Masonic Equality.

vain , and unmeaning conversation , coarse jokes , and slang expressions , are as reprehensible as gluttony and drunkenness . A drunken man seldom knows or cares what he talks about , but a sober man does ; he cannot plead this failing in extenuation ofhis conduct , and ought , therefore , to

be careful and circumspect in his discourse : profit as Avell as pleasure should be the Mason's object , equally in the refreshment-room as in the lodge . The social virtues which are inculcated in the one should be practised in the other . —Masonic Record of Western India .

M. Michel Chevalier And English Art.

M . MICHEL CHEVALIER AND ENGLISH ART .

If it be difficult sometimes to come to a correct judgment on a subject by reason of its distance , it is equally hard at times to do so by reason of our closeness to it . We are unable to see the definite outline of an object very far off , and equally unable to take in the same outline

from the fact of standing so near to it that we can see but a part of it , thus missing as much of the truth of things by nearness and intimate knoAVledge as hy remoteness and ignorance . The truth of this will be evident to any one Avho has ever tried to estimate the value of the

common ancl every-day art about him , by Avatching the g-roAvth of new buildings close to him , —by noticing the perpetual change of fashion , aud the ever-changing art of the time , as seen , aud to be seen only , iu the contents of the shop windoAvs . We are so near them that they seem all

unchangeable . What avast help , therefore , it is , and must be , when some one of sufficient capacity ancl knowledge looks at all these things for us from a distance , and who then tells us in plain and pointed language how these same things , that seem so ancl so to us that are near , appear to

him at a favourable distance and entirely unprejudiced . We must , therefore , as I think , all feel much obliged to M . Michel Chevalier , the great French economist , for looking , in a kindly way , at English art as it was and is , and comparing it with his own French art . I do not know what

others may have thought of his remarks in the French Chambers , ancl Avhich have now gone the round of the newspapers ; but I think , Avith all possible respect , that they are as erroneous and void of foundation as anything ever yet uttered on art matters ; and it is to dispute their

correctness—no one having , as far as I have seen , yet done so—that I jjlead for space for a few lines on so very important a matter . I must ask again for a little attention to facts , and of those with short memories for form and pattern , to go once or twice up ancl clown any one of our principal shop

streets and look into the windows for evidence . Bond-street is always enough for me . M . Chevalier tells us that it is UOAV three Avhole years since he Avas in London ; but that then

( 1862 ) , both himself and his colleagues were struck at the progress made by us English " in the art of design in connection Avith industry , " and it inspired them with admiration and fear , — admiration at our English capabilities , and fear lest his own countrymen might be outdone . Let

me observe here , in passing-, so as to avoid mistakes , that he is speaking of the evidences of artstrength as seen in the 1862 Exhibition ; but that it is necessary to bear perpetually in mind that there was nothing more in the building—nor , indeed , is there ever in any of our

exhibitionsthan is to be seen every day out of them , they having been nothing more than 'pickings from the principal shop Avindows . The " exhibition" is , therefore , still open to those AVIIO will fairly look at it . What Avas it , then , that so struck the accomplished mind of this Frenchman ?—the

progress in art-manufacture made during the eleven years from 1851 , the year of the first Exhibition , to 1862 , the year of the second Exhibition ? I must beg simply aud shortly to ask him—where ? What evidence is there of such advance , and where may specimens be seen showing in themselves , in any kind of material , visible and tangible signs even of it ? What was it that M . Chevalier was

specially or generally looking at ? Was it the building ? outside or inside , or the decoration of it ? Was it in stone , or wood , or metal , furniture or " fabrics , " printed cottons or carpets , or paperhangings , or architectural drawings ? What , I must ask , was it ? and more , where are all the

specimens IIOAV ? If this wonderful progress was so clear then , it must UOAV be still clearer . If these wonders had an existence , they must be still in being , and visible somewhere or other . They are visible , and all may yet see them , viz ., in the shop windows—those true and unmistakeable

" thermometers " of the arts of nations . I ask therefore again , what proof is there at this moment , in the contents of these shop windows , of advance in the arts of design ancl execution made from' 51 to this hour ? Can M . Chevalier point to one single specimen ? I say he cannot ; and even

more , that no such little group of art-objects could , bo got together as a series of mental art-results and impressions of the mind of an artist in material as AVUS to be seen in that little court of Gothic work of Pugin ' s . We may therefore ask yet ao-ain , Avhat style of art is it that has been or

is progressing ? M . Chevalier is in Paris , we in London , and he can see without prejudice what it is , perhaps , here viewed Avith patriotic partiality . Looking at tangible results to be daily seen everywhere , I deny the truth of all this Frenchman has told his countrymen and us .

1 know tho interest you have always taken in these common though little heeded art matters , but I can only ask you for space to notice in detail one or two actual specimens of art manufacture UOAV to be seen , without cost , in the great London exhibition of this year i —the shop windows . I refer to the most costly . Mr . Euskin has asked somewhere , —" "What i