On this page
- Departments (2)
-
Text (7)
-
that what did riot not accordant withthe...
-
ODD FELLOWSHIP
-
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ATE " ms ~ THEIR INJUSTICE, E...
-
TO THE EDITOR OP IHE NORTHERN STAR, Sir,...
-
Apropos ItooBM.-We perceWe *at some oHhe...
-
PrintedbyDOUGALM'GOWAM . of 17, «•« - ttB« in the Ciof t * Printed by DOUCWL M'GOWAN, of 17, fiwrt ^ n J?S
-
PrintedbyDOUGALM'GOWAM . of 17, «•« - tt...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
That What Did Riot Not Accordant Withthe...
_„^ _'„ _urnm September 27 , 1845 . THE NORTHERN STAR . __ _^
Odd Fellowship
ODD FELLOWSHIP
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
_*¦ " _^^^ S _^ 1 ATE " _~ THEIR INJUSTICE , EVEN IP "IX **** * Afortnightagowe indulged * a few observations J _& wjLTin dispute between the Directors of the Odd Fellows' Institution and a considerable number of its members , who have by those Directors been _^ _^ _spendecV' ftom all " _tene _/ _its" in the Order : « bonefits" which they hare purchased and paid for , and to which they have as g 6 pd a moral title —{ we will explain , before wehave done , wij they are deficient
in legal title)—as any man can posa-bly have to any species of property whatever . Those observations have brought forth a " reply" from a " George Casdelbit _, of Hyde , who avers that he is on terms of private intimacy with _Mt . _ILatcijpfe , the C . S . of the Order ; therefore , we presume , we may consider such " reply" to express more than the individual opinions ofthe person whose nameit bears . The sufficiency of that " reply" we shall examine , ere these remarks rare closed .
The mam question to be decided , as the matter mow stands , is , were the Directors ofthe OddFellows _* Institute JUSTIFIED by the laws of the Orders in " suspmding" 30 , 000 of its members from all communion with the rest of their brother members , and from all the " bexefits" they had purchased and paid for ? This is the heal question which has to be first considered ; for on the answer to this question depends some all-important consequences . It often happens that in disputes of the nature of that which has torn the OddFellows' Society into fragments , the real points at issue axe lost in the individual contests ihat are sure to arise under such circumstances ; and
ail the attention and force of the respective parties to the original quarrel are oftentimes concentrated and spent on little , petty , but exciting personal squabbles , and Hie great cause of the division left to work another split at another day . Suca is the COURSE WB 1 CH THE _PBESEST DISPUTE IS TAKING : but the members ofthe Order , both the " suspended ? ' and the ( at present ) nnsuspended ones , will do well for their own interests , if they see to ifc that the extraneons and petty personal matters that daily arise , secupy their own proper place in the background—to he disposed of when the main question of all shall have been duly considered and justly settled . It may be all very well to inquire , at ihe proper time , whether it be true that among the " disaffected " in the Manchester District , are
twelve individuals who were once "detected" in an " attempt to cheat the Order , hy sending in goods of an inferior description to those they had contracted to supply : " and it may also be of service to inquire whether Mr . _TMcliffe does still attend at races , and Set on them to a large amount , after he has solemnly pledged himself to abstain from the practice : but neither of these inquiries will explain the reason why 30 , 000 members have been "hung up" from the privileges and benefits they had purchased ; nor show that the directors ofthe Order had LAW for their most extraordinary step . Let ns have all due inquiry into all alleged abuses and defalcations , in iheir order of import and date : but let not the bandyings of personalities from one side to the other sink out of sight the great question of all .
That great quEsnox is the one of " suspension . " If the power lately exercised by the Board ofDireetors li alawfulone ; if the Board be properly invested with it bylaw ; if they havesuchpower conferred on them by " rule "—no member in the society is safe ! He has only to " offend "— -and God knows that when personal dislikes have full play , matter of "offence" is soon found ; he has only to offend , and forthwith he is deprived of thc benefits for which he hasi > _aid / It is impossible to overrate the importance of this question . As we said , a fortnight ago , if the Directors of the Odd Fellows' Institution have the power , of their own will and accord , to " suspend" any member ,
or lodge , or district , from the benefits which _tficy hav e purchased , it is a MONSTROUS TYRANNY—a _tyranny which the Jaw of the land ought at once to put down . "What ! a man enter a sick and burial BenefitSociety , —andthe OddFellows' confederation , BOtwithstanding its high sounding name , is little more than this ; a man enter such a society ; pay to it for twenty or thirty long years , in the hope that when sickness overtakes him , he may have the means of sustenance without straitening his friends or having to apply to the parish ; and in the hope that when death overtakes him , liis children or his fiiends mBhavethemeansofinterringhim decently , and
providing suitable mourning for his nearest relatives : a -man enter a society sueh as this , and pay regularly to it for a long lifetime , often stinting himself of the very necessaries of life "to pay his Lodge , " as thousands have had to do ; a man to do all this for such an object—and be subject to be " suspended" from the benefits be has paid for , PURCHASED , with his own hard earnings : " suspended , " too , at the mere will and pleasure of a Board of Directors ! Talk of injustice or tyranny in the land of the Moguls—let them match that if they can ! No matter how your Directors are chosen : no matter whether yonr choice be confined to the Manchester
district , or you have the "high privilege" of having one from Bristol : no matter all this , if such a power is given to your Directc-iy , however chosen , it is _anu-iendurable tyranny , and a fraud on those who have entrusted you with their monies . And then again : if the laws ofthe Order confer no such power ; if the Directors are not entrusted with it ; if it be not "in the hooks , " and they have assumed and presumed to use rr , what name shall we designate the act by ? If it would be an UNENDURABLE TYRANNY , even if conferred , ip _Zat' j , whatwould it be if exercised without law ? It would be double-distilled DESPOTISM of the worst character .
To that language we still _aihjre . Nay , the act contemplated in the above paragraph , is one so utterly atrocious , so heartless , and Of SUCll a fraudulent character , that if we could find stronger terms in which to speak of it , we would gladly use them . We can imagine of nothing so outrageous of all the _prinples of fair-play and honest dealing . And now , then , as to the question of legality . Have ihe Board of Directors such a power conferred on ihem ?
On the occasion when we used the language above quoted , we put this point very strongl y . We knew it lo be the real hitch . We felt that this was the pinching point ; and we observed that there was a disposition to evade it—to smother it ia a stew and ferment about personal matters . We therefore put it prominently forward ; poked it under the nose of the Board ofDireetors ; challenged them or their apologists to meet it . We said , Hiis point the Board of Directors and their apologists invariably shirk . Never do we find them tackling it . Fe invite them to it . We invite them to sliow that tliey liave law for what ihey have done . Let us see the law : and then
we will express our opinion both of it and its makers , and do our best to getitconsigned to the place where all such laws should be sent—the devil ' s Mtehen fire . Again we ask them to show us this law ; and , failing ihat , we invite them to defend and justify tlieir acts ! We offer our columns , free of expense . We care not who the champion is : whether he be the G , M , of the Order , Mr . _Ratcuffe , Jfr . _Ashbowx , or Mr . Any-body-else . Let any one defend and _jostift the acts we have narrated , and we will do our utmost to get him the situation of " operator with the bowstring" to the " grand" Turk : for it is clear that England ' s air is not fit for him !
That diallenge has been accepted . Strange to say it is , il we mistake not , a Chartist that has ap-i p _^ red as the champion ' . We have some recollection ' cf a person bearing the name of _Caxhslztt figuring as a Chartist ; and , if we don't err , "this is the ! _^ _U VV _™?*' ea 0 T ' we crave P _« _don of the Chartist who has the misfortune to bear the name of our present _correspondent . Be the fact as to his profession of _Char & m as it may , here we have him , defending and justifying acts whieh cannot be oisUmxtohed iu all the records of despotism that « _st ! How wdl he succeeds in his justification we shall presently see .
JS " ' howwai't «> entering on that part of our _SMgect , we will hare the Directors' own explanation « _toiS ? lfcaifeBt _-hand - _Itkaprinciplewith »« ted onr intention « FWv 1 _^ _S _yre jatl - ¦ ffS _MTe *» e » in the persons
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
of Mr . As . sdo . wn and Mr . C . 5 . Ratcliffb . We shall now let them speak collectively . Subjoined is their own account of their own acts , addressed * . —
To the Members of Hie Manchester Unity of the .. . Independent Order of Odd Fellows . The officers of the order are under the painful necessity of drawing the attention of the whole Unity to the proceedings which have taken place in the Manchester and Salford districts , where a vast majority of the members have resorted to the most disgraceful practices to bring into contempt the resolutions passed hy the Glasgow A . 15 . 0 ., and to prevail npon the memberB of the two districts not to comply with the same , or the instructions of the G . Jt . aud Board of Directors .
All who were at the A . M . G . will recollect the description of suspended characters that attended from Manchester and Salford at Glasgow , to poison the minds ofthe deputies assembled in annual committee against the officers of tbe order and directors , who had suspended them for not complying with the" Mb resolution of the _Hewcastle-upon-Tyne A . M . C . Their cond _* J ! _- ? 'm ? t with the just Condemnation it so richly merited ; and , finding the ; , ' were not successful in their mission to Glasgow , they returned home and immediately commenced an attack upon each officer of the order , and directors , whom thoy supposed were opposed to them in their nefarious designs . In Manchester and Salford the District Funeral Fund have paid to a member on the death ofhis wife the sum of £ 10 . The A . M . C . having , by resolution , laid down a scale regulating the amount to he paid at the death of a
member or his wife , for the same amount of contributions , throughout the unity , which will have thc effect of preventing the members in Manchester and Salford receiving greater benefits than other districts ; this was at once seized upon by a great proportion of the members , and in open lodges , streets , and public-houses they denounced the measure as tyrannical , oppressive , unjust , and one calculated to destroy the independence of the order . Everybody connected with the Executive Government of the order was assailed in scurrilous songs , pamphlets , and placards , and offensive documents were posted on the walls of Manchester and Salford . The suspended members , together with a large number of past offieers and numbers of the two districts , now made no secret of their intention , —that they would resort to any means , however despicable , to break up and destroy the institution .
The Quarterly Committee of tho Manchester district was drawing near , when the independence of the district was to _bu declared , the laws ofthe order trampled upon , and the instructions ofthe G . M . and Board of Directors set at defiance . The lodges were attended hy the disaffected parties , and inflammatory speeches and epithets , too odious to name , were applied to every member ofthe order who was disposed to conform with the General haws of the Institution . In one particular instance an officer of the order , with four of the directors , attended a lodge in Manchester , and a signal was immediately given to "turn Mm out , " "throw him through the window , ' when others suggested , as a milder course , that they should wrench the legs from the tables and beat out his brains . These circumstances are named , so that you may form some idea of the means that have heen resorted to excite
the members . The disaffected members were now prepared to carry out all they had professed , but wer _» short of " leaders" —they did not remain in that position long —it was soon whispered abroad that P . P . G . M _' s John Whitehead and Livesey , both from Rochdale , were to draw their clearances and join lodges in Manchester , so that they could be appointed deputies to attend the Quarterly Committee . The officers cf the order , and also those past officers who knew P . P . G . M . Whitehead , thought this was a " ruse" —but , alas ! they were doomed to he disappointed , and they saw with regret a past officer ally himself with those who had so openly expressed themselves wishful to _break-up the institution . P . P . G . M ' s Whitehead and livesey did draw their clearances and join different lodges , and on tho subsequent lodge-night both were appointed deputies to the Quarterly Committee of the Manchester district . _Oi \ Saturday evening , June
21 st , 181-5 , previous to the Quarterly Committee being held , the town was placarded with hills , announcing a public meeting , which was to be held in a large room in . Nicholas-Croft , admission one _pemxy each . Thc meeting was not confined to the members of the order , any one who paid one penny could be admitted . At the meeting the members of lhe order were the principal speakers , and , without confining themselves to any grievance , they poured forth a voUey of abuses not only on the G . M . and Hoard of Directors , but all who dared to carry out the General Laws of the order , in opposition to what the majority of the members of the Manchester and Salford districts had declared to he unconstitutional and tyrannical . Tho proceedings ofthe meeting were published in the form of a small pamphlet , price one penny eaeh , and care was taken to circulate them very extensively in the neighbourins districts .
The G . M , aud Board of Directors assembled on Monday , tlie 23 rd of June , and the whole ofthe circumstances Were laid before thorn , when they unanimously determined that all those who had taken part in the public meeting should he made an example of to deter others from pursuing a similar course , and they passed the following resolutions : — - " That the Board Tiew with regret the attempts that are being made in the Manchester and Salford districts to escito the members into acts of insubordination , therefore , with a view of effectually putting a stop to such
practices , the directors herewith instruct the officers of the Manchester district to suspend , immediately , from all connection with the _Manchester Unity of Independent Order of Odd Fellows , R . C . Hullj , of the Nelson Lodge ; Joseph Taylor , of the Lily of the Valley Lodge ; Benjamin Stott , of the Shakspeare Lodge ; Robert Wood , of the Duke of Cleveland Lodge ; and It . J . Richardson , of the Star Lodge—all of the Manchester district—until the next A . M . C , which will he held at Bristol on Whit-Monday , 1846 ; and you are further instructed to make known the contents of this letter to the whole ofthe lodges in the Manchester district immediately . "
" That , should any member ofthe order takepart In any pubhc meeting in _connection with the suspended lodges or members , they will he liable to suspension ; and district officers are requested to caution all members from attending any public meeting that may he called to discuss any matter connected with the order . ' Charged with the onerous and _important duty of carrying into effect alterations and changes of fa greater magnitude than any yet recorded in the history of your institution , and , considering the present excited state of feeling in Manchester and Salford ( an excitement Calculated to lead to the dismemberment of the unity , unless speedily and promptly allayed ) , the Board of Directors feel it imperatively necessary to throw themselves , freely and unreservedly , upon the support of the general body
of the members , whilst strenuously and conscientiously endeavouring to carry into effect laws passed in Strict conformity -with the constitutional usages of the order . The directors feel that it would be ill-advised and premature to offer any opinions oftheir own upon the character of enactments avowedly passed to remedy great and acknowledged evils , because the change has been untried , and consequently as yet inoperative . The functions Of the board are purely administrative , and as such the present Executive are determined to uphold them in their fullest integrity , without favour and without fear , regardless of clamour and individual feeling , confident that the General Laws afford a full and effective means of redressing any evils or defects in the operation of the proposed changes , after a fair and reasonable trial . The efficacy
of any law can only be ascertained after a period of practical operation , and dissatisfactioncan only be justified after proof of the inefficiency of any measure to answer the ends proposed ; and the directors feel satisfied the Manchester Unity , as _ahody _, will not depart from a course which reason and experience alike poiut out as the most consistent and straightforward one . Inflammatory placards and scurrilous songs are weapons of attack as yet unrecognised hy the unity ; and in awarding prompt punishment to the parties introducing such disgraceful innovations upon established usage , the directors feelthat they are justly entitled to the unqualified support of members of every shade of opinion . When the laws of the order cease to he operative and effective for redress or punishment , the days of the institution wiU he numbered ,
affording another melancholy addition to the long list of abortive efforts on the part of the working classes for ameliorating their own condition through the agency of provident associations , The tie which hinds the Manchester Unity , Strong though it he , can be far more easily severed than united A day , an hour , a word , will suffice to overthrow tbe labours of a quarter of a century , and every step calculated to lead to results so inimical to the welfare of our body , require to he met with promptness and decision . The Directors feel it due to their own character and the dignity of the order to state at once and explicitly , that during the period for which the welfare ofthe order is committed
to theu * care they will know neither district , lodge , or brother—they . will administer the laws in all their integrity , without fear or favour—and by the lawu of the institution they are prepared to stand or fall . £ _*^ _% _2 0 -J ? _£ _£ , ? . son P . F . G . M . Morris Lemon D . G . M . R . R . Elhott P . P . G . M . William Candelet P . G . M . Henry Whaite PROV . G . M . Wm . B . Smith P . G . M . James Mansfield P . P . C . S . F . W . Simeon P . P . G . M . Edward _PoweU _FJROY . C . S . James Roe P . P . G . M . William Machan P . G . Charles Ashdown P . P . G . M . William Brown P . G . George _ConnaTd P . P . G . M . Francis Smith CS . _Wiliiah _Ratciiffe , Secretary .
Now that is their own account ! We have looked over it carefully , to gather from it WHAT LAW they appealed to , authorising them to take the step they are so careful to tell us they unani » _ioui _*&/ resolved on . It is true that at the close we find what we trust will not turn out to be mere bombast—the expression of a determination to " know neither district , lodge , or brother "— " to administer the laws in all their integrity "—and " to stand or fall by the laws of the institution : " but we in vain search for
the adducing of law to sanction the extraordinary step of " suspending" the members ofthe Manchester district" from aU connection with the Order , " NOT for what they had done—but for what n was _bcb-PEctbd they were going to do !! We say we search in -fain for the adducing of a law _svsnrnm such a course ; and we are lost in amazement at the face exhibited by those who talk so glibly of " administering the laws in all their integrity , " and of "standing orfafling by them ; " we are staggered atthe face shown by those who _talk ihvs . if it _phoidd turn out
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
that what they did was riot only not _accordant with law but in defiance of law ! Look ; at ; the defence ! We mean the / Directorsown appeal to the members of the Order to support them ia the course they had determined on . Examine the reasons adduced for the " suspensions . ' This is the hitch .. It is all very well for the Directors to take a course , and then make the appeal ad misericordium to be sustained in their attempt to bear down opposition with a high hand . But what are their reasons for adopting such a course ? These the members at large will inquire for , if they be true to
themselves and their brethren , before they answer such appeal , or condemn , as the Board have done , thousands of their brother members without , a hearing ! What then are the reasons , as set forth by the Board ofDireetors themselves ? What their cogency ? What their force ? Reason first , , that some members of the Manchester District were dissatisfied with the new scale of payments and benefits sought to be introduced amongst them , and to ivhich tliey were to be subject : and that they expressed such dissatisfaction , " denouncing the measure as
tyrannical , oppressive , unjust , and one calculated to destroy the independence of the Order . " Reason second , is , that the Executive were assailed in scurrilous songs , pamphlets , and placards , and offensive documents were posted on the walls of Manchester and Salford . . Reason , third , is , that a large number of the members made no secret of their INTENTION to resort to any means , however despicable , to break up and destroy the institution , Reason fourth , is , that the Quarterly Committee of the Manchester District was drawing near
when the independence of the district WAS TO BE declared , the laws of the order ( "WAS TO BE ! " ) tramp led on : and the instructions of the G . M . and Board of Directors (" WAS TO BE !! " ) set at defiance . Reason fiftli , is , that Lodges were attended by the disaffected parties , and inflammatory speeches and epithets applied to every member of tho Order disposed to conform to the general laws ofthe institution . Reason sixth , is , that on one particular occaslon-an officer of the Order attended a Lodge ; and
some one , more zealous than wise , suggested that he should be turned out ; while another proposed to throw him out ofthe window ; and another suggested that they should wrench the legs off the table , and beat oat his brains . Reason ' seventh , is , that . it was _wispered that " brothers" Messrs . Whitehead and Livesey , of Rochdale , were to draw their clearances , and join Lodges in Manchester , so that they could be appointed deputies to the Manchester
Quarterly Committee . Reason eighth , is , that " brothers" Whitehead and Liveset did draw their clearances ; did join Manchester Lodges ; and were appointed deputies to the Quarterly Committee . Reason ninth , is , that a public meeting was called to consider on the new scale of payments , at which one penny each for admission was charged . Reason tenth , is , 'that the principal speakers at sueh meetin _g were members of thc Order : that
they did not confine themselves to any grievance . but poured forth a volley of abuse not only on the G . M . and Board of Directors , but also on all who dared to carry out the general laws of the Order . Reason eleventh , is , that the proceedings of such meeting were published in a pamphlet , price one penny : and , Reason twelfth , is , that care was taken to circulate such pamphlets very extensively in the neighbouring districts . There is the whole " case , " as the lawyers say . There are the " REASONS , " eveiy one of tliem . set forth in their own language , and in all tlieir force ! There is the whole dozen : what thinks the
reader of them ? For ourselves , when reading them --when hearing the play on the terms " disaffected , " " inflammatory speeches , " " scurrilous songs , " " offen " sive documents , " "INTENTION io destroy ihcimtitution "—when meeting these phrases in bristling array in this formidable bill of indictment , we fancied we had been " translated" back to the days of Castlereagh and SinMoum , and were reading " one ofthe documents dropped out of the green-bag oftlie reign of terror ! " How true is it that tyranny and oppression in all ages is ever the same ! It cannot oven change the phraseology imvhich it seeks to justify its
acts . On the miserable plea of "disaffection , ' " scunilovs placards , " and "INTENTION to destroy our institutions , " was the Habeas Corpus Act suspended , and the liberties of the whole people placed in abeyance . On the charge of " the time drawing nigh when independence WAS TO BE declared ; " when " law WAS TO BE trampled on ;" when "the Government WAS TO BE set at defiance ; " or Buch a senseless and wicked charge as this , were hundreds immured in dungeons , and acts done , which have sent the names of the perpetrators down to
posterity" Festering in the infamy of years . " And yet , their example could alone be followed by tbe Odd lellow Directors , and ! their very language copied in justification of their copied deeds . ' But let us examine these " reasons" a little more closely . Let us satisfy ourselves of their sufficiency . Let ns reason on the " reasons . " They need it , to get out of them a _jiisti / _icatton of the course pursued . First . Those that were dissatisfied with tlie new scale of payments , which it was sought to make binding on them , expressed that dissatisfaction > Tremendous crime ! Never to be forgiven ! What ! dare to entertain dissatisfaction of that which had
been " ordered for yon , * dare to be dissatisfied with tbat which affects your " payments" and your rate of " benefits : " dare to be dissatisfied with this , — and to express your dissatisfaction !—O fie ! Naughty ! most naughty ! How intolerable . How " annoying" to persons in authority , whs have arranged all in apple-pie order , and who can't brook opposition from those who have nothing to do with laws but to obey them . But still we cannot see that either this dissatisfaction , or its expression , is against law . Surely there is no law in the Order to prevent dissatisfaction , nor its expression ! If so , it has been woefully inadequate : for , for years there has been much " dissatisfaction , " and pretty loudly expressed too .
Second . —The Executive weveassailed in scurrilous songs , pamphlets , placards , and offensive documents . What wickedness ! To dare to assail with offensive publications , men , who , in the double character of Dmzexovt & _-and-lradesmen to the Order HAVE pocketed £ 36 , 554 duringthe ' lastseven years ! How scandalous that such an "offensive " faet aa this should be commented oh ! How unbearable too , that Mr . Ratcliffe should be told that at
the Bradford A . M . C , he solemnly pledged himself to abstain from attending horse races and betting ; and that he has forfeited ; his word and broken faith . How offensive all this ; but still not against laiv ! Very annoying no doubt ; but still not lawful ground for a " suspension : " and even if it were , have the right parties—the parties who wrote and circulated thescurrilousdocuments—been madealone to answer ? It is likely that they have been suspended : " for the whole district is denied " all connection with the Oder ; " on the principle , we suppose , on which the " offended" master flogged the whole school , that the " offending" party might not eBCape .
Third . — "A large number of the members made no secret oftheir INTENTION to break up the institution . " Here we get fairly into it ! Here we have areason which has alwayB been assigned by tyranny to justify its terrific inflictions . The men of Manchester , then , are punished for INTENTIONS 1 not for acts ! What a miserable plea ! How likely too ' . Men who had paid f 0 r a long _life-time to entitle themselves to certain benefits } men who had made the Order their savings' bank , and invested in it their little means to support them when laid on
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
the bed of sickness , and to inter them" when dead ; men who had done this , to declare their INTENTION to'break up the ' institution ! Incredible Tell the tale to the horse marines , They may have declared their INTENTION to break up the confederacy of _Directors-and-tradesmon , which had pocketed £ 36 , 554 in seven yeara ! They mav have declared their INTENTION of making manifest the danger of entrusting hundreds of thousands of pounds in the hands ofa man whose mania for gambling is so strong as to lead him to BREAK FAITH with those to whom he had solemnly
p ledged Ids honour . They may have declared their intention to break up this sort of system in their Institution and all honour to them if they did so declare ; but that they would be such puerile fools as to seek to break up the entire Institution , in which iheir savings were invested , is what no man of common sagacity will _belieye . But OYOn . supposing that they had done all that is charged , still it is not against law ' . There is no law to suspend a man for avowing his " INTENTION to break-up the order . " He must perform acts—acts of which the law takes cognizance , before he can be made to answer for them : and even then he cannot be lawfully "
suspended" ivilhout trial ! Fourth . Here is the grand reason of all . Do , pray , read it over attentively . Do , pray , con it over ; take it in its scope—its extent . Because the time was drawing nigh , when ACTS would have been committed which would , on proof , have JUSTIFIED " suspension ; " because certain measures "WAS TO BE" adopted , the Board of Directors stepped in , arid unlawfully ¦¦ suspended" those that had , as yet ,
done nothing against law ! And this the Board did to prevent those very breaches ofthe law which weuld have justified " suspension , " had they been brought home . Now is not that reason satisfactory ? Could more be desired by any one to prove thcguilfc of those who are excommunicated ? Bah !—it is all a tortuous wriggle of men who feel they are inthe mire , and who throw the mud about to blind tliose they wish not to see their dirty condition .
Fifth . This reason is akin to reason first . The " dissatisfied" parties were the " disaffected ; " and the " expression of dissatisfaction" made up the " inflammatory speeches . " Still all in accordance with law . No breach of rule . Lodges can be visited , and speeches made : and it is not yet enjoined by law that the speakers are to speak in honied phrases , ' when speaking of the Directors , unless their actions warrant it . For instance : it was not absolutely necessary to say tbat Mr . Ratcliffe _frad maintained his honour by keeping his pledge about gambling : and if he sliould , ai these Lodge meetings , have been called faith-breaker , it would be an " epithet "—but still not without evidence of being the true one .
Sixth , We should like to know who " the officer " was , whose reception was so flattering ! It shows how well he is liked by those among whom ho has acted in an official capacity . But wc know not that likes or dislikes form a reason for " suspending " members ofa benefit soeiety from privileges they liave . pa . Vl for ! It does not appear tbat any of the valiant proposals to " turn him out , " or " throw liim out of the window , " or "knock out his brains with tho legs of the table , " were acted on . Had they
been , no doubt but the parties " offending" would have been answerable to the " general Jaw" ofthe land , either for assault , or murder , as the case might be : but even then such acts would have been , no ground for the Board of Directors " suspending " the offenders from all connection -with the Order—( Jack Ketch would have done that effectually enough ) : much less were the bare proposals or threats any reason why other parties who did not make or join in them should be " suspended . "
Seventh . Here we arc getting to close quarters . We are hearing of the vMspers . Tyranny always fears whispers , * but a mere wMsperh not always sufficient evidence on whicli to hang a man ; nor ought it to be to cause him to be " suspended" in another
manner . Eighth . Now we fall off in cogency . Our " reasons " get weaker . Every day's practice in the Order tells every member that it is _bmifxd fov clearances to be drawn ; for other Lodges to be entered , * and for appointments to the Quarterly Committee to be made . There is no law that exempts Messrs . _WnirEUEAD and Liveset from the privileges of the Order ; nor any reason in the " REASON , " only to the Directors who enter in their black-book the names of all who do not chirp out 'See how we apples swim . "
Ninth . Horrible ! To think of discussing in public the "benefits" of Odd-Fellowship . Shameful but still lawful . The reason for such public meeting we must have . On this head we transcribe what we have formerly said . The Board of Directors have arranged a new scale of payments , to come into operation , in January next _. This step is one ( fiat deeply concerns the whole Order . It is a change , and a material change too , in the mode of conducting their business . It moreover introduces a new _iirinciple into the management of the institution . Hitherto many matters of detail have been left to the lodges
themselves , it only being required of them that they conformed to the general laws , and paid their quota of general expenses . Amongst other things the rate of lodge contributions and lodge benefits were left to be determined on by the parties themselves—it being held that each lodge would best know its own requirements , and how to arrange to meet them . The new scale breaks down tliis principle of independent action , It provides , that for such and such benefits you must pay after such and such rates . There is in it thc . principle of centralization , in opposition to the principle of independence of
control . It was natural that such a step would excite _vernxvlt , at the very least . It did mure , * it excited niscossioN . Some parties contended that it was a step not at all needed , or at all warranted by the facts of the case . Others contended that ifc would prove to be highly advantageous ; that it would place the Order on a firmer basis thau it had hitherto occupied ; that it would effectually prevent those lamentable failures of lodges from want of means to fulfil their engagements , which they had often had to witness ; and others again contended that it was part of a deep laid scheme to get possessed of centralised
power , and eventually a control over all the funds of the society . In this state of mind , a meeting of the " members of the Manchester District was called , to consider the subject . We opine that such a course was perfectly fair . We opine that Mr . Ratcliffe and his coadjutors have not yet gone the length of denying to the members of the Order the right of forming opinions for themselves , and of expressing those opinions too , if they think fit . Surely we have not yet got the powers of the Inquisitors of Spain , as well as the despotic assumptions of the ( once ) Dey
of Algiers " centralised" in tbe Order of Odd Fellows ! And yet it is difficult to account for the conduct of Mr . W . Ratcuffe and the Board oi Directors on any other ground . Because this meeting , to discuss a matter which concerned them , was held , * and because five certain individuals attended it , —( all five did not take part—only attended it ); BECAUSE they did this , they were " _suspc-ukd" by Mr . Ratcliffe and the Directors , in utter defiance of the laws ofthe Order , which provide certain modes of TRIAL after due notice to the accused . '
Tenth . Same as reason first and fifth . Dissatisfac tion was felt : it was expressed : and this was " abuse . " Still all waa in accordance with law . Eleventh . Precisely same as the last . If the members have a right to form opinions , and to ex _-, press them , they have a right to publish them : for that is but a variation in the mode of expressing opinion . If they bave not a right to form Opinions , or express them , of course the " reason" holds good and the Odd Fellows' Institution is formed on a very liberal basis !
Twelfth . Contained in the two last _. And now , then , what is the end of all this » what the conclusion to which we are forced to come « Why , that in the " reasons" adduced by the Board ofDireetors for their " suspensions , " not onescin-
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
_tUla of _jiusti / ieatidn can'he found—only the t yrant s constant _plea—nbcessitt of example ! Not one atom of law for the acts which deprived 30 , 000 members of the benefits they ha d purchased and paid for ! Not ashred of , a reason why all law and right , should be so shamelessly . trampled on . The rules expressly state , "that any member breaking the general laws ofthe Order shall be TRIED by a Committee of his whole Lodge , or bt the district ; and that fourteen days' notice shall be given him previous to trial such notice " specifying the cliarge ; " and all that we have above seen is a miserable and abortive attempt on the part of the Board of Directors to justify their flagrant departure from such law . Having thus disposed of the Directors' own defence , and shown that their " reasons" are utterly
untenable , besides being " paltry and shameful , we now proceed to give the defence offered for them by the private friend of Mr . Ratcliffe , Mr . George Candeleii _* Here itis : —
TO THE EDITOR OF _Tllri NORTHERN SJAR . "Hear me , and then strike me . " Sir , —I have for the last few weeks waited with anxiety for the appearance of your long-promised remarks upon the whole matters in dispute amongst the Odd Fellows , which I " suppose I find in your last week ' s paper , given as an introduction to the communications from Mr . Ratcliffe , the 0 . S . of the ordar , which said communication you say ' does not explain , nor meet , nor settle the real question at _isue . " True , O king . It does not settle the real question at issue ; nor yet do I believe that Mr . Ratcliffe would wish to evade the real question at issueby trying to carry the war into the enemy s
, camp , and put his assailants on their defence lor what thev did when they had the power , ISO , no ; such is not Mr . Ratcliffe ' s intention . I have it in private from Mr . Ratcliffe , that he will not only retort but prove , if you like , to the satisfaction of any tribunal , if called upon to do so , that he is innocent of what hath been anonymously laid to his charge . It is , sir , a most surprising circumstance to me that you will give insertion to such anonymous communications as those emanating from the " Old Odd Fellow , " reflecting on private character . If the ' Old Odd Fellow" hath scores of witnesses to prove tbe guilt of Mr . Ratcliffe , which would amount to a hreach of the resolution of the Bradford A . M . C ,
out with it . By so doing he would render the society a service . I think him incapable of doing so . There is something in general in anonymous writingspeaking behind a curtain , tbat is suspicious ; especially when directed against private character . It what the " Old Odd _fellow" states be true , why not identify himself with his sublime effusions , instead of leaving the matter mysterious ? Why not give a few of those assertions some validity , by giving proof beyond mere assertion , instead of endeavouring to create suspicion , to destroy confidence in Mr . Ratcliffe and thc Board of Directors , the object of the speeches of the meal-house meetings , and of the remarks of " Probe . " I may be told this is not the
real question at issue . Mr . Ratcliffe refers to these _WC'tliies in the Manchester district , not , as you would insinuate , for the purpose of evading yonr programme of " real question at , issue , " tyt to show that thexj ave not the meek and lowly innocents '' they would _ydii should understand they are . No . _* but for the purpose of showing that one out of the five individuals that were suspended , Mr . Stott , formed one of the Board of Directors in 18 * 12 , which suspended a great number of members and lodges for dividing their funds to sustain themselves during the strike of the above period : and some , be it understood , upon the mere report that they had done so ,
wliich afterwards turned out to be fallacious : suspended too without any trial , or arrangement ! Thus introducing the " gagging precedent" or " suspension of habeas corpus , " as it hath been termed . Those " suspensions" did not take place in 1 S 43 , as " Probe" tclletk you , when G . Richmond , J . Mansiield , W . and U . itatclittc , J . Peiser , T . Jeffs , E . K . Davies , It . It . _EJliot , and Wm . F . Burdett were in power . Thus 1 shall he able to show that " Probe " and his co-patriots arc up to the neck in the dirt . When , thc Board of Directors of 1 S _42 come to give an account of their stewardship to the A . M . G . at Bradford , there was a sub-committee appointed out ofthe General A . M . C , to examine their proceedings . This Bradford A . M . C . was the most
numerously attended meeting the order ever had : and can Messrs . Ilully , Stott , Wood , and Hardy say their voices were ever raised _^ against a single sentence in the report of that committee , all of ivhich individuals are now writhing under wounds inflicted with instruments of iheir own manufacturing ; and all of whom were present at- the A . M . C , where this pvccechnt was sealed and acknowledged by the representatives of the unity , and placed in the hands of all succeeding boards for use in similar cases of emergency , where the dismemberment of the unity is threatened . If they cannot recollect how they acted themselves , when this precedent was made , very probably it will be
recollected by them , how the deputies from Hyde , Middleton , and Oldham acted in the matter ; one of whom , William Candelett , at present one of . thc Board of Directors , pointed to the consequences that urn likely to ensue from the acknowledgment of the precedent . Yet it was no use . Vesting the Board of Directors with the power of suspending previous to trial was determined on . ' But , sir , I will now approach the real question at issue . You ask why five individuals were ¦ ' suspended , " in the Manchester district , some of which neither took part in
promoting , or in the proceedings ofthe meeting , for which they were suspended . Sir , for the truth of promotion of the meeting , you would do well to read the documents again—the documents on which you found yonr comments , especially the address from the Manchester . ' district . But what of this , you may say ; are they to be cut off from all connection with the order , merely because they were the promoters ofa meeting ? No , no ; God forbid that SUC / l should be the . case . It is essentially necessary that you should have a hint or two concerning the character ofthe meeting ,
ior the _tromotion of which they were suspended . Firstly , it was . a meeting convened by a scurrilous placard , at the cliarge of a penny admission to the public , no matter whether they were members or not . Secondly , it was a meeting at whieh an individual took part who was not a member at all of the order : and thirdly , it was not a meeting to consider " Ratcliffe ' s sliding scale . " It could not be so , inasmuch as Mr . Ratcliffe never submitted any scale of either payments or receipts to the last A . M . C ; neither directly or indirectly did ho submit anything to the last A .. M . C , affecting our finances . The present question of our finances lies entirely between Mr . Peiser of Manchester and Mr . Smith
of Birmingham . I think , sir , then , this is something near the question at issue . Such being the CHARAOTERof the meeting , I think , sir , together with the tenor of the speeches I issued from theMealhouse meeting , and what is given in the abovc , it is pretty evident that their OBJECT ivas of a serious nature , most vitally affecting tlte _ttnilg , axd called for _PROMri 1 STBOTEREXCE . Fr * 0 M THE BOARD , who are merelv' administrators , and NOT MAKERS OF LAW NOR PRECEDENT . You ask for the law , if any , under which the above five individuals were suspended . Here , sir , then , you liave it as follows : — Inthe 19 th page , No . G 3—" anyLodge admitting
expelled , suspended , or illegal persons , or in any way giving them countenance or aid , by allowing them the use of any regalia or lodge property , such lodge shall , from the time of committing such acts , become suspended from all benefits and privileges of the order , until they shall satisfy the quarterly committee of the district ; and if such practices be persisted in or repeated after notice being given them of thc illegality of such proceedings , they shall be expelled the order . " I remain , yours , George Caxdelett , Olive Branch Lodge , 1 Iyde district . September 14 th , 1815 .
Has Mr . Casdelett mended the matter ? Is the juftification more apparent than it was ? Has he adduced law for bis positions ? No : but he shelters the Board of Directors under a PRECEDENT whicli he himself furnishes reason to condemn ! And here we are again , check-by-jowl with tyranny's apologists . The two only pleas wliich are set up to justify every rascality—every assault on freedomevery abridgment of liberty—every act of oppression , is set up by the Board of Directors and their defender . " Necessity" ia the one : "Precedest" is the other ! What bitter shifts we are put to , when we have to learn our lessons in such a school !
And now , then , f or this " precedent . " Because some men , in 1842 , set the laws at defiance , and trampled on all right , and got indemnified for so doing , that is a REASON why another set of men should trample on all law in 1845 ; deny all right ; and ROB 30 , 000 individuals of that which they have p urchased with their hard-savings ! Such is the teaching of this apostle of liberty ! Why , man , _Castlbrbahh and Sidmoute set the very precedent ! They were aware of " dissatisfaction ; " they
were aware of its " expression ; " they charged INTENTION " they called the people disaffected ;" they spoke of insubordination ; " they complained much of " inflammatory speeches , " and "offensive documents : " and they suspended the ' Ba beat Corpus Act , and imprisoned hundreds for months together , * taking them to dungeons in distant parts of the country ; never telling them why or wherefore they were apprehended ; never confronting them before a magistrate ; but turning such as had not bad their bowels shaken nt of them , or had not cut their own
*¦ "^^^S^ 1ate " Ms ~ Their Injustice, E...
_tliroata to escape _thet tortures they were subjected t 0 out of prison without explanation , either why _tW had been put in , or why they were turned out . And ft , all this they obtained a bill of Indemnity ! Therefor ,, the precedent was set : but would it be tolerated noW ) were Sir Robert Peel and _Leiter-sptino _Giu- i _^ to seek to act on it ? Let George Candelett , fon _, j as he is of tyrannical precedents , answer . As to what the defender of lawlessness and des . potism says of the " CHARACTER ofthe meeting , " and the " OBJECT" of the party who got . up and attended that meeting , it is really too puerile and washy for serious notice . It is but another pJi _^ _e
of the tyrant ' s plea—necessity . The same reasoning would justify any enormity , however atrocious . L _^ us put a case to this George Candelett . Suppose him to be a member of a society which invests if 8 money in a Governmental Savings' Bank ; and suppose him a Cltartist ( as we suppose him to be ) , and attending a Chartist meeting , speaking of the tyranny and oppression to whieh the toiling million- * are subjected both socially and politically ; suppose him further to denounce this tyranny , and particularly that insidious and crafty portion of it , the Savings' Banks , which makes the poor minister to their own scourging and degradation ; and suppose
him , for so doing , " suspended" from all " benefit " that he might have in the particular Savings' Bank his frugal savings were "invested" in , what would he say ? The act could be "justified" on his own grounds quite as well as he has justified the Odd Fellows' Board in robbing 30 , 000 . men of the rights and privileges their hard-savings had bought them . More than enough could be , and would be , said about the " CHARACTER" of the meetings he had " attended" and the " object" he had in view . But tliere is one feature more wanted , to make our parallel case complete , Suppose the rest of his
brother members , when his illegal " suspension " was known , were to sympathise with him ; denounce the act as one of gross oppression , and refuse to acknowledge its validity ; and suppose thorn for such standing up for the right to be " suspended" in a body , by the power wliich had " suspended" himself , without colour of law or authority : we bid George Candelett to suppose all this : and further , to Slip * pose a flaming mouther of " liberty" to come forward to defend the despotic and oppressive acts ; and then , when he has so supposed , we bid him ask himself what he thinks of himself .
One word about the law George Candelett _hajf quoted . We should have been disposed to think him a mistaken man , but for that quotation . The dishonest use he has made of it , however , leaves on the mind a veiy . mean opinion of his morality . The law he quotes , is one that follows on . " suspensions" that have taken place AFTER TRIAL—after the party accused has had fourteen days' notice of such trial—after he has had the " charge" furnished ' him—and after he has confronted his accuser , and made his defence . If after all this liebe found guilty , and expelled or suspended , it is right to prohibit lodges from admitting or aiding him , But this lavr cannot apply to the illegal " suspensions ' — _suspensions" icithout trial—without notice—without
defence ! lhe quoting oi such law under such circumstances shows to what miserable shifts the apologists of lawless acts are driven to . Hove wc close fov the present . The observations on this head of our subject have extended further than we originally intended . Tliey are , however , all to the purpose—the real question * at issue . As we said in the beginning , If the Board of Directors in any institution arc allowed to exercise such a power as has in this case been assumed and shamelessly put in force , no member is safe . It may be his turn to " sidG with" the Directors to-day in putting down " dissatisfaction" he may not sympathise with : he may be the victim to-morrow because of his own " dissatisfaction . " Therefore , all are interested in the question ; both those who are " suspended , " and those who may be .
The subject is one wc must return to . It has yet to be viewed in several aspects : thc legal one among the rest . We shall also have something to say on the new scale of payments before we have done . We shall have something , too , on the question of representation ; and fancy we shall be able to show that the present mode is not quite so perfect as "W . S ., " of Belfast , writes it . Nay , we incline to the opinion that we shall be able to show it the most unsatisfactory that could have been devised . Perhaps next week will produce another artiele on the subject .
Below are several letters , two of a personal nature —one of a more general nature . The personal portion we shall , in our discussion of the question , keep distinct from the other branches : but we shall not neglect it . Important considerations arc bound up in thc personal matters that we have seen agitated : and we shall have something to say on the prudence of entrusting hundreds of the thousands of pounds in the hands of a confirmed gambler—one whose mania is so strong as to lead him to violate most solemn pledges , and lose his honour _.
To The Editor Op Ihe Northern Star, Sir,...
TO THE EDITOR OP IHE NORTHERN STAR , Sir , —In your paper , for the last three weeks , remarks have appeared , pro and con , referring to the betting transactions of G . S . Ratcliffe . Now , having been witness to some of tliat individual ' s proceedings at the late Newton races , and the subject having become one of importance , from the publicity it has attained , I think it my duty to state publicly what Isaw , so that the veracity of the writers in your journal may be put in its proper position . I attended the second day's races at Newton ; and on taking my place in the railway carriage at Manchester , Ratcliffe , who
was booking for a place , asked me if we had any room . We had for one . He got in , and rode to the race course . Just previous to the race for the cup , C . S . Ratcliffe came to within a couple of yards of the place where I stood , on the adjoining stand . A nod of recognition passed between us ; atter xrmen de BEGUN TO BAWL OUT "I ' LL BET £ 20 to £ 10 _tbax I NAME THE WINKER 1 * 011 THE SEXT RACE AT TWICE . " This he called out at least a dozen times , lie then called out several times , " £ 20 to £ 10 l ' ardly and Rowena against the field . " ( It singularly happened that these two horses were first and second . ) This not taking at ournarfcof _thestand _. andhenotbeingableto
make any bets , removed to the other end , where , for some time , I heard 7 i £ m calling out the same . So far as " the roll of notes" is concerned , I did not see any ; but it may readily be presumed he could not offer such large amount of bets without baring considerable sums of money with him . There was with me Mr . Johnson , member ofthe Poor Man ' s 1 ' _i'iend Lodge , Rochdale district , who will , if necessary , affirm and corroborate what is stated above In Ratcliffe ' s letter of last week , he refers to the proceedings of the Bradford A . M , 0 . I am astonished he sliould have done so ; for it was at that very meeting , ivherc , to save himself from instant dismissal , he , before the whole of the deputies , publicly pledged niMsia *? NEVER _TOENOAOE IN BETTING TRANSACTION ' S ACAIS . !« expressed himself sorry for what he had done ; nnd he \ vwul
stated , that if they would only forgive hhn , never be seen on a race course again whilst in their service . The perilous situation he was then in . _wq mr _? j all tbat both himself and his friend _Jlnnsfield couia do to alky the opposition Ms conduct had avoviscci relative to liis turf transactions ; but after , the totem pledge he gyve , and the smooth speech ot _Mansneiu , who likewise pledged himself to the same effect , tne deputies overlooked the past in the promises tor in _« future . In proof of what I have stated above * tue six deputies from Rochdale , of which number I «;«* one , went to the meeting prepared to vote _*«* ' _•* . Ratcliffe's re-appointment : but in consequence ol m pledges given , we recorded our votes in his _-f _/ 0 _*} _* * _, i After what I above stated relative to Bradfoi _^ awj which is known to hundreds , I think the pif 9 » and " veracity" of C . S . Ratcliffe must stand m * very unenviable position .
Dear sir , yours respectfully , Thomas Livsbt . Past Officer of the Rochdale District . Rochdale , Sept . loth , 18-15 . ( QoxVtxmntd m our first page . ) _^ . ... . _A . / _-y / _v .
Apropos Itoobm.-We Percewe *At Some Ohhe...
Apropos _ItooBM .-We perceWe _* at some _oHhe railway companies have determined on attac . i-i b carriage to each train exclusively _ggnSanea _ladie-u-We are happy to perceive tb ** g improving in the _*« Tender ! " department !—iwo .
Printedbydougalm'gowam . Of 17, «•« - Ttb« In The Ciof T * Printed By Doucwl M'Gowan, Of 17, Fiwrt ^ N J?S
PrintedbyDOUGALM'GOWAM _. of 17 , «•« - ttB « in the Ciof t * Printed by DOUCWL M'GOWAN , of 17 , _fiwrt _^ n
Printedbydougalm'gowam . Of 17, «•« - Tt...
_Btreet Haymarket , ty Wes mm _*{ Tr 0 . Office in tbe same Street and Pansh , _^ iiahfid _W prietor , FEARGUS O'CONNOR , _Esq _^ _aniP _^^ don _ViihakBbwitt , of No . 18 , _Charles-street T ffiD g . street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Mary , * fl > 840 i ton , inthe ( _tounty of Surrey , at •*? _"S . / . n the _Strind , in the Parish o St . Hary-lg _£ trana ' City of Westminster . -. _JZlK-g—¦ oe _^ _tB I Saturday -, fototttofj _* , _Utf _*!** "
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), Sept. 27, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns4_27091845/page/8/
-