Benevolent Institution. Proposed Alterations In Rules

some amount of opposition , but was eventually agreed to . It was pointed out that the average Masonic life of a brother was certainly not more than ten years ,

and Bro . Dr . Jabez Hogg corrected this by saying that the late Bro . John Hervey , Grand Secretary , had gone very carefully into the matter , the result of his calculations being that seven years was a fair average

to fix , even if that was actually reached . This being the case , it will be seen that the new rule of the Institution will press very severely on the majority of

Craftsmen , and we cannot think otherwise than that too much severity is being imported into the Rules . The benefits of tlie Benevolent Institution should be

free and open to all , ancl although we are of opinion that certain restrictive measures are rendered necessary by the enormous number of candidates who come forward , we venture to predict that these exceptionally severe measures will prove but a long

jump on a suicidal policy . The one cry that is raised if any thing like a return for subscriptions . given be advocated is—the Institution is not a benefit

society . This may serve as a party cry , but it is the merest clap trap , and if the Masons of the past have willingly contributed funds for the maintenance of this Institution , wholly for the benefit of other

people , those of the present and future will , ere long , ask themselves what return is likely to be received for their subscriptions , in case they ever fall into adversity ? This is a wrong spirit ,

wc are told , and one of the foremost reformers of the day , who took the lead in the various alterations agreed to on Wednesday , answered , in reply to such a question , that the Institution does not

want money given on that principle . No personal return must be dreamt of by those who subscribe their money , else they lower the Institution to the level of a benefit society , and act quite opposite to true oi masonic orotnernooamis

me principles . , we repeat , is all nonsense , and we shall be very much surprised if men will be found ready to subscribe funds wholly and solely for the benefit of strangers ,

only known to eacli other as Freemasons . This new rule will benefit Provincial Masons to the detriment of London ones , for the reason that in many country districts membership can be maintained for a few

shillings per annum , olten for a quarter ol the minimum possible in Metropolitan Lodges , and it would be well if London subscribers would consider the matter from this standpoint before they agree to any further restrictive measures .

It is very difficult for any brother to argue this matter , because if he does , he is immediately assailed with personal observations ; for instance , one speaker on Wednesday who spoke against the fifteen years

membership clause was received with an aside to the effect that he was qualified in either case .. This remark was not only extremely rude , but if it was a fair sample of the spirit which actuates our reformers ,

the sooner they are reformed the better it will be for all concerned . One brother , a respected Past Master of a London Lodge , replied that as he had been a Mason for sixty years he could not be accused oi motives in the

personal opposing change , which he considered was not desirable . Such explanations should not be necessary , and there is one other point we desire to mention which should be worthy of

careful consideration . It is the young and enthusiastic Masons who supply the bulk of the money with which to carry on the Institution , and , setting aside the absurd cry of no benefit society tactics , it is the

young and enthusiastic Mason who should be qualified for the benefits . How many Masons , who have served fifteen years in the Craft , are there who take an active share in supplying the funds to maintain

the Masonic Chanties ? Ii , as we believe , they are in a minority of at least 50 to one , why should all the benefits be kept for them ? We have not such a grand opinion even of Masonic Benevolence as to

Benevolent Institution. Proposed Alterations In Rules

; imagine that the subscriptions will flow as readily : for an almost impossible return , as they would do foi a remote chance of assistance in the hour of adversity . In thus forcibly expressing our views we feel we are

merely showing we have the courage to say in public what many of those who were present at last Wednesday ' s meeting felt , but were afraid to utter . We may be wrong , but sufficient was then said to convince us

that our views are shared by others m sufficient number to make them worthy of consideration . The suggested alteration to exclude a Mason

having an income ol ± 32 from the benehts ol the Institution ( instead of £ 40 as formerly ) is good , and might have been extended , even down to £ 20 . This we regard as the readiest and best way of reducing

the number ol candidates . We believe that . Brother J . S . Cumberland made a suggestion that some sort of sliding scale should be adopted here , and it is a pity his proposal was not favourably received , if we

rightly understand it . If a brother has a private income of £ 20 a year the Institution should only give £ 30 , so as to make up £ 50 , and so on . The objection to this system is stated to be the difficulty

ol each year finding out an Annuitant s position , but surely some reliance could be placed on an affidavit , which could be forwarded year by year by the applicant . The same objection might be applied to the

existing law which gives the Committee of Management the power to reduce or suspend an annuity if the recipient becomes possessed of a certain income , but we have known this rule to be applied , and no

doubt one for a sliding scale would prove equally efficacious . The next proposition was based on the principle

that those who had supported the institution in the time of their prosperity should have some special recognition in their adversity . It is proposed to add to Rule 3 , the following-:

—A candidate having been a Life Governor for five years at the time of presenting his petition , shnll ba entitled to twenty votes at each election until successful for each Governorship ho may have {] na \* i * fiefl for before his petition was aroopted : bnt niter Ma election all future right to snch added votes shall cease .

The only objection to this proposal was , that it did not go far enough . All seemed to agree that something should be done , the only difference of opinion being as to how much . A proposition was made to

'_> X . A . alter the number of votes to 40 at each election , this was rejected by 19 votes to 13 ; then 30 was suggested , but that number met a refusal , 18 voting against it and 1 G for it . It is well to carefully look at the

conditions under which these votes are to be given and then consider the absurdity of some of the utterances made on Wednesday . Some of the most distinguished of those present said , with all sincerity Ave believe , that even the present suggestion would

throw out an inducement to Masons to give sums of £ 100 in order to buy themselves into the Institution . Had they for one moment considered the chances of the case , or calculated the possibilities

ol a return lor the investment V Let us take a case in point : We must get a brother who has subscribed to his Lodge for at least . fifteen years , he must be at least fifty-five years of age , and must be able to spare

a clear £ 105 as a donation to the Institution . For the first five years he will receive 40 votes per annum as a "Vice-Patron ; then he sends in his petition , and may be accepted , if so , he will receive 440 votes for

each election—40 as a Vice-ratron , and 400 under the new rule—until he is elected . We are of opinion he would not be sure of success under this scheme until at least seven years after his petition was accepted , when he might go in with a total made up

as follows : —5 years at 40 = 200 , 7 years at 440 = 3080 , total 3280 votes . Now , would any man of business recommend a brother of at least 55 years of age to invest £ 105 on the chance of securing an annuity of £ 40 per annum twelve years hence ? If all was certain in regard to acceptance as a candidate ,