months, as a rule. If a party in the Manchester Unity, for instance, be found capable and industrious, he may pass seriatim through all the four offices of his lodge in two years. There is not one in a thousand ever repeats the service, although many often attend and watch the business, which is not decided upon by the dictum of the officers, but by a vote of the lodge. If a member be aggrieved, he can appeal to a committee, composed of a deputy from each lodge forming his district. If he is still dissatisfied, he can appeal to the Board of Directors of the general Unity, who are appointed final arbitrators under the Act of Parliament. These gentlemen are elected at the annual committee of the entire Order, and reside in various parts of the country; each retires every year, though eligible for re-election; hence no local prejudices can affect their decisions. I hesitate not to say, from my experience as a member of this board, that as good and substantial justice is rendered there as in any of Her Majesty's Courts of law, and infinitely more to the satisfaction of the members. Why, no one can tell who will hold office this day three years! So much for the conspiracy of the managers! Just a private word en passant for the information of the writer in the Times. I would recommend him not to try the dodge on again about the poor old men; it sounds very well to those unacquainted with the practical working in these clubs. I have devoted much time to the subject of financial reform, and have argued the question hundreds of times, during the last twelve years, face to face with the members. As rapidly as we have progressed, and are progressing, in the Manchester Unity, there are no thanks especially due to the older members, I am sorry to say. They are generally the conservatives of a lodge; they don't believe in innovation; the club has done well so far, has saved £700 or £800; it will last at least their time, and a long time afterwards. Such is their cry. I have often fancied that I could detect a curious reflex of legislators belonging to a higher station in some of these men. It is generally the middle-aged, the younger, and better educated, who support measures for financial reform. Even provident working men we, who labour amongst them, find made of very similar material to "their betters." It often requires a considerable amount of preliminary agitation amongst the members before any very important change, in what they regard as their "glorious constitution," can be effected, in a legal manner. Some of them are quite as much afraid as the Spooners, the Drummonds, and the Sibthorpes, that the constitution they have been accustomed to hold as a sacred thing is hourly in danger of perishing from the rude attacks of innovating designing knaves or fools, who, of course, by some remarkable infatuation, have become oblivious to the fact that they themselves form a portion of the doomed social body.

The real bolt launched by the Times demands a serious reply: I could for the moment scarcely believe my own eyes when I first read the following lines: "The majority of these 2,000,000 subscribe to societies that from the hour of their institution, and in their printed rules, deliberately contemplated and still intend bankruptcy."

I would gladly have included this amongst the specimens of the ignorance of the writer in the leading journal, and in the spirit of charity I would still wish to do so; but the brutal, ruthless animus is so evident, that to hold any compromise with so foul, so loathsome a falsehood, till I have struck with the hand of Truth a death blow into the very heart of the reptile, I should feel as a personal degradation. Before any truly honourable man; before any human being possessing the least, the most puny pretence to patriotism, or to faith either in God or the frail but noble humanity fashioned in His image, could have given to the world such a sentence, he would have paused, thought carefully, enquired long, not from two or three,

but from many sources, and would then, if so impressed, have penned it in deep sorrow, not with the wild satanic glee of a party zealot.

But to the proof! How this already demonstrated most contemptibly ignorant writer came to know anything about the motives of upwards of a million of his fellow-countrymen, with whom he appears to have seldom or never mixed, of course I cannot tell. He talks of certain "good men," who, like the maids who undertook to scrub the Black-a-moor white, have "laboured in vain" to enlighten these poor benighted-pshaw ! what am I writing-these untransported scoundrels, rather,-on the imperfections of their friendly societies. Now, I think I know something of the class of "good men" referred to. What I have seen of most of them, and especially the Times' chief protegé, my Lord Albemarle, has often forcibly reminded me of the truth of the old Spanish proverb, viz :-" A man may be so good, as to be good for nothing." However, we will leave poor Lord Albemarle alone this time. He got a sufficient flogging on his last exhibition by my friend Mr. Daynes and myself. Some atonement has been made, too, since for his indiscretion, which will perhaps rather startle the writer in the Times. His lordship's son, Lord Bury, and another near relative, have been initiated members of the Manchester Unity of Independent Odd-fellows!! It some time ago became rather fashionable for members of the upper classes to condescend to "lecture" to the "people." Some of it was very ¡ satisfactory, especially when the speaker understood his subject, and his audience did not, or only imperfectly. But when men of this class began to talk to the working men upon subjects concerning which the amateur orator possessed but very limited information, and that of an imperfect character; and when, added to this, well-bred gentlemen left their manners at home, and descended to vulgar abuse, which abuse was levelled against men who both understood the questions, in the practical working sense, infinitely better than their slanderers; honest working men, whose self-sacrifice for their fellow-man's advantage, exceeded that of the wealthy talkers a thousand fold; of course, just indignation was naturally aroused, and soon all such attempt at teaching was treated with the contempt it merited. The greatest difficulties in the way of practical earnest workers for friendly society improvement, has arisen from some of these "good men's" bungling, and want of courtesy, and the squabbles amongst the actuaries themselves; who, if we believe what some of them say about one another, have themselves a tolerable amount of friendly society error to answer for. Yet this class of persons are the "crammers" of the Times' writer. "Pshaw !"

In reply to such, I say, that, I am not aware that any single individual, (and I know many who have laboured hard for a lengthened period, who will endorse the evidence I now tender)-I am not aware that any single individual has spoken and written more to and for the members of friendly societies on the necessity of financial reform, during the last twelve years, than myself. I never shrank from telling the most unpleasant truths developed by the science of vital statistics to any body of odd-fellows or others, either in public lecture, after dinner speech, or printed essay. But I treated the members with courtesy. I knew the great truths on the other side of the question and acknowledged them. I knew the blunders of the actuaries and pointed them out. In fact, I endeavoured always to teach the WHOLE TRUTH, and essayed to progress according to the nature of the people and their habits, and not in accordance with the paltry fire-side theories of soi-disant philanthropists. Well, what has been the result? Did they ever insult me for such labours? With a single unimportant exception, I cannot remember an instance !! But the provident working man, remember, will not be spoken to without courtesy, and will resist any attempt at dictation, with reference to his private affairs, whether it comes

from a peer or a prelate. But so far from not desiring to learn from those in whose knowledge and integrity they have faith, the very men themselves have solicited me to visit many towns in England and paid the expenses, in order that they might hear what I had got to say on the subject of financial improvement. I have had some active experience amongst these people during the last twelve years; and, if I were placed in the witness box of a court of justice, and asked on oath, if I endorsed or otherwise the Times' writer's sentiment that the majority of the members of these societies, "from the hour of their institution, and in their printed rules, deliberately contemplated and still intend bankruptcy," I should unhesitatingly answer, that a more contemptible falsehood, or, to speak plain English, a more contemptible LIE, a more atrocious and unmerited calumny and libel I never remember to have seen perpetrated; no, not even in the columns of the Times. I boldly appeal to all those who have had any practical experience in these matters to say which evidence is most worthy of belief. But the least knowledge of the history of these societies would have taught this scribe that many of them were founded upon what was considered the best possible principles, both by the government and the actuaries of the time. In 1825 a committee reported to parliament that the act of 1819 stipulated that "justices" (who, at that period, fulfilled the functions of the registrar) "shall not conform and allow any tables of payments or benefits, or any rules dependent upon or connected with the calculation thereof, until it shall have been made to appear to such justices that the said tables and rules are such as have been approved by two persons at least known to be professional actuaries, or persons skilled in calculation, as fit and proper, according to the most correct calculation of which the nature of the case will admit." But mark! The committee found, on inquiry, "that in many counties the bench had been satisfied with the signature of petty schoolmasters and accountants, whose opinion upon the probability of sickness and the duration of human life is not to be depended upon." Not much certainly. But at the time pretty nearly the same might truly be said of the best actuary living.*

Indeed, at the present time, no really satisfactory complete system has yet been propounded, at least none which has received the sanction of all the actuaries; they contradicted each other most amusingly on examination, even recently, before the committee of the House of Commons. Nay, some of the highest in position actually ignored a law, which of necessity is the very corner-stone in the theory of chances! And yet, these men have certified to the "safety" of the tables of hundred of societies! Well may many of these, and others formed on their model, without payment of actuaries' fees, have gone to the wall. Mr. Neison, as I showed in a recent number of the Magazine, has stigmatised the last issued government tables as the most "unfortunate event in the history of Friendly and Benefit Societies, since the publication of the Highland Societies' tables, in 1824!" And yet, Mr. Tidd Pratt, and Mr. Finlaison, the government actuary, are the acknowledged literary parents of this precious production! So the working men, it appears, have been acting as pioneers in this great field of undiscovered science, and from their experience alone professional men, who, like lawyers, are in want of fees, have been making calculations, and are somewhat disappointed that they cannot, so speedily

* As a historical curiosity, I could like to know upon what data these professional actuaries made their calculations. Perhaps on old Dr. Price's theory, which proved miserably inadequate, and the adoption of which brought certain ruin to hundreds of clubs. I am aware of no other authority at the time, except the Highland Society's tables, which are not much better. The Rev. Mr. Beecher's Southwell tables were preferred by the committee in 1825, but they have likewise proved much too low, in the elder periods of life especially. society still, I believe, is in existence, now on a good foundation, and very flourishing.

The

as they could wish, prevail upon the people to permit them to commence remodeling their societies. The people are right in being cautious in this matter. An actuary, as such, is often most ignorant of the practical working of these institutions; their fees are very high, and any simple arithmetician can take from the published returns the rates, according to each past experience, as well as nine-tenths of them. And yet, forsooth, the people, whose brave perseverance has supplied the very materials for these improved tables, are stigmatised as imposters and swindlers! We shall next year hear that Sir John Franklin was a coward and a fool, and perhaps a knave, because he died in his effort to discover the north-west passage!!

With respect to the impertinence of the Times writer, I think after what I have written, there can be no necessity for me to insist upon it further.

Of course, I do not hesitate to say here, as elsewhere, that much remains to be done in order that all friendly societies may be placed financially in a sound position. But neither Rome nor the British constitution was built in a day. The first venture with the Great Eastern steam ship proved á failure. The same may be said of the Atlantic telegraph cable. But does any one, therefore, doubt the integrity of purpose, or the capability of further exertion on the part of the shareholders and directors, or that future success will ultimately crown these eminently national undertakings. What common sense can there be in confounding the moral effort of a large body of men of otherwise most undeniable reputation, with either their great ör partial ignorance of a science with which not one in a thousand, of the middle class even, are much better acquainted than they are with Sanscrit! There is a great cry abroad just now about the impropriety and even criminality of attempting to set class against class." In my opinion a single article of the character of the one now under consideration, is more calculated to effect so undesirable a consummation, than some scores of demagogue speeches however violent. If the operation of friendly societies had been productive of no more social good, than the bringing together of men of various classes and opinions, on a ground where all could labour for the general good, and silence for the time the discordant yell of political or polemical rancour, they deserve the countenance and support of every true patriot and genuine philanthropist.

Just a parting word with the redoubtable "thunderer." I would, in all sincerity, suggest for the moral consideration of the mighty potentate (if he still retains such a faculty), that there exists a greater-I won't say "calamity"-but a greater scandal to this country, than the general condition of our benefit societies"; and that is, that the head of our boasted free periodical press, can continue to hold its position by dint of mere literary legerdemain and commercial enterprise, long after its want of sterling principle has become almost universally acknowledged. Englishmen are fond of boasting of, among other virtues, the possession of two important qualities, viz. honourable dealing and manly courage. How little the Times represents the national character in these respects, is now (alas!) a matter of disgraceful notoriety.

Notwithstanding the deadly hostility of the thunderer, I shall still, as heretofore, maintain that so far from being a scandal, the rery effort of the operative population in this direction results from one of the greatest and most honoured of our national characteristics. With all their errors these societies are teaching millions the principle and practice of self-dependence; they have taught working men practically the value of law and order, and the danger and folly of anarchy; they have made thousands of them citizens worthy to live in the freest and the most powerful of the nations of the world.

FRANKLIN'S MAXIMS.

EXAMINED BY W. AITKEN, P. PROV. G.M.

To make any strictures on maxims that have passed current and almost undisputed for a century may seem to the admirers of the Doctor absurd indeed. That Doctor Franklin was a wise, a great, and a good man, the writer of this paper does not call in question, but he certainly thinks that many of his maxims have tended to harden the heart of mankind, encase it in adamant, destroy great Christian maxims, and foster a narrowness of mind between man and man. Nay, farther, that many of them are absurd, and nine tenths of the readers of the Odd-fellows' Magazine will, I think, admit the fact when these far-famed maxims are analyzed. Let it be perfectly understood that there are many of his maxims very good. It is those that have long seemed to me objectionable and absurd with which I have to deal. I will commence with one which many of us learned from our mothers, and is, perhaps, one of the earliest of our recollections. Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” The great bulk of mankind are hard workers, go to bed "early," and rise early," but the work that millions endure destroys their "health," the small earnings they receive do not find them the necessaries of life, say nothing of "wealth," and they have not time, by study and an exhausted daily frame, to make themselves "wise."

66

Take most of the numerous trades carried on in our boasted centres of civilization, and what do we find ?-that nine-tenths of mankind are within a month's march of the workhouse. In other words, if all that the great majority have was sold, it would barely keep them a month from positive starvation.

Yet they go to bed "early." rise "early," and their household goods, or "accumulated capital," if all sold, could not and would not keep the multitude from the direst want a single month. When mankind and womankind are labouring hard from year end to year end, are under-fed, under-clothed, and badly housed, they cannot be as "healthy" as they ought to be. The wealthy" portion of the business has, I think, been disposed of.

Now for the "wise" portion of it. Marriage is a law of God and civilized society, and whether marriages are provident or improvident is not the question. But people do get married, and have families. The small amount of money earned by the multitude of workers prevents them paying any great sum of money for the teaching of their children.

But supposing the juveniles do go to school, when they get about nine or ten years of age they are taken from school, sent to mines, mills, or some other of the manufactories of the most industrial age the world has ever seen. Their education is thus scanty, their labour then and in after life mostly absorbs alike their physical and mental powers, thus preventing the great industrial hive from being, as far as book learning is concerned, in the abstract sense of the term, "wise."

Again, even those who have the means to study and be "wise;" some pore over the "midnight lamp," others under the lamp of day, both alike getting "wise" by lamplight and sunlight. If all these premises be true, and they are, the maxim of "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man