The Question Of Degrees.

further ceremonial was known in the Scottish lodges . " As regards the first lie points out that it is " purely negative in its character , and thcrelore , not entirely satisfactory as it stands . To make it conclusive , it would be necessary to show that all

possible sources of information had been exhausted or that the contemplated ceremonial Was inconsistent with the evidence and requirements of the Craft . Neither of these propositions can be maintained . " lie attaches no importance to what he calls Bro ,

HUGHAN ' S " subsidiarv arguments that the Old Charges are directed to the whole body of the Craft without distinction on account of degree and lhat the early lodges required thc presence of Entered Apprentices to render ' the making of Masters '

complete , " and he justifies this view by the . course adopted at the installation of a Master in Ireland a quarter of a century ago and in his own case , where an esoteric ceremony took place , at which the Entered Apprentices were present the whole time , "

but in which they did not " take actual part . " As regards the second line of argument " derived from the usage of the Scottish Lodges , " he is not in favour of it . He considers it "involves two separate propositions , " of which one— : " that the Scottish

Secret Ritual was reduced to a minimum —he holds is " full y made out , " but that the . other —• " that the Scottish practice was also the English—is not . This latter he regards as involving the following sub-proposition , namelv , " lhat the development

of the Craft Organisation preserved a parallel course in each country , unaffected by , or , rather in spite of , the widely different requirements imposed by widely different environments . " This he thinks " will not prove acceptable , without qualification , to

the modern philosophic student of History , who will not easil y convince himself that " the dwindling Ritual thai satisfied the unlettered operatives of Scottish provincial centres should also satisfy the learned ASHMOJ . K and the cultured Mainwaring ,

or the other ' gentleman Freemasons ' ofthe London Acceplion . " Bro . G . YV . Sl'l- ' . TH , an advocate of the bi-gradal theory , made some remarks , but reserved his main attack until he should have had time to marshal his arguments , at Bro . L . ANE and Bro .

MACBEAN , whose contributions to the discussion were read , declared themselves in favour of Bro . HiGIIAN ' S theory , while Bro . RAMSDEN RILEY , though fully recognising the merits of the paper , found himself unable to adopt the conclusions it

contained . Thus , while there can be no doubt that much additional light has been thrown upon thc subject by Bro . lluGHAX ' s paper and the discussion wine ' , followed it , it is clear that no definite ;

result lias been obtained . In the meantime , further papers on the subject arc promised liy Bros . Goui . D and Sl'E'lH , and all we can do is to wait and hear what they may be able to offer for our consideration .

The Worth Of A Jewel.

THE WORTH OF A JEWEL .

We have no thought of attempting the well-nigh impossible task of appraising the value of lhe different jewels that are worn by persons of means tor their own delectation , or of those which are worn as pari of the insignia of the offices the } ' hold , or the service

lhey may belong to ; of those worn by knights of thc several orders o ) chivalry or by members of particular societies or orders of men and women . There are jewels , which from their rarity , size , and quality , are above and beyond all price ; there are others ,

possessing little or no intrinsic value , which are yet for some special reason priceless in the estimation of the world or those who wearthem . No one hasa word lo say against the insignia of knighthood or of the badges of office which people in authority are

called upon lo wear , while as regards the . jewellery which persons don in their ] . rival e capacity , these are regarded merel y as evidence of means enough and lo spare for purposes of personal adornment , and it is only when the melal is base

and the stones imitation , or when there is a profuse- display of these decorations lhat the world dreams of ivproacliin <> - the wearer wi ' . h vanity . In Masonry—with which we are more immedi ttclv concerned and to which the remarks that follow

more imniediaiely ''Pp ' )'—< i >> d other Orders , opinions are divided as to the value of jewels and the propriety of wearing them . There are those who having in their time liijr-d many offices and been presented with many outward and viable tokens of lhe service lhey have rendered in

The Worth Of A Jewel.

lodge or chapter think they cannot do otherwise than adorn themselves with all the official ancl presentation jewels they are entitled to wear whenever they are called upon to appear in Masonic full-dress , while there are others who abhor the wearing

of jewellery , and never sport those they have except , as it were , tinder compulsion . In former days , when little in the way of decoration was worn b y the brethren at their lodge and other meetings , private members wore their aprons and officers

their collars ancl aprons , while , for the most part , the only jewels were those of the officers , which were suspended from their collars . A few special medals and jewels , including thc Freemasons' Hall medal , granted to certain lodges and brethren

who had done service in connection with its erection , and those granted to particular lodges , the wearing of which was restricted to the actual members , were also worn , but as a rule brethren were undecorated ; nor was it then the custom to vote Past

Master ' s jewels to the retiring Masters of lodges or P . Z . ' s jewels to retiring First Principals . Within the last 60 or 70 years , however , a different feeling has prevailed , and there is

hardly a lodge or chapter in existence which has not its limited array of bejewelled members , most of whom have done yeoman service in some honourable capacity , "which in the estimation of the authorities or their fellow members entitles them to wear

these distinctions . There are also certain other jewels which brethren are permitted to wear at all Masonic meetings , the earliest of these being the Charity jewel , which was founded in 1 S 3 S by thc late Duke of SUSSEX , M . W . G . M ., with a view to

encouraging brethren to support our Masonic Schools , and thc privilege of wearing which was subsequently extended to the brethren who supported the Ro 3 'al Masonic Benevolent Institution ; the privilege being restricted to those who had served as Steward lor two of our three Institutions and at the same time

qualified as Life Governors . In 18 75 permission was granted to all brethren who served as Stewards at the installation of his Royal Highness the Prince of WALKS as M . W . G . Master to wear a special commemorative jewel , the number who became

entitled to the privilege being about 3 60 or 370 . In iSSS the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls celebrated the centenary of ils foundation , and the Prince of WALES , in consideration of the services rendered by the Board

of Stewards on the occasion , accorded permission to the brethren composing it , to the number of between 1400 and 1500 , to wear their Stewards' badges at all future regular Masonic meetings , the privilege of wearing an ordinary Festival Steward ' s

badge being , by custom , restricted to the year in which the Stewardship is served . There are , in addition , the two special jewels authorised by his Royal Highness the M . W . Grand Master to be worn ( 1 ) in commemoration of the Jubilee of the QUEEN ' S

reign in J 88 7 , and ( 2 ) of her Diamond Jubilee in the present year , lhe brethren entitled to wear them being , in thc one case , those who were subscribing members of a lodge or lodges on Accession Day ( 20 th June ) , 188 7 , and , in the olher case , those

who were subscribing members on thc same anniversary in tbe present year . It will be remarked that permission to wear these medals or jewels is not granted in respect of any service or

services rendered to Freemasonry ; but is commemorative of certain events—one of which is almost , while thc other is absolutely , unique in English history . Moreover , it should be remembered that in thus commemorating these two

eventswhich , after all , are casual , and might have occurred under other past sovereigns of this realm , and did occur , in the case of the jubilee , under HENRY [ fL , EDWARD Iff ., and GEORGE ( If . —we , at the same time , commemorate not only the many great and good

qualities , both of heart and mind , which have characterised our gracious Sovereign during the whole of her reign , and the efforts she has successfully made towards promoting the best interests of hcr people , but also the fact that , though , by hcr

sex debarred from joining our Society , she is the daughter and niece of former Grand Masters and the mother of the present head of our Order ; that it is under the auspices of her eldest son lhat Freemasonry in the British Empire has attained

lo its present position of weight and influence ; and above all , that she has always taken a deep interest in Masonry for its own sake , and is Patroness or Grand Patroness of all our Charitable Institutions , as well as a generous contributor out of her own