Prejudices.

towards one of their fellows , for a particular line of conduct , the observance of certain customs , the adoption of certain theories , or the use of certain things . Among the latter are numbered class or caste prejudices , as well as national , political , social , and religious prejudices . As regards the

former , they are , as we have said , for the most part innocuous . We are prejudiced , for instance , against a person whom we know but slightly or not at all , because he is taciturn or loquacious , reserved or forward , or , in short , for any one or more of an infinite variety of reasons . But

accident brings us into closer acquaintance with him , and we find that his taciturnity is merely a natural and very proper reserve ; his reserve , a native modesty , which forbids him to be over curious about other people , or what concerns them ; or his forwardness merely a kindly readiness

io help whenever and whomsoever he can . These prejudices , we say , are comparatively harmless , easily overcome by closer intercourse , or even if they are permitted to remain , the effect is trivial . It is the other class of prejudice which is so offensive and so difficult to deal with . These are

scrupulously observed by some , by some even religiously worshipped , nor will any amount of sense , common or uncommon , avail to overcome them . Of course , those we exhibit towards others are perfectly orthodox , while those are

heterodox which others exhibit towards us . We cling like grim death to the former ; no condemnation is strong enough for the latter . Occasionally , when others prove loyal to the prejudices they have inherited or formed , we leaven our condemnation of their conduct with a certain amount of

cynical good nature . We call them deluded beings , more or less wilful , whom a little of our own enlightenment will soon undeceive . But should they be bold enough to regard or describe us as deluded , we at once reject the imputation with the most intense scorn . But to consider more minutely

sundry of these more dangerous prejudices . Nations , both in ancient and modern times , have often regarded each other with the bitterest prejudices . No allowance is made for any differences of habit or of sentiment such as may be naturally engendered by differences of nationality . Thus , for ages , and

indeed till quite recently , allbut afew enlightened Englishmen looked upon all Frenchmen as their natural foes , and Frenchmen were not behindhand in returning the compliment . Had not Kings of England carried fire and sword through some of the finest provinces of France ? Did they not owe their

glory to the victories they had won over French armies ? Did we not hold Calais for over two centuries , and whenever a war prevailed in Europe in which France seemed disposed to take part , was it not our bounden duty as a nation to take the opposite side , the merits of the quarrel

which had induced the war being a matter of secondary consideration altogether ? We are wiser in this generation than we were formerly . We fully believe it possible for England and France to co-exist without jealousy of each other ' s fame and influence . We find we can march

together along the path of civilization ; that , while one country may possess certain admirable qualities , the other also possesses certain other qualities equally admirable of their kind , we recognise that both nations have the good of

humanity ever before them , though the means which each employs in promoting that good may vary considerably . But it has taken us centuries to arrive at this knowledge , and it is sad to think how much blood and treasure has been

expended ere the conviction dawned upon both that a hearty co-operation of the two peoples was more desirable than a constant antagonism , the result of mutual distrust and prejudice . Then there is the prejudice of caste , exemplified

often in the course of our history . Many generations passed away before the Norman and the Saxon , the conqueror and the conquered became one people . The former despised and the latter hated the other . It was , of course , natural that at the outset the former should do their utmost to

secure their conquest , and that the latter should eagerly seize eveiy opportunity of throwing off the yolk . But it was not till long after the Norman Henry I . had set his subjects an excellent example , by marrying a Saxon Princess ,

that the two races found they could live together in peace and harmony ; that each possessed many eminent qualities , and that together they would form a strong and powerful people , able to hold their own against even excessive odds . The Cedric the Saxon and Front de Boeufof Sir Walter Scott

are but typical of the caste feeling which long prevailed under the Norman and earlier Plantagenet sovereigns of England . Class jealousies are similarly strong , and equally difficult to allay . It may almost be said , indeed , that these rarely , if eyer , die out . The aristocrat—in the common , not

Prejudices.

in the refined and proper sense of the word—looks down upon the hoipolloi—the latter hate , if they do not fear the former . There is no sort of sympathy between the two , and unhappily less now than formerly . We are not speaking of the true aristocrat , the man of patrician birth and of exalted mind ,

who would forfeit his life ere he would be guilty of any petty vulgar act , or entertain any petty vulgar thought . Nor have we in our mind the patrician by nature , who , though ignoble by birth , possesses a mind of the very highest order . We refer , rather , to the ' parvenu , the mushroom aristocrat , the man who

is patrician in name perhaps , yet exhibits none of those grand and noble qualities we naturally associate with men in high places . Numerous instances of such have we before us , of men who have thought themselves greater , the more they affected a lofty contempt for their inferiors in position .

It is these who perpetuate class prejudices , who widen more and more the gulf that separates the more fortunately from the less fortunately placed , and whose wilful perversity not seldom leads to a temporary subversion of the political and social status quo . Then there is political , or , as

we more commonly call it , party prejudice . Conservatives and Radicals , the Right and the Left , alike believe that nothing good can emanate from their opponents . A conservative must be inherently bad in the eyes of a radical ; the right can do good in the eyes of the left . But all

measures are not wholly bad , as all men are not wholly despicable . The impartial , the unprejudiced man recognises this ; the prejudiced ignore it . Hence , oftentimes , the course of politics is as proverbially unsmooth as the course of true love , and , worse still , there is no renewal of

the old ties which bound men together in the earlier times ere party politics were heard of . Men serve their party as the rank and file of an army serve their general , with an abject obedience to all his commands , and with a genuine hostility to the foe . This unreasoning obedience to the

general , this stern hostility to the foe , are admirable qualities in the subordinate soldier , but in the party-man obedience is desirable , and hostile feeling towards the opposite party is uncalled for . We may differ in politics without hating each other . But the worst of all prejudices ,

infinitely more terrible in their consequences than all the national , political and social prejudices that have ever been exhibited are those originating in differences of religious faith . All religions lay it down that men shall love each other , shall do their best to promote the common

good . But difference of creed , whether it be as wide as that which distinguishes Buddhism from Christianity , or merely sectarianism , invariably results in the most intense hatred . That others may be influenced by consciencious motives seems incredible to the followers of this or that

creed , the members of this or that sect . The most terrible wars , whether internal or external , the most violent animosities , and those attended with the most fearful consequences , have been the outcome of religious prejudices . In France , the wars of the League and the Massacre of St .

Bartholomew s , m Germany the terrible Thirty Years ' War , in the Netherlands the wars of Independence induced by Philip II . ' s bigoted attachment to the Inquisition , at home the Smithfield Burnings , the Gunpowder Plot , the so-called Popish Plot in Charles II . ' s reign , and the Gordon

Riots , all these owed their origin to violent religions par . tiality for a particular form of Christian worship . At the present moment the Pope himself , the head of Roman Catholicism , is illustrating his extreme bigotry by his condemnation of Freemasonry , on the ground that it

recognises all religious faiths . It is prejudiced in favour of no one creed , but leaves it to men to adopt that which they deem most worthy of belief . The section of the Roman Catholic Church to which the Pope belongs denies to men their inherent right to honestly worship God

according to the dictates of their own conscience . We need not of course dwell upon this question , which has already attracted so much attention both here and abroad . It shows , however , into what extremes prejudice will lead men who , in all other respects , are bent only on the most consciencious performance of their duties .

The point to which the foregoing remarks tend will probably have suggested itself long since to the minds of our readers . It is the special aim of Freemasonry to overcome prejudice of every degree and kind , as far as

possible . Men of diverse views , both religious and political , meet together in the same Lodge . All political and religious discussions are strictly forbidden , yet Masons are enjoined to be political so far as obedience to the laws of the country in 'which they live is essential to the welfare of