Correspondence.

coffin , which was being followed to the grave by all the brethren of the deceased's lodge , headed by the W . M ., Bro . Leon Richer . All on a sudden , however , the procession came to a standstill , and it was ascertained that the police had violently and without previous notice , torn these decorations from the coffin , and would not allow it to proceed to the grave if they were replaced .

An altercacation ensued between the officers of the lodge and those of the police , but the latter had the best of it . If the display of Masonic decorations on the top of a coffin is dangerous in the eyes of tbe French police , I am at a loss to understand why they did not object to similar decorations being worn by scores of brethren , who

accompanied the coffin to tho grave ; and who were permitted to retain them unmolested . To mark the sense of my indignation as to the shameful conduct on the part of the police , I requested the W . M . to be allowed to attach my signature for myself as well as in the name of the foreign lodges , to the protest in questionand which was most courteously acceded to .

, To the credit of Bro . Leon Richer , I must state that the protest was couched in most energetic language , and that he has done all that lay in his power under these painful circumstances . What the result was , or what redress they have obtained , I have been unable to ascertain , as I left Paris shortly afterwardsbut should be much gratified to know

, more about it , perhaps through the courtesy of some of our French brethren . I enclose my card and beg to remain , Dear Sir and brother , yours fraternally , London , March 30 tb , 1863 . M . B .

Rights Of Visitors.

RIGHTS OF VISITORS .

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EEEESIASOXS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC JIIHKOB . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —As a difference of opinion has arisen among the fraternity here in relation to the position of visitors , your valuable authority in the matter is invoked . It is considered , as a matter of course , that the W . M . can , at any time , if he thinks the business to be brought before his lodge is of a nature to

require it , restrict the meeting to the presence only of the members of his lodge , and this without assigning any reason , or referring to any authority for doing so . Considerable dissatisfaction , however , arose upon a recent occasion when this was done , the business being the trial of a member of the lodge under peculiar circumstances , having reference to the ballot . The

discontents , members of a Scotch lodge , maintained that brethren , in good standing , have a right to be present at all meetings of the Craft , except in such cases as is laid down by Dr . Oliver , at page 128 , of bis Masonic Jurisprudence , " when any business of a private nature , such as a discussion on the state of the funds , or any other topic which cannot be interesting to

strangers , occupies the attention of the brethren , " and that the trial of a brother , being a matter in which the entire Craft were concerned was not one of them . They even go further , and contend that the moment a brother is initiated and becomes a member of a lodge , the rights to visit is at once conferred upon him . On the other hand it is alleged that the rule laid down by

Grand Lodge at its quarterly communication , " that none shall be present but members , except by permission of the Grand Master , " extends to private lodges ; and that our M . W . G . M ., the Earl of Zetland , having ruled ( I forget tbe particular occasion ) , that the proceedings of the Craft are identical with those " of the House of Commonsvisitors in our lod are precisel the

, ges y upon same footing as " strangers " are in that body , namely , " on sufferance , " and can be excluded from our lodges , without demur or question , as tbe galleries of the House of Commons are cleared of strangers , without debate , upon the request of any member .

Rights Of Visitors.

Of course , as a universal rule , visitors are always welcomed in our lodges , under ordinary circumstances ; their presence , upon such occasions , being as unquestioned as the admission of the light of day into a dark room , aud were the W . M . then to refuse admission to au intending , visitor-, without sufficient cause assigned , the proceeding would be a most extraordinary and

unjustifiable one . And with reference to the particular occasion of tbe exclusion of visitors at the meeting , above referred to , tbe authority of Mackey ' s Masonic Jurisprudence , a work endorsed by Dr . Oliver , is quoted , where at page 562 is affirmed , "As a general and excellent rule that no visitors shall be present at a trial . " Your attention to the above will oblige .

Fraternally yours , Quebec , Canada , 16 th March , 1863 . 'W . M . 17 , R . E . [ A trial in lodge is , so far as we are aware , unknown in England ; but writers on the right of trial certainly give it as their opinion that visitors ought not to be present . We consider the Master has always the power to request visitors to withdraw if he , thinks it desirable . ]

Competition For Masonic Buildings.

COMPETITION FOR MASONIC BUILDINGS .

TO THE EDITOlt OF TIIE " BUILDING NEWS . " SIR , —On reading the letters which have appeared in your paper on the competition for the Masonic buildings in Great Queen-street , there is something so anomalous in the whole affair as to make some explanation desirable . I should , therefore , wish to be informed if the Grand Superintendent of Works therein referred to , will be

permitted to compete for that building . If so , it would be most irregular for him to advise upon the designs submitted in competition ; but if his duty , in his official capacity , is to advise the society , he is consequently excluded from competing . In what position then , would that Masonic officer be , in regard to this contemplated Masonic building , if the

chairman ' s view be correct ? Certainly not a very consistent or enviable one ; for his appointment as architect to the society precludes him from having anything whatever to do with their building , the supervision and direction of which must surely be the object iu the appointment of such au officer . If he competes with other architectshe cannot honourabladvise

, y upon the competing plans ; and if he does not compete , be has no chance of being in any way connected with the building . I should , therefore , very much doubt if the society of Freemasons , so true to their brotherhood , would be so discourteous , as not only to ignore their own officer ' s appointment , but deprive him of even the opportunity of submitting a desifor their buildings .

gn Your obedient servant , AN INTENDED COMPETITOR . [ The Grand Superintendent of Works may compete , but if he does , he will of course decline to give any advice to the Committee , who must seek it elsewhere . —ED . 1

The Grand Supt. Of Works.

THE GRAND SUPT . OF WORKS .

TO THE EDITOR OF THE rilEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC lilRKOK . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In reference to various letters which have appeared in TIIE MASONIC MIRRIOR , respecting the competition now going on for the new Masonic buildings in Great Queen-street , and tbe position and powers of the Grand Supt . of Works in relation thereto , I beg to inform you that the appointment of

Grand Supt . of Works ( like other offices in Masonry ) is an annual one—is in the hands of the Grand Master—and will cease and determine this year on the 29 fch inst . ; and that for the purpose of avoiding any question or embarrassment , the Grand Master , the Earl of Zetland , has , upon my recommendation to that effect , declared his intention not to appoint any brother to that office , until the result of the competition is known . I am , yours fraternally , April 1 st , S . W . DAUKES , G . S . W .