the latter portion of the sentence quoted, "not a word can be said in their defence," that he was giving expression to a ridiculous and contemptible falsehood, he ought to be put under personal restraint by his friends, as a much-to-be-pitied individual, suffering from a friendly society monomania. Scores of individuals, and, amongst them, members of parliament, ministers of religion, learned actuaries, and practical, earnest, self-relying workingmen have done for years, and are now daily doing, the very thing which the Times declares to be an impossibility—a thing which cannot be !

Mr. Tidd Pratt is, as usual, very angry at the members of certain clubs meeting at public-houses, and eating anniversary dinners. He contends that a vast amount of drunkenness results from these practices, which would otherwise have no existence. But some of the illustrations introduced in support of his pre-conceived theory are miserably insufficient for the purpose. He says nothing of the fact that large numbers of ordinary clubs and branches of affiliated bodies do not meet in public-houses, or that the will of a majority of the members in nearly all such societies can remove them to any other place which they who compose that majority may prefer. That, in fact, it is the will of the people themselves to meet occasionally together in some place, and enjoy a little social intercourse, according to the taste and habits which have been handed down to them from age to age, during an unknown number of centuries. The friendly society principle did not take them to public-houses. It developed itself there spontaneously, and, so far as it has acted on the drinking portion of the question, its operation has been productive of more practical temperance than thousands of well-meant but utterly fruitless didactic sermons or philanthropic anathemas. I know that the removal to private rooms has often taken the lodge away from a publichouse, but left the members. The club has decayed, and that portion of some of the members' wages previously subscribed in the lodge-room for provident purposes has been spent in liquor in the bar-parlour or tap-room of the very inn the lodge had deserted. Many "respectable" lodges, chiefly composed of tradesmen, meet in private rooms. I have visited some, and have found, as I nearly always have when visiting the private houses of the middle and upper classes, that both beer, wine, and spirits, can be had without troubling a public-house! I know of many good cellars, the proprietors of which never hang out a sign. There is a fearful amount of hollow hypocrisy often exhibited with reference to this question. If a working-man ought never to enter a public-house for business purposes on account of the temptation to drink, neither ought a magistrate, a vicar, an employer of labour, or a scribe of the Times newspaper; and yet they all do: nay, the first-mentioned often issue summonses compelling working-men to attend at such places, under pains and penalties. The holding of a court of justice in a public-house is an infinitely greater anomaly than the holding of a friendly society in such a place, and productive of infinitely more intemperance. In the former case, the witnesses, and others concerned, are generally to be found loitering about rooms and lobbies awaiting their time of hearing, and consequently exposed directly to the full blaze of the temptation so much dreaded. The Odd-fellows' lodgeroom, on the contrary, is private to its members for the night-and temperance in all things is one of the great principles, not only taught, but enforced during the sitting. Employers of labour often pay their "hands" in publichouses, and by so doing subject them to immeasurably greater temptation to drink than a well-regulated friendly society does. I read in a newspaper a few weeks ago an announcement that a case against a certain clergyman would be investigated by clerical inquisitors at a public-house! Would not a little example add considerable force to the practical developement of this antipublic-house theory? It is mere idleness to select the working-man's provident institution from out the great mass of temptations daily spread abroad

for especial animadversion on this subject. If he is incapable of resisting its influence in the direction referred to, he is utterly unfit for the wearand-tear of this life. He may leave the friendly society, but he won't preserve his temperance. There are thousands of other temptations around him infinitely more powerful for evil, and without the corrective for good. I know scores of persons who pay their money and retire from the lodge without drinking a glass of anything. The chief error lies in the ignoring of the great truth that the friendly society principle has nothing whatever to do with the drinking question except as it acts in favour of temperance by the introduction of provident habits amongst frequenters of public-houses. The customs of the people compel it to adapt itself to some extent to their caprice. If it defies this all-potent condition, it simply ceases its practical action, and degenerates into a mere elegantly rounded apothegm on the lips of professional philanthropy.

Mr. Pratt is so weak in facts to support his theory that he actually publishes the following paltry effusion from some secretary of some friendly society :

"Our club is held at a public-house, which brings upon each member, annually, the following unnecessary expenses :

s. d.

"So each member pays annually 15s. into the fund of his club, and it costs him 8s. to do so."

Indeed! Then the working-man who, in twelve months, has had a day's holiday, a feast dinner, and three-and-sixpence-worth of beer during the twelvemonth for 8s., has had nothing for his money but the privilege of pay. ing his subscription. I should like to look at the individual who would assert that such an expenditure by any self-relying industrious man, providing the owner of the money himself is content with his bargain, is either degrading, immoral, or improper in any public sense. The answer he would receive from many such men would be neither gratifying to his organ of self-esteem, nor complimentary to his manners. Really it is a pity government officials have not other and more important business to attend to. The morals of the public have not often been vastly improved by Government action. In this case, if the clergy, the temperance society, and the schoolmaster cannot drag friendly societies into school-rooms and offices, I scarcely think the Registrar will succeed.

But, stay in his dearth of important facts, the Registrar has published an extract from a friendly society report held at Soberton, in the county of Southampton," from which it appears that no less than 258 gallons of beer were consumed during three years by about 120 members." This is certainly horrible! That 120 men should, with their own money-it would have been all right, perhaps, if the squire had treated his work-people to an anniversary dinner, or a glass of beer occasionally-that 120 men should deliberately drink rather more than two large gallons of beer each in three short years because they had joined a society which held its meetings at a house of public entertainment, built by a "gentleman" (no doubt), and licensed by the magistrates, is an enormity so great, that nothing short of the annihilation of the name of the village, or town, or hamlet where the deed done can, or ought to satisfy outraged Public Virtue. No! Let Soberton, therefore, be henceforth erased from the map of England, and

was

303

Why, a "gentleman's" glass of Drunkentown substituted in its stead! "bitter beer" per diem, at luncheon, only amounts to twenty-three gallons per annum! In three years it only reaches sixty-nine gallons! Of course, we say nothing about the port, champagne, and brandy-and-water. Doubtless, the plebian sinners contrived to "moisten their clay" with other potations during the three years, than the rather-over two gallons of beer each, to which the Registrar refers.

But stay, this society is held at the sign of-what does the reader think"The King's Head," or the "Queen's Arms," or perhaps the arms of the neighbouring squire? No, "the school-room!" School-room! how is this? People don't drink in school-rooms, do they? Perhaps not generally, but I have seen it done. Oh! it is the anniversary dinner, no doubt, that consumed in three years the rather more than two gallons of ale each. The meeting in the school-room might have procured the restoration of the ancient and honourable name of the village; but if working-men will ape "their betters," and celebrate the anniversary of their club, although held in a school-room, and consume rather more than two gallons of beer each in three years, they must be content to live in Drunkentown during the remainder of their earthly existence.

Of course it is not my wish to recommend any expenditure of money by working-men on either beer or anniversary dinners. I think it is simply their own business and not mine. It is sufficient for me if the funds subWherever such scribed for provident purposes are not taxed with the cost.

is the case it ought to be suppressed at once, as it has been long since in the Manchester Unity. As to whether it is desirable or not to dine together once a year, or go to church as a body to hear a sermon, or hold a tea-party, or other demonstration to advertise a club, is in my opinion best ascertained by the experience of the members thereof, and so long as they pay the cost out of their own pockets, I conceive it to be no part of the Registrar's duty to refuse the registration of their laws, or mine to make it a matter of public denunciation. Some societies certainly have a bye-law which compels every member, residing within a certain distance, to pay his share of the cost of the dinner (generally some shilling or eighteenpence) whether he attends or not. These are chiefly village clubs, and the anniversary in reality is but a part of the festivities of the annual fair or wakes, or other ancient custom. I do not remember a single lodge in a large town, that does not leave it to the option of each member whether he takes a part in an anniversary or not, both in purse and person. In my own district I have often heard an intimation, if any party did not voluntarily join in such a celebration, that his room would be more acceptable than his company."

If ever public houses are to become temperance hotels by mere moral influence, and not by "Maine Law," I am satisfied, from long experience, that the action of the friendly society principle will be felt in that direction; that it will play, although unostentatiously, no unimportant part in every movement which really and tangibly effects any amelioration of the physical condition of the great mass of our industrial population, or which tends to elevate them either morally or politically in the social scale. It is the fear of the latter that is the real bugbear to the Times. We don't discuss politics here; but I know that every member, whatever may be his views politically, will resent the imputation that the fact of a man being a member of a friendly society is a proof of his incompetency to perform the duties of a citizen. If that fact does not speak in his favour, no member will, I am confident, assent to its being used as an argument to his disadvantage.

There are some other matters of importance, both in the Registrar's report and the Times commentary; but I must postpone their consideration for the present.

A DIRGE FOR THE OLD YEAR, AND A CHANT TO THE NEW.

BY JOHN A. HERAUD, ESQ.,

Author of "The Judgment of the Flood," &c., &c.

INTONE the Dirge. Our friend was old,
His veins had wintry grown and cold;
Most dim of eye, most stark of limb,
The snows will weave a shroud for him.
His time was full of troubles dire,
Of wrong and discord, sword and fire,—
War, with its rumours, and its curse,
That bane of bliss, an empty purse.
Taxation following in its train,
The fever of the heart and brain;
The State perplexed, the masses wild,
Opinions still unreconciled,

The Earth a Babel, and the Heavens,
Like earth, at sixes and at sevens;

Creeds changed or changing, rites renewed

Our pious fathers had eschewed;

And Czars and Popes, from tower and steeple,
Affrighting humble, honest people.
Intone the Dirge, nor let it cease,
Till, with the Year, we bury these.

We've seen the Old Year out. Now, prance,

And sing with joy, and shout and dance,
Welcome we the New Year in

With all kinds of merry din.

Behind our backs we gaily cast

The bygone mischiefs of the Past.

'Gainst yesterday no longer rail we :

The Present and the Future hail we!
To-morrow may be Peace or not;
Beshrew us if we care a jot.
If Peace it be, we can enjoy it;
If War, our valour shall destroy it.
The readier we dare its front,
The bolder we withstand its brunt,
The sooner we shall end the strife
That makes such bitterness of life.
Hail, New Year, hail! so full of hope;
So rife with work; so wide of scope!
'Long ere thou end, may human kind
Have ratified the claims of Mind;
And Merit conquered for its brow

The wreaths that Wealth and Birth wear now.
Next Christmas, be it ours to say,
Though Patience had too long a day,
The year of Recompense has come,
And made the world a happy home.

The Lodge Room.

ODD-FELLOWS AND FORESTERS FAIRLY CONTRASTED.

UNDER the Act of 1855 regulating Friendly Societies, the registrars at London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, have to report annually to Parliament on the proceedings in their offices. Amid much dry matter, some figures always show a large number of members in these societies, and on one occasion it was stated they saved the country at least two millions annually in poorrates. Last year the English report showed the legal societies had two million members, and nine millions' surplus capital, and the numbers in several large societies were given-the two greatest being the Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity, and the Ancient Order of Foresters. It is a fact, much to be regretted, that among the upper classes there exists a prejudice against these associations; but there is really no good reason for it. Their objects are, by entrance fees, subscriptions, fines, donations, and interest, to raise funds for insuring a sum of money (generally £10) to be paid on death of a member to the widow, children, or other person, for defraying the expenses of burial; and also for insuring a sum of money (generally £5) to be paid to a member on the death of his wife; for the relief of members (about 10s. weekly) in sickness and old age; for granting assistance to the widows and children of deceased members; for providing members with assistance when travelling in search of employment; and for assisting members in distressed circumstances. Their "secrets" simply consist in keeping their meetings exclusive, none but members being admitted; in bestowing on active members honorary titles, and some quaint modes of knowing each other. Taking the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows as an example, the result of their working is this :-That body received during 1858, for sick and funeral benefits, £211,685, and paid out £187,012; and, quoting from printed returns, it appears that the surplus capital in hand amounts on an average to £6 10s. per member, or for the 287,573 members, no less than £1,869,224. This is without reference to the widow and orphan, distress and management funds. The Foresters have not at present ascertained the state of their finances so minutely. Each society is governed by well-framed laws, and a grand meeting of delegates from all parts of the country takes place annually, to consider any proposed alterations. That of the Manchester Unity was held on Whit-Monday at Leicester, and the Foresters' at Brighton on the 1st of August. Quarterly an official report is issued from head-quarters to the various lodges and courts, containing accounts of the societies' business and progress. The Foresters change their place of business every year-one year at Rochdale, another at Huddersfield, and go on; but the Odd-fellows have a building of their own. The first stone was laid on the 19th February, 1857, and from a small levy upon the members, spread over two years, the building was erected in Grosvenor-street, Manchester, at a cost of £2,829. These societies do not rest content with simply working for themselves, for the Odd-fellows' reports of 1847 show that £1,905 was voluntarily contributed by that body for the distressed Irish and Scotch; and, in 1855, that £2,590 was collected for the Patriotic and Crimean Army Funds. The Foresters realized for the latter object about £400. Both

VOL. II.

U