impolitic, either in his statements, arguments, or official conduct. I have not, nor ever had, any other object in view but the acquisition and dissemination of truthful information on this most important social question. PROGRESS OF ENROLMENT. It is gratifying to learn, notwithstanding the petty obstructions on the part of the Registrar and his clerks, to which I have previously referred, that the cause of enrolment is making satisfactory progress amongst the members of the self-governed bodies. Mr. Pratt announces that during the year 1859 no less than 2,153 societies have had rules and alterations examined by him and certified pursuant to the Act." Of course, Mr. Pratt, in this enumeration, regards each Branch, Lodge, or Court of the affiliated bodies as a separate society. Fifty-nine others have deposited their laws under the 44th section of the 18 and 19 Vic. c. 63. This is a very satisfactory announcement, and will, no doubt, stimulate the friends of progress and enrolment to further exertions. DISSOLUTION OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. The next paragraph in Mr. Pratt's report, however, is pregnant with interest of a very opposite character. He says-" Notices of dissolution have been received from 52 societies during the year ending 31st December, 1859, of which number 48 were in England and 4 in Wales; the causes of dissolution generally arising from the claims made on the funds by pensioners, the number of members being small, and no increase of young members." It is desirable, in future, that Mr. Pratt should publish the name, locality, constitution, and special cause, as far as known, why each of these clubs or branches has failed in the performance of its original engagements. Such authentic information would prove of great value both in arousing the attention of the members of societies with similar laws or constitutions, and in directing their energies in the right direction towards timely adjustment. It is exactly this sort of knowledge, undistorted by the manipulation of prejudiced proprietors of pet theories, and unmixed with the sickening leaven of ignorant and rancorous denunciation, that would tell most powerfully upon the prejudices of that class of members to whom abstruse statistical facts, figures, and arguments, weigh but little in comparison with the results of their own limited experience. It would likewise indicate to the more intelligent members of the rising generation, what class of society it is their interest to join and what class to avoid. I am persuaded, from my own practical knowledge, that the cause of financial improvement would receive most valuable aid from such a continued procedure. The provident section of the people I have ever found willing to receive cheerfully instruction imparted in a friendly spirit; but they unquestionably are as equally determined to disregard mere dogmatic teaching on this subject, and to resent discourtesy or impertinence-no matter how "respectable," in the conventional sense, may be the self-elected pedagogues, or the ill-informed, soidisant friends of the people, who, in the words of a profound modern thinker, "flatter their own vanity by denouncing the vices of others." THE VOLUNTEERS. Mr. Pratt calls attention to the fact that the Legislature has recently enacted that volunteers in the rifle, artillery, or yeomanry corps, or in the reserved force of seamen, shall not "lose or forfeit any interest they may possess in a Friendly Society," in consequence of their joining such corps. This appears to me to be a species of financial wisdom of the most extraordi nary character; and especially so as it evidently proceeds from a quarter ordinarily very eloquent and denunciatory on the inadequacy of the rates in most of these institutions to meet their present engagements! In strict justice, if the Legislature thought that increased risk to the clubs resulted from the membership of volunteers, the clauses in question are simply acts of spoliation, or ingenious expedients to levy a special tax upon the presumed already insufficient funds of the provident operatives, for as purely as national an object as can well be conceived, and to which all classes ought in equity to contribute in proportion to their means. But there is far more patriotism in the hearts of the industrious provident workmen of Britain than some of our legislators appear to imagine. I have never yet heard of a society that either excluded a member or charged him an increased subscription because he had joined either the Volunteers or the Militia. The Lodges of the Manchester Unity, which forwarded the largest subscription to the Crimean Patriotic Fund (about £2,500), were not very likely to tax, for the slight extra risk, those of their members who volunteered to defend their and the national interests against foreign aggression. The only conditional rule in the General Laws of the Unity, with regard to members belonging to the regular services even, reads as follows: "No naval, military, or other member shall be admitted" (to the meetings) "with side-arms." The Members of the North London District Branch, I am informed, offered to form amongst themselves a volunteer corps of artillery; yet some party high in authority, but ill-informed, actually refused to acknowledge them as the Odd-Fellows' Corps-and for what reason, does the reader think? Because, forsooth, the Manchester Unity is an ILLEGAL Society! It is remarkable what a length of time is required for the eradication of a popular error from amongst certain sections of the "educated" upper classes. I suppose I shall not be believed by some of these learned patriots when I inform them that our Society, years before its enrolment under the parliamentary statutes, invariably inculcated the necessity of a proper respect for social order and the law of the land; and, although their funds were studiously unprotected by that law, the loyalty of the members was proof against even such treatment, and the toast of "The Queen" ever had its due precedence in their most "secret" assemblies. ANNIVERSARY DINNERS. Mr. Pratt and the Times newspaper are, of course, still determined foes of anniversary dinners in connection with Friendly Societies. It is very amusing to listen to the something more than red republican hatred of these ardent admirers of the British character and British constitution to one of the still most prevalent and most time-honoured of our national customs. They, however, have "drawn in their horns" considerably since our last encounter, and I have no doubt in a short time the energies of both will be applied to much better purpose. Mr. Pratt does not now insist upon any different legal conditions with respect to drinking and feasting than has, so long as my knowledge extends, formed the principle upon which the bye-laws of my own and hundreds of other Lodges of the Manchester Unity are formed. He very clearly expresses this in his last report. It is desirable that all interested should read his own words on the subject. He says: "The 18th and 19th Vic., c. 63, s. 25, requires, inter alia, that a small contribution shall be made to defray the NECESSARY EXPENSES of MANAGEMENT, and a separate account shall be kept of such contributions and expenses. An erroneous construction has been put on this clause, and it has been supposed that money can be voted from the fund so contributed to defray the necessary expenses of management, towards the EXPENSES of the ANNIVERSARY. Rules for that purpose have been submitted to the Registrar, which he has refused to certify, as, in his opinion, it would be a misapplication of the funds, as the expenses of an ANNIVERSARY can in no way be considered as a necessary EXPENSE of MANAGEMENT; neither does he feel that he is now authorised to certify any rule to compel the attendance of a member at an anniversary procession or funeral by the infliction of a fine, or by requiring the members to pay towards the expenses. It appears to the Registrar, that in any future legislation some provision should be made to prevent the payment for beer, or other refreshment, out of the contributions; against any compulsory payment for the same, or towards the annual feast, as well as the imposition of any fine for nonattendance thereat." Well, such is already the law in my own Lodge and in the vast majority of the branches of the Manchester Unity. But still I contend Mr. Pratt is exceeding his authority, if he does other than recommend the adoption of similar laws in Lodges or District Societies, the members of which at present regard the anniversary as an important element in successful management. The separate fund referred to in the Act was not established to suppress anniversaries, but to prevent the expenses of these gatherings and other cost of management from being paid out of the fund intended to meet the insurance engagements! Mr. Pratt ought to know this well. There is no mention made of anniversaries in the Act of Parliament, yet their existence was always well known to the Legislature. Indeed, Mr. Pratt had certified many under the previous Acts, laws which expressly permitted this very application of a portion of the regular subscription! The members of each individual Lodge very properly think they are better judges than Mr. Pratt as to the use or value of the anniversary meeting. To my own knowledge, it has been in many cases the cause of the prosperity of the Lodge, in country places especially. In fact, it is their most efficient method of advertising, and has proved infinitely cheaper in proportion to its success than any advertising yet invented by either Mr. Pratt or the exclusive advocates of "office societies." Singularly enough, on the evening previous to my penning this paragraph, I attended, by invitation, a sumptuous dinner in honour of the anniversary of a wealthy tradesmen's protection society; and I heard one of the speakers expressly advocate such gatherings for the very purpose of infusing practical vitality into their business objects. He certainly expressed the opinion of a large majority of his countrymen when he emphatically declared his conviction that "nothing was more natural to an Englishman than a good dinner!" The true remedy of the disaffected minority in these cases is to join one of the school, or office clubs, or a branch of an affiliated body, where the majority of the members entertain a similar opinion to themselves on this subject. But governmental interference in such a matter appears very like a semi-treasonable absurdity in free England in the nineteenth century! It would be as well if that national schoolmaster, who is reported to be still wandering about in search of pupils, would call upon some of our “highlyeducated" philanthropists, and teach them a little "common" knowledge respecting that portion of the industrial population which troubles neither the parish office nor the jail. Some of them appear to know more of the stratification of the rocks, the structure of the plants, the habits of the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea, and the naked savages of the most remote regions, than they do of the hopes and fears, the habits and the feelings the sufferings and the sorrows, the struggles and aspirations of the best section of their humbler fellow-countrymen, living, toiling, and dying beneath their very eyes. The Times, I said, is much more moderate in its denunciation. Its great blunder now is the publication of exceptional cases as the general, or even universal, rule. The writer might as well denounce the clergy as a lot of adulterers and swindlers, and support his argument by quoting a few instances which have lately figured somewhat prominently in the papers. Palmer, Smethurst, and some others would furnish ample material for an equally just implication of the murderous tendency of the medical profession. However, the writer at last frankly acknowledges the practical common-sense view of the matter. He says:-"A mean must be struck in these matters. These societies would not flourish unless they had something in the shape of a merrymaking accompanying them, but in too many the festive element triumphs over the serious one." Perhaps the "festive element " may triumph in too many, but by no means in so many, or to such an extent, as the Times writer has been led to believe. Besides, the virtue of the great mass is none the less virtuous because a few of their neighbours less advanced in knowledge remain still attached to the "good old English customs" of their sometimes much praise-bespattered forefathers. It is said, that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We have, too, some excellent moral advice touching motes and beams in sinners' eyes, on the highest authority. True reform, it has often been solemnly trumpeted forth, either does, or should begin at home. Under the influence of these feelings, and with the view to indicate a more legitimate outlet for the evidently earnest zeal of Mr. Pratt on this anniversary question, I cut out a few weeks since the following paragraph from a newspaper, to which I respectfully but earnestly beg to call his attention : "It came out during the hearing of a case in the Lord Mayor's Court, on Saturday, that thirty-three members of the Social Club, consisting of barristers, officers, &c. consumed, at a supper given at London, no less than thirty-eight crown bowls of punch, in addition to considerable quantities of beer, wine, and spirits." Truly, very shocking! But then the delinquents are so very respectable. There is, of course, much valuable information in the report under consideration to which I shall with pleasure refer to on a future occasion. MUSIC is Sound and Silence interwreathed. Both in their separate natures are divine; To the dear visions that before it roll: Yet, gentle Silence, art thou hovering round; Unto the hearkening mind there breathes a sound, Although to outward ear inaudible. And thus, like sisters having but one heart, Silence from Harmony can ne'er depart. Genius, Talent, and Tact. BY GEORGE FREDERICK PARDON. GENIUS is a poet, Talent a lawyer. The one struggles and strives in a garret ; while the other lives in a great house, and sports his pretty person in a coach and four. And yet it is the ambition of the last to be thought the first; and so it often happens, as gooseberry wine is occasionally taken for champagne, and by some esteemed the better tipple, that mankind, as with eyes blinded by the meretricious rays of a mock sun, give one the credit of being a profound genius who, in truth, possesses only a somewhat more than ordinary share of talent. But Talent is a very useful possession in its way, as it enables its fortunate owner to lay up, sometimes, riches for himself and wealth, by most, is considered the end of life; and while Genius is singing and soaring like a lark at the gate of heaven, Talent like a mole is digging and delving in the dark earth; and, not unlike the mole, it burrows with a purpose; and the purpose, mostly, is the attainment of comfortable quarters. The gift of Genius is vouchsafed to few; but all men possess a Talent for something, though it be only the trifling though not inelegant art of sucking a lollypop. Genius invents, Talent appropriates. Genius paints a picture, Talent makes a copy. Genius walks through the world with its eyes uplooking towards its home in heaven, Talent fixes its gaze upon the earth, and finds there a fitting recompense. When Jupiter divided the goods of the world among the inhabitants thereof, the Poet looked on; and, when the god had finished his distribution, humbly put up his petition for a little share. "You are too late, my friend," said Jupiter; "I have given the land to the farmers, the merchandise to the merchants, and the towns and cities to the traders and workmen. Where were you when all these good things were divided?" "I was listening to your voice and gazing on your face," replied the Poet. "Alas!" said Jupiter, “yours was an unprofitable occupation. What can I do for you? There is nothing left. The fruits of the earth, the merchandise and the wealth, are not mine to bestow; but if you are content to dwell with me in heaven, you shall be welcome there!" And this is the true Poet's portion; now, as of old, unselfish and single-minded, Genius triumphs over Talent-for it lives for ever. Talent is a respectable thing, nevertheless, and he who has it may well be proud; for, better than Genius, it takes care of number one-of the earth, earthy. As my friend the late Robert Brough wittily and truly said, it is not Genius that wins the laurel now-a-days, but respectable mediocrity. The grand error, however, is when Talent mistakes itself for its more ethereal relative, and fancies itself hardly done by because the world is slow to acknowledge the assumption-as, for instance, the wrath of Tupper at not being considered a poet. But, recovering its senses, Talent has its revenge upon the world, and becomes important in spite of the prejudices of the prejudiced. Talent is rich in the world's goods, Genius must be content to remain poor: blind old Homer begged and sang through the cities which, after he was dead and buried, quarrelled for the honour of having given him birth; and Thomas Otway starved in the public streets. Genius and Talent are foster-brothers, nursed at one breast. But as they VOL. III. C |