PETERSFIELD.

     ODDFELLOWS’ LECTURE.—On Thursday evening a highly interesting and eloquent lecture was delivered at the Dolphin Assembly Rooms, by the Grand Master of the order of Oddfellows, James Curtis, Esq., to the members of the Loyal Pride of the Valley Lodge, and others there assembled, upon ‟The Principles and Objects of Oddfellowship,” being the first of the kind since the establishment of this flourishing lodge. The attendance was equal to anticipation, when we take into consideration the deep fall of snow of the previous evening and night, followed by a cold rainy day, which rendered the slushy roads sadly despiriting to travel over, thereby preventing members who otherwise would have attended, the opportunity of hearing an excellent statistical and truthful report in connection with the unity. A well arranged platform was erected at the western extremity of the large room, in front of which was placed the elegant timepiece subscribed for by the members of the lodge, for presentation, which altogether presented a pleasing effect from the bright reflecting gas chandeliers.
S. CROSS, Esq., surgeon to the lodge, presided, having on the right the Grand Master.
The CHAIRMAN, in his usual happy style, opened the business with some brief and well digested sentences, explaining the objects of the meeting, and concluded by introducing the lecturer, who was warmly greeted upon his rising, and after a few preliminary remarks, said:— At a time like the present, when men’s minds are preeminently occupied with the consideration of an almost engrossing subject of national political importance, it may not be out of place if I venture to direct especial attention to the politico-social operation of our great friendly societies, and especially with regard to their operation and influence, upon the well being of the people at large. And here, at the onset, I must ask you to have this favourable opinion of me, that nothing I shall advance to night will be treated with a mere party view; these societies in their action know no party politics, and their very existence depends on their neutrality. But I think I shall be able to show you that it is not ill timed for us to bestow a passing thought on friendly societies operation, or the peculiar claims the members of friendly societies have for the consideration of our legislators; and, without passing an opinion on the desirability or otherwise of the creation of fancy franchises; yet, I think I shall be enabled to prove to you that if such franchises are created, if the ratcatcher, by keeping four dogs, is to have a vote, the claims of the Friendly Societies must not be ignored. Nor do I stand alone in this view. In the columns of a metropolitan paper, ‟The Insurance Record,” I find the following:— ‟The demand for reform is a demand on the part of the working men of England—the intelligent, industrious, and self-respecting artizans, and others of a similar class. Well, this particular variation of the Chancellor’s fancies is intended to meet the case. But, does it? Do the bulk of the working men entrust their savings to the extent of thirty pounds per annum to the keeping of the Government, contenting themselves with some 2½ or 3 per cent. interest? No, not at all. Servants in families, young men in situations, apprentices, &c., make use of the Savings’ Bank; but these are hardly the people whom it is most desirable to entrust with the return of representatives. The working man, intelligent and thrifty, either speculates with his money, to a small extent, so that it may yield a present appreciable advantage, or, more frequently, invests it in building or friendly societies, or associations of that kind. These men are better off, and are turning their money to better account than the class with small sums in savings’ banks. There is also this advantage about them, that their position is more assured; the man who has £30 in savings this year may marry; he may go into a small business, may invest in the purchase of tools, or in a thousand ways dissipate that sum before next year, and then he goes off the register. There would, consequently, be perpetual ebb and flow, and the small voters under this form of franchise would be a source of endless trouble and difficulty. The same thing does not apply to those who have an interest in building societies, or with money in the friendly societies, which form part of the machinery of a working man’s existance. Membership in such bodies would, therefore, be a much more genuine test. It would place upon the register just the class of men who claim to be places there, while it would except that other class, the ‟betes notres” of society who have no claims to political rights. In other words, it would open the door to the genuine working man, and exclude the ‟roughs,” the idle and dissipated, who really do justify the epithets Mr. Lowe bestowed on the working classes generally. It might be practical to decide that every member of a friendly society should have a vote. Restrictions would have to be agreed upon but it would not be difficult to form such restrictions, easy, practical, and self-adjusting, and the result would be far more satisfactory and important than any that can result from the savings’ bank franchise, of which it has been said that ‟it will give a vote to every ‛Jeames’ from Trafalgar-square to Lord’s Cricket Ground, while it would not apply to a score of men who comprised the late meeting in the Agricultural Hall.”
     And here, ladies and gentlemen, before proceeding further, I deem it my duty to say that, although I appear here as the special advocate of the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, no word of mine shall be spoken against the other well-regulated Friendly Societies—the Foresters, the Druids, and the like; my remarks will be found generally speaking, equally to apply to their societies as to our own. I know they are striving with us in a good cause, and although it must be admitted that our movements are somewhat in advance of theirs, yet all honor and credit are due to them for their exertions. In treating on the great subject of Friendly Societies no narrow prejudices or petty jealousies must prevail; we must

‟With comprehensive view,
‟Survey mankind from China to Peru.”

     The lecturer then passed on to notice the action of these societies and the influence brought to bear upon the people of the country generally; comparing the statistics of friendly societies in our country with foreign countries, he observed—I find that whereas one in nine of the total population of this country belong to friendly societies, in France it is one in 76, and in Belgium one in 64, and I think this is a sufficient answer to the charge, sometimes brought against the industrial classes of England, of being improvident. There are also more societies among the 30,000,000 of Great Britain, than among the 800,000,000 throughout the rest of the world. The present value of friendly societies in the United Kingdom is over twenty millions sterling, and the annual of subscriptions amount to three millions sterling. These societies disburse in the relief to members in sickness, and members’ wives at death £2,500,000 per annum. In one year they save half a million of money. To compare the financial state of these societies with the poor rate, I find from blue books published by the poor law board, that the amount spent in relief of the poor, including lunatics, officers’ salaries, &c., but exclusive of county and police rates, amounts annually to over six millions. The friendly societies spend two and a half millions for the relief of their members, so they annually spend for that purpose nearly half the whole amount levied for the relief of the poor.
After some further remarks, which for want of space we are compelled to omit, the lecturer proceeded. And now my time tells me that I must hasten from generalities to peculiarities, and speak to you more particularly concerning the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows. I am not about to claim any honour on the score of antiquity. I know it is argued, and with some amount of justice, that Adam was the first Odd Fellow, as he must have been till Eve was created. Such claims and such ideas are unquestionably very funny, and may be regarded as legitimate material for friendly banter; but, like many apparently harmless visionary ravings, they have both directly and indirectly served the cause of error, and obstructed that of truth and progress. By their facinations members have been led to really believe that this institution is of very ancient standing, and that the experience of ages underlies and justifies the practice of the present day. Hence the strong conservative feeling which we often find developed in lodges, when a proposition is mooted for the reformation of any ‟ancient customs;” yes, even when the special ‟ancient custom” needing repair and re-adjustment may have reference to pecuniary arrangements of but a very few years standing. All the usual stock phrases of men who dote on the past glibly uttered—sentimental shiboleths that have tended throughout all history to impede the progress of mankind, both morally, physically, and socially. ‟Can’t you let well alone? it has done so far; the result of your meddling may, perhaps, turn out quite different to what you expect;” and other such like scraps of ancestral wisdom (?) are as potent in our lodge rooms as they are in more aristocratic assemblies. The sooner the members are brought to frankly acknowledge that societies are not encrusted with the hoary frost of antiquity, healthy or otherwise, the sooner they will truly apprehend its vast social importance, the sooner they will see the purification of shortcomings, and thus render worthy of a place on the highest platform, on which modern progress has stood during this remarkable nineteenth century.
This most extensive and self-governed provident institution was established at Manchester in the year 1812. For some time previously isolated lodges of Odd Fellows existed in various parts of the country, but they possessed no regular organised sick and funeral fund. They were merely secret fraternities—humble institutions of Freemasonry—instituted chiefly for social and convivial purposes, although they occasionally afforded charitable assistance to members in distress. Its progress during the last 15 years has been extremely rapid. In January, 1852, the total number of members was 224,441, but I find from reference just completed that on the 1st of January, 1867, we had no less a number than 405,255 members. These members are distributed over about 4,000 lodges, located in almost every portion of her Majesty’s dominions, home and colonial. There are likewise lodges in Philadelphia, New York, and Constantinople still in connection with the parent society. Numerous offshoots or imitations are likewise flourishing both in England and America. These 4,000 lodges are grouped in about 450 districts, varying considerably both in number and extent. The subscriptions are paid by the members into their respective lodges, each of which possesses full power over its own funds, subject, however, to the bye-laws of the district of which it formed part, and to the general rules of the Manchester Unity. Should any lodge, in strict compliance, be unable to meet the legitimate claims of a member the district is bound to provide for him, and in case of the failure of the district, the responsibility falls upon the entire Unity.
We are reluctantly compelled both from want of time and space to insert to a close the lecturer’s elaborate and eloquent address, who, upon its conclusion, was greeted with much applause.
     Upon the grand master resuming his seat, he was requested by Brother Thomas Simmons, P.V.G., on behalf of the testimonial committee, to present the handsome timepiece (before alluded to) as a gift from the members of the lodge to their secretary, on the base of which was the following inscription:

‟Loyal Pride of the Valley Lodge;
‟No. 4,180 of the M.U.I.O.O.F.

     ‟To Mr. E. Durman.
     ‟Dear Sir and Brother,—The officers and brothers of your lodge have great pleasure in presenting you this day with a timepiece as a mark of esteem for the services rendered by you to the lodge, as secretary for nine years past, and we couple with it our most ardent wishes for your future welfare and happiness, and that your good qualities and benevolent support may continues to characterise you as a good Odd Fellow for many years to come.

‟THOMAS BARNES, P.G.,
‟ROBERT POCOCK, N.G., } Testimonial Committee
‟THOMAS SUMMERS.

‟March 14th, 1867.”

     The presnetation was made with impressive feeling, and appropriate language upon the occasion, which was suitably and feelingly responded to by Brother Durman. D.G.M. Bridger proposed and P.V.G. Summers seconded, a vote of thanks to the grand master, who ably responded. A vote of thanks was proposed to the respected chairman, which was warmly received and suitably acknowledged.
     Closely driven by time, we are unable to insert more fully many sensible remarks and some valuable suggestions offered.