-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
•n uniform 1 Were the " Queen ' s Regulations ' altered in respect to processions , since the public procession of the Prov . G . Lodge of Devon , •which took place before the " Royal Reception , " or is it one law for ordinary Masonic processions , and another for Royal receptions ? Bro . " Leo , "
and the Editor of the Freemason say emphatically that the Queen ' s Regulations " do not bear upon the subject . " Bro . Colonel Elliott is said to have declared at the Prov . G . Lodge of Devon , that it was in consequence of these regulations that the prohibition was declared ! Who is
right ? Then a brother signing himself " P . G . D . states that it is " a distinct military offence to appear in a public Masonic procession in uniform . " Who our brother is we know not , but as he takes the view propounded by Bro . Colonel Elliott , we must look upon him as
opposed to Bro . Leo s explanation . It is strange however that he has only now mentioned the illegality of the military brethren appearing in uniform at Masonic processions , though he states the punishment for such an offence is " very heavy , " he ought therefore to have warned our
friends from their customary attendance at Masonic processions long before this , and thus assisted them in keeping the law , the columns of The Freemason being ever open to such kind and friendly communications . Bro . the Rev . Augustus A . Bagshawe , in a letter following
" P . G . D . " argues , we think fairly , from the explanation offered by Bro . Colonel Elliott at the Prov . Grand Lodge , lor if the Commanderin-Chief did object to the procession , clearly no " Soldier Freemasons" should have attended . We think , Bro . Editor , you did not quite see the
aim of Bro . Bagshawe ' s letter , or your note would not have been appended in opposition to this position . " Another Soldier Freemason" also writes on the matter , and says , what is quite correct , that two military bands appeared in the procession
( not as Masons ) in uniform . He also asked me by whom I was informed as to the uniform being objected to , & c , which I did in the Freemason for Sept . 12 th . " An Officer and a P . P . J . G . W . " states that he travelled a long wav to take part in the procession , and was
disgusted to find his comrades in arms were excluded . He also affirms that he " with others , endeavoured to get the prohibition cancelled , " thereby agreeing with Bro . " Leo , " and proving it was a military act , which the Committee felt bound to accept . In the Freemason
for Sept . 12 th , were three letters on the subject . The first from " CM . 1205 , " is an agreement with "Soldier Freemason , " but evidentl y believes the prohibition originated with the Committee for the procession { i . e ., a sub-committee , notwithstanding the plain statement
ot Bro . " Leo . " Bro . " CM . " considers that Bro . Col . Elliott alluded to the " Major General commanding , " in his remarks at the Prov . G . L ., and not to the Commander-in-chief ; and if he is correct , and the report of the meeting is wrong , then Bro . Col . Elliott and " Leo " agree that the
prohibitionremanated from the " Major General commanding . " This , however , does not prove that the Queen ' s Regulations forbid such brethren . as soldiers , appearinginprocessions , butonly that theofficer in command has the power to prevent them doing so , which , of course , we all know .
The second letter was from me in continuation of the former one , and in response to " Another Soldier Freemason , " and the third was from Bro . J . Stroud Short , P . M . 144 , 3 , who , like others did , noticed there were brethren in uniform in the hall at the " Masonic reception . "
The Freemason for September 19 th contains a letter from . Bro . Col . Elliott , one from " C . B , " and another from " A Devonshire Mason . " Bro . " C . B . ' s " letter is written in a most fraternal spirit , but evidently in the belief that the " Queen ' s Regulations" were averse to the
military brethren appearing in our procession in uniform , or in fact at all . The third letter supports Bro " Leo ' s " view of the matter , and quotes from the programmes of the Prov . G . L . of Devon , in which special provision is made for the attendance of naval and military officers in uniform .
In the Freemason for Sep . 26 th , several more letters were inserted , proving how absurd it wuld have been to attempt to smother the
Original Correspondence.
discussion , and how wise has been your decision as Editor to have the matter fully ventilated . Bro . " Emeritus " speaks of a letter being sent to the Committee by the military brethren asking for permission to walk in the procession , and that no answer was returned . If so , it must
have been forwarded to the sub-committee which was virtually the Committee ; for the special Committee of six , appointed by the Prov . Grand Masters , had but little to do with the arrangements , a capital working sub-Committee having undertaken the necessary labour of making the
necessary regulations , & c , so we found m attending what we supposed was the first meeting of the Joint Committee . "A Soldier Freemason and a Past Master " states that the Prov . G . Dir . of Cers . was asked if the military brethren would be allowed to enter the Hall , and the
answer returned was " No . " We do not know by whose authority such an answer was returned . Bro . J . Edward Curteis , W . M . 18 9 , also writes on the subject , and being an active member of the sub-Committee , to whom it appears the arrangements were entrusted , his communication
is certainly semi-official . Bro . Curteis thinks I am in error about Bro . Col . Elliott , relative to the military exclusion ; but I distinctly remember that brother remarking as to the improbability of the consent being obtained for the brethren to appear in uniform , and there the matter rested , which was at the only meeting I attended , [ the
first , we believe , ] excepting a call at another for a few minutes to ask a question . We attended every one we had notice of , and that was one ; and as we ' understood the arrangements were left to the sub-Committee , we had no doubt of the success of the Masonic reception , and , in fact troubled no more about the matter .
Bro . Curteis in the clearest manner states that the regulations as to the clothing were not made to secure the exclusion of the military brethren , but to provide uniformity of dress amongst the civilians . He also states that the order prohibiting the military brethren from appearing in
uniform , emanated from the " General commanding the district . " Bro . Curteis , however , considers the " General's views were wrong , " yet as he observes the Committee could not do otherwise in the face of an order averse to the military
brethren taking part in the procession . The testimony of the majority , and of those who ought to know something about the matter , unite to prove the regulation in question had itsori » in in a military order .
Now we come to Bro . Col . Elliott ' s two letters . The first states that no General has the power to grant permission to non-commissioned officers to wear " plainclothes , " but only to officers in his district , so accordingly the military brethren must cither have appeared in uniform or not at
all . Also that the Committee had no doubt but that permission would be given to the military brethren to appear in uniform in the procession . The writer sent the communication to the Freemason because he had had his attention drawn to the various articles
and letters in that paper , but he made no complaint as to the mention of his name in them , and did not then appear to have discovered that his statement in the Prov . G . Lodge was a " privileged communication , " as he subsequently described it , though it appeared in the Western
Daily Mercury the next day , and was subsequently inserted in the Freemason , after which Leo , and others , including myself , alluded to it . The next letter states what I have already mentioned about the probability of the request of the military brethren being refused , and when
coupled with Bro . Col . Elliotts explanation , made in the Pro . G . L ., clearly proves the fact that they were prohibited by somebody . Bro . Col . Elliott also makes the important statement that our excellent Bro . Captain Shanks , who came from Greenock to attend the Masonic procession
told him that the " permission had been refused " for the military brethren to attend in uniform ( non-commissioned officers ) . Bro . Col . Elliott appears to consider " that as he is an officer in full pay , " the statement made
by him in the Prov . G . L . was a ' * privileged communication , " because of the Queen ' s Regulation , Sec . 6 . If so it is surprising to me he did not mention that fact in his former letter , and also it is equally surprising he did not
Original Correspondence.
intimate as much in the Prov . G . L . of Devon before the hundreds assembled , especially as he knows as well as I do , that reports of such meetings are always printed in the local papers the next day , and , if of sufficient importance , appear in the Freemason the same week . Thanking
Bro . Col . Elliott for his letters , as they inform us that Bro . Captain Shanks can throw some light on the subject , we hope now the whole question will be cleared up , and the Committee absolved from blame . I assure Bro . Col .
Elliott , that had his statement been considered private , or said to have been so , no one would have mentioned his communication . We now await the article by you as a finale . W . J . HUGHAN .
To the Editor of The Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , Will you allow n : e a few additional words in relation to the now much-vexed question ofthe exclusion of our military brethren from the Masonic procession at Plymouth ,
although I fear that no amount of newspaper correspondence will satisfactorily settle the question as it ought to be settled . But to my mind , Bro . Hughan ' s last letter throws a flood of light upon the subject . I have had frequent communications with Some of the principal members of the
committee , on whom devolved the carrying out ofthe arrangements connected with the demonstration , and their explanation has invariabl y been to the effect that the committee couldn ' t help themselves ; that l / iey applied to the Major-General Commanding , and that he refused
to allow the military brethren to walk in the procession . I have already pointed out that this is irreconcileable with the presence of two military bands on the occasion . But what does Bro . Hughan now tell us ? Why , " that we , " ( that is , the committee ) "left the military part of the
programme in the hands of Col . Elliott , and his report was adverse to the claims of our military brethren to walk in uniform . We were told as a committee by Colonel Elliott , that non-commissioned officers would not be allowed to walk in the procession in uniform , and so we had no
option in the matter . " So far , so good . But now comes the question , the answer to which would have settled the whole dispute . Did Bro . Colonel Elliott make that report to the committee on his own responsibility , ( as is generall y and openly alleged by many of our military
brethren in the three towns ) , or as the result of any communication which he might have had with the Major-General Commanding ? If the latter , oar soldier brethren can of course , have no cause of complaint . They are in duty bound to submit . But if Col . Elliott acted on his own
responsibility , and without consultation with the General Commanding , he did what he had no right to do , and the victims of his ill-timed interference have a right to ask for an explanation ? He has had the opportunity , but he neglects to avail himself of it . Writing to the Freemason
last week , he says , " It wonld be a military offence for an officer , a non-commissioned officer , or private soldier , to appear in a procession with Masonic regalia worn over his uniform , unless previous permission had been obtained for his so appearing . Such permission had been accorded
to the military on former occasions , and the committee had no doubt that the same indulgence would have been extended on the occasion referred to . " Aye ! there ' s the rub . Has Col . Elliott ventured to say—does he now venture to say that the General Commanding refused the
indulgence when applied to ? Does he even pretend to say that any application was made to the General at ' all ? No . On the contrary . He—it seems to me—purposely avoids that which is the crucial point in the whole questian ; for after saying the committee had no doubt " the
same indulgence would have been extended , " & c , he concludes with the remark that the absence of our military brethren was universally regretted . I do not pretend to know whether Colonel Elliott applied to the General or not , but
it is impossible to believe that the General would have refused his sanction upon such an occasion , if the application had been made to him . I appeal to Col . Elliott to clear up the difficultyfor it is in his power alone to do so—and to re-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
•n uniform 1 Were the " Queen ' s Regulations ' altered in respect to processions , since the public procession of the Prov . G . Lodge of Devon , •which took place before the " Royal Reception , " or is it one law for ordinary Masonic processions , and another for Royal receptions ? Bro . " Leo , "
and the Editor of the Freemason say emphatically that the Queen ' s Regulations " do not bear upon the subject . " Bro . Colonel Elliott is said to have declared at the Prov . G . Lodge of Devon , that it was in consequence of these regulations that the prohibition was declared ! Who is
right ? Then a brother signing himself " P . G . D . states that it is " a distinct military offence to appear in a public Masonic procession in uniform . " Who our brother is we know not , but as he takes the view propounded by Bro . Colonel Elliott , we must look upon him as
opposed to Bro . Leo s explanation . It is strange however that he has only now mentioned the illegality of the military brethren appearing in uniform at Masonic processions , though he states the punishment for such an offence is " very heavy , " he ought therefore to have warned our
friends from their customary attendance at Masonic processions long before this , and thus assisted them in keeping the law , the columns of The Freemason being ever open to such kind and friendly communications . Bro . the Rev . Augustus A . Bagshawe , in a letter following
" P . G . D . " argues , we think fairly , from the explanation offered by Bro . Colonel Elliott at the Prov . Grand Lodge , lor if the Commanderin-Chief did object to the procession , clearly no " Soldier Freemasons" should have attended . We think , Bro . Editor , you did not quite see the
aim of Bro . Bagshawe ' s letter , or your note would not have been appended in opposition to this position . " Another Soldier Freemason" also writes on the matter , and says , what is quite correct , that two military bands appeared in the procession
( not as Masons ) in uniform . He also asked me by whom I was informed as to the uniform being objected to , & c , which I did in the Freemason for Sept . 12 th . " An Officer and a P . P . J . G . W . " states that he travelled a long wav to take part in the procession , and was
disgusted to find his comrades in arms were excluded . He also affirms that he " with others , endeavoured to get the prohibition cancelled , " thereby agreeing with Bro . " Leo , " and proving it was a military act , which the Committee felt bound to accept . In the Freemason
for Sept . 12 th , were three letters on the subject . The first from " CM . 1205 , " is an agreement with "Soldier Freemason , " but evidentl y believes the prohibition originated with the Committee for the procession { i . e ., a sub-committee , notwithstanding the plain statement
ot Bro . " Leo . " Bro . " CM . " considers that Bro . Col . Elliott alluded to the " Major General commanding , " in his remarks at the Prov . G . L ., and not to the Commander-in-chief ; and if he is correct , and the report of the meeting is wrong , then Bro . Col . Elliott and " Leo " agree that the
prohibitionremanated from the " Major General commanding . " This , however , does not prove that the Queen ' s Regulations forbid such brethren . as soldiers , appearinginprocessions , butonly that theofficer in command has the power to prevent them doing so , which , of course , we all know .
The second letter was from me in continuation of the former one , and in response to " Another Soldier Freemason , " and the third was from Bro . J . Stroud Short , P . M . 144 , 3 , who , like others did , noticed there were brethren in uniform in the hall at the " Masonic reception . "
The Freemason for September 19 th contains a letter from . Bro . Col . Elliott , one from " C . B , " and another from " A Devonshire Mason . " Bro . " C . B . ' s " letter is written in a most fraternal spirit , but evidently in the belief that the " Queen ' s Regulations" were averse to the
military brethren appearing in our procession in uniform , or in fact at all . The third letter supports Bro " Leo ' s " view of the matter , and quotes from the programmes of the Prov . G . L . of Devon , in which special provision is made for the attendance of naval and military officers in uniform .
In the Freemason for Sep . 26 th , several more letters were inserted , proving how absurd it wuld have been to attempt to smother the
Original Correspondence.
discussion , and how wise has been your decision as Editor to have the matter fully ventilated . Bro . " Emeritus " speaks of a letter being sent to the Committee by the military brethren asking for permission to walk in the procession , and that no answer was returned . If so , it must
have been forwarded to the sub-committee which was virtually the Committee ; for the special Committee of six , appointed by the Prov . Grand Masters , had but little to do with the arrangements , a capital working sub-Committee having undertaken the necessary labour of making the
necessary regulations , & c , so we found m attending what we supposed was the first meeting of the Joint Committee . "A Soldier Freemason and a Past Master " states that the Prov . G . Dir . of Cers . was asked if the military brethren would be allowed to enter the Hall , and the
answer returned was " No . " We do not know by whose authority such an answer was returned . Bro . J . Edward Curteis , W . M . 18 9 , also writes on the subject , and being an active member of the sub-Committee , to whom it appears the arrangements were entrusted , his communication
is certainly semi-official . Bro . Curteis thinks I am in error about Bro . Col . Elliott , relative to the military exclusion ; but I distinctly remember that brother remarking as to the improbability of the consent being obtained for the brethren to appear in uniform , and there the matter rested , which was at the only meeting I attended , [ the
first , we believe , ] excepting a call at another for a few minutes to ask a question . We attended every one we had notice of , and that was one ; and as we ' understood the arrangements were left to the sub-Committee , we had no doubt of the success of the Masonic reception , and , in fact troubled no more about the matter .
Bro . Curteis in the clearest manner states that the regulations as to the clothing were not made to secure the exclusion of the military brethren , but to provide uniformity of dress amongst the civilians . He also states that the order prohibiting the military brethren from appearing in
uniform , emanated from the " General commanding the district . " Bro . Curteis , however , considers the " General's views were wrong , " yet as he observes the Committee could not do otherwise in the face of an order averse to the military
brethren taking part in the procession . The testimony of the majority , and of those who ought to know something about the matter , unite to prove the regulation in question had itsori » in in a military order .
Now we come to Bro . Col . Elliott ' s two letters . The first states that no General has the power to grant permission to non-commissioned officers to wear " plainclothes , " but only to officers in his district , so accordingly the military brethren must cither have appeared in uniform or not at
all . Also that the Committee had no doubt but that permission would be given to the military brethren to appear in uniform in the procession . The writer sent the communication to the Freemason because he had had his attention drawn to the various articles
and letters in that paper , but he made no complaint as to the mention of his name in them , and did not then appear to have discovered that his statement in the Prov . G . Lodge was a " privileged communication , " as he subsequently described it , though it appeared in the Western
Daily Mercury the next day , and was subsequently inserted in the Freemason , after which Leo , and others , including myself , alluded to it . The next letter states what I have already mentioned about the probability of the request of the military brethren being refused , and when
coupled with Bro . Col . Elliotts explanation , made in the Pro . G . L ., clearly proves the fact that they were prohibited by somebody . Bro . Col . Elliott also makes the important statement that our excellent Bro . Captain Shanks , who came from Greenock to attend the Masonic procession
told him that the " permission had been refused " for the military brethren to attend in uniform ( non-commissioned officers ) . Bro . Col . Elliott appears to consider " that as he is an officer in full pay , " the statement made
by him in the Prov . G . L . was a ' * privileged communication , " because of the Queen ' s Regulation , Sec . 6 . If so it is surprising to me he did not mention that fact in his former letter , and also it is equally surprising he did not
Original Correspondence.
intimate as much in the Prov . G . L . of Devon before the hundreds assembled , especially as he knows as well as I do , that reports of such meetings are always printed in the local papers the next day , and , if of sufficient importance , appear in the Freemason the same week . Thanking
Bro . Col . Elliott for his letters , as they inform us that Bro . Captain Shanks can throw some light on the subject , we hope now the whole question will be cleared up , and the Committee absolved from blame . I assure Bro . Col .
Elliott , that had his statement been considered private , or said to have been so , no one would have mentioned his communication . We now await the article by you as a finale . W . J . HUGHAN .
To the Editor of The Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , Will you allow n : e a few additional words in relation to the now much-vexed question ofthe exclusion of our military brethren from the Masonic procession at Plymouth ,
although I fear that no amount of newspaper correspondence will satisfactorily settle the question as it ought to be settled . But to my mind , Bro . Hughan ' s last letter throws a flood of light upon the subject . I have had frequent communications with Some of the principal members of the
committee , on whom devolved the carrying out ofthe arrangements connected with the demonstration , and their explanation has invariabl y been to the effect that the committee couldn ' t help themselves ; that l / iey applied to the Major-General Commanding , and that he refused
to allow the military brethren to walk in the procession . I have already pointed out that this is irreconcileable with the presence of two military bands on the occasion . But what does Bro . Hughan now tell us ? Why , " that we , " ( that is , the committee ) "left the military part of the
programme in the hands of Col . Elliott , and his report was adverse to the claims of our military brethren to walk in uniform . We were told as a committee by Colonel Elliott , that non-commissioned officers would not be allowed to walk in the procession in uniform , and so we had no
option in the matter . " So far , so good . But now comes the question , the answer to which would have settled the whole dispute . Did Bro . Colonel Elliott make that report to the committee on his own responsibility , ( as is generall y and openly alleged by many of our military
brethren in the three towns ) , or as the result of any communication which he might have had with the Major-General Commanding ? If the latter , oar soldier brethren can of course , have no cause of complaint . They are in duty bound to submit . But if Col . Elliott acted on his own
responsibility , and without consultation with the General Commanding , he did what he had no right to do , and the victims of his ill-timed interference have a right to ask for an explanation ? He has had the opportunity , but he neglects to avail himself of it . Writing to the Freemason
last week , he says , " It wonld be a military offence for an officer , a non-commissioned officer , or private soldier , to appear in a procession with Masonic regalia worn over his uniform , unless previous permission had been obtained for his so appearing . Such permission had been accorded
to the military on former occasions , and the committee had no doubt that the same indulgence would have been extended on the occasion referred to . " Aye ! there ' s the rub . Has Col . Elliott ventured to say—does he now venture to say that the General Commanding refused the
indulgence when applied to ? Does he even pretend to say that any application was made to the General at ' all ? No . On the contrary . He—it seems to me—purposely avoids that which is the crucial point in the whole questian ; for after saying the committee had no doubt " the
same indulgence would have been extended , " & c , he concludes with the remark that the absence of our military brethren was universally regretted . I do not pretend to know whether Colonel Elliott applied to the General or not , but
it is impossible to believe that the General would have refused his sanction upon such an occasion , if the application had been made to him . I appeal to Col . Elliott to clear up the difficultyfor it is in his power alone to do so—and to re-