Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

to its amendment. Parliament is not unfriendly to the provident working classes."

But the great objection to the affair lies not so much in the difference of the principles involved, as in the manner in which the bill was concocted, and, as it is technically expressed, "smuggled" through a thin house near the close of the session. The bill originated not with the members of Friendly Societies; their wishes or views were scarcely, if at all, consulted in the matter. The rights of the 2,000,000 members of the enrolled bodies have been thus practically ignored. Such a feat of official legislation is entirely without parallel.

The numerous eccentricities of the registrar or his clerks, and the arbitrary assumption of authority never delegated by the Act of the 18th and 19th Victoria, have latterly provoked severe animadversion in several quarters. The newly organised effort of the members therefore ought not to be confined merely to the repeal or amendment of all or any of the nine clauses in the recent statute, but should include the enactment of a section more precisely defining the duties of the registrar, together with the provision of more certain means by which he may be prevented, should he still prove contumaceous, from any longer rendering the Act obnoxious to those mostly interested, by interference not warranted by his position as registrar.

[ocr errors]

The Act of Parliament in no way authorises the registrar to do more than ascertain, by a perusal of the rules of any society applying for registration, whether the objects are such as the law contemplated, or in fact whether such application is for the enrolment of a bona fide Friendly Society within the limitations of the statute. Some such registration was deemed necessary, for two reasons. The first, however, may happily be almost regarded as a defunct piece of ratiocination-a kind of fossil specimen in logical stratification-a species of extinct premise, but nevertheless very curious and instructive when occupying its proper corner in a museum of legal antiquities. Certain societies at one time existed, in which the members were bound together by unlawful oaths, for the accomplishment of unlawful purposes. These societies used secret passwords; so did the Odd-fellows, Foresters, Druids, and others. They might possibly be confounded; hence the necessity of a lynx-eyed registrar, to decide where loyalty reigned and treason lurked! Well, there can perhaps be no very great objection to the continuance of the official inspector, although the terror from this source has joined "the past eternity"-except the expense. "We who have free souls, it touches us not: Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung!" The other reason is not only of a less antiquated complexion, but it presents some features of danger, and goes far indeed to justify the expenses of the registrar and his staff, as a simple protection to the public exchequer, and the dividends due to the creditors of a certain class of insolvent debtors. It is found that the members of societies, other than those of the class intended by the legislature-societies instituted for the benefit of the professional and middle classes are sometimes extremely anxious to avail themselves of the immunities and privileges accorded the provident operative; and therefore Mr. Tidd Pratt's services in this respect may be essentially requisite, in order to prevent the intention of Parliament from being perverted. But when the expressed conditions of the Act are complied with, I respectfully but firmly submit, the registrar's official duty terminates. He is in no way called upon to dictate, either directly or indirectly, the rates of subscription or benefit, or to enforce the acceptance of any improvements which he may imagine he can offer in the construction of the rules or bye-laws by which societies are governed. Mr. Pratt has replied, in answer to some such

objection to his occasional practice, that the twenty-sixth clause of the Act empowers him to ADVISE with the secretary or other officer, "for the purpose of ascertaining whether the said rules are calculated to carry into effect the intention and objects of the persons who desire to form such a society." I was not aware previously that the authority of an Act of Parliament was necessary to empower any well meaning friend to advise upon such a subject, or indeed upon any other. A careful perusal of the clause, however, has left an impression on my mind that the legislature (wisely, in my opinion) especially intended to prevent any unnecessary interference with the free action of the members themselves in the practical carrying out the proposed objects, for it expressly says, that the registrar shall advise "IF REQUIRED." Nay, it further adds, that if he shall find the "rules are in conformity with law and the provisions of this Act, he shall give a certificate" in the form prescribed.

However, there could not be much objection to Mr. Tidd Pratt offering his advice unsolicited, like any other mortal, providing he would so impart his opinion as not to confound it with his official duty. There are many matters upon which his authority would be respected, if communicated in the form of a suggestion; and there are, with equal certainty, many others concerning which it would be much better for the progress of enrolment, especially amongst the affiliated orders, if he would cease to interfere. If, however, he or his clerks will persist in the practice of pasting a pet form of a rule over any sent for enrolment, and if he or they are still determined, without solicitation, to do a little amateur editing, it is but an act of simple justice that the portion which he, as registrar, demands, "in conformity with law," should be clearly indicated, if it be only to enable the members seeking enrolment to correctly estimate the value of the supererogatory labour, and mete out a due portion of grateful acknowledgment.

Let us examine a specimen or two of the alterations which have so annoyed members seeking enrolment, and frustrated, to some extent, the efforts of its advocates. In the first place, although he has registered the "General Laus" of the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows, and many others similarly entitled, he has latterly, pertinaciously, struck his pen through the treasonable word law, wherever he meets it, and substituted-what does the reader think?-the innocent monosyllable rule! Summoned committee of the lodge or district is transformed into summoned meeting, and a member's legal claim into his ralid claim! The Registrar cannot endure the sight of the word goods, although he is aware that it merely refers to copies of reports, dispensations, magazines, etc., which are paid for out of the incidental or as he prefers it management expences fund. But regalia is his especial horror. His editorial judgment decides in favour of furniture, for which specimen of critical acumen he is occasionally honoured, by even the humblest members, with a peal of hearty laughter. Truly the lodge desk, chairs, boxes, or stools might properly either be so designated, or they might rejoice in the offensive and somewhat less euphonious appellation of goods; but how sceptres and swords, cocked hats and wigs, collars and gowns, stuffed doves, and representations of the hand and heart, mounted on the tops of long rods, together with other emblematical "trumpery" as it is sometimes sneeringly called, can be better described by the word furniture than the word regalia, I freely confess is beyond my capacity. Mr. Pratt, or his assistant, occasionally exhibits, like other industrious critics, his liability to error in common with ordinary humanity. On a recent occasion, in a somewhat rabid raid against the term legal, remarkable in so distingushed a member of the bar, the favourite word calid, accidentally, I suppose, ejected the term illegal, to the utter consternation of the members,

who were for a time puzzled to discover how that which they had all along regarded as erroneous or false, had surreptitiously arrogated to itself the appellation and office of truth and virtue! The word regalia, however, has most amply avenged Mr. Pratt's attempt at its expulsion from the nomenclature of Odd-fellowship, and other affiliated bodies. He some time ago discovered a law, which stated that no regalia was to be used at funerals, other than black scarfs and white gloves. The sceptres, etc., were therefore abolished. No doubt, Mr. Pratt rejoiced exceedingly at this step "in the right direction," however graciously he may tolerate the absurd horsehair wig and other professional paraphernalia peculiar to courts of law; however benignantly he may smile on the Lord Mayor's clumsy and tawdry gilt coach, the huge ugliness of the barbarously carved big dolls, "Gog and Magog," or the button bedizend biped yclept a "gentleman's tiger." Yes, the voluntary extinction of the emblems of office and the objects of the society was, in the opinion of the registrar no doubt, a move in the right direction; but still the offensive word regalia remained. The censor's pen, therefore, speedily extinguishes it; a huge black blotch occupies its place, and mourns its untoward fall. But the destroyer's hand is suddenly

66

arrested the moment he commences the labour of reconstruction. Furniture is a good word, a very good word indeed, but it is not exactly an improvement on regalia when such articles as emblematical scarfs and white gloves are alone referred to. Shall the obnoxious term be again summoned into existence? No, no; at whatever sacrifice, the royal phraseology shall not be profaned by plebeian breath. The official brain again teems; a bright idea is ushered into the world; our descriptive vocabulary receives, at the hands of the registrar, another most brilliant addition! Regalia, like everything else in the universe, may, it appears, be seen at least under two aspects; to wit,-furniture and clothing." The latter term is duly installed in the rule above the mourning blotch, and the members, especially those who believe that Odd-fellowship was invented in the Garden of Eden by a working-man, a semi-nude tiller of the soil, named Adam,-the members were astounded and horrified at the electric rapidity of the retrogessive movement, which in the nineteenth century, legally prohibited their following to the grave the remains of a deceased friend, unless they consented to appear-perfectly naked? No; not quite naked, but with no clothing upon their brotherly bodies except black scarfs and white gloves!

It is certainly a pity that the labours of those who are toiling to induce all societies to submit their rules for enrolment, should be in any way obstructed by the exhibition of such ridiculous, such unnecessary interference.

There are, however, two or three matters of much graver importance, in which I conceive the registrar has overstepped his function. He now resolutely expunges any rule referring to the arrangements for a lodge anniversary or annual dinner. He formerly did not object to a rule of this character. In the 71st General Law, of the Manchester Unity, power is given to lodges and districts " to make such laws as they may think proper for the attendance of members who may reside within the distance of five miles from the lodge-house at funerals and anniversaries." In this very law likewise occur the words regalia, with reference to funerals, and laws instead of rules. This section has been enrolled too by Mr. Tidd Pratt, and is at present in force in the Manchester Unity. Yet he presumes to strike out any by-laws, such as those referred to, when made by lodge or district branches under this certified clause! Nay, he continually refuses to certify laws which have been copied from others, which have previously received his sanction! On some occasions, when he accidentally encounters a

secretary more sturdy than the generality of officials, he is induced to retrace his steps, and yield before the evidence which demonstrates his inconsistency. I have reason to know that Mr. Pratt has been much pestered by certain narrow-souled, ungenial-hearted, members of parliament and others, who regard the slightest convivial enjoyment by working men as approaching very nearly to open profanity. These quasi saints, on finding a registered law referring to a Friendly Society's annual dinner, fall foul on the registrar for neglect of duty, and bore him with such questions as, "Does the law recognise eating and drinking as one of the objects of a Friendly Society ?" "Do you consider feasting and guzzling to be reasonable and proper under such circumstances?" And so on, to the end of the chapter. I understand that it is to some such pressure as this that the change in the registrar's practice is to be attributed. I, however, respectfully but firmly maintain that, in interfering with the lodge anniversary, he not only exceeds his duty but creates a vast amount of useless litigation, and engenders some duplicity. Lodges still act as though he had certified the by-law, because he has enrolled the general law of the Manchester Unity, which empowers them so to act. In case of litigation, they know that the board of arbitrators, appointed by the general law and accepted by the branch law, will decide in their favour. If Mr. Tidd Pratt chooses to create an inconsistency, he must not be surprised that other individuals refuse to be parties to it.

But it is said the Act of Parliament makes no mention of anniversary dinners. Granted. It, however, likewise makes no allusion to either regalia or clothing at funeral processions. It makes no allusion to the meetings taking place at either temperance hotels or public-houses. It makes no reference whatever to any method of advertising to the public the existence of any society. The legislature wisely left the management of their own business to the practical knowledge and good sense of the people themselves. But on the other hand I ask, does the Act prohibit anniversaries? I answer, No! Does any other Act prohibit the members of any other legal society from dining together once a year or oftener if they choose? I say, No! Are the members of other societies in the habit of dining together? I answer, Yes; hundreds of every class and character, including bodies religious, bodies politic, bodies corporate, bodies social, bodies literary, scientific, and artistic, not forgetting the poor pauper bodies, who doubtless enjoy amazingly the extra Christmas fare occasionally prepared for them! Has it been customary for the members of Friendly Societies to dine together? I answer, Yes, from time immemorial; and the members of parliament knew it when the Act was passed! These anniversaries and processions are generally attended by the clergy or some of the neighbouring gentry, and are really the only means, in country districts especially, by which such societies and their objects are prominently brought before the notice of working men. It appears, however, that all philanthropists are not imbued with this, to me, very vulgar prejudice against Friendly Society anniversaries; for I find that the Rev. Nash Stephenson, in a clever paper, read before the last meeting of the "National Association for the Promotion of Social Science," on the social evils arising out of what are termed “statute fairs" in various parts of the country, thus incidentally alludes to the question-"Let there be mingling of class with class. Let the squirearchy and the clergy, and the employers of labour, uphold by their purse and sanction by their person the anniversary of the well-ordered benefit club, the harvest home, or the parish feast. When this has been accomplished or attempted, the upper classes will be enabled with a better grace to ascend the public platform, and with a clearer conscience denounce the demoralising amusements of the day of the statute fairs."

I have long ceased to feel any personal enjoyment from feasting in public, and care as little for processions and gewgaws of any description as most other individuals; but I submit that the permission granted by the registered general law of the Manchester Unity to its branches to act in this respect, within certain restrictions, as may to themselves seem most desirable, is valid according to the law of the land, and that Mr. Pratt exceeds his duty, and most certainly does not add to the dignity of his office, when he condescends to interfere in such matters.

Several of the branches of the Manchester Unity, both lodges and districts, however, complain of a species of "Tidd Pratt law," which demands the serious consideration of all the affiliated bodies. It is of so much importance that, if he continues to persist in his course, they will be compelled in self-defence either to restrain him by a new Act of Parlia ment or petition the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for his removal from the office of registrar. It appears that Mr. Pratt is unable to comprehend, even yet, the constitution of an affiliated Friendly Society, or that he is wilfully determined to annoy its members. In a communication recently received, in reply to a remonstrance, he says:"In Rules 23, 24, and 25, there is nothing illegal; but in the copy sent to me I struck them out, as they appeared to be unnecessary, as every lodge can make its own rules, and cannot be compelled to adopt the rules laid down by the district." Why, every district binds itself to obey the general laws of the Manchester Unity, and to make bye-laws only within the limits therein permitted; and every lodge covenants to the same extent, with the privilege of making bye-laws, for management purposes chiefly, within those enacted by the district; and all this appears on the face of the very code of rules submitted for enrolment. Mr. Tidd Pratt further says:-"The 49th section of 18 and 19 Victoria recognizes in every branch a distinct society!" Does it indeed so far outrage common sense and violate the Queen's English. Let it speak for itself. Here it is :"XLIX.-The word 'Society' shall extend to and include every branch of a Society, by whatever name it may be designated."

If extending the meaning of the word society so that it includes every branch, does not, and was not intended to operate precisely in a contrary manner to Mr. Pratt's interpretation, I submit it would be as well if Parliament in future would employ a national schoolmaster to put its behests into intelligible language. No affiliated body could exist for an hour with such a constitution, and if Mr. Pratt does not know it, I fear that at his time of life it will be useless to attempt his instruction.

One other specimen of "Registrar's law" and I will conclude. Mr. Pratt, in one instance, which has recently come to the knowledge of the Directors of the Manchester Unity, coolly assures his correspondent that a declaration of the officers, that the amendments proposed for certification have been made in conformity with the provisions of their own law, is "not required," at least so far as any alterations or additions made by him are concerned. What impertinence! If the registrar chooses, contrary to the statute, to knowingly certify alterations which were never made or assented to by the parties alone legally entitled to give them validity, of course he can do so at his own peril; but if any member of the Manchester Unity acts on his suggestion without direct authority from those legally empowered to agree to, or reject, the proposed alterations, the society's law will be thereby infringed, and the offender subjected to punishment. But the loose moral tone which underlies this last assumption of authority will be amply sufficient in itself to ensure its utter condemnation with the public without any further effor of mine.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »