THE ORANGE GRAND LODGE

New Zealand Tablet, 10 May 1917, Page 41

THE ORANGE GRAND LODGE

In a laudable endeavor to introduce a little gaiety to dispel the gloom of these depressing times, a recent welcome visitor, Mr. F. Kenneth McDouall, wrote recently in a vein of polished satire on the above subject. The rev. advocate of the saffron-sashed brotherhood, in childlike innocence, assumed Mr. McDouall’s remarks to be a compliment, and a vindication of the Christian ’ attitude adopted by the brethren of the Order. Hence the following in the Dunedin Evening Star of May 2 : ‘ iSir,The Rev. Howard Elliott’s calm assumption of those great Christian works of charity credited to the Orange Order really leaves nothing more to be said, for evidently on the premises we are agreed. But it cannot be too strongly advertised that, though the “Romans” take credit, and pardonably so, for their practical charitable institutions and work amidst the poor, sick, and abandoned, the L.O.L. likewise put into practical effect that zeal for Christ’s cause, which is openly manifest once or twice a year. As for myself, none could have greater admiration for such as feed the hungry, visit the sick, harbor the harborless, etc., and even if they do it vicariously. ‘ Mr Elliott still claims that we owe to William certain blessings, and because I sought to correct him, accuses me of having read “Cobbett.” I have certainly done so, but Hume, Ilallam, Macaulay, and Green are better authors. Whatever Mr. Elliott may think of “Cobbett,” the Scotch and English Nonconformists thought him a good author, for at least he exposed the materialistic genesis of the establishment. ‘ Again, William had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. It was an Act which secured him succession and confirmation. To give one glory for nothing may be satisfying, but there is too much of “spread-eaglism” about it. Gairdner, a better authority than any past historian, gives William full credit for Glencoe, and it is very evident that there were many bloodthirsty and traitorous Scots as well as Irish, for William’s German mercenaries slew and devastated in approved Hun style all over Scotland. Yet the 'Scots were not Romanists. ‘ William’s memorable opinion that “his authority would never be the tool of irregular passions of any party,” was no doubt voicing his own personal idea, and all the more credit to him for this; but—and there is a big but—his Ministers and commanders had exactly the opposite intention. Ho was powerless, for the Bills beloved of your correspondent had, whilst getting him upon the throne, clipped his power and “limited his,monarchy.” It is quite true, as unwittingly stated by Mr. Howard Elliott, that we want another William to settle the Home Rule matter. Though shorn somewhat of its former dignities and prerogatives, the power of the throne was rigidly upheld and insisted upon by him of pious memory; but he never tolerated anything akin to an opposition of law and order. A few hundred Hessians or Brunswickers would have settled the Covenanters, for even from such pious and loyal subjects as they William would not have tolerated a decimal fraction of what the Home Government have. When Mr. Elliott shall have turned to Christ the thousands of unconverted Christians in New Zealand, filled his own and other churches, and completed the organisation of the many, many works of practical charity so sadly needed, let him start on the Pope and the Romans. The founding and maintenance of, say, two orphanages, one children’s hospital, one Magdalen re-' treat, and finally one home for aged poor or destitute will keep himself and the grand old Order going till the millennium. He will then be really proud of the perpetuation of the pious, glorious, and immortal memory of William of Orange, if instead of useless conferences and words he can point to an Orange exemplification of “I was hungry and ye gave me to eat; I was naked and yo clothed me.”.—T am," etc., ‘F. Kenneth McDonald. ‘April 27.’ .