-
Articles/Ads
Article PARTY SPIRIT IN MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article PARTY SPIRIT IN MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Party Spirit In Masonry.
PARTY SPIRIT IN MASONRY .
WE are of thoso who think tho best way of treating an angry man ia to meet him temperately in argument . Of course the chances are a thousand to ono that ho will refuse to listen to what you may have to say . Be your propositions never so clearly stated , he will reject them without ceremony . He will tell you , in more or less
uncomplimentary language , thafc he will no longer stand the nonsense to which he has heen subjected , and that the best plan for you who propose to advise him is to mind your own business . But the most wilfully-peppery man finds it
difficult to keep his temper up to high fever point for any length of time . He gradually tires of running full tilt at everybody , and as tho angry feeling gradually becomes less and less intense , so does he become proportionately more ancl more amenable to reason . And once he has been
shown that his recent outburst of ill-temper was hardly , if at all , excusable , he is all eagerness to make honourable amends for his ill judged frenzy . In short , if he is what is commonly called a peppery fellow , his wrath is heavy but of brief continuance ; while his return to a proper , juster ,
and more manageable frame of mind is speedy and sincere . It is far more difficult , however , to deal with folk who deliberately go out of their way to snarl at those who differ with them , who are always imagining vain things of others , and are unable to speak of any of their acts , no matter
how trifling they may be , with a tongue of good report . What this class of people say or do is said or done with a cold deliberation . Many of them will even go the length of reckoning beforehand how what of malice they give utterance to will inflict the greatest amount of pain , ancl
yet at the same time be within the limits of outward and visible decency , that mere conventional decency on the observance of which society insists so rigidly . It is still less use attempting to argue with these . They seem to acquiesce in what you say , but , nevertheless , go on pursuing
their old malicious practices , unable , no doubt , to see that the longer they continue them , the more impotent is their intentionally-unfriendly criticism . That such people exist in all classes is beyond all doubt , and we regret to say the Society of Freemasons is not
without its due proportion of representatives of the backbiting fraternity . Those of our brethren who have an abiding faith in the virtue of Masonic charity will probably feel not a little scandalized at this statement . If so , we invite them to read carefully a somewhat lengthy communication
we received last week from a correspondent signing himself X ., and published in our columns . There is no doubt it was temperately written , —had it been otherwise we should have declined to insert ifc . Moreover , for the allegations it contained , the writer , as he steadily pursued his course ,
produced the amplest justification . Nor does the letter seem to have been prompted by any spirit of hostility against the journal he criticised ; on the contrary , he bore handsome testimony to the exertions of its proprietor to
Make it as acceptable as possible as a medium for circulating Masonic information . "What he did criticise , and wo cannot condemn him for so doing , was the bitter scorn with which we editor treats all who are of another way of thinking than himself . Now seeing : that it is a rare coincidence for
even two people to be of the same mind on most occasions , it cannot seem strange to any one that , amongst a multitude or brethren , there should be great diversities of opinion . A . t the same time , in Freemasonry it is supposed that when wo or more people find themselves differing , and that
Party Spirit In Masonry.
without tho possibility of ever reconciling their views , thoy agree to differ respectfully from one another . It is not their custom—in theory , whatever it may bo in practiceto taunt each other with ignorance or ill-will , or , even worse , with personal animosity or malevolence . They do
not pertinaciously set at naught tho Charity which thinkuth no evil of its neighbour . But the editor of our Masonic journal , to judge from the passages quoted by our correspondent X ., seems determined to bo governed by no vulgar laAvs or usages . He , in his wisdom , may exceed the limits
which aro imposed on others , and none must dare question his doing so . It is , however , deeply to be regretted he cannot , or will not , seo thafc , by persisting in his course of abusing others , he is doing the journal he edits a very serious amount of injury , which , if attempted too often ,
may turn out to be irretrievable . Bufc lest our readers shonld think we are moved to make these remarks by some feeling of personal jealousy , we will take the liberty of giving greater prominence to certain passages which our correspondent reproduced in his letter .
The first testimony of any importance to which " X . " drew the attention of our readers was to tho effect that
the opposition to tho re-election of tho old House Committee was raised in order " to gratify personal pique , " and that those who raised it were " influenced by a desire for a petty revenge for a previous defeat ; " that such opposition was " a very Jesuitical proceeding in itself ; " and that
its advocates " had much better remain in their own proper insignificance . " It seems to us that the writer of those remarks has overstepped the bounds of ordinary courtesy and propriety , and , what is still more unfortunate for himself , has utterly ignored the claims of prudence ancl
reason . It is tho reverse of courteous and proper for tho proposer or supporter of ono set of nominees to tell the proposer or supporter of a rival set that his opposition is due to a wish to gratify personal pique , " that his proceeding" is very " Jesuitical , " and that ho " had better remain "
in his own " proper insignificance . " But what is far more important is , that these statements arc absolutely worthless , except on the principle that to throw mud at people is justifiable , as some of it is sure to stick . We do not suppose any one would care to offer any such justification as this for
his statements , and yet there is v . o other that occurs to ns as being in any way reasonable . These statements are merely assertions which are incapable of being proved . How , for instance , is it logically possible to state the motives which prompt a man to pursue this or that lino of conduct , unless
he first of all explains those motives in writing , or by word or month ? And even then the motives thus publicly assigned havo nothing necessarily personal about their character . Nothing in the world is so easy as to make an assertion , and nothing so difficult as to prove it . In this
case the opposition may havo been xmwiso , inexpedient , without sufficient reason , or too wholesale to bo deemed worthy of support . Yet once it is admitted that the proposal of new men in place of the old is the " undoubted
privilege" of all Life Governors , and on the score both of courtesy and common sense , the proposed substitution of new men for old must be accepted as iu accordance with the exercise of thafc privilege—that and nothing more . Ifc is no business in a matter of this kind for one Mason to be
curious as to another Mason's motives—these are , or should be , sacred . Then , as to the letter signed " 13 . F ., " which the editor was not only ill-advised enough to admit into his columns , but to which he appended , as " X . " has pointed out , a kind of approval . It would have been most indecorous to have
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Party Spirit In Masonry.
PARTY SPIRIT IN MASONRY .
WE are of thoso who think tho best way of treating an angry man ia to meet him temperately in argument . Of course the chances are a thousand to ono that ho will refuse to listen to what you may have to say . Be your propositions never so clearly stated , he will reject them without ceremony . He will tell you , in more or less
uncomplimentary language , thafc he will no longer stand the nonsense to which he has heen subjected , and that the best plan for you who propose to advise him is to mind your own business . But the most wilfully-peppery man finds it
difficult to keep his temper up to high fever point for any length of time . He gradually tires of running full tilt at everybody , and as tho angry feeling gradually becomes less and less intense , so does he become proportionately more ancl more amenable to reason . And once he has been
shown that his recent outburst of ill-temper was hardly , if at all , excusable , he is all eagerness to make honourable amends for his ill judged frenzy . In short , if he is what is commonly called a peppery fellow , his wrath is heavy but of brief continuance ; while his return to a proper , juster ,
and more manageable frame of mind is speedy and sincere . It is far more difficult , however , to deal with folk who deliberately go out of their way to snarl at those who differ with them , who are always imagining vain things of others , and are unable to speak of any of their acts , no matter
how trifling they may be , with a tongue of good report . What this class of people say or do is said or done with a cold deliberation . Many of them will even go the length of reckoning beforehand how what of malice they give utterance to will inflict the greatest amount of pain , ancl
yet at the same time be within the limits of outward and visible decency , that mere conventional decency on the observance of which society insists so rigidly . It is still less use attempting to argue with these . They seem to acquiesce in what you say , but , nevertheless , go on pursuing
their old malicious practices , unable , no doubt , to see that the longer they continue them , the more impotent is their intentionally-unfriendly criticism . That such people exist in all classes is beyond all doubt , and we regret to say the Society of Freemasons is not
without its due proportion of representatives of the backbiting fraternity . Those of our brethren who have an abiding faith in the virtue of Masonic charity will probably feel not a little scandalized at this statement . If so , we invite them to read carefully a somewhat lengthy communication
we received last week from a correspondent signing himself X ., and published in our columns . There is no doubt it was temperately written , —had it been otherwise we should have declined to insert ifc . Moreover , for the allegations it contained , the writer , as he steadily pursued his course ,
produced the amplest justification . Nor does the letter seem to have been prompted by any spirit of hostility against the journal he criticised ; on the contrary , he bore handsome testimony to the exertions of its proprietor to
Make it as acceptable as possible as a medium for circulating Masonic information . "What he did criticise , and wo cannot condemn him for so doing , was the bitter scorn with which we editor treats all who are of another way of thinking than himself . Now seeing : that it is a rare coincidence for
even two people to be of the same mind on most occasions , it cannot seem strange to any one that , amongst a multitude or brethren , there should be great diversities of opinion . A . t the same time , in Freemasonry it is supposed that when wo or more people find themselves differing , and that
Party Spirit In Masonry.
without tho possibility of ever reconciling their views , thoy agree to differ respectfully from one another . It is not their custom—in theory , whatever it may bo in practiceto taunt each other with ignorance or ill-will , or , even worse , with personal animosity or malevolence . They do
not pertinaciously set at naught tho Charity which thinkuth no evil of its neighbour . But the editor of our Masonic journal , to judge from the passages quoted by our correspondent X ., seems determined to bo governed by no vulgar laAvs or usages . He , in his wisdom , may exceed the limits
which aro imposed on others , and none must dare question his doing so . It is , however , deeply to be regretted he cannot , or will not , seo thafc , by persisting in his course of abusing others , he is doing the journal he edits a very serious amount of injury , which , if attempted too often ,
may turn out to be irretrievable . Bufc lest our readers shonld think we are moved to make these remarks by some feeling of personal jealousy , we will take the liberty of giving greater prominence to certain passages which our correspondent reproduced in his letter .
The first testimony of any importance to which " X . " drew the attention of our readers was to tho effect that
the opposition to tho re-election of tho old House Committee was raised in order " to gratify personal pique , " and that those who raised it were " influenced by a desire for a petty revenge for a previous defeat ; " that such opposition was " a very Jesuitical proceeding in itself ; " and that
its advocates " had much better remain in their own proper insignificance . " It seems to us that the writer of those remarks has overstepped the bounds of ordinary courtesy and propriety , and , what is still more unfortunate for himself , has utterly ignored the claims of prudence ancl
reason . It is tho reverse of courteous and proper for tho proposer or supporter of ono set of nominees to tell the proposer or supporter of a rival set that his opposition is due to a wish to gratify personal pique , " that his proceeding" is very " Jesuitical , " and that ho " had better remain "
in his own " proper insignificance . " But what is far more important is , that these statements arc absolutely worthless , except on the principle that to throw mud at people is justifiable , as some of it is sure to stick . We do not suppose any one would care to offer any such justification as this for
his statements , and yet there is v . o other that occurs to ns as being in any way reasonable . These statements are merely assertions which are incapable of being proved . How , for instance , is it logically possible to state the motives which prompt a man to pursue this or that lino of conduct , unless
he first of all explains those motives in writing , or by word or month ? And even then the motives thus publicly assigned havo nothing necessarily personal about their character . Nothing in the world is so easy as to make an assertion , and nothing so difficult as to prove it . In this
case the opposition may havo been xmwiso , inexpedient , without sufficient reason , or too wholesale to bo deemed worthy of support . Yet once it is admitted that the proposal of new men in place of the old is the " undoubted
privilege" of all Life Governors , and on the score both of courtesy and common sense , the proposed substitution of new men for old must be accepted as iu accordance with the exercise of thafc privilege—that and nothing more . Ifc is no business in a matter of this kind for one Mason to be
curious as to another Mason's motives—these are , or should be , sacred . Then , as to the letter signed " 13 . F ., " which the editor was not only ill-advised enough to admit into his columns , but to which he appended , as " X . " has pointed out , a kind of approval . It would have been most indecorous to have