Third. The inequitable assessment of such
premiums.

Fourth. Unskilful, and sometimes wasteful
and extravagant, management.

With regard to the first cause, it is stated by
competent authorities that it is impossible to
secure a just average without a large body of
members. The splitting up into five or six
societies, of a number of persons scarcely
sufficient to form one society of moderate extent, is
considered totally to destroy all prospect of fair
average results. No society with a small number
of members can be looked upon as safe. The
insufficiency of the number of members in petty
friendly societies, to form an average, and the
ignorance of the managers, must be fatal obstacles
to their prosperity: while sickness allowance,
and old age benefits, can only be safely guaranteed
by institutions dealing with a large number
of members. The second and third causes of
failure have frequently been commented on by
statistical writers, who have pointed out the
errors of the tables used by friendly societies—
tables which are for the most part taken up by
the society at haphazard, and used merely
because they have been used by some other
society, without any regard to the special
circumstances of the case to which they are
applied. Not merely are the rates charged
often insufficient, but they are frequently
inequitable. The managers of the society fix
upon a premium for an assurance without data,
and without reason. Mr. Tidd Pratt, giving
evidence before a committee of the House of
Commons in 1853, declared that the tables of
a very large majority of friendly societies are
never certified by an actuary; and further, that
more than one half of the ordinary benefit
societies like to have, and will have, one single
rate of payment for all persons. They do
not understand one man's paying so much
a year according to the age at which he insures,
and another man's paying so much more
or less, according to the age at which he in
sures.

The fourth cause of failure is so plain as to
require but little remark. It is assuredly
unnecessary to enlarge on the fact that benefit
societies are frequently ruined by unskilful or
extravagant management. Many societies are
beneficial only to the publican at whose house
the meetings are held, and who, in too many
instances, is the only intelligent member. Of
late years, certain societies, which have taken
the name and guise of friendly societies, but
which are, in reality, speculative insurance
offices of the lowest class, have appealed largely
to the working classes. These societies have
secured an ample area for their operations,
they have established agencies in every part
of the country, they have obtained a sufficient
number of subscribers to give them a proper
average of health and life; but they have lost
the chief and original characteristic of friendly
societies. The popular idea of a friendly
society is, that it is a brotherhood, a body of men
united for the purpose of bringing their savings
into a common fund, which common fund is
to be administered by common agreement of
the members. How far this popular idea of a
friendly society has been realised by ordinary
benefit clubs, it would be difficult to say; but,
assuredly, it has not been realised by some of
the largest societies (with the most overwhelmingly
philanthropic titles) throughout the kingdom.
In such societies, the members, poor,
uneducated, unacquainted with one another, and
incapable of union, are scattered by thousands
over the whole face of the country. The
governing body, consisting at most of some
half-dozen individuals, reside in a central spot,
and exercise an absolute and unfettered control
over the funds. Consider the temptation to
extravagance and mismanagement!

And what does the government, through
Mr. Gladstone its Chancellor of the Exchequer,
propose to do? By the bill before the House,
the government proposes to give to the working
classes those facilities for the secure investment
of their money which the real friendly societies
have, in many cases, been unable to give, and
which the real friendly societies and the so-called
speculative friendly societies, have, in the vast
majority of instances, failed to give. The government
has the vast area for want of which numberless
honest friendly societies have failed; and it is
removed from those temptations to extravagance
and dishonesty which have ruined, or are ruining,
many large societies. The means afforded
to the working classes at present, are wholly
inefficient. The large London assurance offices,
while thoroughly accessible to the upper and
middle classes, have, save in one or two
instances, declined to do business of sufficiently
small amount to be within the means of the
industrious host. Nor does an allowance in case
of sickness form part of the scheme of any
large London office. That the object which the
government has in view, is desirable and easy of
attainment, has been testified by many eminent
writers on life assurance, one of whom, after
recommending the collection from the labourer of
weekly or monthly premiums of one shilling, or
any multiple of one shilling, for the purpose of
securing to him at death, or at an advanced
period of life, an amount varying with the
entrance age, says, "In the hands of a paternal
government, life assurance, on such a basis,
might be made a national duty."

  Of course the bill has been objected to and
opposed. A cry is easily raised; demagogues
in want of a topic, have inflated their lungs, and
impecunious directors of shaky societies have
uttered solemn bellows of admonition. What
are the objections to the measure? "That it
will teach the people to rely on the government
rather than on their own exertions." This is
simply stark nonsense. The government is not
about to give a bonus or a bounty to the
people! It is not about to furnish them with
the money which they must pay before they
become benefited. It merely offers them the
means of investing their premiums with
absolute safety; the premiums themselves will