Centrepiece

Message to the masons

Colin Welch

A midst much other wisdom, Sir Ken-

neth Newman has advised his Metro- politan policemen, in very moderate and balanced terms, not to join the free- masons. His 64-page guide to police con- duct and ethics describes the masons as one organisation which gives rise to appre- hension; others include peace move- ments which sometimes fall foul of the law. `An officer who is a Freemason may take great care to ensure that membership does not influence him in the exercise of his police powers,' the guide goes on. But he may find it impossible to convince the pub- lic or non-masonic colleagues that 'this is always so'.

The guide refers to the 'marked exclusiv- ity of the institution and the mystery which surrounds the methods by which a person is judged by Freemasons to be suitable for membership.' The masons' solemn oath never to reveal the secrets of the craft also militates against acceptance of a mason as one on 'whose fairness it is possible to rely always and unquestioningly'.

How many masons are there in the Met? No one knows. Serving officers have never been asked; nor will they be; nor will new recruits. If they were asked, they might not say: masonic rules forbid disclosure, though one would never think so. In this country many or most top masons have `come out'. According to T. L. Sandrock, the Daily Telegraph's experienced crime correspondent, the number of masons in the Met is 'substantial, particularly in the CID'. A police inquiry has reported on allegations that investigations into council corruption in Islington and the career of a non-masonic officer were improperly affected by masonry. It apparently found the allegations unwarranted, but not to the satisfaction of the non-masonic officer.

Perfectly sensible as Sir Kenneth's views and actions seem to me, they may land him in embarrassment. The far Left for its own dark purposes is mud-gunning the masons, while so respected a commentator as Mr Bernard Levin has leapt to their defence.

Awkward. (What a fine idea it was, incidentally, of Mr Levin's that Germans active in the July Plot against Hitler, or their descendants, should be invited to our VE Day commemoration! It is not too late to do so. Whenever we wonder how we would have behaved under Hitler, the example of these heroes and heroines should inspire or shame us.) The left-wing borough councils of Lewisham, Islington and Brent have launched inquisitions against councillors who are masons, pre- sumably under the impression that most masons are Tories or vice versa. Nec tali auxilio, Sir Kenneth may murmur, nec defensoribus istis: not with such allies, who take an unfriendly interest in masonry but not in other societies, more or less secret and far more malign, to which some of them may themselves belong.

Their selective curiosity was twice memorably denounced in the Times last year by Mr Levin. He characterised it as 'a sinister and repulsive campaign of attacks on, and discrimination against, British Freemasons . . . in many ways identical to the older and more familiar poison of anti-Semitism.' He further excoriated `tittle-tattle . . . dressed up as fact, gener- alised accusations . . . made against a whole category of people', and lurid tales of 'abominable and even criminal rituals and practices' and of 'the all-powerful influence' exerted almost everywhere by the conspiracy's clandestine agents in high places.

The percipient may think they have spotted a flaw here. Dislike or mistrust of masons may be identical with anti- Semitism 'in many ways', but conspicuous- ly not in one. Jews — I mean of course Jews by race — can't help being Jews while masons don't have to be masons. The Jews are chosen by God, the masons by them- selves and other masons. Several Times readers wrote to Mr Levin along these lines. Mr Levin was furious. He sharply revised downwards his assumptions about the intelligence of his readers. Into the heads of these `dolts' (his harsh word), he strove to insert the following point: that 'a Mason (or a Jew or a Roman Catholic or a one-legged boot-fetishist with severe dan- druff) is entitled to pursue his interests as a member of such a group in a free society without penalty . . . unless and until he does wrong' (his italics). I would go along with this, but only if the words 'without penalty' are deleted or if the limiting word `legal' is inserted between them.

Just as there is no law without penalty, so there is no human life or action without it either. How can we prevent our beliefs and actions from incurring penalties, praise

or censure, favour or disfavour? Secrecy presumably confers advantages.; how can

these be secured and enjoyed without the concomitant disadvantages? Secrecy by its nature will always lack friends outside the secret circle: how can others defend what is hidden from them? Secrecy cannot appeal with confidence for help and understand- ing from outside. It may deserve theni; it won't get them. It must therefore be self-reliant, able to look after itself. It must endure with patience tittle-tattle, smears and slanders. Secrecy begets tittle-tattle. The message of 'a free society' to masons (and the like) is perhaps, with respect, this: be what you please and take the consequ- ences; some will like you more for being a mason, others less; some roads may be opened and made smooth for you, others will be made difficult or barred by the prejudice and mistrust of non-masons; you will qualify yourself for some preferments, disqualify yourself from others. And, be- fore moaning about the disqualifications, do please recall that we are all disqualified in one way or another from doing many things: Mr Levin's one-legged boot- fetishist with severe dandruff may be dis- qualified from working in a shoe-shop or barber's or corps de ballet, or from starring at the sort of arse-kicking party once immortalised by Denis in one of his letters to Bill.

To what extent is the prejudice and mistrust justified? I haven't the foggiest idea. How could I know? They say masons look after each other. They say masons also, through their wonderful charitable work, look after everyone else as well. Good for them: but why the secrecy? Come to that, what is a mason? I'm glad you ask that question. Er, er — well, obviously the word means quite different things at different times in different places. A recent letter from a top mason to the Daily Telegraph listed qualities expected here of a mason: respect for the law, tolerance, charity, high moral standards and 'belief in a Supreme Being'. It is surely hard to see any connection between our own masons, respectable, law-abiding and God-fearing (or at least Supreme-Being- respecting) and the masons who allegedly played an important and sinister role in the French and Russian revolutions. Alleged- ly? Well, rumour feeds on secrecy and, if the Russian revolution was widely if ridicu- lously attributed to a `Judaeo-Masonic World Conspiracy', masons at least are in part themselves to blame.

Our own masons are even criticised by Sir Kenneth's guide as demanding respect for 'social distinctions and the status quo to such an extent as to sustain the notion that "while some must rule, others must obey and cheerfully accept their inferior posi- tion".' Some of these Worsthornian masons may read the Spectator. If so, I salute them across whatever gulf of ignor- ance and suspicion divides us and ask them again: if you have nothing but virtues to hide, albeit of an unfashionable sort, why the secrecy?

It would be a great pity if all reasonable discussion of masonry and whatever prob- lems it presents were to be denounced, in Mr Levin's words, as 'the new bigotry and discrimination', perpetrated by 'the kissing-cousins of anti-Semitism', by 'the new demon-hunters'. Sir Kenneth is not I fancy hunting for demons. He is trying to eliminate influences which might damage his force's reputation for impartiality. Another such influence, were it prevalent. would be anti-Semitism.