lodge has a direct interest in the proper management of the School in Avhich the West Yorkshire boys are pupils . Our contemporary admits that the Prov . Grand Lodge in question has contributed to this Institution , " in

days of old , and it has received a return in votes , " but it adds , " and there its interest ¦ practically ends . " The words we have italicised mean this , —if anything . West Yorkshire having purchased certain votes , succeeds or fails in electing its candidates into the School , and there the matter

ends . Sundry West Yorkshire nominees have been elected , but whether the School into which they have been admitted is , or is not well conducted , it is no business of West Yorkshire to inquire . We Avould not , of course , presume to explain our contemporary ' s ideas respecting " Masonic

Law and Equity . " We humbly submit , however , that" It is impossible that on any known principle of Masonic Law or Equity , " the Prov . Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire could , in the performance of Avhat it conceived to be its duty , have failed to " pass such a resolution Avithout thoroughly

stultif ying itself . Of course , as we are not in the secrets of Sir Henry Edivardes , Ave cannot say hoAV the Prov . Grand Lodge he presides over " will hand over" this resolution "to Grand Lodge . " Weventure to say , however , that just as it has been passed , so it will be handed on , the exact

manner in which this is done being immaterial . " We hope , " however , " that for the honour and dignity of West Yorkshire , "the resolution will be handed on'Svith a good grace . " It is then asked , " But how can Grand Lodge even interfere ? How could it receive such a resolution ? How could

it act upon it ? " Here again we are at a loss to say how the thing will be done , if it is done . We feel certain , however , that having received this resolution , Grand Lodge will interfere and act upon it if , in the exercise of its wisdom , it thinks it wise and expedientin the interests of this Masonic

Institution to do so . Its annual grant of £ 150 , gives it the right to inquire into the management of the School , even though that £ 150 is only a very small part of the £ 10 , 000 received " annually from the Craft as private donations and subscriptions . " Our contemporary has the hardihood

to maintain that Grand Lodge may inquire into the appropriation of its grant , and " if not satisfied Avith the explanation tendered , " it may withdraAv it , " but it can do no more , and can go no further . " Is our contemporary so far behind the age as never to have heard of sundry

institutions which receive grants in aid from Parliament , and that , on the strength of such grants , Parliament claims and exercises the right to rigidly examine into the whole expenditure of such institutions ? Will he affirm , in sober seriousness , that a shareholder of a public company has no

right to criticise its financial arrangements above and beyond the amount of the share or shares he holds in it ? Will he venture to lay it down , that a governor of Christ ' s Hospital , or any other charity outside the world of Masonry , can only inquire into the appropriation of his particular

contribution ? But even admitting , for a moment , the justice of this argument , will our contemporary have the kindness to point out hoAV the appropriation of Grand Lodge Grant , or any other contribution , is to be traced in the School expenditure . But assuming this Avere possible ,

that the £ 150 Avas traced , that Grand Lodge Avas dissatisfied , and did Avithdraw its grant ; Avould such withdrawal have no moral effect upon the brethren at large ? It is a very significant fact , that while West Yorkshire , Avhich is in favour of this inquiry , voted , a few days since ,

£ 100 to the R M . B . I ., and one hundred guineas to the R . M . I , for Girls , it left the Boys' School out in the cold . Yet West Yorkshire is not unmindful of its duty . It figured in the subscription list at this year ' s Festival for over £ 800 . What if Grand Lodge , influenced by the resolution of West

Yorkshire , and folloAving its example , should Avithhold its countenance and support . Would this be a light matterone to which the most influential committee of the Boys ' School could possibly shut its eyes ? But though the Constitutions—the written law of Masonry—say nothing as to