Masonic Minstrelsy.

patriarchs in age , surviving a century and a half of ridicule , is explained in the circumstance that it is no worse than any other effusion of the kind , that it is in fact a fair sample of ancient , or rather pseudo-ancient , Masonic Minstrelsy . The first collection of Masonic songs of which we have any knowledge appeared in an appendix to the

Constitutions of the Freemasons , published in 1723 " over against St . Dunsfcan ' s Church in Fleet Street . " This collection was reprinted some fifty years afterwards in that notable work Ahiman Eezon , with many additions , which

rivalled , if they did not surpass , the older effusions in pompous absurdity , but not one of them can be properly described as ancient . They , one and all , display in its grossest form the ridiculous affectation which characterised the fugitive literature of the first George ' s reign ,

and which is fatal to the simplicity necessary to the composition of a lyric poem . Most of them were in all probability composed for tho convivial meetings of the " Antient Brotherhood " at the " Five Bells " in the Strand , or similar resorts , during the first decade of the eighteenth

century . Doubtless they lived their night , and it is likely enough that the roofs of the old " Apple Tree " and the " Goose and Gridiron " many a time resounded to Masonic applause of tho verse that to us appears the embodiment of prose run mad . In those days there was possibly nothing absurd in any one singing in praise

of" The Temple that wise King Solomon raised , For beauty , for order , for elegance praised , To what did it owe its elegancy ? To the just formed rules of Masonry , " attuned to the air of " Polly , you might have toyed and

kissed . " But let any reader attempt such a performance for himself , and we promise him he will soon experience the ludicrous effect produced by incongruity of tune and

subject ; unless , indeed , the descent from King Solomon to Mrs . Peachum—from Mount Moriah to a thieves' kitchen —should provoke a graver feeling against the genius that designed it .

It is only occasionally throughout these old songs that the reader is directed to the tunes , but whenever the direction is given , there appears a similar insensibility to the fitness of things . The effort to " varnish nonsense with the charms of sound " serves in these cases to render the

nonsense more and more intolerable . " Arise , gentle muse , and thy wisdom impart , " was and is , for all we know to the contrary , the recognised form of invocation to the spirit of song . But when we are instructed to intone the prayer after the lilting melody , " Dear Tom , this brown jug , " we

feel at once that such a muse must be a slattern at best , and one likely to be better acquainted with the garrets of Drury Lane than the groves of Parnassus . We could multiply instances of this sort from our " ancient "

collection , but cui bono ? These songs , anthems , or glees , are in no sense representative of Masonry or its belongings , and we dare say it will be news to many a brother that such things were ever brought into the world of song begotten of our Order .

^ Throughout the collection there is not a single composition above the level of a Grub Street broadsheet of the period , not to say worthy of the exalted theme by which their authors in most cases professed to be inspired . If we turn to a later collection , brought out in 1852 , we find little to reward our research . This one indeed is even

more aggravating m its effects than the other , from the circumstance that our hopes are raised upon the first pa » e by a valedictory lyric from Burns , and upon the second dashed into a gulf of bathos , in which antique inanity and modern flippancy maintain an equal struggle for precedence .

The compiler , unmindful of the proverbial worthlessness of " old songs , " gathered them into his net , and , from a tenderness which , however misplaced , was , we doubt not , due to unquestioning love for the Craft and its traditions , helped to prolong the existence of absurdities offensive to

good taste , and in no way creditable to the literary power of our Order . In this work , as in the older one , we are confronted with the dissonant conjunction of pretentious theme and commonplace melody , to which we have alread y adverted , and need not therefore waste another drop of ink

in its condemnation . It is , we are happy to think , a species of buffoonery of which the writers of these songs ! may have been altogether unconscious , and therefore perfectl y innocent . A musician is at all times willing enough to wed his music to " undying verse , " but it is not given to him to predict an immortality which , after all , can never

Masonic Minstrelsy.

be assured , and which , while the critical faculty exists , must always be problematical . Onr authors , deprived of such potent aid , must necessarily havo resigned their productions to the ; carele-.-j fancy of the vocalist , who , after the manner of his hind , would

bestow more consideration upon the exigencies of his voice than npon the suitability of the air adopted to the words he had to sing . Assuming this to be the case , wo acknowledge that songs , Avhen considered apart from the music to which their authors might wish them to be allied , should be exempt from the accepted rules of literary criticism .

The character of the music imparts force or feebleness to words expressive of contrary qualities , and it is within every one ' s experience that phrases which offend the eyes and ears of a reader may trip smoothly enough from the

tongue of a sweet singer . Nevertheless , we believe that not even Music , heavenly maid though she be , and " Sovereign of the willing soul , " could ever impart the faintest whisper of harmony to the unmixed twaddle of which our so-called Masonic Minstrelsy is chiefly composed ,

Charity, And Its Application.

CHARITY , AND ITS APPLICATION .

AMONG the historical records of this country , perhaps none can be found more valuable than those legacies of love and regard , wisdom and piety , which have been handed down by our forefathers in the names of gifts and charity . It is well known that many of these glorious gifts

have been both misapplied and perverted . This , however , does not justify the spirit that would check the genial current of benevolence , and to refuse all aid to our poorer brethren of humanity . Those who , by a selfish economy , would debar , under the name of individual independence ,

those who from deep sympathy with their suffering from rendering assistance to the needy and the fallen , are not imbued with faith , hope and charity , which are the trinity of those virtues which should ever be deemed the directing powers of human life . When the rich man dies , and

leaves his wealth to aid the poor , it is a recognition of his gratitude to the country in which he became prosperous , and to the people among whom ho lived . It is a re-distribution of wealth accumulated in prosperity , to aid and succour those who have fallen into social adversity . It is

one of those elements of fraternal power that binds the past with the present , and prolongs the memories of those whose deeds in life live after death , in affectionate remembrance of the grateful recipients of their bounty . Attempts have recently been made , by men in high authority , to take all

the public charities out of the hands of local trustees , and place them under a centralising governmental power . This is an attempt at imperialism , and subversive of the great fundamental principle of representativogovcrnment . This is not the time for the people to give upthecontrolof those immense

funds that are every year distributed throughout the land by earnest and honest citizens . Letnoundercurrenteverinduce the public to part with those treasuries of benevolence that have been bequeathed to future generations by the great and noble benefactors of the past . The cold , calculating ,

political followers of Mr . Malthus have not made much progress , or made many converts the last few years .. This doctrine was repugnant to the holiest instincts of human nature and family ties , and , coming from a minister of the Christian faith , seemed to be a violation of every social

principle , and high treason against that religion which he professed to teach . It is all very well to advise care , prudence and economy , but what is the use of that advice to the many thousands of industrious , intelligent working men whose circumstances have steeped them in penury ,

poverty and misery ? It is an insult to their reason , and a mockery of their sufferings . The cry of improvidence is uniformly made against the poor at periods of distress , when their claims are most urgent . It would be as well if those who think it a duty to exhort the poor to the practice

of economy , as being the one thing needful to ensure to them continual prosperity , and to a habit of saving as the only safeguard against the day of adversity , would point out in what this economy is to consist , and where the saving is to begin . It is true that by the exercise of some

self denial , an artisan of the lowest class may contrive to put by a small sum weekly , as has been proved by the experiment of Provident Societies , but it must be remembered that the chief benefit that such a man derives from his connection with one of these societies consists in Lis being