Approaching Elections Of The Boys' And Girls' Schools.

to be filled up . At the April election this year , we may remember , 16 g irls were elected from a list of 3 1 candidates . Of the 29 candidates for the October election , 14 are applicants for the

first time . It is also important to note , that of these 39 candidates , n are from London- and 18 are from the provinces ¦ and of these provinces , Kent has 3 , East Lancashire a ,

Hampshire and Isle of Wight 2 , and Suffolk 2 candidates •while South Wales , Devon , Lincolnshire , South Africa , Staffordshire , Calcutta , Cornwall , Surrey , and Warwickshire , put

forward 1 candidate each . For the Boys' School election , October 12 th , out of 44 candidates , 13 are to be elected . At the last election , ijj boys were elected , out of 52 candidates . Of the 44

candidates for election in October , 18 apply for the first time . It is also instructive to remember that of these 44 candidates , 14 are from London , and 30 from the provinces . Hampshiieand the

Isle of Wight have 3 candidates , East Lancashire 1 , West Yorkshire 2 , Durham 2 , Kent 2 Devonshire 2 , North Wales and Salop 1 , and St . Helena , Gibraltar , East Indies , Foreign

Stations , Lincolnshire , Hong Kong , Gloucester ' shire , Oxfordshire , Derbyshire , Dorsetshire , Stafford shire , Norfolk , Cumberland , Northamptonshire , and South Wales r each . Now these ,

both as regards the Girls and Boys Schools , are very remarkable facts and figures , and suggest some special considerations , which , on an earl y occasion , we may think well to advert to . But

to-day we will content ourselves with observing how very incontestably these voting papers con » vince us of the need and importance—may we not say the increasing need of these educational

institutions of ours ? The present position of our Order is one of unprecedented material prosperity , and numerical increase , but that very prosperity , and that very increase inevitably

bring upon us still more abounding claims on our active Masonic sympathy and charity . May 1874 and 1875 witness the same unflagging zeal ,

and the same meritorious efforts on behalf of these two admirable institutions , the BOYS' and the GIRLS' SCHOOLS .

Our Late Grand Master.

OUR LATE GRAND MASTER .

Little indeed did Freemasons in general , or even those assembled to hear the letter of the Marquis of Ripon , conceive the severity of the ( COMMUMCATHD ) .

blow which had fallen upon tbem , and now that the truth is known in its entirety , the shock seems almost too great to be endured . The resignation alone of a Grand Master , who had by his zeal for Masonry , unabated while he

fulfilled one of the highest offices of the State , and b y his courtesy and affability towards those with whom he became officially connected , endeared himself to all his brethren , and gained a lasting hold npon their affection and esteem ,

would have been received with feelings of the deepest sorrow , but' when we learn that the step we so heartily deplore has been occasioned by the alliance of our noble brother with the bitter enemies of the Craft , whose undying

hatred for our Order has from time to time prompted them to publish the most unjustifiable falsehoods , and to utter the grossest perversions of the truth concerning us , then indeed the

poignancy of our grief is increased tenfold , our sorrow is deepened with lamentation , and we are constrained to cry out with the sweet singer of Israel , " How are the mighty fallen ! " The importance of the occurrence can hardly be over-

Our Late Grand Master.

rated . For the first time since the establishment of the Grand Lodge in 1717 has the Ruler of our Order become a Roman Catholic , and surrende-ied his moral liberty , that right so dear to and jealously guarded by Englishmen in general , to the keeping of his leaders

in religion . And what is ostensibly the first sacrifice which they demand of their convert ? It is nothing less than that he should sever himself from a body of men whose watchwords are charity and benevolence , whose aim and boast is to do good to their fellow creatures , and

who are in possession of certain secrets which , for the purpose of keeping out unwelcome visitors and preventing the intrusion of impostors , they are in the habit of communicating in a peculiar manner . Verily , we Freemasons must be a dangerous lot ! The help which we afford

to those in distress—not , be it remembered , to members of our community alone—is called in question by the intolerant Church of Rome ; our forms and ceremonies , harmless and unproductive of ill as our opponents know them to be , are stigmatized . is unlawful and irreligious : and

our instruction , for the most part conveyed in parables , as was the custom of One whose wisdom and goodness not even our slanderous assailants dare deny , is denounced by them as ungodly and impure . We cannot do better than quote the well known and forcible words

of our Rev . Brother Osmond Dakeyne , which , though delivered thirty years ago , are still perfect in their truthful representation of an Institution " founded on the purest princi ples of piety and virtue . " The speaker was referring to the charges which were then , as now , unjustly

brought against us , and he proceeds— " Disloyal ! Why at the very moment when Professor Robinson published his book , who were the heads of our Order ; The chivalrous Earl of Moira , George , Prince of Wales , and Edward , Duke of Kent ! Disloyal ! Was not George the Fourth

our Grand Master ! Was not William the Fourth our brother and patron ! Our last Grand Master was a Royal Duke ! The Duke of York was one of our brotherhood . The King of Hanover is a Freemason . Would all these Princes have belonged to a disloyal society ! Are we

conspirators to overthrow settled institutions ? Who is the present head of the army ? The Duke of Wellington !—aye , the Duke of Wellington is a Freemason ! Are we irreligious ? The Archbishop of Canterbury , the Primate of all England , is a Freemason , and was once

Master of Bristol lodge ! " And these words , as they then were , in their bold enunciation of the truth , can at the present time be supplemented by many other royal and notable names , as witnesses to the loyalty to Throne and State , and the freedom from irreligion , nav more ,

the actual tendency to religious feeling which prevails in the working of our Lodges . Latterly the Romish Church , apparently afraid ofthe gigantic strides which Freemasonry has been making , and jealous of the wholesome teachings

which it inculcates in its assemblies , has been by no means unsparing in its misrepresentation and attempts at coercion . Witness the uncalled-for refusal of Mr . Cuffe to perform the burial service over the remains of a Member of our

fraternity , and the scandalous and wholesale vilifying of the Westminster Review . And no » v that by a blow in the dark , as it were , our head has been taken from us , it behoves ns to consider what we should do . Shall we tamely

submit to the aspersions of our foes , and quietly endure their slander and evil speaking ? No ! However much we grieve for what appears to us as the defection of the highest member of onr Craft , it is our duty by earnest perseverance in our lawful work and steadfast adherence to the

principles of our Order to refute the utterance of calumny , to " put lo silence the ignorance of foolish men , " and to prove to the world that Freemasons are loyal , honourable , and generous , and practise those sublime precepts which in other words they profess : — " Honour all men . Love the brotherhood . Fear God . Honour the King . " H . M . G .

[ We publish this as we have received it , wishing to allow all 1 free discussion within certain limits . —ED , ]

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do net hold oursch-cs responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , hut we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —I £ D . ]

THE ROYAL VISIT TO PLYMOUTH .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have recently had my attention drawn to various articles and letters in the Freemason on the unfortunate exclusion from the Masonic

procession of the non - commisioned - officer brethren , on the occasion of the Royal visit to Plymouth last month : — Tlie two questions to be answered you say are : 1 st . Who laid down as a regulation that our

soldier brethren must appear in black coats , & c ? 2 nd , Was there any military prohibition of our soldier brethren marching in the procession ' In answer to the first of these questions , I should say no one laid down such a regulation .

The committee numbered amongst its members more than one who knew full well the value to Masonry of these intellectual and highly disciplined brethren , the N .-C . officers of the army-, and the regulations laid down by the

committee to establish — wisely enough I think—a uniformity in the dress , were intended to apply to thc civilian brethren alone , for it was well known by the committee , some of whom had been for many years connected with the

service , that whilst to general' officers commanding discretion is given by the Queen ' s regulations , to permit officers to wear plain clothes , no such discretionary power is given to extend the indulgence to N .-C . officers

or men . The custom of the service requires that soldiers shall appear in the public streets properly dressed in their uniforms . Your correspondent P . G . D . is quite right •it would be a military offence for

an officer , N . C . 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 has 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 . They universally regretted the absence of their military brethren . Very fraternally yours , J . E LLIOTT , Colonel , P . P . G . H . & P . S . G . W . Devon .

Stonehouse , Devon , 9 th September , 1874 . [ Since the above was in type , we have received another and explanatory letter from Bro . Col . Elliott , ofthe letter we have just given .

which we will print next week , as we have no spare space for it , unfortunately , this week , our columns being much crowded , and many communications having to stand over . —Ei >]

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Whatever may have been the alleged cause of the non-appearance of the military

brethren at the recent Masonic public procession at Plymouth . I cannot help thinking that some of your correspondents on the subject have not viewed the matter quite in its right light .

The Queen ' s Regulations and Orders for the Army used to contain a paragraph forbidding officers and soldiers from belonging to secret societies . This has now disappeared , but in the present edition ( 31 st Dec ., 1873 ) yon will find

the following— " Soldiers are not to be permitted to go beyond the precinots of their barracks unless properly dressed . " A Masonic apron , or collar , or badge , or jewel , is nowhere laid down as a part of their dress . It appears that the Committee required the

brethren to " take patt in the procession , " clothed according * to the usual custom , this I take it was intended to refer not only to what is generally known amongst us as " Masonic Clothing , " but also to the remaining portion of the usual proper attire of a Mason , ; when attending Masonic duty , black and white .