Original Correspondence.

Let us see for a moment what are the facts of the case , and it will not be difficult , I think , to trace the source of the " error , " so called . Some weeks before the procession took place , and long before the arrangements were matured , it was vaguely rumoured that the military brethren

would be prohibited from taking part in the proceedings , but the statement was looked upon as so absurd , that little notice was taken of it . But bye-and-bye it gained ground , and at last there came a definite statement from the Committee , that the Queen ' s Regulations prohibited

soldiers from joining in " party or political" processions , and that the Major General Commanding could not relax them on this occasion . From the military authorities themselves no such order , so far as I am aware , was issued at all , but our soldier brethren acted upon the dictum

of the Committee , and refrained from taking any part in the procession . But they naturally felt extremely sore upon the matter , and , refusing to believe that the Major-General Commanding was responsible for what occured , Bro . the Rev . G . Oxley Oxland , W . M . of Metham Lodge ,

1205 , three-fourths of the members of which are service men , on their behalf asked for further information at the Prov . Grand Lodge meeting of Devon , which was held at Stonehouse , on the afternoon of the same day . Bro . Colonel Elliot

in his reply , distinctly threw the entire responsibility on the Major-General Commanding , who , he said was bound by the Queen ' s Regulations , and could not allow military men to take part in a " party or political" procession .

But was this so ? Is it probable ? We can only judge from the surrounding circumstances . In the first place , can it be seriousl y contended that this was in any sense whatever , a party or political demonstration ? In the second place , how can the General ' s order , excluding military

men from the procession , be reconciled with the presence , in the procession , of two military bands in full military uniform ? What is the inference to be drawn from this ? Why , sir , that the General was never consulted at all on the matter , and that in the absence of further explanation ,

the Committee must rest under the stigma of having adopted a course of action which , as you have very properly put it , is a blunder , opposed to the true principles of Freemasonry . In a few ! weeks , sir , we are to have another Masonic demonstration , on the occasion of the

visit of the Duke of Edinburgh to lay the memorial stone of a new wing to the Royal British Female Orphan Asylum , at Stoke , but in the meantime , let us sincerely hope that the present . misunderstanding may be thoroughly cleared up , and that the success of the

forthcoming demonstration may not be marred b y a repetition of such an unfortunate blunder as that which has left behind it so much unpleasant feeling amongst a class of brethren who are a credit and an honour to the Masonic Order . I am , Yours fraternally , CM ., 120 ? .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In answer to your short "leader " and the various letters in The Freemason of to-day , permit me to say , that as a committee , we left the military part of the programme in the hands of our

Brother Colonel Elliott ( P . Prov . S . G . W . of Devon ) , and his report was adverse to the claims of our military brethren to walk in uniform . We were told as a committee by Bro . 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 . Doubtless , our good brother will kindl y furnish you with his authority , so that we all may know why they were thus excluded from the procession , much to the regret of every member who took part in the imposing ceremony , and certainly at variance with all preceding processions in which

I have had the honour to take part . It resolved itself entirely into a question of military rules and regulations , or Bro . Colonel Elliott wrongly interpreted them , or the General to whom the brethren applied ought not to have refused permission to the military brethren who desired to attend in uniform . Our " Soldier Freemasons " who have written

Original Correspondence.

on the subject have done' well to ventilate the grievance , and you have also done well by drawing attention to the matter . Let the question now be authoritatively decided , and let Bro . Colonel Elliott mention to whom he applied for permission , and who it was that refused him .

I am bound to state that , as a committee , we were entirely guided by Colonel Elliott , and I feel sure he had full authority from the " powers that be " for the course he pursued . Yours fraternally WILLIAM J AMES HUGHAN . Truro , September 5 , 1874 .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the correspondence you have published relative to this matter , one point seems to have escaped notice — viz ., although the

Major-General commanding the western district prohibited non-commissioned officers from joining in the procession in uniform , yet they were permitted to attend the lodge at which the Prince

of Wales presided . I entered the Guildhall at the same moment that a non .-com . entered in uniform and Masonic clothing , there may have been many others present , but not being in a good situation , I am unable to state .

I cannot agree with " Leo " that the route was not well kept by the police . I consider their conduct was admirable . I noticed an ugly rush was being made by a large body of spectators near St . Andrew ' s Church , but the police

with great tact immediately prevented them from breaking in on the procession . I did not experience the slightest commotion amongst the thousands of spectators . Yours fraternally , J . STROUR SHORT , P . M ., 1443 .

ROYAL BRETHREN . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , Will you oblige some of your brethren and friends , by information on the following question , which is left by us for your decision , viz : —How many of Her Majesty ' s sons belong to the Masonic Order ?

Do they all belong to it > If so , when was the Duke of Edinburgh initiated , & c . Yours fraternally , M ., W ., & L .

[ Three of the sons of Her Majesty the Queen are members of our Order . Our Royal Brother the Prince of Wales , Prince Arthur the Duke of Connaught , and Prince Leopold . H . R . H . the Duke of Edinburgh is not yet a Freemason .-En . l

FREEMASONS AND GOOD TEMPLARS . To the Editor oj the Feeemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — M . M . is drawing back from the terms of his original enquiry , which were , whether a

Good Templar could be present at Masonic banquets , as such . The two last words contained the whole gist of the matter , but he omits them in his reply in your last number .

It matters not what tenets a brother may hold , so long as he conforms to our obligations , but M . M . must surely perceive that , for a Good

Templar , even though he be a brother , to enter a lodge or attend a banquet , " as snch" ( i . e ., as a Good Templar ) would be to infringe upon our fundamental constitutions .

As I stated in my first letter , the language of his enquiry can bear no other interpretation than that which I have put upon it . Apologising for again troubling you . I am Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , KEYSTONE .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Referring to the letter in your last issue signed M . M ., the previous correspondence on

the subject , in my opinion there cannot be the slightest question as to whether a Good Templar may be a Freemason or attend the banquet of the Craft . The regulations for admittance of members are exceedingly liberal , and freedom of

Original Correspondence.

' ~ ' * ~~ ' — ¦¦ - ¦¦ ' - 1 -1 . . - « opinion is allowed to all , except on certain fundamental doctrines , and Good Templarism cannot be one of these exceptions . If , therefore , a Good Templar is qualified in other respects , one fact of his belonging to that

Order would not prevent him becoming a Freemason , and as to his presence at the banquets , so long as he does not press his own opinions respecting the use of stimulants upon the brethren , he has as much right there as anyone else .

For more than two years I have been an abstainer , though I have not signed any pledge , and during that time I have regularly attended both lodges and banquets , as well as Provincial Grand Banquets , both in this province , and also in other provinces , but have never found any

difficulty , or had any unpleasant remark made to me in consequence of my drinking the healths in water . If those round me do not agree with my opinions their good feeling prevents their suying anything that would be likely to interfere with my enjoyment , and I have no doubt ' •Good

Templar" will find this his experience . So far as the Book of Constitutions is concerned , I think it would puzzle anyone to find a paragraph that would prevent a Good Templar from attending lodge or banquet , that is , of course , supposing him to be a Freemason . Yours fraternally , M . J . M .

Freemasonry In New Zealand.

FREEMASONRY IN NEW ZEALAND .

The annual installation of officers in the Westland Pacific Royal Arch Chapter of Freemasons , No . 1229 , E . C , took place at the Masonic Hall , Hokitika , last evening . The ceremony was most impressively conducted throughout by Past Principal La / . ar , who installed the following

companions in their respective offices , viz : —J . Bevan , Z . ; J . Hudson , H . ; F . Eisfelder , J . ; W . Ramsey , Scribe E . ; C Hill , Scribe N . ; T . Bramwell , P . S . ; M . Pollock , Treasurer ; G . Benning and R . Fergusson , A . S . ; G . Eppmg , J anitor . A large number of members of the

Order we ' re present , including the three Principals of the Kilwinning Chapter , E . C , and a number of visiting companions . At the conclusion of the ceremony , all present retired to Host Hudson ' s , where a most pleasant hour was spent , and the fullest gratification was expressed

at the appointments to the several offices under the able superintendence of First Principal Bevan , who is surpassed only in Masonic knowledge and experience by Installing Principal , who may be termed the father of Freemasonry , not only on the West Coast , but likewise of New Zealand .

STAR LODOE of INSTRUCTION ( 1275 ) . —The fifth Anniversary Banquet of this nourishing lodge will be held at the lodge house , the Marquis of Granby , New , Cross-road , on Friday , the 2 nd October . Tickets , 4 s . each , may be obtained of the Stewards on any of the previous lodge meetings .

Notice To Subscribers.

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS .

The " Freemason" of May 10 th and 17 th , 1873 , and April nth , 1874 ( numbers 218 , 21 9 , and 266 ) being out of print , the publisher will be glad to receive copies from brethren who may have them . Stamps will be sent on receipt .

Metropolitan Masonic Meetings.

METROPOLITAN MASONIC MEETINGS .

For the Week ending- Friday , Septemher 18 , 1874 . The Editor will be glad to receive notice from Secretaries of Craft Lodges , Royal Arch Chapters , Mark Lodges , Preceptories , Conclaves , & c , of any change in place or time of meeting .

Saturday , September 12 . Lodge 1361 , United Service , Greyhound , Richmond . „ 144 G , Mount Edgcumbe , Swan Tavern , Battersea . Mark Lodge 144 , Grosvenor , Caledonian Hotel , Adelphi . Manchester Lodge of Instruction ( 179 ) , Yorkshire Grey , 77 . London-street , fitzroy-square , at 8 ; Bro . H . Ash ,

I ' receptor . Lily Lodge of Instruction ( 8-to ) , Greyhound Hotel , Richmond , Surrey . Star Lodge of Instruction ( 127 s ) , Marquis of Granby , New Cross-road , at 7 ; Bro . C . G , Dilley , Preceptor .