The "Norwich Mercury," And The Norwich Masons.

North Walsham was the Mercury reporter ; and it is evident from his statement , published in the last article , that the editor must have learnt sufficiently from what occurred there , that theMasons were not willing to have a non-Masonic reporter present on such occasions . It is also a curious circumstance that , if the Mercury reporter went to the assembly rooms , not on speculation but

armed with the authority of Bro . Cabbell , he should have considered ifc necessary to wait there a considerable time , in order to apply personally to Bro . Cabbell or Bro . Leedes Fox , to know whether he could be admitted , instead of going straight up to Bro . Marshall and asking for a ticket . I contend , then , that if there ever were "touting" for an invitationthe editor of the Mercury most decidedldid

, y " tout" for one for his reporter . It is also quite evident that another employe on the Mercury had been "touting" likewise . Bro . Cummins , in his letter in the MAGAZINE ot last week , exculpates himself satisfactorily from auy imputation of breach of Masonic confidence . I did not charge him with telling his employer , though I must say I suspected himas others did ; and I

, am quite ready to say that I fully believe his disclaimer , and did not indeed think that he would have done such a thing wittingly , but thought he might have been betrayed into some unguarded remarks . I entirely dissent , however , from his assertion that tho occurrence at the dinner was publicly talked about on the following day in the city . It was the article in the Mercury that made it a general

scandal ; and that is one ofthe charges I make against that paper , and against the person or persons who gave the editor such information . As to the incidental allusion I made as to how Bro . Commins got into the banquet-room , I think both his employer and himself would have shown more discretion to have let that matter drop . The editor

says that his overseer was not present at the dinner—only after the dinner . Surely , if he did not take a ticket , he hi ! j . d no more right to drink the wine after the dinner than to eat the fish , flesh , and fowl at the dinner . He says he was "invited" to sit down at the table ; but how came to be hovering about " Like a stray soul upon the Stygian bank , waiting for waftage ? "

If he too was not " touting " for an invitation , I can't understand why be should have been on the premises at all . I cannot help saying this , because Bro . Cummins has complained of the expression I used about the manner in which he got into the banquet room , which was remarked upon very freely , and in his own hearing , by more than one brother , in consequence of his making himself so

conspicuous by getting up on a chair , and demanding the expulsion of the two disorderly guests . With regard to the North Walsham affair , the editor of Mercury says he was " recpiested" to attend " by a gentleman living near North Walsham . " It is to be presumed that that gentleman is a mason ; and if he did " request " the Mercury to send a reporter , knowing they could not send one who was a Mason , he , too , committed an act of

great presumption m doing so , and no doubt perceived his mistake afterwards . The editor says also that his reporter was not " introduced " into the banquet by another person on the establishment . What quibble is connected under the word "introduced ? " Ho was driven over to North Walsham by the person in question , who is a Mason , and that person , as I was credibly informed , applied for the

ticket for the reporter , and got it . If this is the case , the reporter ' s statement , that he did not apply for admission , is a mere evasion ; though he did not apply personally , the application was made in his behalf ; and as the editor published a " statement" of his reporter , he ought also to have published a statement from the other party , who could have explained exactly the manner in which the thing was

managed . Assuming , however , that the reporter obtained admission at North Walsham in a perfectly legitimate way , that does not get rid of the fact that be soon discovered he had no business to be there , and that a mistake had been made somewhere ; indeed , he complains of being treated in an unmannerly way , though very great delicacy was shown in allowing him to remain at all in the room . In spile of all that , his employer wished to put himthroughthe same | ordeal again .

The "Norwich Mercury," And The Norwich Masons.

The reporter , perhaps , to please his employer , has a fling of his own at the Masons ; he was inclined , forsooth , before this to join ' the Order , "butif that was the way they treated strangers , he should not . " I repeat that intruders in other companies would not have been treated with so much forbearance , and it was purely out of personal consideration for the reporter , knowing that he had not voluntarily placed himself in such

a situation , but had been brought there in the discharge of his professional duty—that he was not dealt with as intruders upon Masonry are and ought to be . I return now to the chief issue I raised—did any brother of authority in the Order ever sanction such a departure from Masonic rule as the admission of a non-Mason to a purely Masonic banquet ? This is a question I leave for

those to answer whose names the editor of the Mercury has introduced into this matter . And whichever ' way that question maybe decided , I maintain the editor of the Mercury must still be considered to have acted in a very undignified way throughout the whole business , and to have done little credit to himself and his newspaper by this " pitiful " attempt to cast discredit upon the Freemasons of Norfolk . I am , sir ancl brother , yours fraternally , A NORWICH FREEMASON .

Sussex Provincial Grand Meeting.

SUSSEX PROVINCIAL GRAND MEETING .

TO THE EDITOIt OE THE H' . EEMASONS * JIASAZISE AKD MASONIC MIKEOE . SIR AND BROTHER . —Your correspondent "Progress , " a fortnight since urged the importance of the F REEMASONS ' MAGAZINE being represented at the forthcoming annual meeting of the Grand Lodge of Sussex . I sincerely echo his wish , under the impression that , for more reasons than one , it is very desirable .

My object however , in writing is to express the belief that " Progress " ( who is desevedly entitled to every credit for continually advocating the necessity of a Masonic Hall at Brighton ) , isfor once greatly abroad ancl at variance with the truth when he states that the province is working harmoniously ; that the V . W . the Deputy Provincial Grand Master has visited the lodges under his control for the

purpose of acquainting himself as fco their position , and cultivating a friendly Masonic feeling with the brethren , and that the new appointments will be received with satisfaction generally by the Craft in the province . Upon tbe contrary , I think it will very shortly be proved that a good Masonic feeling does not prevail throughout the provinceand thatwhether as regards the doings in and

, , out of the several lodges , and the provincial management (?) , we cannot be compared to many other provinces . To the credit of the brethren be it spoken they are charitably ( iu a pecuniary sense ) inclined . Again , I affirm that the D . Prov . G . M . is not in a position to bear witness to the prosperity or non-prosperity , good management or

mismanagement of the lodges in Sussex , for the simple reason that not six visits ( and " I am giving scope ) have been paid by him during the last two years . He must , therefore , rely upon tbe returns made him , or the information supplied by the Prov . G . Sec , almost an equal stranger to the lodges , not a regular attendant of his mother lodge , and a deserter of his own bantling , the Brighton Lodge of Masonic

Instruction (?) Lastly , I maintain that the intended appointments will not afford general satisfaction , but will create , to use a mild expression , general discontent . Were I to mention the names of the brethren selected , their antecedents , and circumstances which have transpired in connection therewith , I could substantiate what I have stated , but I trust ou the 27 th inst . you will be present to

judge for yourself . In conclusion , I hopo " Progress" is not also wide of his mark in stating that at last the brethren have been awakened to the necessity of a " Masonic Hall at Brighton . " I cannot , and regretfully I say it , hear that the " Hall Committee" are up and doing . I am , Sir and Brother , fraternally yours , ' " OBSSBVER . " Brighton , August 19 th , 1861 .