Correspondence.

present , and could not have been admitted contrary to the wish of those who held authority in the Order , I certainly was annoyed both at the tone and manner of his attack , and did say , in the presence of more than one Freemason , that although I had previously entertained a desire lo join the Masonic body , I should certainly not do so if such was mode in which strangers were to be treated by members ofthe Order . I ought further to say , that I only made this statement iu the course of what is usuallconsidered private

cony versation , ancl that I had no expectation of finding myself two years afterwards referred to by the writer of a letter in the FEEE - atAsoifs' MAGAZINE . ' So much for falsehood the fourth . Next , upon enquiry , we find that it is also untrue , that one of our establishment ( a Mason ) got into the banquet surreptitiously , avoiding by taking a ticket . He did not partake of the dinner ,

and did not get in surreptitiouly . He was invited in by Mr . Marshall , ancl one of the Vice-Chairmen , and sat down expecting to hear the observations of the Grand Master . So much for falsehood fifth . No doubt this very truthful person did not like the remarks of the editor of this journal . None do who want fco cover a discreditable , nay , indecent conduct , as this was , whether in Masons or any other company , ancl it reflected no credit on those who suffered such conduct to pass without expulsion .

The "Norwich Mercury," And The Norwich Masons.

THE "NORWICH MERCURY , " AND THE NORWICH MASONS .

TO THE EDITOIt 01 ? TIIE PKEEJIASONS MAGAZINE AND MASONIC 3 IIIH 10 B . SIR AND BROTHER . —The editor of the Norwich Mercury has replied , after his own peculiar fashion , to my letter . I say after his own fashion , for he had nofc the courage or honesty to publish my letter , and then reply to it , but he has eviscerated , or rather mangled it , and given only such parts as have suited his purpose . Now , I acted with no

such pusillanimity myself , for though I felt some doubts as to the expediency of giving further currency to the Mercury ' s slander , which , if treated with the " silent contempt" it probably deserved , would have died a natural death , like the usual ebullitions ofthe editor of that journal ; still , as I considered the questions involved were of considerable importance to the Craftandthereforearrived at

, , , the conclusion that the matter ought to be sifted , I thought that the most honest course was to give the Mercury ' s own Statement in full . The answer of the editor of the Mercury to my letter is , I shall show , in keeping with his conduct "in this particular circumstauce . My letter mooted two questions—one as to the allegation made by the editor of the Mercury that his reporter had

beeu invited to attend the banquet by the Prov . Grand Master , and the other as to the mode in which the editor sought to obtain that invitation , and persisted in thrusting his reporter into a private party , after he had had a sufficient -and official intimation that he could uot be allowed to be present . The latter question , I may say , could not have been raised at all ( for ifc is nothing to me , or the Freemasons ''

generally , how the editor of theMercury chooses to gather news for the columns of his paper , or what indignities be may put himself or bis reporter to in pursuit of that object ) , but as the " pitiful rejection" ofthe reporter was the avowed reason for the scurrilous article , it became necessary to inquire how far the editor of the Mercury was justified in charging the Masonic body with a affront to a

gentlegross man of thepress . If the reporter really was invited , fbe editor was right , but the person who invited him was clearly wrong , and my object was that the blame should be fixed on the right party , for the circumstances tended to show that no affront was offered to the Mercury reporter at all ; that the affront , on the contrary , was offered by the Mercury in attempting such an intrusion , and that the incident which

so provoked the spleen of the editor was brought about entirely by his "touting , " as I said , for an invitation . Now , it appears from article No . 2 in the Mercury that , in the first instance , tho editor applied on the subject to the secretary , from whom tickets were to be obtained , and was informed that the banquet was Masonic , and that , as hii reporter was not a Mason , he would not be admitted . Mark

• , as an example of the evasive style of the Mercury ' s reply throughout ; it does not mention the applicatio n to the sesretary , but it admits that the editor was informed by the secretary thafc the reporter could not be admitted .

The editor then has recourse to a near relative , who is Provincial Grand Treasurer , who promises to mention the subject to Bro . Bond Cabbell , the Provincial Grand Master-The Mercury says he did so , and that he afterwards called upon the editor , and informed him that Bro . Bond Cabbell stated "be saw no objection . " I beg to observe , as the Mercury is very free in using the

epithet of "false" in reference to every passage in my letter it has condescended to quote , that I never statedhow could I know such a thing?—either that Bro . Cabbell did not say what the Mercury attributed to him , or that the editor was not infoz * med that Bro . Cabbell had said so . I remarked , what must have occurred to every Mason who read the statement in tho Mercury , that it was scarcely credible that Bro . Cabbell , a Provincial Grand Master , bound to maintain the ancient landmarks with all his

authority ; and one , moreover , who is notably tenacious on such points ; should have given permission for the presence of a non-Mason at a banquet on the occasion of the annual Provincial Grand Lodge . And two reasons I gave for doubting that Bro . Cabbell could have committed himself in such a way , where the strong feeling evinced at North Walshamwhen such a thing was done without Bro .

, Cahbell ' s knowledge , and also the circumstance that Bro . Cabbell appeared to concur most decidedly with Bro . Leedes Fox , his Prov . Grand Secretary , when the latter informed the reporter that he could not be admitted " on any account whatever . " ¦

The defendant in this case , I maintain ,, has convicted himself out of his own mouth . I don't profess to be acquainted with the etiquette of journalism , but I assume that " gentlemen of the press" regulate themselves by the rules which jjrevail among " gentlemen ; " and of this I am quite certain , that they can only support their own selfrespect and the dignity of their calling by doing so . I

have seen in many newspapers—even in the Mercury , which , when it has an object , can also ride the hi gh horse of professional dignity—notices that they have treated certain dinners , really public , as private parties , for some alleged breach of the etiquette due to " gentlemen of the press . " Tbe editor of the Mercury , however , did not choose to stand on his dignity on this occasion , and though he was told by

" a subordinate officer , " the secretary of Lodge 110 , whose name was advertised as the person from whom tickets were to be obtained , that non-Masons could not be admitted , he was not satisfied , but employs the influence of his relative to get the decision of the " subordinate " reversed . I think "gentlemen" would not impose themselves on any company in such a manner ; I question whether "

gentlemen of the press" generally agitate in that way in order that they may put their legs under the same mahogany with persons who , so far from courting , decline their company . The question is , —did the editor of the Mercury know that the banquet was Masonic ; that , therefore , non-Masons could not be admitted ?

He can hardly be ignorant that the Masons are a mystic body , and that theh * assemblies are strictly private . It there have been any exceptions , why , the exception only proves the rule . It was evidentl y an exceptional case when a reporter from the Mercury , who was not a Mason , was allowed to be present on the visit paid to Norwich iu 1819 by H . R . H . the Duke

of Sussex , then Grand Master of England , for during the whole interval of forty years , a reporter bas never been admitted to any Masonic meeting in the province , except twr years ago at North Walsham , when one got in , somehow or other , and his admission occasioned general expressions of surprise and displeasure . It may be that on the occasion instanced by the editor of .

the Mercury , other non-Masons were admitted , and that the banquet , though on a Masonic occasion , was really a public one , in which case the brethren who attend are not deluded into a belief that there are none but Masons

present , and consequently behave with that caution which they were taught on their initiation . It was not so at North Walsham , or at any of the banquets , ou tbe occasion ofthe annual meeting ofthe Provincial Grand Lodge of Norfolk . The only non-Mason present at