Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason
  • Nov. 13, 1875
  • Page 10
Current:

The Freemason, Nov. 13, 1875: Page 10

  • Back to The Freemason, Nov. 13, 1875
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article ALBÆ DIES. ← Page 2 of 2
    Article Original Crrespondence. Page 1 of 2
    Article Original Crrespondence. Page 1 of 2
    Article Original Crrespondence. Page 1 of 2 →
Page 10

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Albæ Dies.

of the philanthropist . Work is plentiful , wages are hi gh , education is extending , better houses and sanitary reforms are improving the condition of our toiling masses , and there are to be seen , we believe , in Great Britain everywhere just now a growing sense of reverence for the law , as well

as increased regard for our own unrivalled institutions . All Englishmen have , then , hailed the birthday of the Prince of Wales , as alike a happy memory and a goodl y omen . At this moment all England may be said to be following carefully his footsteps on that far-off and

wondrous Indian land , and all unite in the fei vent aspiration that a good Providence will restore him in due time safe and sound to us all at home , and above all to those who ate nearest and dearest to him . And if that happy anniversary appeals to our national sympathies , the Lord

Mayor ' s Show speaks forcibly to our thoughts and feelings , as citizens under a great municipality . Some writers have often hastily and harshly arraigned the Corporation of the City of London as a creation of the past , and we believe that there are those who have a hazy idea

of essentiall y altering the present government of the City . Now , though we do not write politically , we yet may write as loyal citizens . The Corporation of the City of London is the oldest and the greatest of municipalities . It has come down to us from very old days , and very dark days , and it has ever been

J ^ mmmmmmm ^ mm ^^^^^^^ nsUc ^ remmknb ] tliarKeu uiT ^ TnTrrc ^^^ Crnr ™ C ^^^^^^^^^^^ M ^ HHMHi English in their origin and development , namely , a quiet discharge of a great trust reposed in it , a conscientious sense of its duty to its constituents . It has in other days led the way in metropolitan improvements , it has upheld the position

and rights of the citizens of London , it has dispensed a goodly hospitality , liberally and ornately . Any proposals which would interfere with its vitality or its integrity , which would weaken the principle of self-government , or take away the just and long-established right of the

Livery ought to be received with the greatest caution , as tending to undermine for the present , and , perhaps , injure for the future irretrievably , a very notable and striking system of municipal administration . The Corporation has been very lucky in recent occupiers of the Lord

Mayor ' s Civic Chair . We still can remember how well our distinguished Bro . Stone has filled his office , and played his part ; and we have the highest anticipations of Lord Mayor Cotton . A self-made man , he comes associated with the great prestige of industry , usefulness , honour , and success ; and , like those who hailed his

elevation on Tuesday , so to-day we beg , as denizens of the City , to offer to him our hearty good wishes , and to congratulate him on his well merited elevation . Though not a Freemason like our brother the late Lord Mayor , he yet , nevertheless , has of rig ht the best aspirations from our Order , which is ever loyal and patriotic , composed of good citizens , as well as true Freemasons .

Original Crrespondence.

Original Crrespondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —En . l

THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS . To Ihe Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Wc much regret to have to trouhle you with a second letter for this week ' s issue , our last having been too late for insertion , in reply to Mr . Binckcs ' s communication in your paper of last Friday .

The Secretary admits the correctness of our calculation ; and we find from the reports for the last three years that the amount put down for " gratuities" ( ios . per boy ) during this period comes to £ 31 , viz .: £ 0 in 1872 , £ 4 ios . in 1873 , and £ 17 ios . in 1874 ; whereas , in his letter of last week , the Secrttaryaccounts for only £ 18 ios ., and this , too , incorrectly , as only 37 boys , according to

reports , left between January , 1872 , and December , 1874 , two , at least , of whom did not receive the " gratuity , " so that we have only 35 boys with the " gratuity , " or £ 17 ios . ; adding to this "the most unaccountable" ( as the Secretary terms it ) charge of £ 1 5 s . for silver medal , we have to subtract £ 18 15 s . from our correct total of

£ 314 5 s ., which gives £ 295 ios . to be accounted for , and not £ 2114 ios ., as shown in Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter . While the total of £ t ) , £ 4 ios ., and £$ is , as proved , wrong , each item , according to reports giving numbers of boys leaving from time to time , is also wrong . At the top of third column , p . 481 , in your last issue , we observe jumbled together " grants and gratuities ; " whilst

Original Crrespondence.

in the three reports before us " gratuities to boys on leaving institution " are put down as one item , separate and dis ° tinct from " grants and outfits for boys on leaving institution , " some three or four lines below the former item ; we do not understand the reason for this confusion of what hitherto had been treated as quite distinct . The " grants and outfits " for °

1872 were £ 110 , according to report and Secretary's letters , ¦ 87 . S „ 122 „ „ „ „ ' 874 ,, 5 ' is . „ „ „ „ but according to Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter were £ 62 ios ., whilst the item for " gratuities " only , according to 1874 report . was £ 17 10 s ., which the Secretary now says was n "' y £ 5 ilhere , then , we have a difference of / . ' 12 ics .

A little lower down on the same column of your paper we are besought to attciitl to the thereto annexed statement , with an " obviems inference " from incorrect data . Now , the very first item of this statement is wrong according to the reports for 18 72 and 1873 ( two editions of the latter ) , for in these three books Mow , George Augustus Frederick-, is credited with five guineas , and the total of page % of

1873 report , published in 1874 , is £ 50 5 s ., and not £ 50 , as the Secretary gives it . As regards four of the nine blunders pointed out by us , the Secretary styles them " clerical errors , " though perpetrated a second time in the . June edition of 18 73 report . We hardly think your readers will be disposed to regard so lightly errors involving a sum of £ 20 in so simple a matter as the account of appropriation of three or four hundred pounds , and we feel

we were not far wron g in warning the readers of our pamphlet against such blunders . Still lojver elown we have a reference to page 48 of 18 74 report ; we turn accordingly to the page and find , not £ 47 ios ., but £ 6 7 ios ., for " amount of grant not previously made or ascertained , " to which sum , we suppose , must be ailded the £ 3 for marine outfit from " Fund for the Advancement of Boys on leaving the Institution . " As an instance of proving an impossibility , Samuel Colling-¦ —ifai ^—J—i LL 1 'l-l . - o . ^ r „ Hr „ ,, „ , „ . /' . , „„„

wooers grant . . L urn mmrmmm ^ g ^ granted on Oth June , 1873 ; and , as we believe all such grants are made by the General Committee , who always meet on a Saturday , this committee , according lo Mr . Binckcs ' s date ( see Calendar ) , must in the month of June , 1873 , have sat on a Friday ; we find , moreover , that

Collingwood is credited with £ 3 in the 1872 report , so that if the grant was not foimally made till some day in June , 1873 , it must have been given to tho lad without the proper sanction . We observe the Secretary admits a discrepancy of £ 3 even accoreling to his own reckoning , in which we have pointed out , including errors in dates , twelve

inaccuracies . In 1874 report , understock Account , a balance , not shewn in 1873 report , is set down as due to the Secretary ; and Bro . Cox ' s Canonbiny medal is in one place , p . 41 of 18 74 report , put down at £ 4 , and in another , p . 53 , at four guineas ; in 1872 report , pp . 34 and 53 , Bros . Winn and Cox ' s prize money is put down at £ 17 18 s . Cd ., of which sum only £ 0 <) s . appears to have been awarded .

Wc could point out many other eliscrcpancics did we not feel that wc have already trespassed too much on the space available in your columns , and we deem it due to our correspondents to state that their valueel assistance has enabled us to detect several errors . We are , dear Sir and Brother , yours faithfully and fraternally , THOMAS WM . TEW .

Nov . 1 , 18 75 . O . G . D . PEBHOTT , M . A . [ We do not see why Bro . Binckes is termed Mr . Binckes It is most unmasonic , and very bad taste . —En . ]

A QUOTATION . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I duly read the " short reply " to my " voluminous epistle , " a reply nearly as long as my letter , and in which the writer appears to be particularly anxious to avoid everything relating to the subject .

I am favoured in the first instance with a little biography to the following effect : — " Lord Derby , when Lord Stanley , once said to the famous Lord Macaulay , then Mr . Macaulay , and both in the Mouse of Commons , ' The lion , gentleman is a great critic ; ' " so I think I may vcntuic to say to Bro . Bernard to-day , " Let me kindly remind your correspondent that he is again inaccurate . " The remark

really was , " The right lion , gentleman is a great verbal critic , " anil the occasion was on being interrupted in his speech hy Macaulay . The introduction of this little anecdote is therefore inapplicable . Perhaps , however , your correspondent , in the fertility of his imagination , may be as conversant with Parliamentary anecdotes as he is with " I Iudibras . " My authority for again correcting him is Jennings

and Johnstone ' s Parliamentary Anecdotes . With regard to the " foinencss " of my writing and the lucidity of my style , I may say he , of all men , should be silent relative to the first , and generous concerning the second , which is somewhat defective in the respect alluded to , 1 admit , hut principally so through the necessarily freeiuent introductions ol his own verbiage .

After being designated " one of those unfortunate persons you often meet with in the world who always will be ' convinced against' their ' will' ( although what he means by this I cannot say ) and ' so very great an authority , '" I am satirically referrcel to as " being so polite and Masonic as to give him the lie direct , " in stating that instead of emoting , he misquoted " Hudibras . " I say so now . Mc

says " 1 uscel the worels as an old Janetian ' saw , ' without any reference to Butler ' s version of it . " Me possibly might not know at the time he used the versiele that Butler had ever written anything of the kind , or , knowing so , might have supposed the one used by him to be the correct one . Mad he used it in the first instance 1 maintain it would still be a quotation , or rather a misquotation , from " Hudibras , " although unknown as such to the quoter .

Original Crrespondence.

I am also told that your correspondent is not likely to misquote " Hudibras , " and for the second time that he knows it belter than I do . What an absurd statement to make , as I said before . How is he enabled to make a comparison of this kind ? For what he may know to the contrary , I may be thoroughly conversant with the work , or never even have heard of it until the commencement of

this correspondence . Who your correspondent is I know not , but if he can prove to me b y any ordinary evidence that he possesses any familiarity with ihe poem I shall certainly be greatly surprised . Montaigne , in his Essay on Physiognomy , says , " Some quote Plato and Homer who never saw either of them , " and in this case your correspondent reminds me of those men who are constantly

vaunting their own knowledge and power to conceal their real weakness and incompetence . In his last letter he stated that "for a long time every one who cares about such things has known that there was an error in the actual quotation itself . " I asked what authority he had for this , but I have not been favoured with his reply . He makes assertions which he cannot

prove , and then , when called to account , acknowledges by silence his inability to reply . This week he says , " For the truth is , as another writer puts it clearl y ( referring possibly to the writer in your issue of the 16 th ult . ) , the saying is older than Hudibras . " Again 1 challenge him to give me a single authority for the truth of his assertion , and with Shakespeare

, say , " Let proof speak . " The writer then goes oil to say , " It often happens in an argument a man gives way , thou jh not convinced by argument ; but yielding the point ftr some reason ] or other , or , withdrawing from . the controversy , still retains his own

opinion . Precisely so , but it is cuite a different thing to convincing a man against his will In this case the man has not been convinced . He may be defeated in argument , worsted in all points , may even comply with the changed requirements of the case , but his conviction may ue ^ erjinve been touched . As I said before . I can fully

understand a man complying against hi ^ wnTjasTBuTIcT says , but cannot find an instance , notwithstanding your correspondent " venturing to believe , as he happens to know , " that a man may be so convinced . I now come to a terrible attack upon mc . He says , " Would it not be well before Bro . Bernard attempts to set everybody else right , that he should attend to his own

grammar and spelling . I have never yet seen ' odorous ' spelt with an ' e , ' nor do I ever remember such a sentence as , ' Why 1 I 0 he act differently . '" Now , this is really too bad . He might , when he saw my letter at your office , as he states , have handed it in as " copy " in the usual way , and left the result to one of your careful compositors , or the detecting eye of the " reader . " But no , the opportunity

was not to be lost . It enabled him to add about a " stick " to his effusion on the point of grammar and spelling , and to request me not to forget " that nothing is so absurd as that childish and carping hyper criticism which is generally the refuge of the incompetent and intolerant . " So much for example . For some years 1 have been a contributor to several of

the London and provincial papers , and have on more than one occasion contributed to the " Freemason " elsewhere than in the correspondence columns or as the reporter of the lodge meetings , and therefore to this little thrust I attach no importance . He next states it is useless going through my letter . I believe if he could have gone through it more to his own

satisfaction he would not have said this . He continues with the information that " he has more important work to attend to than to read , except often very cursorily , the tedious platitude or the meaningless objection . " 1 own myself inclined to believe that he must have read very

little indeed , judging by the use he makes of it . The advice with which he concludes his letter is unfortunately unheeded , as the source from which it emanates renders its acceptance impossible . 1 remain , dear Sir and brother , yours fraternally , WILLIAM BKRNAHU . Mull , Nov . 5 , 1875 .

BRO . BERNARD'S LAST . To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I am , I confess , deeply affected and edified , as must be all your readers , by the last characteristic effusion of your distinguished correspondent . Bro . Bernard seems to have kept this last wonderful

production of his in some warm receptacle , where it has acquired that pungency of style , that gentlemanliness of feeling , and that true Masonic spirit , that fraternal courtesy , by which it is so unmistakeably characterized from first to last . It might , indeed , be a ejuestion for your discretion and that of the Editor whether amid a pressure of much more important matters you can find room for such

trumpery and uninteresting letters , but I deal only with matters of fact , and as the letter appears " vcila" my commentary . I . It is a great mistake for people to rely on secondhand information and to put up as facts what they have found in a Book of Anecdotes . I almost wonder , while Bro . Bernard was about it , he did not go to Joe Miller . It does so happen that I was present myself , and

heard the late Lord Derby ( Lord Stanley he was then ) use the very words I have quoted . He did not say a " verbal " ciitic . He said , the honourable gentleman , or right honourable gentleman , " is a great critic . " Those who heard the retort , the tone of the speaker , and the ringing cheers of his supporters , will nevtr forget the episode and the scene .

II . Let us go back to the actual controversy . I originally stated , " nine ilke lachrymw , " that according to the old " saying , " " a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still . " I did not say , " as the poet has it , " but purposely used the words as an " old saying , " because I believe , as all students of Uutler know , that his amusing

“The Freemason: 1875-11-13, Page 10” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 23 March 2023, masonicperiodicals.org/periodicals/fvl/issues/fvl_13111875/page/10/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Article 1
REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 1
Royal Arch. Article 4
Red Cross of Constantine. Article 4
Scotland. Article 4
CONSECRATION OF THE MORECAMBE LODGE, No. 1561. Article 5
CONSECRATION OF THE ELLIOT LODGE (No. 1567). Article 6
Masonic and General Tidings. Article 6
Reviews. Article 7
FREEMASONRY IN INDIA. Article 7
ROYAL ARCH MASONRY IN CONSTANTINOPLE. Article 7
TO OUR READERS. Article 8
TO ADVERTISERS. Article 8
Answers to Correspondents. Article 8
Untitled Article 8
OUR ROYAL GRAND MASTER'S VISIT TO INDIA. Article 8
NEW LODGES. Article 8
SEMPER EADEM. Article 8
MASONIC TRUTH. Article 9
JOTTINGS OF TRANSATLANTIC FREEMASONRY. Article 9
ALBÆ DIES. Article 9
Original Crrespondence. Article 10
ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS. Article 11
ROYAL MASONIC BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION. Article 12
CONSECRATION OF THE MOUNT EDGCUMBE LODGE, NO. 1554, AT CAMBORNE. Article 13
THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS, AND THE PROVINCE OF WEST YORKSHIRE. Article 13
PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF DURHAM. Article 13
METROPOLITAN MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 13
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Page 1

Page 1

4 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

3 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

3 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

6 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

4 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

4 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

5 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

9 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

6 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

4 Articles
Page 11

Page 11

4 Articles
Page 12

Page 12

4 Articles
Page 13

Page 13

6 Articles
Page 14

Page 14

9 Articles
Page 10

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Albæ Dies.

of the philanthropist . Work is plentiful , wages are hi gh , education is extending , better houses and sanitary reforms are improving the condition of our toiling masses , and there are to be seen , we believe , in Great Britain everywhere just now a growing sense of reverence for the law , as well

as increased regard for our own unrivalled institutions . All Englishmen have , then , hailed the birthday of the Prince of Wales , as alike a happy memory and a goodl y omen . At this moment all England may be said to be following carefully his footsteps on that far-off and

wondrous Indian land , and all unite in the fei vent aspiration that a good Providence will restore him in due time safe and sound to us all at home , and above all to those who ate nearest and dearest to him . And if that happy anniversary appeals to our national sympathies , the Lord

Mayor ' s Show speaks forcibly to our thoughts and feelings , as citizens under a great municipality . Some writers have often hastily and harshly arraigned the Corporation of the City of London as a creation of the past , and we believe that there are those who have a hazy idea

of essentiall y altering the present government of the City . Now , though we do not write politically , we yet may write as loyal citizens . The Corporation of the City of London is the oldest and the greatest of municipalities . It has come down to us from very old days , and very dark days , and it has ever been

J ^ mmmmmmm ^ mm ^^^^^^^ nsUc ^ remmknb ] tliarKeu uiT ^ TnTrrc ^^^ Crnr ™ C ^^^^^^^^^^^ M ^ HHMHi English in their origin and development , namely , a quiet discharge of a great trust reposed in it , a conscientious sense of its duty to its constituents . It has in other days led the way in metropolitan improvements , it has upheld the position

and rights of the citizens of London , it has dispensed a goodly hospitality , liberally and ornately . Any proposals which would interfere with its vitality or its integrity , which would weaken the principle of self-government , or take away the just and long-established right of the

Livery ought to be received with the greatest caution , as tending to undermine for the present , and , perhaps , injure for the future irretrievably , a very notable and striking system of municipal administration . The Corporation has been very lucky in recent occupiers of the Lord

Mayor ' s Civic Chair . We still can remember how well our distinguished Bro . Stone has filled his office , and played his part ; and we have the highest anticipations of Lord Mayor Cotton . A self-made man , he comes associated with the great prestige of industry , usefulness , honour , and success ; and , like those who hailed his

elevation on Tuesday , so to-day we beg , as denizens of the City , to offer to him our hearty good wishes , and to congratulate him on his well merited elevation . Though not a Freemason like our brother the late Lord Mayor , he yet , nevertheless , has of rig ht the best aspirations from our Order , which is ever loyal and patriotic , composed of good citizens , as well as true Freemasons .

Original Crrespondence.

Original Crrespondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —En . l

THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS . To Ihe Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Wc much regret to have to trouhle you with a second letter for this week ' s issue , our last having been too late for insertion , in reply to Mr . Binckcs ' s communication in your paper of last Friday .

The Secretary admits the correctness of our calculation ; and we find from the reports for the last three years that the amount put down for " gratuities" ( ios . per boy ) during this period comes to £ 31 , viz .: £ 0 in 1872 , £ 4 ios . in 1873 , and £ 17 ios . in 1874 ; whereas , in his letter of last week , the Secrttaryaccounts for only £ 18 ios ., and this , too , incorrectly , as only 37 boys , according to

reports , left between January , 1872 , and December , 1874 , two , at least , of whom did not receive the " gratuity , " so that we have only 35 boys with the " gratuity , " or £ 17 ios . ; adding to this "the most unaccountable" ( as the Secretary terms it ) charge of £ 1 5 s . for silver medal , we have to subtract £ 18 15 s . from our correct total of

£ 314 5 s ., which gives £ 295 ios . to be accounted for , and not £ 2114 ios ., as shown in Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter . While the total of £ t ) , £ 4 ios ., and £$ is , as proved , wrong , each item , according to reports giving numbers of boys leaving from time to time , is also wrong . At the top of third column , p . 481 , in your last issue , we observe jumbled together " grants and gratuities ; " whilst

Original Crrespondence.

in the three reports before us " gratuities to boys on leaving institution " are put down as one item , separate and dis ° tinct from " grants and outfits for boys on leaving institution , " some three or four lines below the former item ; we do not understand the reason for this confusion of what hitherto had been treated as quite distinct . The " grants and outfits " for °

1872 were £ 110 , according to report and Secretary's letters , ¦ 87 . S „ 122 „ „ „ „ ' 874 ,, 5 ' is . „ „ „ „ but according to Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter were £ 62 ios ., whilst the item for " gratuities " only , according to 1874 report . was £ 17 10 s ., which the Secretary now says was n "' y £ 5 ilhere , then , we have a difference of / . ' 12 ics .

A little lower down on the same column of your paper we are besought to attciitl to the thereto annexed statement , with an " obviems inference " from incorrect data . Now , the very first item of this statement is wrong according to the reports for 18 72 and 1873 ( two editions of the latter ) , for in these three books Mow , George Augustus Frederick-, is credited with five guineas , and the total of page % of

1873 report , published in 1874 , is £ 50 5 s ., and not £ 50 , as the Secretary gives it . As regards four of the nine blunders pointed out by us , the Secretary styles them " clerical errors , " though perpetrated a second time in the . June edition of 18 73 report . We hardly think your readers will be disposed to regard so lightly errors involving a sum of £ 20 in so simple a matter as the account of appropriation of three or four hundred pounds , and we feel

we were not far wron g in warning the readers of our pamphlet against such blunders . Still lojver elown we have a reference to page 48 of 18 74 report ; we turn accordingly to the page and find , not £ 47 ios ., but £ 6 7 ios ., for " amount of grant not previously made or ascertained , " to which sum , we suppose , must be ailded the £ 3 for marine outfit from " Fund for the Advancement of Boys on leaving the Institution . " As an instance of proving an impossibility , Samuel Colling-¦ —ifai ^—J—i LL 1 'l-l . - o . ^ r „ Hr „ ,, „ , „ . /' . , „„„

wooers grant . . L urn mmrmmm ^ g ^ granted on Oth June , 1873 ; and , as we believe all such grants are made by the General Committee , who always meet on a Saturday , this committee , according lo Mr . Binckcs ' s date ( see Calendar ) , must in the month of June , 1873 , have sat on a Friday ; we find , moreover , that

Collingwood is credited with £ 3 in the 1872 report , so that if the grant was not foimally made till some day in June , 1873 , it must have been given to tho lad without the proper sanction . We observe the Secretary admits a discrepancy of £ 3 even accoreling to his own reckoning , in which we have pointed out , including errors in dates , twelve

inaccuracies . In 1874 report , understock Account , a balance , not shewn in 1873 report , is set down as due to the Secretary ; and Bro . Cox ' s Canonbiny medal is in one place , p . 41 of 18 74 report , put down at £ 4 , and in another , p . 53 , at four guineas ; in 1872 report , pp . 34 and 53 , Bros . Winn and Cox ' s prize money is put down at £ 17 18 s . Cd ., of which sum only £ 0 <) s . appears to have been awarded .

Wc could point out many other eliscrcpancics did we not feel that wc have already trespassed too much on the space available in your columns , and we deem it due to our correspondents to state that their valueel assistance has enabled us to detect several errors . We are , dear Sir and Brother , yours faithfully and fraternally , THOMAS WM . TEW .

Nov . 1 , 18 75 . O . G . D . PEBHOTT , M . A . [ We do not see why Bro . Binckes is termed Mr . Binckes It is most unmasonic , and very bad taste . —En . ]

A QUOTATION . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I duly read the " short reply " to my " voluminous epistle , " a reply nearly as long as my letter , and in which the writer appears to be particularly anxious to avoid everything relating to the subject .

I am favoured in the first instance with a little biography to the following effect : — " Lord Derby , when Lord Stanley , once said to the famous Lord Macaulay , then Mr . Macaulay , and both in the Mouse of Commons , ' The lion , gentleman is a great critic ; ' " so I think I may vcntuic to say to Bro . Bernard to-day , " Let me kindly remind your correspondent that he is again inaccurate . " The remark

really was , " The right lion , gentleman is a great verbal critic , " anil the occasion was on being interrupted in his speech hy Macaulay . The introduction of this little anecdote is therefore inapplicable . Perhaps , however , your correspondent , in the fertility of his imagination , may be as conversant with Parliamentary anecdotes as he is with " I Iudibras . " My authority for again correcting him is Jennings

and Johnstone ' s Parliamentary Anecdotes . With regard to the " foinencss " of my writing and the lucidity of my style , I may say he , of all men , should be silent relative to the first , and generous concerning the second , which is somewhat defective in the respect alluded to , 1 admit , hut principally so through the necessarily freeiuent introductions ol his own verbiage .

After being designated " one of those unfortunate persons you often meet with in the world who always will be ' convinced against' their ' will' ( although what he means by this I cannot say ) and ' so very great an authority , '" I am satirically referrcel to as " being so polite and Masonic as to give him the lie direct , " in stating that instead of emoting , he misquoted " Hudibras . " I say so now . Mc

says " 1 uscel the worels as an old Janetian ' saw , ' without any reference to Butler ' s version of it . " Me possibly might not know at the time he used the versiele that Butler had ever written anything of the kind , or , knowing so , might have supposed the one used by him to be the correct one . Mad he used it in the first instance 1 maintain it would still be a quotation , or rather a misquotation , from " Hudibras , " although unknown as such to the quoter .

Original Crrespondence.

I am also told that your correspondent is not likely to misquote " Hudibras , " and for the second time that he knows it belter than I do . What an absurd statement to make , as I said before . How is he enabled to make a comparison of this kind ? For what he may know to the contrary , I may be thoroughly conversant with the work , or never even have heard of it until the commencement of

this correspondence . Who your correspondent is I know not , but if he can prove to me b y any ordinary evidence that he possesses any familiarity with ihe poem I shall certainly be greatly surprised . Montaigne , in his Essay on Physiognomy , says , " Some quote Plato and Homer who never saw either of them , " and in this case your correspondent reminds me of those men who are constantly

vaunting their own knowledge and power to conceal their real weakness and incompetence . In his last letter he stated that "for a long time every one who cares about such things has known that there was an error in the actual quotation itself . " I asked what authority he had for this , but I have not been favoured with his reply . He makes assertions which he cannot

prove , and then , when called to account , acknowledges by silence his inability to reply . This week he says , " For the truth is , as another writer puts it clearl y ( referring possibly to the writer in your issue of the 16 th ult . ) , the saying is older than Hudibras . " Again 1 challenge him to give me a single authority for the truth of his assertion , and with Shakespeare

, say , " Let proof speak . " The writer then goes oil to say , " It often happens in an argument a man gives way , thou jh not convinced by argument ; but yielding the point ftr some reason ] or other , or , withdrawing from . the controversy , still retains his own

opinion . Precisely so , but it is cuite a different thing to convincing a man against his will In this case the man has not been convinced . He may be defeated in argument , worsted in all points , may even comply with the changed requirements of the case , but his conviction may ue ^ erjinve been touched . As I said before . I can fully

understand a man complying against hi ^ wnTjasTBuTIcT says , but cannot find an instance , notwithstanding your correspondent " venturing to believe , as he happens to know , " that a man may be so convinced . I now come to a terrible attack upon mc . He says , " Would it not be well before Bro . Bernard attempts to set everybody else right , that he should attend to his own

grammar and spelling . I have never yet seen ' odorous ' spelt with an ' e , ' nor do I ever remember such a sentence as , ' Why 1 I 0 he act differently . '" Now , this is really too bad . He might , when he saw my letter at your office , as he states , have handed it in as " copy " in the usual way , and left the result to one of your careful compositors , or the detecting eye of the " reader . " But no , the opportunity

was not to be lost . It enabled him to add about a " stick " to his effusion on the point of grammar and spelling , and to request me not to forget " that nothing is so absurd as that childish and carping hyper criticism which is generally the refuge of the incompetent and intolerant . " So much for example . For some years 1 have been a contributor to several of

the London and provincial papers , and have on more than one occasion contributed to the " Freemason " elsewhere than in the correspondence columns or as the reporter of the lodge meetings , and therefore to this little thrust I attach no importance . He next states it is useless going through my letter . I believe if he could have gone through it more to his own

satisfaction he would not have said this . He continues with the information that " he has more important work to attend to than to read , except often very cursorily , the tedious platitude or the meaningless objection . " 1 own myself inclined to believe that he must have read very

little indeed , judging by the use he makes of it . The advice with which he concludes his letter is unfortunately unheeded , as the source from which it emanates renders its acceptance impossible . 1 remain , dear Sir and brother , yours fraternally , WILLIAM BKRNAHU . Mull , Nov . 5 , 1875 .

BRO . BERNARD'S LAST . To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I am , I confess , deeply affected and edified , as must be all your readers , by the last characteristic effusion of your distinguished correspondent . Bro . Bernard seems to have kept this last wonderful

production of his in some warm receptacle , where it has acquired that pungency of style , that gentlemanliness of feeling , and that true Masonic spirit , that fraternal courtesy , by which it is so unmistakeably characterized from first to last . It might , indeed , be a ejuestion for your discretion and that of the Editor whether amid a pressure of much more important matters you can find room for such

trumpery and uninteresting letters , but I deal only with matters of fact , and as the letter appears " vcila" my commentary . I . It is a great mistake for people to rely on secondhand information and to put up as facts what they have found in a Book of Anecdotes . I almost wonder , while Bro . Bernard was about it , he did not go to Joe Miller . It does so happen that I was present myself , and

heard the late Lord Derby ( Lord Stanley he was then ) use the very words I have quoted . He did not say a " verbal " ciitic . He said , the honourable gentleman , or right honourable gentleman , " is a great critic . " Those who heard the retort , the tone of the speaker , and the ringing cheers of his supporters , will nevtr forget the episode and the scene .

II . Let us go back to the actual controversy . I originally stated , " nine ilke lachrymw , " that according to the old " saying , " " a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still . " I did not say , " as the poet has it , " but purposely used the words as an " old saying , " because I believe , as all students of Uutler know , that his amusing

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 9
  • You're on page10
  • 11
  • 14
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2023

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy