Masonic Red Cross Order.

tion from the true issue , in a laboured and factitious argument , discusses the legality of the sale of the orig inal Order to the Duke of Parma , and in support of his false premises , appeals to the social respectability of the late W . R . Wright ,

who , does not however fit the occasion , and to the circumstance , that the late Duke of Sussex wore on certain occasions , a suggestive red cross decoration of similar design . " The English branch Avhose existence I have noiv traced back

for nearly 110 years , approximating the period of the Abbe Giustiniani's decease in 1735 , " continues the same writer . But in truth , no such success has attended the effort , and tho authoritative reference to irrelevant matter , tends only to

multiply the tortuosities of the imposture , and to betray design , AA'here Ave had hoped only to find the unremunerative labours of " strenuous idleness . "

Still persistent in the evident belief , that the sources of historical truth are sealed to the outer world , the same writer proceeds to say , under the conveniently supplied patronage of a noble name , that in Scotland , were permitted "Encampments

or Chapters of . . . Knights of the Red Cross of Constantine / ' and he adds , " I hope that enough has been said to demonstrate , that the reorganised Grand Council of England , now held under Lord Kenlis , Avas not the first to introduce

the Masonic element into the ceremonies of the Red Cross Order . " The reader cannot fail to observe the transposition of facts , and the chronological inversion , in the last sentence ; and it is Avell to bear in mind

the assertion that Lord K . was " not the first to introduce the Masonic element , " with the statement made by the author of the Avork alread y quoted * that it is impossible to say " Avhen the Order Avas restricted to Freemasons . "

In combating these fallacies , another correspondent ! starts with the proposition , that the Order of Constantine has " never had any connection tvhatever with . Masonry . " But he subsequently falls into the error of ascribing the Grand

Mastership of that Order to the present King of Italy ; yet farther on , he successfully rejects the fallacy of supposing that the Abbe Giustiniani ( Ante 1735 ) ever , as asserted by "R . W . L . " conferred the public Order of Constantine on any Freemasons , far less with the power to perpetuate

it , the effect of which Avould evidently have been to destroy ultimately the Order , like a circle in the Avater , by its OAVU expansion . But such inconsiderate statements must be expected , unless there be a very considerable amount of talent to

anticipate and provide for the objections , Avhich must necessarily arise , where the deception attempted , involves political and historical questions of fact .

" R . W . L . * UOAV snatches at the mention of Victor Emmanuel , and begins apparently to shift from his original position , and to misquote "Lupus's" clear meaning , by substituting the name " Constantine , " for " Red Cross " and " Chivalric . "

He then mentions the scheme of a member of the Order in question , for a coalition Avith the King of Naples , and to " eliminate all Masonic allusions from the ceremonies . " Thus the tale of the Order , under Avhich the King

of Naples inherited the quasi Grandmastership , is UOAV acknowledged to have been legal , although at p . 27 of the Statutes , it is declared to have been " pretended , " and R . W . L . had endorsed the same dictum in an earlier letterf In reply to a prior remark by "Lupus"J Avho stated his conviction that there was " no evidence

whatever , that there is anything else than a Masonic element , nor a shadoAV of proof that there ever Avas an institution in this country of the original Order of Constantine , H . J . W . § in defence of the obnoxious "Statutes" promulgated in 1 S 68 ,

makes the extraordinary admission . " On ordinary chivalric grounds Ave say nothing of . . . the Red Cross of Rome and Constantine or the Kni ghts of the Temple , because neither , we believe , can prove their regular and unbroken succession from

the original orders . All we knoAv is , that for upAvards of a century these degrees have been worked under the Aving of Freemasonry ; but as to Avhen the union occurred , or hoAv it was consumated Ave are at a loss either to prove or

imagine . " The Knights of the Red Cross " seem to have flourished both as an Order of Knighthood and as a Masonic degree , at one and the same time . " But here again comes the confusion of ideas as the writer adds , " Hence the members of

the Red Cross of Constantine can say that their Order is not only Masonic , as Avith the Anglican branch , but also Chivalric , so much as even to