THE PRINCE OF WALES IN A NEW CHARACTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 1244, 2 October 1875, Page 4

THE PRINCE OF WALES IN A NEW CHARACTER.

By a Cynic.

We are not aware that we have any feeling against Freemasonry any more than we are aware that we have any feeling in its favour. To use a very much hackneyed phrase, " This is a free country." That is to say, that our constitution and institutions being founded upon the solid basis of freedom of opinion and liberty to the subject to do what he pleases, provided he does not thereby trench upon the liberty of any other subject, it follows that any number of gentlemen who choose to form themselves into a select society, with passwords and peculiar clothing aad a ritual, are perfectly at liberty to do so. We have, for instance, a sort of secret society called the Oddfellows. We have another called the Foresters. Then, again, there are the Ancient Druids, and the Buzwings, and Buffaloes, and twenty or thirty other bodies, who make a common boad of fellowship out of some secret sign or other, or out of a series of secret signs which are known only to themselves. In the same way, Freemasonry appeals to the common mind as being- a, society which holds out certain advantages to those of its brotherhood. Probably, it is at the present moment by far the largest, speaking numerically, of any of our secret societies To begin with, it is somewhat older than the others. In the second place, it has attracted a somewhat higher caste to its ranks. In saying this, we are not for one moment dreamiDg of giving it the antiquity it claims, nor are we saying that, because it has had the advantage of attracting a higher ciste, it is therefore a better institution than Oddfellowship or Druidism. A Mason seems to have an idea not only that his craft was a distinct organisation in the daya when Solomau built the temple, but that the constitution of the craft was as divinely ordained as was the law of Moses. As a matter of fact, however, one happens to know from history that no such organisation was known to exist in the time of King Solomon, or for many hundreds of years thereafter. Putting aside oral tradition, which is worth nothing where there is an alleged lapse in historical continuity, Freemasonry cannot be traced back in this country to an existence of even two centuries. Thi3 being so, we must really look upon it as a product of the comparatively modern mind, aud so deal with it. There is nothing sacred about Freemasonrj r . It is to all intents and "purposes a very large mutual admiration society, which keeps itself together by periodical meetings, at which it indulges in forms and ceremonies which all the initiated think very solemn, but which they are caieful not to exhibit to the general public, lest they should be laughed at. In view of Wednesday's elaborate proceedings in London, the first thing an ordinary Englishman asks himself is, why 'shoald the Prince of Wales, as heir to the throne of these realms, place himself at the head of such an organisation ? In the second place, if in the kindliness of his heart he desired to flatter a number of enthusiasts belonging to an association neither worthy eneugh to be

recognised by the law, nor unworthy enough to be condemned by it, why should the event be made the occasion of a great public ceremony? The kingly office should have about it too many of the elements of sound and solid sulsSantiality to allow it to stoop to this apotheosis of gewgaws and nonsensicality. Let Freemasons pursue their own courses in their own way. Let thorn put on their little aprons and their scarfs, and what they are pleased to call their jewels. Let them tile their lvdge?, with the assistance of the head waiter at the hotel where they meet, with a rusty drawn sword in his hand, which he dare not, by the laws of his country, stick into anybody, whether Mason or not, who is determined on admission to the lodge. Let them, by blindfolding and taking off slippers aud baring the leg aud taking away the metal from any neophyte, frighten him into any state of mind they please. Let them have their different degrees, and their different offices, and their variety of lodges — their grips, and their signs, and their passwords. Otic thinks no more of these little perfoim. ances than one does of the innocent amusements of one's children when they play at church, or draw soldiers, or indulge in the mystic intricacies of the charade. All one does feel is that it is a little degrading to the oldest and the greatest of European monarchies to see its next heir joining in these elaborate orgies. One asks why, if he wished to be a Mason, he could not have quietly joined a Lodge and played by himself at the ritual he so much affects j why should he commit the nation to the doings of such a society? It is a secret society. Not that we think for a moment that any secret it has is worth knowing. Still, for all that, the Prince, by the act which ho performed on Wednesday, cuts himself completely adrift from all those of his future subjects who are not Masons, by identifying himself with that which is, after all, but; a narrow and exclusive sect of his fellow-countrymen. We shall be told— we know it well— that Masonry is citbolic, universal, cosmopolitan —that it includes in its wide area the Hindoo, the Parsee, the Buddhist, the Mahotnmedan, the Jew, and almost every variety of Christian. It does not folio .v, therefrom, that it is not a narrow sect. Its centre, so far as there is anything religious in the craft, is ot necessity pure Deism. Nobody vho cannot conceive of reaching the Supreme Being except through a mediator can be a MasoD. Many Christiana, we know, belong to the society ; but there are millions who do not belong to it. The Roman Cath< lie Church, for instance, would excommunicate a Freemason to-morrow un less he renounced. Then, again, is there noi something terribly narrow in Freemasonry as viewed from this stand-point ? Those who belong to the order believe that it is an order calculated to be very beneficial to the world at large. A bad man becoming a Mason is not quite so bad as he was before. A good man is better than he was before. This being so, is it not a little strange that Masons, like other teachers of morals, do not preach out their doctrines in the broad daylight ? If their objeot be to conceal the good tidings which they have to proclaim, what shall we say of their usefulness ? If they are really as good as they pretend to be, and have as much opportunity of doing good aB they say they have, way should they seek concealment? In their own interests they might let secresy fly to the winds. Here we are, they say, the best organisation in the world. What should be the language of such an organisation? Should it be, "We will tell you nothing o£ our scheme until you have joined us irrevo« cably ?" Or should it be to throw open the whole matter, and say, "We no longer ask ymi to open your mouth aud shut your eyes, and see what may be sent you ; your business now is to judge for yourself?" In other words, it seems to us that a society arrogating to itself so large a share of the guidance of morals ought to be as open as the day in its transactions with its fellowmen. It should conceal nothing. And we venture to say that if it did so it might thrive a great deal better. Another objection we have is that Masonry, notwithstanding its gifts to chavity, is by no means an institution which is beneficial in the long run. Except in few instances, it has no benefit societies among its lodges. All that is done in helping a lame dog over the stile is to make a "whip" for a few eleemosynary halfcrowns. Why, precisely the same thing is done in almost every office in the kingdom. What is wanted is not the furtive "whip", or the forced contribution. .If there be any good in these societies at all it c .nsists in each member paying his contributon to a fund upon which, in sickness, he c m demand, on business principles, a certain percentage on the amount' of his subscriptions. We could understand a Prince of Wales encouraging the prudence of the people by taking the chairmanship of any association which promoted the ends we have referred to. We cannot understand so great a national — and, indeed, international—dignitary stooping to become the supreme head of a number of people who meet in secret, wearing parti-coleured aprons and other things of the kind, and whose only duty it seems to be in life ia to follow a number of childish traditions, to dine together in the way of taking what they are pfeased to call refieshment after labour, and to uphold a system of charity which cannot but be destructive to the independence of its recipients as well as of the common sense and sound British fibre of its donors.— Liverpool Albion.