-
Articles/Ads
Article THE SATURDAY REVIEW AND FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2 Article CHARITY STEWARDS AND CHARITY JEWELS. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Saturday Review And Freemasonry.
just as in the outer world there are people who value the ribbon of an order of knighthood , or who think they are lifted head and shoulders above the common herd when our Gracious Sovereign confers upon them the rank of C . B . All this indeed is beside the real question , which is not
whether some Masons are weak and vain , or whether the secrets of the Order are worth knowing , but whether Masonry reallyexists for any useful purpose . Here indeed we encounter a real difficulty . Our critic may be one of those hard-headed persons who do not believe in relieving the
suffering and distressed . If , however , he is of opinion that systematic charity is a good thing , then we think he will need little persuasion to admit that the Masons are doing a good work . The sums expended every year by Grand Lodge alone in relieving cases of distress are very large ,
but nearly every Lodge has its benevolent fund , and no sick or distressed Mason of good character need ever seek parish relief . Something is always done to help a brother to meet the reverses of fortune . Any Mason who knows much of the working of the Order could point to
numerous cases in his own locality , in which the brethren have thrown a plank to a sinking comrade . Many a small tradesman has met fate and his creditors with a smiling face , after a full confession of his difficulties to his Lodge . The abounding benefactions of Grand Lodge have made
many a widow ' s heart sing for joy , and the orphan who eats the bread of Masonio charity , without a sense of degradation , has cause to rejoice that an Order exists which fosters ideas that are amongst the exploded fallacies of a certain school of political economists , but
which will always hold sway over the hearts of men as long as the golden rule is regarded as an article of faith . Masonry , in truth , is a grand corporation , which exists for the purpose of spreading the principles of Benevolence and Charity . Some of the wisest and best of men have not
disdained to proclaim themselves members of the Fraternity , and at this moment the brightest and best members of the Bench , the Bar , and the Church , are brothers . No man is a worse citizen for being a Mason , and we may say , with perfect truth , that many of our brethren , who , before
they joined the Order , were not remarkable for benevolence , have had their charitable impulses quickened and strengthened by association with those who have made the practical morality of Christianity a corner-stone of the Craft .
We do not indeed object to a little harmless laughter over ceremonial which is Greek to the general public , but we should have thought that the practical work of Masonry is well enough known to writers who are supposed to keep a keen watch over the passing events of the day . To
assert , as our contemporary does , that a Society , which has always numbered amongst its workers the most illustrious persons in the country , has no raison d ' etre for its existence , betrays woeful ignorance of facts which are the common property of the public . We have never , indeed , as a body
made any undue parade of the " mysteries " of the Order , bnt the Saturday Reviewer seems to imagine that we have set ourselves up as therivals in business of the old established shop for that article which has existed from time immemorial at Rome . We appreciate at its true value the unfortunate
animosity which has been displayed towards Masonry in modern times by successive Popes , but that animosity we believe arises from a misconception of the scope and aims of the Order . Masonry has never attempted to touch upon the conflicting claims of any section of the Christian
world , nor has it ever ventured to interfere with the due allegiance a brother owes to the religion which rules his conscience . Idle terror of Masonry , as a possible political weapon , has no doubt inspired the curses which have been
thundered against us from the chair of St . Peter . In a recent issue wo proved that these fears were absurd , but , although we do not hope to convert Pins IX ., we confess that we should be glad to make a convert of our critic .
He will find the Fraternity sound at core on many of the important questions which lie at the root of citizenship . He may learn , perhaps , that the Mason is not only a good fellow at table , but that he is a peaceful and loyal subject , a good father , and , whatever his creed , a religious man . We refer our readers to another column for the article which has given rise to these comments .
Charity Stewards And Charity Jewels.
CHARITY STEWARDS AND CHARITY JEWELS .
LAST week " Regalia " raised , in these columns , an important qnestion connected with thepermission to wear Charity Jewels . The case , as stated by our worthy Brother , lies in a nutshell . This jewel was instituted by H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , to be worn as a mark of distinction by those Craftsmen who have twice served the office of Steward to ono or other of our Charities , and a bar or clasp is added
for each subsequent Stewardship a thus decorated member may fill . But this distinction is granted without regard to the amount of contributions that may have been brought to the funds of a charity by the recipient ' s exertions , the bare fact that he has served two Stewardships entitling him
to the honour . Now " Regalia" argues , there is a certain degree of unfairness in this . Usually , and very properly , he says—in effect , if not in words—the man who labours actively in the cause of charity expects no recompense . Virtue , in this , as in other cases , is its own reward . But
in our Order we have a decoration specially awardable to those who devote themselves to , or undertake this particular kind of duty , and while some among them are very active and very successful , others are sometimes inactive , and of no great service to the cause . Why should the inactive and the
active be similarly rewarded ? We all covet permission to wear so honourable a distinction , but is it quite fair that one Brother should earn it , in a certain sense , by payment , while another earns it by hard work ? There is , we admit , some force in " Regalia ' s " suggestions . Tet we see , also ,
many difficulties in the way of a reform that shall give general satisfaction . We do not say such a reform is impracticable . But while a general rule occasionally gives rise to some amount of dissatisfaction , the question of comparative merit is nearly sure to entail bitter jealousies among all
classes , and continually . Whether we regard the aggregate of a Steward ' s list , or the number of contributors to it , or whether we compare the personal liberality of one with the known energy of another , which way soever , in fact , we turn , in our endeavours after reform , we shall still find ourselves
met by objections innumerable , and all , more or less , tenable . Suppose , for instance , we try to estimate the relative merits of two Stewards by the amount they are severally the means of adding to the funds of a Charity . We shall , perhaps , encounter some such difficulty as this . A , in his
two Stewardships , collects fifty guineas the first time , and sixty guineas the second ; but his list , in the first instance , is made up by the contributions of ten persons , while on the second occasion thirteen contribute to it . B , in his two Stewardships , collects first twenty-five guineas , and then
twenty guineas ; forty persons assisting him in his first year , and thirty-six in his second . Thus A , from the narrow field of twenty-three , obtains one hundred and ten guineas in his two years of office , B only forty-five guineas from a field of seventy-six . Shall we say that either A
with the larger result , but far narrower field , or B with the larger field but smaller result , is not worthy of the decoration . Both have done good service , bnt one has canvassed more , the other benefits—in a pecuniary sense—the cause of the Charity more . Again , if we take into account the number
of those who contribute to the lists , let us imagine that 0 and D , in their two Stewardships obtain exactl y the same amounts , viz ., forty guineas in their first , and forty-five guineas in their second , or together eighty-five guineas each . C ' s eighty-five guineas , however , represent the
aggregate of the contributions of eighty-five persons , while D ' s were the joint contributions of one hundred and eleven . Both canvassed about the same number of individuals , but C met with some thirty rebuffs , while D encountered only perhaps seven or eight . E again , is prepared , or say , he is solicited
to become a Steward on two occasions . He is a man of rank in his Lodge , possesses , moreover , ample means , but his engagements prevent him making any great personal exertion . So , as "Regalia" suggests , in addition to his Steward's fees , he heads his list with the required donation of
ten guineas . Can we argue , with any show of reason , that E is not entitled to the honour of a Jewel ? These are only a few of the cases that might be brought forward , in order to show the difficulties which any
measure of reform will be sure to meet with , and how necessary it is to be cautious , so as to avoid offence to any among the numerous classes of brethren who take upon themselves the duties of Stewardship , but the subject , we repeat , is a proper one to discuss . At the same time
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Saturday Review And Freemasonry.
just as in the outer world there are people who value the ribbon of an order of knighthood , or who think they are lifted head and shoulders above the common herd when our Gracious Sovereign confers upon them the rank of C . B . All this indeed is beside the real question , which is not
whether some Masons are weak and vain , or whether the secrets of the Order are worth knowing , but whether Masonry reallyexists for any useful purpose . Here indeed we encounter a real difficulty . Our critic may be one of those hard-headed persons who do not believe in relieving the
suffering and distressed . If , however , he is of opinion that systematic charity is a good thing , then we think he will need little persuasion to admit that the Masons are doing a good work . The sums expended every year by Grand Lodge alone in relieving cases of distress are very large ,
but nearly every Lodge has its benevolent fund , and no sick or distressed Mason of good character need ever seek parish relief . Something is always done to help a brother to meet the reverses of fortune . Any Mason who knows much of the working of the Order could point to
numerous cases in his own locality , in which the brethren have thrown a plank to a sinking comrade . Many a small tradesman has met fate and his creditors with a smiling face , after a full confession of his difficulties to his Lodge . The abounding benefactions of Grand Lodge have made
many a widow ' s heart sing for joy , and the orphan who eats the bread of Masonio charity , without a sense of degradation , has cause to rejoice that an Order exists which fosters ideas that are amongst the exploded fallacies of a certain school of political economists , but
which will always hold sway over the hearts of men as long as the golden rule is regarded as an article of faith . Masonry , in truth , is a grand corporation , which exists for the purpose of spreading the principles of Benevolence and Charity . Some of the wisest and best of men have not
disdained to proclaim themselves members of the Fraternity , and at this moment the brightest and best members of the Bench , the Bar , and the Church , are brothers . No man is a worse citizen for being a Mason , and we may say , with perfect truth , that many of our brethren , who , before
they joined the Order , were not remarkable for benevolence , have had their charitable impulses quickened and strengthened by association with those who have made the practical morality of Christianity a corner-stone of the Craft .
We do not indeed object to a little harmless laughter over ceremonial which is Greek to the general public , but we should have thought that the practical work of Masonry is well enough known to writers who are supposed to keep a keen watch over the passing events of the day . To
assert , as our contemporary does , that a Society , which has always numbered amongst its workers the most illustrious persons in the country , has no raison d ' etre for its existence , betrays woeful ignorance of facts which are the common property of the public . We have never , indeed , as a body
made any undue parade of the " mysteries " of the Order , bnt the Saturday Reviewer seems to imagine that we have set ourselves up as therivals in business of the old established shop for that article which has existed from time immemorial at Rome . We appreciate at its true value the unfortunate
animosity which has been displayed towards Masonry in modern times by successive Popes , but that animosity we believe arises from a misconception of the scope and aims of the Order . Masonry has never attempted to touch upon the conflicting claims of any section of the Christian
world , nor has it ever ventured to interfere with the due allegiance a brother owes to the religion which rules his conscience . Idle terror of Masonry , as a possible political weapon , has no doubt inspired the curses which have been
thundered against us from the chair of St . Peter . In a recent issue wo proved that these fears were absurd , but , although we do not hope to convert Pins IX ., we confess that we should be glad to make a convert of our critic .
He will find the Fraternity sound at core on many of the important questions which lie at the root of citizenship . He may learn , perhaps , that the Mason is not only a good fellow at table , but that he is a peaceful and loyal subject , a good father , and , whatever his creed , a religious man . We refer our readers to another column for the article which has given rise to these comments .
Charity Stewards And Charity Jewels.
CHARITY STEWARDS AND CHARITY JEWELS .
LAST week " Regalia " raised , in these columns , an important qnestion connected with thepermission to wear Charity Jewels . The case , as stated by our worthy Brother , lies in a nutshell . This jewel was instituted by H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , to be worn as a mark of distinction by those Craftsmen who have twice served the office of Steward to ono or other of our Charities , and a bar or clasp is added
for each subsequent Stewardship a thus decorated member may fill . But this distinction is granted without regard to the amount of contributions that may have been brought to the funds of a charity by the recipient ' s exertions , the bare fact that he has served two Stewardships entitling him
to the honour . Now " Regalia" argues , there is a certain degree of unfairness in this . Usually , and very properly , he says—in effect , if not in words—the man who labours actively in the cause of charity expects no recompense . Virtue , in this , as in other cases , is its own reward . But
in our Order we have a decoration specially awardable to those who devote themselves to , or undertake this particular kind of duty , and while some among them are very active and very successful , others are sometimes inactive , and of no great service to the cause . Why should the inactive and the
active be similarly rewarded ? We all covet permission to wear so honourable a distinction , but is it quite fair that one Brother should earn it , in a certain sense , by payment , while another earns it by hard work ? There is , we admit , some force in " Regalia ' s " suggestions . Tet we see , also ,
many difficulties in the way of a reform that shall give general satisfaction . We do not say such a reform is impracticable . But while a general rule occasionally gives rise to some amount of dissatisfaction , the question of comparative merit is nearly sure to entail bitter jealousies among all
classes , and continually . Whether we regard the aggregate of a Steward ' s list , or the number of contributors to it , or whether we compare the personal liberality of one with the known energy of another , which way soever , in fact , we turn , in our endeavours after reform , we shall still find ourselves
met by objections innumerable , and all , more or less , tenable . Suppose , for instance , we try to estimate the relative merits of two Stewards by the amount they are severally the means of adding to the funds of a Charity . We shall , perhaps , encounter some such difficulty as this . A , in his
two Stewardships , collects fifty guineas the first time , and sixty guineas the second ; but his list , in the first instance , is made up by the contributions of ten persons , while on the second occasion thirteen contribute to it . B , in his two Stewardships , collects first twenty-five guineas , and then
twenty guineas ; forty persons assisting him in his first year , and thirty-six in his second . Thus A , from the narrow field of twenty-three , obtains one hundred and ten guineas in his two years of office , B only forty-five guineas from a field of seventy-six . Shall we say that either A
with the larger result , but far narrower field , or B with the larger field but smaller result , is not worthy of the decoration . Both have done good service , bnt one has canvassed more , the other benefits—in a pecuniary sense—the cause of the Charity more . Again , if we take into account the number
of those who contribute to the lists , let us imagine that 0 and D , in their two Stewardships obtain exactl y the same amounts , viz ., forty guineas in their first , and forty-five guineas in their second , or together eighty-five guineas each . C ' s eighty-five guineas , however , represent the
aggregate of the contributions of eighty-five persons , while D ' s were the joint contributions of one hundred and eleven . Both canvassed about the same number of individuals , but C met with some thirty rebuffs , while D encountered only perhaps seven or eight . E again , is prepared , or say , he is solicited
to become a Steward on two occasions . He is a man of rank in his Lodge , possesses , moreover , ample means , but his engagements prevent him making any great personal exertion . So , as "Regalia" suggests , in addition to his Steward's fees , he heads his list with the required donation of
ten guineas . Can we argue , with any show of reason , that E is not entitled to the honour of a Jewel ? These are only a few of the cases that might be brought forward , in order to show the difficulties which any
measure of reform will be sure to meet with , and how necessary it is to be cautious , so as to avoid offence to any among the numerous classes of brethren who take upon themselves the duties of Stewardship , but the subject , we repeat , is a proper one to discuss . At the same time