Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 27th September 1845, Edition 2 of 4, Page 8, ODD FELLOWSHIP-

Page 8
Page 8
8 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • PrintedhyDOTJGAL M'GOWAN . of U, SrM* - " at* 5 street. ffavmartBt in the Citv of WestnU" »» P(0 ,
  • Text (6)
  • 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.

      Bei Of Sickness Tilla F Justification Ca...

      — ' ^ . . , - ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ - ¦ - ¦ ?! ¦ ¦¦ ¦ ¦ - . nd-onlv f

      Odd Fellowship-

      ODD

      FELLOWSHIPTHE "LEGALITY" OF THE LATE "STJSinu »» PENSIONS . " THBIB INJUSTICE , EVEN IF " LEGAL . " A fortnight ago we indulged in a fexf observations 6 n the matters in dispute between the Directors of the Odd Fellows' Institution and aconsiderable number of its members , who have by those Directors been " suspended" from all " benefits" in the Order : "benefits" which they have purchased and paid for , and to which they have as good a moral title —{ we will explain , before wehave done , why they are deficient

      in legal title)—as any man can possibly have to any species of property whatever . Those observations hare brought forth a " reply " from a " George Can delett , of Hyde , who avers that he is on terms of private intimacy with Mr . Ratcliffe , the C . S . of the Order ; therefore , we presume , we may consider such " rep l y" to express more than the individual opinions of the person whose nameit bears . The sufficiency of that " reply" we shall examine , ere these remarks are closed .

      The main question to be decided , as the matter now stands , is , were the Directors ofthe Odd Fellows ' Institute JUSTIFIED by the laws of the Orders in " suspending" 30 , 000 of its members from all communion with the rest of their brother members , and from all the " benefits" they had purchased and paid for ? This is the keai . 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 intofragments , the real points at issue are lost in the individual contests that are sure to arise under such circumstances : and

      all 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 Vie great cause of Hie division left to work another split at another day . Such is the COURSE WHICH THE PRESESI DISPCIE IS TAKING : but the members ofthe Order , both the " suspended" and the ( at present ) unsuspended ones , will do well for their own interests , if they see to it that the extraneous and petty personal matters thai daily arise , eccupy their own proper place in tlte background—to be 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 the 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 , by 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 . Ratcliffe does still attend at races , and bet on them to a large amount , afttr 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 us have all due inquiry into all alleged abuses and defalcations , in their 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 question is the one of " suspension . " If the power lately exercised by the Board of Directors be a lawfulone ; if the Board be properly invested with it bylaw ; if they havesuch power conferred on them by " rule "—no member in the society is safe ! He has only to " offend "—and God knows thatwhen personal dislikes have full play , matter of " offence" is soon found ; he has only to offend , aud forthwith he is deprived of the benefitsfor which hehas ^ aitZ . ' Itis impossible to overrate the importance of this question . As we said , a fortnight ago , if the Directors of the Odd Fellows * institution hare the power , of their own will andaccord , to " suspend" any member ,

      or lodge , or district , from the benefits which tltey hatfi purchased , it is a MONSTROUS TYRANNY—a tyranny which the law of the land ought at once ti put down . "What ! a man enter a siek and burial BencfiiSociety , —and the Odd Fellows' confederation , notwithstanding 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 , his children or his friends vriHlmvetke means ofinterrlng Mm decently , and

      pro-Tiding suitable mourning for his nearest relatives : a man enter a society such as this , and pay regularly to it for a long lifetime , often stinting himself of the Tery necessaries of life "to pay lis 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 he has paid roa , PURCHASED , with his own hard earnings : " suspended , " too , at the mere will and pleasure of a Board of Directors 1 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 yon have the " high privilege" of having ; one from Bristol : nomatterallthis , ifsuchapoweris given to your Directory , however chosen , it is anioi-« no ! ura 6 fe 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 books , " and they have assumed and presumed to use it , what name shall we designate the act by ? If it would be an UNENDURABLE TYRANNY , wen if conferred ly law , what would it be if exercised without law ? It would be double-distilled DESPOTISM of the worst character .

      To that language we still affrre . Nay , the act contemplated in the above paragraph , is one so utterly atrocious , so heartless , and of such . & 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 the Board of Directors such a power conferred on them ?

      On the occasion when we used the language above quoted , we put this point Tery strongly . We knew it to 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 in a stew and ferment about personal matters . We therefore put it prominently forward ; poked it under the nose of the Board of Directors ; 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 . We invite them to it . We invite them to show that they have law for what they have done . Let us see the law : and then

      we will express our opinion both of it and its makers , and do onr best to getitconsi gned to the place where all such laws should be sent—the devil ' s kitchen fire . Again we ask them , to show us this lava ; sad , failin that , we invite them to defend and justify their 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 . Raicextfe , Mr . Ashdotvjt , or Mr . Any-body-else . Let any one defend and justify 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 I

      ^ That challenge has been accepted . Strange to say it is , if we mistake not , o Chartist that has appeared as the champion ! We have some recollection of a person bearing the same of Casdeeetx figuring as a Chasm ; and , if we don't err , "this is the man . " If we are in error , we crave pardon of the Chartist who has the inisfortune to bear the name of our present correspondent . Be the fact as to his profession of Chartism as it may , here we have him , defending and justifying acts which cannot be outmatched in all tho records of despotism that exist ! How well he succeeds in his justification we shall presently see .

      Previous , howerer , to entering on that part of our augeel , we will haye the Directors' own explanation we never like to hare information at second-hand , mTn /^ *? * at ^ nWwai B is a principle with 2 * ff "" * ** «¦» tale ; for we thinkhe B « S ottr 5 Z ^ l , e 8 t - S ^ time agoweinti ***«*<« . Th « we hare done , in the persons

      Odd Fellowship-

      of Mr . Ashdown and Mr . C ; S . Ratcliffb . We shall now let them speak collectively . Subjoined is their own account of their own acts , addressed : — To the Members of the Manchester Unity of ihe Independent Order of Odd Fellows . Ihe 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 by the Glasgow A . M . C , and to prevail upon the members ofthe two districts not to comply with the same , or the instructions of the G . M . and Board of Directors .

      All who were at the A . M . C . will recollect the description of suspended characters that attended from Manchester and Salford at Glasgow , to poison the minds of the deputies assembled in annual committee against the officers of the order and directors , who had suspended them for not complying with the 26 th resolution of the Ifewcastle-upon-Tyne A . M . C . Their conductmet with the just condemnation it so richly merited ; and , finding they were not successful in their mission to Glasgow , they returned home and immediately commenced an attack upon tach officer of the order , aud directors , whom they sup . posed were opposed to them in their nefarious designs . In Manchester and Salford the District Funeral Fund hare paid to a member on the death of his wile tho sum of £ 10 . The A . M . C . having , by resolution , laid down a scale regulating the amount to be paid at the death of a

      member or his wife , for the same amount of contributions , throughout the Unity , which will have the effect of preventing the membersin Manchester andSalfordreceiving 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 officers and members of the two districts , now made no secret of their intention , —that they would resort _ to any means , however despicable , to break up aud destroy the institution .

      The Quarterly Committee of the Manchester district was drawing near , when the independence of the district was to be declared , the laws ofthe order trampled upon , and the instructions ofthe G . M . and Board of Directors set at defiance . The lodges were attended by 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 Laws of the Institution . In one particular instance an officer of the order , with four of the directors , attended a lodge iu Manchester , and a signal was immediately given to "turn him 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 been resorted to excite the members . The disaffected members were now prepared to cany out aU they had professed , but wert 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 he appointed deputies to attend the Quarterly Committee . Tho 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 be 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

      or the Manchester district . On Saturday evening , June 21 st , 1815 , previous to the Quarterly Committee heing held , the town was placarded with bills , announcing a public meeting , which was to be held in a large room in 5 icholas-Croft , admission one penny each . The 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 the order were the principal speakers , and , without confining themselves to any grievance , they poured forth a volley of abuses not only on the G . M , and Board of Directors , but all who dared to carry out the General Laws of the order , in opposition to what the majority of the members ofthe Manchester and Salford distriets had declared to be unconstitutional and tyrannical . Tha proceedings of the meeting wcrepublished in the form of a small pamphlet , price one penny each , and care was taken to circulate them very extensively in the neighbouring districts .

      The G . M . aud Board of Directors assembled on Monday , the 23 rd of June , and the whole ofthe circumstances were laid before them , 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 view with regret the attempts that are heing mada in the Manchester and Salford districts to excite the members into acts of insiCbordination , 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 Manchsstcr Unity of " independent Order of Odd Fellows , K . C . Hullj , of the Nelson Lodge ; Joseph Taylor , of "the LUy 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 be held at Bristol on Whit-Monday , 1 S 4 C ; and you arc 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 take part in any public meeting in connection with the suspended lodges or members , they will be liable to suspension ; and district officers are requested to caution aU members from attending any public meeting that may b e 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 , npon 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 of their own upon the character of enactments avowedly passed to remedy great and acknowledged evils , because the change hasheen 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 GeneralLaws 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 dissatisfaction can only bejustified after

      proof of the inefficiency of any measure to answer the ends proposed ; and the directors feel satisfied the Manchester Unity , as abody , will not depart from a course which reason and experience alike point out as the most consistent and straightforward one . Inflammatory placards and scurrilous songs are weapons of attack as yet unrecognised by the unity ; and in awarding prompt punishment to the parties introducing such disgraceful innovations upon established usage , the directors feel that they are justly entitled to the unqualified support of members of every shade of opinion . When the laws of the order cease to be operative and effective for redress or punishment , the days of the institution will 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 binds the Manchester Unity , strong though it be , can be far more easily severed than united . A day , an hour , a word , wfll suffice to overthrow the 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 be 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 of the order is committed to their care they will know neither district , lodge , or brother—they will administer the laws in all their

      integrity , without fear or favour—aad by the lawu of the institution they are prepared to stand or fall , G . M . John Dickinson P . P . G . M . Morris Lemon D . G . M . B . K , Elliott p . p . g . m . William Candelet P . G . M . Henry Whaite PROY . G . M . Wm . B . Smith P . G-. M . James Mansfield P . P . C . S . F . "W "; Simeon P . P . G . M . Edward Powell PROV . C . S . James Roe P . P . G . M . William Machan P . G . Charles Ashdown P . P . G . M . William Brown P . G . George Connard P . P . G . M . Prancis Smith CS . WitLUM Ratcliffe , 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 unanimously re * solved 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 orfall 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 all connection with the Order , " NOT for what they had done—but for what tt was sa-s pectbd they were going to do !! We say we search in vain for the adducing of a law justifting 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 or falling by them ; " we are staggered at the face shown by those who talk thus , if it should turn out

      Odd Fellowship-

      that what they did was not only not accordant with law but in defiance of law ! Look at the defence i ! We mean the Directors ' own appeal to the members of the Order to support them in 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 miseri-. ..:

      cordium 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 tvitliout a hearing ! What then are the reasons , as set forth by tho Board of Directors themselves ? What their cogency ?

      What their force ? Reason first , is , that some members of the Manchester District were dissatisfied with the new scale of payments and benefits sought to be in - troduced amongst them , and toivhich they were to be subject : and that thet 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 Vdrd , is , that a large number of the

      members made no secret of their INTENTION to resort to any means , however despicable , to breakup and destroy the institution . Reason fourtJi , is , that the Quarterly Committee of the Manchester District was drawiny near , when the independence ofthe district WAS TO BE declared , the laws of the order ( "WAS TO BE ! " ) trampled on : and the instructions of the G . M . and Board of Directors ( "WAS TO BE !!") set at defiance . Reason fifth , is , that Lodges were attended by - disaffected parties , and inflammatory speeches and epithets applied to every member of the Order disposed to conform to the general laws of the institution .

      Reason sixth , is , that on one particular occasion 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 such meeting were members of the 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 pamp hlets very extensively in the neighbouring districts .

      There is the whole " ease , " as -the lawyers say . There are the " REASONS , " every one of thenn set forth in their own language , and in all their force ! There is the whole dozen : what thinks the reader of them ? For ourselves , when reading them —when hearing the play on the terms" disaffeeted , " " inflammatory speeches , " " scurrilous songs , " " offen " sivc documents , " " INTENTION to destroy the institution "— 'When meeting these phrases in bristling array in this formidable bill of indictment , we fancied we had been " translated" back to the days of Castlereach and SiDMOUin . and were reading " one ofthe documents dropped out of the green-bag of the reign of terror ! " How true is it that tyranny and

      oppression in all ages is ever the same ! It cannot even change the phraseology in which it seeks to justifyite acts . On the miserable plea of "disaffection , ' " scurrilous placards , " and "INTENTION to destroy our institutions , " was the Habeas Corpus Act suspended , and the liberties of the whole people p laced 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 such 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" Pestering in the infamy of years . " And yet , their example conld alone be followed by the Odd Fellow Directors , and tMr 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 us reason on the " reasons . " They need it , to get out of . them a justification o f the course pursued . First . Those that were dissatisfied with the 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 you : dare to be dissatisfied with

      that which affects your " payments" and your rate of " benefits : " dare to be dissatisfied with this , — and to expbess tour dissatisfaction !—O fie ! Naughty ! most naughty ! How intolerable . How " annoying" to persons in authority , who 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 ex ressed too .

      Second . —The Executive were assailed in scurrilous songs , pamphlets , placards , and offensive documents . What wickedness ' . To dare to curat ? with offensive publications , men who , in the double character of BiSECXOna-and-tradesmen to the Order , HAVE POCKETED £ 36 , 554 duringthe lastseven years ! How scandalous that such an " offensive " fact as this should be commented on ! How Unbearable too , that Mr . RATcxiFFE 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 Jiis word and broken faith How offensive all this ; but still not against law ! 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 thescurrilousdociiments—been madoalone to answer ? It is likely that they have been suspended : " for the whole district is denied " all connection with the Order ; " on the principle , we suppose , on which the " offended" master flogged the whole school , that the " offending" party might not escape .

      Third . — "A large number of the members made no secret of their INTENTION to break up the institution . " Here we get fairly into it I Here we have treason which has always been assi gned by tyranny to justify its terrific inflictions . The men of Manchester , then , are punished for INTENTIONS not for acts ! What a miserable plea ! How likely toe ! Men who had paid for 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 hud on

      Odd Fellowship-

      the bei 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 Dircctors-and-tradesmon , which had pocketed £ 36 , 554 in seven years ! They mat have declared their INTENTION of making manifest the danger of entrusting hundreds of thousands of pounds in the hands of a man whose mania for gambling is so strong as to lead him to BREAK FAITH with those to whom he had solemnly .. . .. . . , . . . .. -j ... J .. J

      p ledged his honour . Thoy 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 ivhich their savings were invested , is what no man of common sagacity will believe . But even 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 without 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 , and 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 cot that reason satisfactory ? Could more be desired by any one to prove theguilt of those who are excommunicated ? Bah !—it is all a tortuous wriggle of men who feel they are in the mire , and who throw the mud about to blind those 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 that Mr . Ratcliffe had maintained his honour by keeping his pledge about gambling : and if he should , at 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 ivho " the officer " was , whose reception was so flattering ! It shows how well he is liked by those among whom he has acted in an official capacity . But we know not that likes or dislikes form a reason for " suspending " members of a benefit society from privileges they have paid for ! It does not appear that any of the valiant proposals to " turn Mm out , " or " throw him out of the window , " or " knock out his brains with the legs of the table , " were acted on . Had they been , no doubt but the parties " offending" would have been answerable to the " general law" of the land , either for assault , or murder , as the case might be : but even tlten such acts would have been no

      ground for the Board of Directors " suspending " the offenders from all connection with the Order—( Jack Ketch would havo 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 wo are getting to close quarters We are hearing of the wfci ' spers . Tyranny always fears whispers ; but a mere whisper isnot always sufficient evidence on which to hang a man ; nor ought it to be to cause him to be " suspended" in another manner .

      Eighth . Now we fall o ff in . cogency . Our " reasons get weaker . Every day ' s practice in the Order tells every member that it is lawful for 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 . Whitehead 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 wo apples swim . "

      Ninth . Horrible ! ' To think of discussing . in public the "benefits" of Odd-Fellowship . Shameful : but still lawful , Tho 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 neiv scale of payments , to come into operation in January next . This step is one that 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 principle 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 this principle of independent action . It provides , that for such and such benefits you must pay after such and such rates . There is in it the principle of centralization , in opposition to the principle of independence of

      control . It was natural that such a step would excite remark , at the very least . It did more ; it excited discussion . 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 it would prove to be highly advantageous ; that it would place the Order on a firmer basis than it had hitherto occup ied ; 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 thafc . it was p art of a deep laid scheme to get possessed of centralised

      p ower , 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 the Order of Odd Fellowfl I And yet it is difficult to account for the conduct of Mr . W . Ratcliffe and the Board of 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 live did not take part—only attended it ); BECAUSE they did this , they were " suspendtd" by Mr . Ratcliffe and the Directors , in utter defiance of ihe 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 was in accordance with laiv . 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 have 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 tho conclusion to which we are forced to come ? Why , that in the " reasons" adduced by the Board of Directors for their " mporufwius" not oneschv

      Odd Fellowship-

      tilla o f justification can be found—only the tyrant s constant plea— necessiti of example ! Not one atom of law for the acts which deprived 30 , 000 members of the benefits they had purchased & ndpaid for ! Not a shred 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 b y 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 ihe Board of Directors to justify their flagrant departure from such law . Having thus disposed ofthe Directors' own defence , and shown that their " reasons" are utterly untenalx : i ,- ^/ . , ^ y ;^^ i ran b ^ ioU the tyrant ' s

      ble , besides being paltry and shameful , we now proceed to give the defence offered for them by the private friend of Mr . RAicurrK ,. Mr . George Candelett-Here it is : —

      TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERS STAR . " 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 C . S .. of the order , which said communication you say "does not explain , nor meet , nor settle the real question at issue . " True , O king . It docs not settle the real question at issue ; nor yet do I believe that Mr . Ratcliffe would wish to evade the real question at issue by trying to carry the war into the enemy ' s

      , camp , and put his assailants on their defence lor what they did when they had the power . No , no ; such is not Mr . RatcliftVa 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 g ive 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 the guilt of Mr , Ratcliffe , which would amount to a breach 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 writing speaking behind a curtain , that is suspicious ; especially when directed against private character . If 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 the 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 worthies in the Manchester district , not , as you would insinuate , for the purpose of evading your programme of " real question at issue , " but to show that they are not the "meek and lowly innocents " they would you 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 1842 , 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 , bo it understood , upon the mere report that they had done so , which afterwards turned out to be fallacious :

      suspended too without any trial , or arrangement Thusintrocta ' n < 7 the " gagging precedent" or " suspension of habeas corpus , " as it hath been termed . Those " suspensions" did not take place in 1813 , as "Probe" tellethyou , when G . Richmond , J . Mansfield , W . and H . Ratcliffe , J . Peiscr , T . Jeffs , E . K . Davies , R . R . Elliot , and Wm . F . Eurdett were in power . Thus I shall be able to show that " Probe " ana his co-patriots are up to the neck in the dirt . When the Board of Directors of 1 S-J 2 come to give an account of their stewardship to the A . M . C . 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 nunicroual y attended meeting the order ever had : and

      can Messrs . Hully , Stott , Wood , and Hardy say thenvoices were everraised against a single sentence in the report of that committee , all of ivhich individuals are now writhing under wounds inflicted ivith instruments of their own manufacturing ; and all of whom were present at the A . M . C , where this precedent ivas sealed and acknowledged by the representatives of the unity , and p laced 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 ot whom , William Candelett , at present one of the Board of Directors , pointed to the consequences that ware likely to ensue from the acknoivledgment of the precedent . Yet it was no use . Vesting the Board of Directors with the power of susfiending 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 of the meeting , for which they were suspended . Sir , for the truth of promotion of the meeting , you would do well to read the

      documents again— -tne uocuments on wnicu you rouna your 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 of a meeting ? No . no ; God forbid that such should be the ease . Ifc is essentially neeossary that you should have a hint or two concerning the character ofthe meeting , for the promotion of which thev were suspended . Firstly , it was a meeting convened by a scurrilous placard , at the charge of a penny admission to the public , no matter whether they were members or not . Secondly , it was a meeting at which an individual teok nart 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 he 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 tkinkv sir , then , this is something near the question at issue . Such being the CHARACTER of the meeting , I think , sir , together with the tenor ofthe speeches I issued fromtheMeal house meeting , and what is given in the above , it is pretty evident that their OBJECT was of a serious nature , most vitally affecting the unity , and called for prompt interference from 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 have it as follows : — In the 19 th page , No . 63— " any Lodge 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 the illegality of such proceedings , they shall be expelled tho order . " I remain , yours , George Candelett , Olive Branch Lodge , Hyde district . September Wth , 1845 .

      Has Mr . Candelett mended the matter ? Is the juttification more apparent than it was ? Has he adduced law for his positions ? No : but he shelters the Board of Directors under a PRECEDENT which he himself furnishes reason to condemn ! And here we arc again , cheek-by-jowl with tyranny ' s apologists . The two only pleas which are set up to justify every rascality—every assault on freedomevery abridgniemUf liberty—every act of oppression , is set up by the Board of Directors and their defender . " Necessity" is the one : " Precedent" is the other ' . What bitter shifts we are put to , when we have to learn our lessons in such a school !

      And now , then , for 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 get of men should trample on all law in 1845 ; deny all right ; and ROB 30 , 000 individuals of that which they have purchased with their hard-savings ! Such is the teaching of this apostle of liberty ' . Why , man , Castlebeagh and Sidmouth 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 Habeas 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 had their bowels shaken out of them , or had not cut their own

      Odd Fellowship-

      throats to escape the tortures they were subjected to out of prison without explanation , either why they had been put in , or why they were turned out . And % all this they obtained a bill of Indemnity ! Ther c fo ^ the precedent was set : but would it be tolerated « 0 I ( , were Sir Robert Peel and Letter-spying Graii ^ to seek to act on it ? Let George Candelett , fogj as he is of tyrannical precedents , answer . As to what the defender of lawlessness and de $ . potism says of the " CHARACTER ofthe meet . ing , " and the " OBJECT" ofthe party who got . up and attended that meeting , it is really too pucri ] and washy for serious notice . It is but another p ] ia se throats to escape the tortures they were subjected h

      of the tyrant ' s plea—necessity . The same reasoning would justify any enormity , however atrocious . Le ^ us put a case to this George Candelett . Suppo him to be a member of a society which invests it 5 money in a Governmental Savings' Bank ; ani suppose him a Chartist ( as we suppose him to be ) and attending a Chartist meeting , speaking of the tyranny and oppression to which the toiling million * are subjected both socially and politically ; suppose him further to denounce this tyranny , and par . ticularly 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 tha Odd Fellows' Board in robbing 30 , 000 . men of the rig hts and privileges their hard-savings had bought them . More than enoug h could be , and would be , said about the " CHARACTER" of the meetings he had " attended" and the " object" he had in view

      But there 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 them for such standing up for the right to be " suspended" in a body , by the power which had " suspended" himself , without colour , of law or authority : we bid George Candelett to suppose all this : and further , to Slip , nose a flaming mouther of "libertv" to come for .

      ward to defend the despotic and oppressive acts ; and then , when he has so supposed , we bid him ask him . self what he thinks of himself . One word about the laiv George Candelett has quoted . We should have been disposed to think hint a mistaken man , but for that quotation . The dis . honest use he has made of it , however , leaves on the mind a very mean opinion of his morality . The law he quotes , is one that follows on " suspen . sions" that have taken place AFTER TRIAL-afe

      the party accused has had fourteen days' notice of such trial—after he has had the " charge" furnished him—and after lie has confronted his accuser , and made his defence . If after all this he be found guilty , and expelled or suspended , it is right to prohibit lodges from admitting or aiding him . But this law cannot apply to the illegal " suspensions "— " suspensions" without trial — without notice—without de . fence ! Tho quoting of such law under such circumstances shows to what miserable shifts the apologists of lawless acts are driven to .

      Here we close for the present . Tlie observations on this head of our subject have extended further than we originally intended . They arc , however , all to the purpose—the real question at issue . As we said iu the beginning , if the Board of Directors iu any institution are 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 " side 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 aro " suspended , " and those who may be .

      The subject is one we must return to . It has yet to be viewed in several aspects : the legal one among the rest . We shall also have something to say oa 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 unsatisfactonj that could have been devised . Perhaps next week will produce another article 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 are bound up iu the 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 iu the hands of a confirmed gambler—one whose mania is so strong as to lead him to violate moat sblcina pledges , and lose his honour .

      To The Editor Of The Northern Star. Sm,—...

      TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN STAR . Sm , —In your paper , for the last three weeks , remarks have appeared , pro and con referring to the betting transactions of C . S . Ratcliffe . Now , having been witnesstosomeof thatindividual ' sproceedings a ' 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 I saw , 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 placeasked me if we had any

      , room . We had for one . He got in , and rode to the race course : Just previous to tho race for the cup » C . S . Ratcliffe came to within a couple of yards ot the place where I stood , on the adjoining stand . ^ nod of recognition passed between us ; after which hb BEGUN TO BAWh OUT " I ' lD DKT £ 20 TO < £ W IHA ^ I NAME THE WINNER FOR THB KBXT RACE At TXVSt . This he called out at least a dozen times . He tnett called out several times , " £ 20 to £ 10 Yardly aivi Rowena against the field . " ( It singularly happeneo that these two horses were first and second . ) This not taking at our part of the stand , and he not heing ab leto make any bets , removed to the other end , wheifl , ml

      some time , 1 heard him calling out the same . S » far as " the roll of notes" is concerned , 1 did not see any ; but it may readily be presumed he could not offer such large amount of bets without having con * siderable sums of money with him . There was ««» mo Mr . Johnson , member ofthe Poor Man's rrienn Lodge , Rochdale district , who will , if " cc c 3 f „ V affirm and corroborate what is stated above . In H' cliffe ' s letter of last week , he refers to the proc «' ings of the Bradford A . M . C . I am astonished » should have done so ; for it was at that very mcf i :. J where , to save himself from instant dismissal , he , Wl the vjfiole of the deputies , publicly pledoed uIstS jfg i

      NEVER TO ENGAGE IN BETTING TRANSACTIONS AGAIN . , NEVER TO ENGAGE IN BETTING TRANSACTIOaa au <» - expressed himself sorry for what he had done ; » , stated , that if they would only forgive him , hi W ^ ntver be seen on a race coursS again whilst in tw . j vice . The perilous situation he was then iu , rci 1 " ;^ all that both himself and his friend Mansfield cow » do to allay the opposition his conduct had arou * relative to his turf transactions ; but after ik soic pledge he gave , and the smooth speech of M » nSw . d who likewise pledged himself to the same effect , j denuties overloeked the nast in the Broroises for \ ucpuues uvei-iuoneu me past in uiu pruiuwv" — ,, fl

      future . In proof of what I have stated above , u six deputies from Rochdale , of ivhich number i ' one , went to the meeting prepared to vote aoak - Ratcliffe ' s re-appointment : but in consequw * « pledges given , we recorded our votes in his fjjj ' ^' . ^ After what I above stated relative to Bradford , *" , ; which is known to hundreds , I think the " P f ?„ \ and " veracity" of C . S . Ratcliffe must stand w very unenviable position . Dear sir , yours respectfully , Thomas Lirssr . Past Officer of the Rochdale Distr ict . Rochdale , Sept . 15 th , 1845 . | ( Continued in our first page . )

      Apropos Reform.—We Perceive That S ^ W ....

      Apropos Reform . —We perceive that s w ° ; nir s railway companies have determined on att ac fte carriage to each train exclusively devoted x ^ ladies—We ara happy to perceive thoso gen v &» imnrnvimr in fhn " T « irf «

      Printedhydotjgal M'Gowan . Of U, Srm* - " At* 5 Street. Ffavmartbt In The Citv Of Westnu" »» P(0 ,

      PrintedhyDOTJGAL M'GOWAN . of U , SrM * - " at * street . ffavmartBt in the Citv of WestnU" »» P ( 0 ,

      Office In The Same Street And Parish, .™...

      Office in the same Street and Parish , . ™ f lhUsW d M prietor , PKARGTJS 0 'COimOB , Esq ., an ^ w ^ 8 ndo ' ' WltUASt Hewitt , of No . 18 , Ch arleS-StfMU" * ^ street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Mary , i lih ton , in the County of Surrey , at ^ ^ U a tl « Strand , in the Parish , o St . Mary Je-Swao u , City Qf Westminster , . : Saturday , September ^ , WW-J

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), Sept. 27, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_27091845/page/8/