Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason
  • Sept. 5, 1874
  • Page 7
  • Original Correspondence.
Current:

The Freemason, Sept. 5, 1874: Page 7

  • Back to The Freemason, Sept. 5, 1874
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article THE SECRECY OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2
    Article THE PLYMOUTH QUESTION. Page 1 of 1
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 3
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 3
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 3 →
Page 7

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

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 .

“The Freemason: 1874-09-05, Page 7” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 10 June 2025, django:8000/periodicals/fvl/issues/fvl_05091874/page/7/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
Province of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Article 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 1
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
Untitled Ad 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Article 3
REPORTS OF MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 3
Scotland. Article 4
Knights Templar. Article 4
UNITED GRAND LODGE. Article 4
EARLY GRAND ENCAMPMENT, SCOTLAND. Article 5
ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR GIRLS. Article 5
Untitled Ad 6
Untitled Ad 6
Untitled Ad 6
Untitled Article 6
RESIGNATION OF THE GRAND MASTER. Article 6
THE SECRECY OF FREEMASONRY. Article 6
THE PLYMOUTH QUESTION. Article 7
Original Correspondence. Article 7
COSMOPOLITAN MASONIC CALENDAR. Article 9
METROPOLITAN MASONIC MEETINGS. Article 9
Untitled Article 9
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 10
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 11
Untitled Ad 12
Page 1

Page 1

14 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

16 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

4 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

5 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

4 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

8 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

5 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

3 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

6 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

18 Articles
Page 11

Page 11

25 Articles
Page 12

Page 12

1 Article
Page 7

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

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 .

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 6
  • You're on page7
  • 8
  • 12
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2025

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy