Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Contents.
CONTENTS .
LEADERS 4 t Consecration o £ the Lodge o £ the Quatuor Coronati , No . 2076 42 Provincial Grand Lodge of Shropshire 43 CORRESPONDENCE" Hearty Good Wishes " 4 S An Appeal 4 ; Reviews 46
Notes and Queries 46 REPORTS OP MASONIC M EETINGSCraft Masonry 46 Instruction 50 Royal Arch 51 Mark Masonry 51 Knights Templar 51 Malta 51
Presentation to Lodge Sir George Cathcart , No . 61 J _( S . C . ) , by the Earl of Cathcart ... _Ji Masonic Bali at Liverpool 53 Annual Bail of the Hartismere Lodge , No . 166 . ? 52 Masonic Ball at Nottingham 52 Board of Benevolence 52 Christmas Social Party of the Blair Lodge , No . 81 $ , at the Hulme Town Hall ,
Manchester $ 3 Ball of the Royal Savoy Lodge , No . 1 744 S 3 Banquet of the Pattenmakers * Company ... 53 Annual Masonic Banquets 53 Masonic Testimonial to the Rev . \ Y . Whittley S 3 Obituary S 3 Masonic and General Tidings S _4 Lodge Meetings for Next Week 55
Ar00101
THE Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of _Scgtland provide that " No clothing- purporting to be Masonic shall be worn in Grand Lodge , or any subordinate lodge , except that appertaining to St . John ' s Masonry , which alone is recognised and acknowledged . " The fact itself is well known wherever Scottish Masonry is practised , as it and St . John ' s Masonry have
long been synonymous terms . Notwithstanding so clear and emphatic a statement , we read in the " Evening Herald , " New Zealand , November 20 th , 1885 , that at the annual installation of the R . W . M . of a lodge in that colony , under the Scottish Constitution , " Bro . was attired in the magnificent regalia of one of the higher branches of the Craft . "
* * * Now , whatever does such a paragraph mean ? Surely that the brother wore clothing contrary to the laws of his Grand Lodge ! We trust that the report is an erroneous one , and that the writer of the notice mistook Provincial Grand clothing for that of the " higher degrees " ( so called ) . We
shall be glad of an assurance from our friends in New Zealand that this view of the matter is the correct one , for if otherwise , a very grave question is opened up , as no one who is worthy to enjoy the privileges of the Craft would thus openly violate the laws of his Grand Lodge . Brethren , even in
this country , are much too apt to disobey the laws as respects jewels , the " Mark , " and others , being frequently worn in lodges , though contrary to the Constitutions . As respects clothing , we are not aware that ever the Regulations are violated , save as to the wearing of the Royal Arch collar and jewel by Provincial Officers , who clearly should not do so in Craft lodges .
* * * WE regret very much to announce the decease of Bro . ROBERT RAMSAY , M . D ., one of the most prominent , zealous , and enthusiastic Freemasons in Canada . His death was occasioned by a fall , in which he broke one of his legs , and subsequently developed heart disease . Dr . RAMSAY was a son of
the Rev . Canon RAMSAY , and was born in London ( England ) in 1 S 41 , his initiation dating from the year 1866 , his mother lodge being the " Tyrian , " Cleveland , Ohio . As Grand Representative of the Grand Lodges of Nebraska and Ohio , and as a frequent contributor to the Masonic journals in Canada and the United States , his name was familiar to all reading
Masons in America , and though he was unfavourable to the action of our Grand Lodge in relation to the Quebec difficulty we were always most ready and willing to acknowledge his zeal and conspicuous ability on behalf of our ancient and honourable Society . Only lately he was the recipient of the
decoration of a " Knight Commander of the Temple" from H . R _. H . the Prince of WALES , as Grand Master , and down to the time of his death was Secretary-General of the Rosicrucian Society , and the Swedenborgian Rite for Canada , as also connected with various other Masonic and pseudo-Masonic Bodies , in which he took a lively interest .
* * * Bro . the Hon . J . R . CLYMER , 32 ° , is a foeman worthy of one ' s pen . When clothed Masonically and in his right mind , he must be a very intelligent writer , while , as regards the courtesy with which he meets any antagonist he may have to encounter , he is an exemplar to be followed . It was not to
be expected that he would pass unnoticed our editorial of 19 th September last , in which we questioned the accuracy of certain statements made b y him in the course of his address at Bucyrus , Ohio , on the 24 th June preceding . His reply in the December number of the " Masonic Review " of Cincinnati , Ohio , is before us , and , though we may say at once that it is a
very effective illustration of the retort courteous , we cannot pay him the compliment of suggesting that it has strengthened his case materially . The more serious portion of his argument will be found in the concluding paragraphs of his very readable paper , and , dealing with his principal statements slightly "" out of the order in which he has placed them , we must take the liberty of pointing out , firstly , as regards his belief that LOCKE and
Ar00102
SHAKESPEARE were Masons , that the burden of proof in the case of every kind of allegation rests with those who make them , not with those who deny or oppose them . We have before now remarked that it is departing with a vengeance from the accepted course of argument when a person audaciously makes an assertion which it is not in his power to support by any
evidence worthy of being so designated , and , on the accuracy of his assertion keing challenged , calmly turns round and invites his challenger to prove him wrong . This is what Bro . CLYMER has done . He asserted in his
address at Bucyrus that J LOCKE and WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE , among others , were Freemasons . We rejoined that " a doubtful letter in the case of the former ; and a few Masonic expressions culled from the plays of the latter" were about all the evidence adducible in favour of his assertion . In
reply , Bro . CLYMER does not attempt to upset our statement ; he does not produce anything beyond the evidence we have allowed him ; but he maintains that "it is incumbent" upon us to " prove by evidence that J LOCKE and WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE were not Freemasons" —which 13 , of course , an impossibility . As regards SHAKESPEARE , he does adduce as
evidence that in an " old Masonic book , " which was published in New York in 1797 , four apparently-named SHAKESPEARE lodges were included in a "list of 'Foreign and Domestic Lodges . "' But even if all these four lodges had been named SHAKESPEARE—as a matter of fact only one was so named , the other three being respectively the St . Paul ' s Lodge , held at the
Shakespeare Tavern , Birmingham ; the Beaufort , held at the Shakespeare , Princes-street , Bristol ; and the St . Alban _' s Lodge , also held at the Shakespeare Tavern , Birmingham—that would not prove that SHAKESPEARE was a Mason any more than does the fact that there are two lodges now on our roll—the Duke of Edinburgh , No . 1182 , Liverpool , and the Duke of
Edinburgh , No . 1259 , London—named after the Duke of EDINBURGH prove that his Royal Highness is a Freemason , the truth being that he is the one son of our QUEEN who has not sought admission into our Society . As regards the Masonic song by J AMES BISSET of the above "St . Alban's Lodge , Birmingham , " it has a strong family likeness to Bro . CLYMER ' S
address—that is to say , it contains an assertion about SHAKESPEARE having been a Mason , but not a scrap of proof in support of it . However , it is no business of ours to prove Bro . CLYMER is wrong . All we can do—and that we do with infinite pleasure—is to counsel him to drop these two great men
from his list of Masonic worthies the next time he feels disposed to trot it out in public ; at all events , until he can bring forward something like respectable evidence in support of his assertion that they were members of our Fraternity .
• • • But the strong point in Bro . CLYMER ' S reply to our criticisms has reference to his list of the 5 i so-called English Grand Masters prior to 1717 , which he very kindly tells us was derived through the Voice of Masonry of Chicago , from our own columns , in which it appeared in the year 1870 ; and he
triumphantly invites us to acknowledge that such "tableau "—as he is pleased to call it— " was a literary forgery , first conceived , formulated , and published " by this journal , " to deceive a credulous and unsophisticated Masonic public . " We have looked into the Freemason for 1 S 70 , and there certainly is the list . It was no " literary forgery , first conceived ,
formulated , and published by us , however , but was sent by a correspondent , signing himself" PYTHAGORAS , " in answer to a request for such a list by another correspondent , " W . G . D ., " who appears to have attached s o little value to it that in a subsequent letter he enquires of " PYTHAGORUS " why he did not " place CAIN first on the list of Grand Masters , and call
him brother , seeing that he was the first on record who built a city , which he called Enoch ( Gen . iv ., 17 ) - " Our personal responsibility consists in having permitted " P YTHAGORAS " to satisfyjthe curiosity of "W . G _. D . " Had Bro . CLYMER turned to our volume for 1870 , he would not have committed the further capital error of ascribing to us the authorship of a list for
which not we , but one of our correspondents of that period , was responsible . This is another instance of the danger we refer to elsewhere of people adopting statements made by others without being at the pains of verifying them . As to our article of September last , it remains unaffected by Bro . CLYMER ' S reply . He has neither refuted our case nor advanced his own .
Try again , Bro . CLYMER , and may greater good fortune attend you ! We shall be delighted beyond expression if you can establish that " tableau " of English Grand Masters , and prove—what has never been proved as yet
—that LOCKE and SHAKESPEARE were both of them-Freemasons . Only when you return to the charge , as , doubtless , you will do in some future number of the " Masonic Review , " please avoid describing us as " venerable . " Commend , if it pleases you , our " vigorous Saxon , elegant Latinity ,
and kindly spirit ; " sympathise with us in " the deep sense of annoyance " which overcame us when we read your address at Bucyrus ; but do not
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Contents.
CONTENTS .
LEADERS 4 t Consecration o £ the Lodge o £ the Quatuor Coronati , No . 2076 42 Provincial Grand Lodge of Shropshire 43 CORRESPONDENCE" Hearty Good Wishes " 4 S An Appeal 4 ; Reviews 46
Notes and Queries 46 REPORTS OP MASONIC M EETINGSCraft Masonry 46 Instruction 50 Royal Arch 51 Mark Masonry 51 Knights Templar 51 Malta 51
Presentation to Lodge Sir George Cathcart , No . 61 J _( S . C . ) , by the Earl of Cathcart ... _Ji Masonic Bali at Liverpool 53 Annual Bail of the Hartismere Lodge , No . 166 . ? 52 Masonic Ball at Nottingham 52 Board of Benevolence 52 Christmas Social Party of the Blair Lodge , No . 81 $ , at the Hulme Town Hall ,
Manchester $ 3 Ball of the Royal Savoy Lodge , No . 1 744 S 3 Banquet of the Pattenmakers * Company ... 53 Annual Masonic Banquets 53 Masonic Testimonial to the Rev . \ Y . Whittley S 3 Obituary S 3 Masonic and General Tidings S _4 Lodge Meetings for Next Week 55
Ar00101
THE Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of _Scgtland provide that " No clothing- purporting to be Masonic shall be worn in Grand Lodge , or any subordinate lodge , except that appertaining to St . John ' s Masonry , which alone is recognised and acknowledged . " The fact itself is well known wherever Scottish Masonry is practised , as it and St . John ' s Masonry have
long been synonymous terms . Notwithstanding so clear and emphatic a statement , we read in the " Evening Herald , " New Zealand , November 20 th , 1885 , that at the annual installation of the R . W . M . of a lodge in that colony , under the Scottish Constitution , " Bro . was attired in the magnificent regalia of one of the higher branches of the Craft . "
* * * Now , whatever does such a paragraph mean ? Surely that the brother wore clothing contrary to the laws of his Grand Lodge ! We trust that the report is an erroneous one , and that the writer of the notice mistook Provincial Grand clothing for that of the " higher degrees " ( so called ) . We
shall be glad of an assurance from our friends in New Zealand that this view of the matter is the correct one , for if otherwise , a very grave question is opened up , as no one who is worthy to enjoy the privileges of the Craft would thus openly violate the laws of his Grand Lodge . Brethren , even in
this country , are much too apt to disobey the laws as respects jewels , the " Mark , " and others , being frequently worn in lodges , though contrary to the Constitutions . As respects clothing , we are not aware that ever the Regulations are violated , save as to the wearing of the Royal Arch collar and jewel by Provincial Officers , who clearly should not do so in Craft lodges .
* * * WE regret very much to announce the decease of Bro . ROBERT RAMSAY , M . D ., one of the most prominent , zealous , and enthusiastic Freemasons in Canada . His death was occasioned by a fall , in which he broke one of his legs , and subsequently developed heart disease . Dr . RAMSAY was a son of
the Rev . Canon RAMSAY , and was born in London ( England ) in 1 S 41 , his initiation dating from the year 1866 , his mother lodge being the " Tyrian , " Cleveland , Ohio . As Grand Representative of the Grand Lodges of Nebraska and Ohio , and as a frequent contributor to the Masonic journals in Canada and the United States , his name was familiar to all reading
Masons in America , and though he was unfavourable to the action of our Grand Lodge in relation to the Quebec difficulty we were always most ready and willing to acknowledge his zeal and conspicuous ability on behalf of our ancient and honourable Society . Only lately he was the recipient of the
decoration of a " Knight Commander of the Temple" from H . R _. H . the Prince of WALES , as Grand Master , and down to the time of his death was Secretary-General of the Rosicrucian Society , and the Swedenborgian Rite for Canada , as also connected with various other Masonic and pseudo-Masonic Bodies , in which he took a lively interest .
* * * Bro . the Hon . J . R . CLYMER , 32 ° , is a foeman worthy of one ' s pen . When clothed Masonically and in his right mind , he must be a very intelligent writer , while , as regards the courtesy with which he meets any antagonist he may have to encounter , he is an exemplar to be followed . It was not to
be expected that he would pass unnoticed our editorial of 19 th September last , in which we questioned the accuracy of certain statements made b y him in the course of his address at Bucyrus , Ohio , on the 24 th June preceding . His reply in the December number of the " Masonic Review " of Cincinnati , Ohio , is before us , and , though we may say at once that it is a
very effective illustration of the retort courteous , we cannot pay him the compliment of suggesting that it has strengthened his case materially . The more serious portion of his argument will be found in the concluding paragraphs of his very readable paper , and , dealing with his principal statements slightly "" out of the order in which he has placed them , we must take the liberty of pointing out , firstly , as regards his belief that LOCKE and
Ar00102
SHAKESPEARE were Masons , that the burden of proof in the case of every kind of allegation rests with those who make them , not with those who deny or oppose them . We have before now remarked that it is departing with a vengeance from the accepted course of argument when a person audaciously makes an assertion which it is not in his power to support by any
evidence worthy of being so designated , and , on the accuracy of his assertion keing challenged , calmly turns round and invites his challenger to prove him wrong . This is what Bro . CLYMER has done . He asserted in his
address at Bucyrus that J LOCKE and WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE , among others , were Freemasons . We rejoined that " a doubtful letter in the case of the former ; and a few Masonic expressions culled from the plays of the latter" were about all the evidence adducible in favour of his assertion . In
reply , Bro . CLYMER does not attempt to upset our statement ; he does not produce anything beyond the evidence we have allowed him ; but he maintains that "it is incumbent" upon us to " prove by evidence that J LOCKE and WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE were not Freemasons" —which 13 , of course , an impossibility . As regards SHAKESPEARE , he does adduce as
evidence that in an " old Masonic book , " which was published in New York in 1797 , four apparently-named SHAKESPEARE lodges were included in a "list of 'Foreign and Domestic Lodges . "' But even if all these four lodges had been named SHAKESPEARE—as a matter of fact only one was so named , the other three being respectively the St . Paul ' s Lodge , held at the
Shakespeare Tavern , Birmingham ; the Beaufort , held at the Shakespeare , Princes-street , Bristol ; and the St . Alban _' s Lodge , also held at the Shakespeare Tavern , Birmingham—that would not prove that SHAKESPEARE was a Mason any more than does the fact that there are two lodges now on our roll—the Duke of Edinburgh , No . 1182 , Liverpool , and the Duke of
Edinburgh , No . 1259 , London—named after the Duke of EDINBURGH prove that his Royal Highness is a Freemason , the truth being that he is the one son of our QUEEN who has not sought admission into our Society . As regards the Masonic song by J AMES BISSET of the above "St . Alban's Lodge , Birmingham , " it has a strong family likeness to Bro . CLYMER ' S
address—that is to say , it contains an assertion about SHAKESPEARE having been a Mason , but not a scrap of proof in support of it . However , it is no business of ours to prove Bro . CLYMER is wrong . All we can do—and that we do with infinite pleasure—is to counsel him to drop these two great men
from his list of Masonic worthies the next time he feels disposed to trot it out in public ; at all events , until he can bring forward something like respectable evidence in support of his assertion that they were members of our Fraternity .
• • • But the strong point in Bro . CLYMER ' S reply to our criticisms has reference to his list of the 5 i so-called English Grand Masters prior to 1717 , which he very kindly tells us was derived through the Voice of Masonry of Chicago , from our own columns , in which it appeared in the year 1870 ; and he
triumphantly invites us to acknowledge that such "tableau "—as he is pleased to call it— " was a literary forgery , first conceived , formulated , and published " by this journal , " to deceive a credulous and unsophisticated Masonic public . " We have looked into the Freemason for 1 S 70 , and there certainly is the list . It was no " literary forgery , first conceived ,
formulated , and published by us , however , but was sent by a correspondent , signing himself" PYTHAGORAS , " in answer to a request for such a list by another correspondent , " W . G . D ., " who appears to have attached s o little value to it that in a subsequent letter he enquires of " PYTHAGORUS " why he did not " place CAIN first on the list of Grand Masters , and call
him brother , seeing that he was the first on record who built a city , which he called Enoch ( Gen . iv ., 17 ) - " Our personal responsibility consists in having permitted " P YTHAGORAS " to satisfyjthe curiosity of "W . G _. D . " Had Bro . CLYMER turned to our volume for 1870 , he would not have committed the further capital error of ascribing to us the authorship of a list for
which not we , but one of our correspondents of that period , was responsible . This is another instance of the danger we refer to elsewhere of people adopting statements made by others without being at the pains of verifying them . As to our article of September last , it remains unaffected by Bro . CLYMER ' S reply . He has neither refuted our case nor advanced his own .
Try again , Bro . CLYMER , and may greater good fortune attend you ! We shall be delighted beyond expression if you can establish that " tableau " of English Grand Masters , and prove—what has never been proved as yet
—that LOCKE and SHAKESPEARE were both of them-Freemasons . Only when you return to the charge , as , doubtless , you will do in some future number of the " Masonic Review , " please avoid describing us as " venerable . " Commend , if it pleases you , our " vigorous Saxon , elegant Latinity ,
and kindly spirit ; " sympathise with us in " the deep sense of annoyance " which overcame us when we read your address at Bucyrus ; but do not