Original Correspondence.

as I was not prepared for a refusal in ' one case , I did not feel quite sure in the other . Further than I have herein explained , the military part of the programme was not left in my hands . The Committee were never told by me that non-commissioned officers would not

be allowed to walk in the procession : they could never have been told so ; for it was not until my return from Cornwall , on the day immediately preceding the Masonic procession , that I learnt from Bro . Capt . Shanks that such permission had been refused .

Bro . Hughan requires that I shall mention to whom I applied for permission , and who it was that refused me . I was never deputed by the Committee to ask such a question , hence I never applied , and was never refused . What I stated in the Provincial Grand Lodge

was strictly true . The statement was intended as a privileged communication for the information solely of the brethren present . I was not prepared to see my words repeated , and in some cases mis-quoted , in the Freemason newspaper ; for , as an officer on full pay in the service ,

I am amenable to the Queen s Regulations and Orders for the Army , and a reference to sec . 6 , par . 45 and 46 , will explain why I would rather not have had my words published . As an individual brother , I desire to thank you for the opportunity thus afforded me of

replying to the various letters in your paper on the subject of the Royal Visit to Plymouth . I confess , I should have felt better pleased had some of your correspondents practised a little more of that " Charity which thinketh no evil , "

and of which we hear so much , in the proper time and in the proper place . 1 am , Dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , J . ELLIOTT , Colonel , P . P . G . H . and P . P . S . G . W . of Devon .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In reading the correspondence relative to the recent Masonic procession here , one cannot but be struck with the regret expressed

by all those taking part therein , at the exclusion ofthe military brethren . That they have not received from the hands of the committee such consideration as their case deserves , will , I think , be amply illustrated by the following few words . As soon as the military brethren found out that

they were not to be allowed to attend the procession , they applied to the W . M . of their Lodge , 1205 , and requested him to endeavour to induce the committee to make arrangements , whereby they might be enabled to attend the meeting of the United Provincial Grand Lodges

of Devon and Cornwall , and he promised to do his best on their behalf , as he thought it but a reasonable request , and one that , under the circumstances , the committee would comply with . But they were disagreeably surprised when they were informed that the committee had declined

to make any arrangement for their benefit . One of the Past Masters on the committee , however , stated that if the military brethren presented themselves after the procession had filed in they would be admitted if vouched for , if there was room ; but another P . M . of 1205 , asked the Director of the Ceremonies for Devonshire

( prior to the procession marching off ) whether this would bo permitted , and he said most distinctly , no ; no [ one would be allowed to enter the hall unless they walked in the procession . Such are the true facts of the case , and the military brethren , from no fault of their own , found themselve shut out both from the procession and the meeting .

Can the committee justify their conduct in this matter ? Yours fraternally , A SOLDIER FREEMASON , AND A PAST MASTER . Plymouth , 19 th Sept ., 1874 .

ORDER OF THE TEMPLE AND MALTA . To the Editor of the Freemason .

Dear Sir and Brother , — I and many others , equally wishful to submit to the will and give undivided support to the powers that be , have been waiting very patiently for some time expecting to , hear , see , or realise some advantage to the Order—either

Original Correspondence.

particular or general—by the alterations made in the statutes , consequent on the acceptance of office by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as Graud Master of the Order . Having , like others , been disappointed in my humble and modest expectations , I am very

much dissatisfied , for I have not realised , nor can I see , or hear , that any advantage has accrued to the Order , or to anyone connected with it , by the alteration , but , on the contrary , I find that much dissatisfaction prevails amongst the Sir Knights , wherever I go .

What was the origin and object of the alteration I have never understood , nor seen , or heard it explained . I should like to know and understand the motive for the alteration which has proved so disastrous . Will some one in authority favour your readers with an

explanation ? Why alter the titles ? Is it more dignified or proper to say : — Great Priory than Grand Conclave . Preceptory than Encampment . Preceptor than Commander .

Constable than Captain ? Why , indeed ? Is there either beauty , use , or reason in the new titles ? One gentleman of some eminence recently remarked , on his appointment as Prov . Constable , " I have been a

magistrate of this county and borough for many years , but never was a constable until now . It looks like coming down a peg . " Why abolish past rank ? What has been gained by the alteration ?

Has anyone gained by it ? Is anyone better for it ? Is the Order any better for it ? So far as I know the Sir Knights are neither benefited nor pleased . The number of subscribing Sir Knights has decreased , and many of those who

have not actually resigned are so indifferent to the consequences that they don ' t care whether the Order sinks or swims , as at present constituted and worked , and only keep their membership from a love to the old statutes and

working , to which they assert , and , with great confidence , we shall have to come back . Meantime , they pay and grumble , but do not attend the meetings , or interest themselves as they used to do .

In Lancashire , once a stronghold of Knight Templarism , the result of the alteration is absolutely painful , as I witnessed at the Provincial Priory Meeting recently held at Preston , when there was not more than half the number

present that usually attend these annual gatherings . Had it not been that the Eminent Prior is much loved and respected by the Sir Knights of the province , 'he mi ght have had difficulty in finding a sufficient number in attendance willing to accept the empty honour—the badge of office fo * r the

year . My object in writing to you is to ascertain , if possible , the feeling of the Sir Kni ghts , and the state of the obnoxious part of the statutes . If the alterations have created half the dissatisfaction elsewhere , as in the Province of Lancashire , the sooner our rulers retrace their steps the better .

The Lancashire Sir Kni ghts are resolved to seek an alteration , and have appointed a committee to consider the following suggestions of an eminent member of tho Order , and one who

took a very active interest in the recent alterations , but who , finding he made a mistake , now " thinks something should be done as soon as possible to retrace our steps , " and is ready to do all he can to help us . His suggestions

are : — x . That a committee be appointed to consider the alterations made in the statutes of the Order , and say which they disapprove of . 2 . That the alterations disapproved of be embodied in a memorial .

3 . That the committee be requested to draw up a memorial for each encampment . 4 . That each encampment be requested to get the memorial signed by the whole of its members .

5 . That an interview be sought with the Right Hon . the Earl ofjLimerick . 6 . That a deputation be appointed to present the memorials and discuss the subject with the Great Prior .

Original Correspondence.

What is the state of the country ? Perhaps our excellent Grand Vice-chancellor will tell us through your columns . I should like to see a comparative statistical and financial statement .

P . E . C . MEMORIALS OFTHE MASONIC UNION

OF 1 S 13 . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you kindly allow me to thank you for the kind reference to my forthcoming

" Memorials of the Masonic Union of 1813 , ' and also to state that in consequence of the full hundred not being applied for ( in Great Britain ) , it is not my intention to issue a list of subscribers with the work ; and not having the

time to solicit the co-operation of Masonic students , I must leave the disposal of the few not applied for , until after the publication of the volume , the completion of which has been delayed a few weeks , to include the whole of the

" Book of Constitutions " of 1 S 15 . It is my intention to dedicate the work to the brethren of the lodges and chapters , who have been so good as to elect me one of their honorary members . W . J . HUGHAN .

" H . M . G . " AND "OUR LATE GRAND MASTER . "

To the Editor of Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , Bro . " H . M . G ., " in the Freemason of Sapt . 19 th , says , " For the first time since the establishment of the Grand Lodge in 1717 , has the ruler of our Order become a Roman

Catholic , and surrendered his moral liberty . " Many may consider , from this statement , that we have never had a Grand Master since 1717 who was a Roman Catholic , whereas I presume , the writer simply means to note the fact that not one of our Graud Masters has become

a Roman Catholic during his Grand Mastership who was a Protestant previously . The latter may be true , although it is scarcely susceptible of proof now , but that we have had a Roman Catholic Grand Master heretofore is proved from the fact that Lord Petre , who was Grand

Master from 1722 to 1776 , was a warm adherent of that religious body , and " he held his faith without bigotry , and by his liberality and worth , won the esteem of all parties , " so we are told by one of his biographers . We are also told that Lord Petre was considered for some time " as the

head of the Roman Catholic body in this country . " Bro . Preston dedicated his " Illustrations of Masonry " to his Lordship , and we have had few Grand Masters who equalled that nobleman as Ruler of our ancient Craft . It is just probable that other Grand Masters were also

Roman Catholics . In claiming for ourselves liberty of conscience , let us not make too much noise in the world when others claim a like privilege , though they differ from us , and whilst to us it appears impossible to discuss how any one can be a Freemason and a Roman Catholic ,

others seem to have solved the question , and yet still remained members of our fraternity . What reasons there arc for n Grand Master resigning nott ) , when one of his predecessors was a member of the same religious sect , would be a curious study . W . T . HUGHAN .

Freemasonry In The Army.

FREEMASONRY IN THE ARMY .

The following is part of a letter which appears in the Broad Arrow , signed " In Hoc Signo Vinces : "— On the occasion ofthe visit of H . R . H . the Prince of Wales to Plymouth recently , to open the new Guildhall , the Provincial Grand Lodges of the Cornwall ancl Devon Freemasons ,

taking advantage of the presence of their Royal Brother amongst them , united to give him a loyal and fraternal welcome . The Masonic fraternity is now , as indeed it has ever been , hi great favour with the higher class of the

noncommissioned officers of the army , who not only are an acquisition to the lodges , but , from their intelligence and experience , an ornament to the Craft . This is the case in nearly all Jgarrison towns , and Plymouth is no exception to thejrule ,