What Next ?

WHAT NEXT ?

THE honours that have been showered on Masonry of late years are great beyond conception . We will not say they are wholly undeserved , for Masonry can point to

certain institutions and to certain times in its history as evidence that its aims are very different from what the blatant orators and the ready writers of a certain narrow sectarianism would have the world believe . But recent

events , and the pertinacious attacks on our Order made by the TJltramontanes , have gone a long way towards developing our popularity , to such an extent indeed that the gentler sex , who hitherto have been rigidly excluded , not only from our Lodges , but from our banquets likewise , are

beginning to interest themselves in our favour . The last Festival of the Boys' School was graced with their presence for the first time , and the idea of introducing them , we believe , originated with Bro . Binckes , the energetic Secretary of that Institution . In fact , he enjoyed a double credit in connection with that festival . The list of

subscriptions handed m showed the greatest aggregate sum on record that was ever collected , and the ladies were present . But now a further honour is in store for us . The Baroness Burdett Coutts , with whose name and fame our readers are as familiar as with any household word , has announced

her intention of presenting to the Lodge ~ No . 1278 , which bears her name , three chairs for the W . M ., S . W . and J . W . respectively . The occasion will be honoured in a highly becoming manner . The formal presentation will be made at a meeting of the Lodge , on Thursday next , the 29 th

instant , the members present being , by dispensation from His Royal Highness the M . W . G . M ., in full Masonic Craft clothing . They will also bring with them their ladies , and this will be the first occasion in England at which any ladies have been present when Lodge "furniture , " as such ,

has been in the room . In France , there are , we know , Lodges of Adoption , while in the United States , the various public processions in which Craft , Royal Arch , and Templar Masonry figure , sometimes separately , sometimes together ,

have familiarised the American ladies with the insignia of our Order , and with the titles of our officers and chief dignitaries . But in England Masonry has been far more secret in its operations , so far , at least , as any outward display of Masonic emblems is concerned . There was

nothing visible , for instance , in connection with the recent Installation of the Prince of Wales to the outer world , for the brethren arrayed themselves inside the Hall . In fact , the few occasions on which any Masonic display is to be seen are limited here to Masonic funerals , meetings of Provincial

Grand Lodges , and occasionall y the laying the first stone of some public building . Thus the presence of the ladies is quite a new feature , and not inappropriately perhaps . If the apron is an emblem of freedom , and has been adopted for that reason as the most important of our

clothing , it is also the emblem of domesticity , so to speak . Women of every class and age wear one of these during , perhaps , some portion of the day , from the lady with her elaborate tablier , to the simple peasant with her plain white apron . Our zeal , howevermust not outrun our discretion .

, We are afraid some of our readers may think it ungallant in us to caution them against seeking to establish too great an intimacy between Masonry and the fair sex . The old

saying which describes a milksop as " tied to his mother ' s apron-strings" may suggest to us not to be tied too closely , in things Masonic , to the pretty apron-strings of the ladies . ¦ Their presence lends an additional charm to Masonry , but

What Next ?

this ultimate charm of all must not predominate . Let ua still be Masons first , and then admirers of beauty in the banqueting hall afterwards .

The Retiring Masters Of The Boys' School.

THE RETIRING MASTERS OF THE BOYS' SCHOOL .

WE publish elsewhere a communication from Bro . Binckes , in which that gentleman takes us to task for , and , in one passage , with less than his usual courtesy , impeaches the complete impartiality of our article last week on " The Retiring Masters of the Boys' School . " He suggests , at the outset , that we should

have done better had we followed the example of the Freemason , and left the subject unnoticed , except so far as inserting his circular , asking us to suspend judgment till

his reply to Bro . Tew s pamphlet should have appeared . We note , in the next instance , that he considers we havo shown a bias in dealing with the unhappy differences which have arisen between the late Head Master and the

Committee , aud this m the face of our disclaimer— " We have no intention of passing judgment on the contents of these documents . We are strictly impartial in the matter . "

He enters with some violence of language into a defence of the Committee , displaying a vigour , both defensive and offensive , in every way worthy of the vigorous official we know him to be .

Now , as to the policy or impolicy of referring , in a public journal , to what was already too notorious , we shall have no difficulty , we imagine , in justifying ourselves in the eyes of our readers generally . True , we did not imitate the conduct of our contemporary , and publish Bro . Binckes ' s

letter , but we gave a very substantial reason for not doing so In our shortleader of the 26 th uli , on "The case of the Retir ing Head Master of the Boys' School , " occurs the following "As we have not thought it worth while to print Bro Tew ' s report , it is needless to insert Bro . Binckes ' s explana

tion . " As we neither published nor made extracts from the report , we did not deem it just to print the letter it had called forth from Bro . Binckes . The Secretary thinks we might have done so , in acknowledgment of his appeal to the principle audi alteram partem . Hear both sides first ,

and then judge . Novr it is no business of ours to pass judgment , but we are not thereby precluded from criticising , either the facts or the decision , only we must take care , in doing so , to avoid anything like partisanship , and this , we think , we have manifestly done .

What we have said has been governed by certain general principles , the justice of which are , in our opinion , beyond question . We have remarked that the Committee announce in two consecutive reports that changesin the educational conduct of the School have been thought expedient . Does any .

onedoubttheimpolicyof frequent changesin the management of such Institutions ? Do they help to raise the tone of a school , or to improve its character as a place of education ? If they do , we are wrong in our objection , but the general tenour of all experience is on our side . Changes , again ,

may be costly in other ways . If we remember ri ghtl y , the accounts for the year 1873 contain an item of £ 250 , as compensation to the late Head Master , and we do not imagine the Rev . Bro . Perrott can be discharged from his office without receiving a like , if not an equal , solatium Here , at once , we have an admirable reason wh y the matter should be publicly criticised . The funds of the Institution