The Secrecy Of Freemasonry.

political society , that our secrecy is in itself wrong , and lays our Order open to serious doubts and objections , that we must have some unworthy motives for retaining such secrecy , and that we

are , in some mysterious way or the other , at the bottom of much of the mischief that goes on in the world . We can afford to smile at our impugners , to shrug our shoulders at such

imbecile attacks , and leaving our public works and acts to tell to others what our true principles are , we can safely maintain , without a doubt or a fear , thatsecrecy which time and tradition have thrown

around our Order , and which we have inherited to-day from others , who , in their generation upheld with unwavering fidelity and devotion in

all of secret organization and power , the unchanging tenets and constitution ol our peaceable and loval and world-wide Order . There are

many other collateral issues , raised by these questions , whicb we shall propose to consider , ere long , at some convenient season .

The Plymouth Question.

THE PLYMOUTH QUESTION .

The correspondence which we publish to-day shows how much of doubt there still exists as to the facts of the case . Before any clear opinion

can be formed or conclusion come to , we must ascertain , what is the correct state of affairs . Now it appears to us that the first point is to ascertain who actually laid down as a regulation ,

like a law of the Medes and Persians , that our soldier brethren must appear in " black coats & c . ? " Then the . next question , was there any military prohibition of our soldier brethren

marching in the procession . "Soldier Freemason '' says the Major-General commanding at Plymouth only objected to the non-commissioned officers being ignored , and would nothave objected to their

appearing in uniform . Bro Col . Elliott says they were prohibited by the " Queen ' s Regulations , " and " Leo " says that he knows that the Major-General commanding at Plymouth forbade them

to appear altogether , and would not alter his decision . What , then , are the true facts of the case ? When we have them , we can arrive perhaps at a proper conclusion as regards the whole subject .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving ofthe opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —Eu . J

THE ROYAL VISIT TO PLYMOUTH . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In your report of the Masonic reception of H . R . H the Prince of Wales there were one or two inaccuracies , which I trust you will allow me to correct .

In the first place your reporter ' s estimate of the number of brethren present was far short of the mark . 1800 would have been a poor number indeed for the provinces of Devon and Cornwall to put into the field ; the actual number was 2600 at least . Unfortunately we were

not counted as we filed out ofthe Military Barracks , but we know ; that the procession was 700 yards in length ; and again , the whole of the 1500 seats provided in the Guildhall were occupied , while quite 100 brethren had to stand all

the time From both these sources we find that a 6 oo is certainly within the total of those present on the auspicious occasion . Again , you say "the route was well kept by the police . " Now this was shamefull y done , or

Original Correspondence.

rather , was not done at all , for throughout the line of march the procession was seriously inconvenienced by the spectators crowding upon it , the police making no effort , except here and there , to keep the people back . Let me pass on now to your account of the

proceedings of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Devon , held at Plymouth on the 14 th inst . I was very glad to read Bro . Wood's remarks about the exclusion ofthe military brethren from the Masonic procession . The blame , however , does not rest on the committee of management ,

but on the military authorities . I was sorry , however , to see such a thorough soldier as Bro . Col . Elliott make so grave a mistake as to say that the prohibition , ( which emanated from the General in command of the Western districtnot from the Commander-in-Chief ) was in

compliance with the " Queen ' s Regulations . " There is nothing whatever in those regulations bearing upon the subject . Soldiers of all grades are forbidden to institute or take part in processions for party or political purposes , but most certainly Masonic gatherings do not come under that head .

The prohibition was most unjustifiable , and can only be characterised as a tyrannical act on the part of the chief military authority at Plymouth , which was excessively galling to to our gallant and worthy brethren , especially to the Royal Marines , for their commanding officer , knowing

there was nothing in the code muitaire to prevent it , had sanctioned their joining the procession . Great dissatisfaction was felt and expressed by all present who knew the state of affairs , and H . R . H . was disappointed ( being a soldier himself ) at the marked absence of the military element . Your Correspondent " Soldier

Freemason ' is quite wrong in supposing that a slur was cast upon our military brethren , for it was the fiat of the Major-General that stood in the way , and I am in a position to state that several attempts were made to induce him to withdraw his prohibition ( but without success ) by those who have the welfare of the non-commissioned

officers at heart , and of whom I am proud to consider myself one . I remain , Dear Sir ' and Brother , yours fraternally , LEO ,

To the Editor of The Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , Your correspondent " Soldier Freemason" is evidently not aware that it is a distinct military offence to appear in a public Masonic procession in uniform . The offence is appearing improperly dressed , and the punishment

very heavy . Commanding officers look upon an apron or collar worn over a tunic much the same as a billycock hat , worn instead of a forage cap . An instance occurred at Dover , three or four years ago , which would show your correspondent what an escape he has had , and how thankful he ought to be that the regulations he complains of were laid down . He allows himself that the

Major-General Commanding disapproved , and although he asserts that the Major-General would have consented for once , he does not bring any proof to show that this was known by the Devon and Cornwall Prov . Grand Lodges . Yours fraternally , P . G . D .

To the Editor of The Freemason ; Dear Sir and Brother , — In your impression of the 22 nd Aug . you report , respecting the Royal visit to Plymouth , that the non-commissioned officers who are Freemasons , were prevented from appearing

in the procession as soldiers , and you insert a letter from " Soldier Freemason , " who appears much hurt that he with others were degraded and insulted , and alluded to the unfortunate affair respecting Father Cuffe ' s conduct , which was most reprehensible , as regards his treatment

of Armourer-Sergeant Johnstone . It is not , I think , very good taste to compare the conduct ofthe Romish Priest with that of the Major-General commanding in Plymouth—for red-tape has nothing to do with it .

Bro . Col . Elliot said " he was in a position to to state that the order emanated from the Commander-in chief , and that it was in compliance with the ' Queen ' s Regulations , ' which prohibited non-commissioned officers from taking any part

Original Correspondence.

in public demonstrations . " Now , if " Soldier Freemason ' is a true and loyal subject ' of Her Majesty the Queen and a true and faithful Freemason , he must not be angry at being kept from joining the Freemasons on that occasion , for he h *? s declared , both as a soldier and a Freemason ,

that he will submit to all lawful authority . I trust , therefore , that " Soldier Freemason " will withdraw his remarks made in your paper , and that he will take the earliest opportunity to visit his own lodge , or a neighbouring lodge , as speedily as possible , and with manly boldness ,

as a British soldier , state he was wrong . I also think , for the unity of the Craft , you should withdraw your note at the end of the letter of " Soldier Freemason ,, * I think , had the matter been carefully thought over , the letter would never have been sent to The Freemason .

The law of the land forbids a Clerk in Holy Orders in the Established Church to become a Member of Parliament . I might say it is a hard thing to have such a restraint put upon me , but I never for a moment look upon it as a grievance . So our dear brother " Soldier Freemason "

should not feel it a hardship to obey his Commander-in-chief , being sure that the regulation must be a wise one , though neither he nor I know the reason why . He cannot , however , take it as anything personal to himself , nor to his comrades in the army .

AUGUSTUS A . BAGSHAWE , P . G . S . W . AND P . P . G . CH . DERBYSHIRE [ We cannot agree with our excellent Bro . Bagshawe ' s view of the case ; on the contrary , as our leader last week shows , feel that the question deserves to be thoroughly ventilated . ]

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the name ofthe military brethren of Plymouth , I beg to tender you their grateful thanks for the very kind manner in which you advanced our cause , the more so as we are

suffering from what we consider a very great slight , as well as a deprivation ofthe great pleasure of meeting our Royal Brother at the Prov . Grand Lodge . That thc Major General commanding this district was not averse to our taking part in the procession in uniform , is , I find , fully borne out

by the fact that he sanctioned the Band of the Royal Artillery appearing in the procession and marching from Millbay Barracks , to the Guildhall , which it did , as well as the Band of the South Devon Militia . If at the Prov . Grand LodgeBro . Col . Elliott had answered the question fairly , he should have said

that " officers , non-commissioned officers , and soldiers , are forbidden to institute , or take part in any meetings , demonstrations , or processions for party or political purposes , in barracks , quarters , camp , or elsewhere , " and not have put it off on non-commissioned officers and soldiers ; he should have quoted fairly or not at all .

But it seemed all of a piece . The soldiers were not wanted to spoil by their uniforms the respectability of the procession . Bro . Hughan states in his letter that the Committee " had no option but to require the brethren to assemble and take part in the procession , clothed according to the usual

custom , thereby naturally prohibiting any from appearing in regimentals . " Now it is certainly not the custom in Plymouth for soldiers to attend their lodges in mufti , but they do almost invariably in the uniform of their respective regiments or corps ,

a fact well-kncwn to the members of the Committee residing in Plymouth , and who must have stated to Bro . Hughan , that which they well knew to be not true , for I am sure Bro . Hughan is too old and good a Freemason to say anything but the truth in such a case , and therefore I cannot but presume that he was misinformed ,

and I should , as well as my comrades , be extremely glad if Bro . Hughan would state by whom he was so informed , in order that the affair may be thoroughly sifted , for we feel , sure , and that , too , bitterly , that we have not been treated as Masons and brethren , but rather as cowards and intruders in the Order . a

Sincerely hoping that you will insert this in your next edition . I remain Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally and sincerely , ANOTHER SOLDIER FREEMASON .