a pity he does not devote it to his calling, and not trouble himself with things he knows nothing about. He says the object of these gentlemen has been mistaken. This I deny. Our members know perfectly well what their object is, and for that very reason they decline to hand over the management of our societies body and soul to parties who know nothing about them. Mr. Hume says he is willing to leave the members to overcome their difficulties and correct their evils as they best can. Kind, certainly! However, that is the most sensible part of his letter; but when difficulties do arise, there are enough competent persons in each society capable of providing a remedy, and who would never think of applying to Mr. Hume. Then Mr. Hume denies on behalf of himself and others that they have circulated vile and unfounded charges against us. It is also very kind of him to do that, for he it is that has led to all this noise. Now for the charges which are denied. At the commencement of this delightful circular there is a gentle hint that the officers of the Hastings societies were ignorant and dishonest [the statement was that of the many societies in England and Wales that had been disolved(sic) had done so through mismanagement and fraud] Of course it is not stated so in a manly way , but as in this affair all through, the charges are made indirectly, yet so worded as not to be misunderstood. Ignorant and dishonest indeed! Fine language to apply to us. If it is not intended for us, perhaps Mr. Hume(it is his work) will tell the public what it did have reference to. *(inserted page) As applying to Mr. Richardson’s strictures on Mr. Hume, on page 143 although as stated in brackets, Mr. Hume’s statement of some societies having failed through mismanagement and fraud was clearly not intended to apply to local societies. Yet even Mr. Richardson, with all his bumptiousness knew perfectly well that in July of the same year, at the Sussex Assizes a former treasurer of the “Old Friendly” – Richardson’s own society – was tried for having defrauded the society of £30, which was not discovered at the time (1853), but afterwards when the books came to be investigated, it was found that an alteration of figures of “a very gross character had been made” The defence set up was the Statute of Limitation, but which Justice Blackburn thought would not apply. The defendant’s advocate also admitted that notwithstanding the mystification of figures, the case was so clear that he would decline to address the jury. Here, then, was a case both of mismanagement and fraud in the very society that Mr. Richardson, as a steward, sought so bombastically to defend.
Another vile and unfounded charge (indirectly of course) that our permanent fund was spent in public houses. That was a splendid charge, too, against us of Mr. Hume’s, in a late lecture to the St. Leonards Mechanics Institution, when he dilated so admirably about the insecurity of our societies. [In the remarks of Mr. Hume if he had really made them on such an occasion he would have been perfectly justified, he having been rightly informed that but for the reforming energy of a few of its members, led by the present writer, as Permanent Secretary of the St. Leonards lodge of the Manchester Unity, that society must have inevitably broken up when it was only a few years old. After a hard struggle with the less intelligent members the advocates of reform effected great economy in the management and slightly raised the contribution, by which means the fund was in a short time raised from something less than £50 to about £360. The opponents of change said “Look at the Old Friendly, they have got so much money that they don’t know what to do with it!” The reply was “Such will not be the case in a few years time”.] Mr. Richardson’s letter continued thus:- The charges of -
