Newspaper cuttings, mostly from the Daily News, cut out and pasted in for Karl Marx by his daughter Jenny Marx in the notebook “Trade and Finance 1868”, London, 1868-1869 (IISG, Amsterdam, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Papers, P 1). Text from MEGAdigital (MEGA² IV/19), without the editorial apparatus; words in square brackets are missing from the cuttings and supplied by the MEGA editors.1 Traducción al español

JUSTICE FOR RICH AND POOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLDS’S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,—It is quite a fallacy to say that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and if any one made that assertion he would be triumphantly answered from the statute-book, which admits in theory no distinction of persons. What is true—and this is the way to set forth the truth—is, that there are two modes of administering the same law; and that all the convenience and contingency of escape is given by the higher mode of administration to the rich. If John Smith, a poor agricultural labourer, is detected stealing a few turnips and carrots for a starving wife and children, he is brought before a coup of justices, who summarily convict him, and send him to herd with felons for a month at least. But if Lord Frederick Frizzlefig or Sir Thomas Loamshire is detected in an offence, he is only committed for trial and let out on bail, and the lord or baronet may prostitute the use of the writ of certiorari, and remove the indictment, when it is found, into the court of “our Sovereign Lady the Queen, before the Queen herself, at Westminster.” Into that court a poor prosecutor cannot follow the rich defendant, and a verdict of acquittal is taken as a matter of course. If a peer is indicted for an offence against society, it is impossible to reach him, for he must be tried by his peers; and we all recollect the solemn farce of the trial of Lord Cardigan for shooting at Captain Harvey Phipps Tuckett in a duel, which ended in the peers finding that it was not proved that there was such a person as Captain Tuckett for Lord Cardigan to shoot at, and so his lordship was acquitted of an offence which was notorious to all the world. Even after conviction there is a great difference between the treatment of a “man of family” and a man steeped in poverty. A prison surgeon can find that a baronet suffers from lung affection, or disease of the heart, and a release is ordered by the Home Secretary; or the Home Secretary makes haste to send a respite to prolong the life of a criminal who belongs to a plutocratic family long before it is proved that the convict is really insane. But the poor wretch convicted of stealing turnip is allowed to work out his time, and to find what employment he can in a world governed by society with laws as harsh as the laws of Draco; and yet, after all, they are only the laws of England, harshly rendered by the owners of property in defence of property, and loosely and tenderly administered when the accused happens to be a member of “society.”

A very great scandal has arisen in the administration of justice in England. An accusation of a most terrible character was solemnly made against six men who had held the very highest places in the City. One of them, at least, had sat in the House of Commons, and had assisted to make laws for the punishment of the poor. We are not entitled to express any opinion upon the guilt of the persons accused of conspiracy to defraud a large body of shareholders; but it is merely necessary to say that, in the opinion of the Lord Mayor and of a grand jury of merchants, there was a sufficient case for the consideration of a jury of the country. The directors of “Overend, Gurney, and Company (Limited),” were to be put upon their trial by the ordeals of magisterial commitment and indictment found in due course of law. The defendants had rich friends, and were admitted to bail to appear and take their trial, and the prosecutor was bound over to prosecute in the sum of 5,000l. He was met by a removal of the indictment into the Queen’s Bench, which means that he has been made party to a costly procedure—at the least, involving an outlay of some thousands of pounds more than a trial at the Old Bailey would have cost. He asks, naturally enough, from his brother shareholders, and from the public, for the funds necessary to complete the trial, and he receives no response such as he is entitled to have. In his despair, as a representative of the public—for a prosecutor does represent the public—he appeals to Government to allow the Attorney-General to prosecute, as was done in the case of the Royal British Bank, when a very salutary conviction was obtained—followed by penalties so ridiculously small as to make no example to men in high places. Dr. Thom’s application to the Government is refused; his appeal to the House of Commons is disregarded; and the prosecutor is left to the only resource in his power—he offers to conduct the prosecution himself. Dr. Thom is a man of ability, and there is no reason to say that he would take any unfair advantage, or mercilessly press the case against every sense of equity and justice. The Lord Chief Justice of England refused to listen to the suggestion; and so a great scandal to justice would have occurred, had not the continuance of another trial compelled the postponement till December of that of Overend and Gurney.

The fact is, the law of England is good only in theory, but is imperfect in its administration. We ought long ago to have had a public prosecutor, whose duty it would have been to have taken up such a case as Overend, Gurney, and Co., and not only such cases, but all cases ought to be put under the supervision of a public officer far removed from suspicion of partiality or incompetence. We have such an offer in Scotland, where the Lord Advocate acts through advocates-depute in every court, and procurators-fiscal, whose business it is to attend to the conduct of all criminal cases. It is so also in France, and in every country except in England, and why not in England? Because a public officer could neither be bought up nor be ruined by expensive processes of delay. It is in the power of a rich defendant to ruin a poor prosecutor, to make it impossible for the indictment to be sustained, and thus a rich man can escape from the meshes of the law. This suits aristocracy and plutocracy, but it does not suit the people who are about to obey an universal law as they are taught to believe. The conduct of the Government, of the Attorney-General, and the Lord Chief Justice is inexplicable, because all these high authorities have been informed that there are not the means in existence to employ eminent counsel, and that therefore a charge grave enough to warrant a Lord Mayor to commit for trial, and a grant jury to find a true bill, is not to be investigated by the proper tribunals. For the prevention of such a scandal in the future there is only one remedy, and it is the appointment of public prosecutors. They already exist except in name, and they are already paid as much as they would cost if they were called Crown solicitors in each county and borough. In countries, the clerks to the justices are now really the prosecuting attorneys; in boroughs, the clerks f the peace exercise the function. We have only to get rid of our cumbrous public machinery in the form of unpaid magistrates, and take the commitment of public officers, in order to render the administration of justice certain, impartial, and simple. There never has been a good reason stated against the appointment, and no reason can be suspected, except the determination of aristocrats and plutocrats to sustain a second mode of administering a law that may be favourable to their own orders. We cannot hang, even when we convict, a Victor Towneley; and we cannot convict a lord Cardigan even when the Attorney-General is in his proper place as a public prosecutor. There ought only to be one mode of administration, and that mode should give equal, and only equal, favour to prosecutors and prisoners. The case of Overend, Gurney, and Co., is only a big case because it comprises millions of money in discussion; reduce it to shillings or pence, and it becomes only a question such as juries deal with every day. There is another difference here which the law ought to take no cognizance or note of—the defendants were in Society, and “have sat at good men’s tables,” but the failure of the law is not less lamentable.

THE OVEREND and GURNEY trial has been put off, not, however, because the parties are not ready to submit their several cases to a jury, but because the Court of Queen’s Bench has not at its command the eight or ten days which the examination of witness, the speeches of counsel, and the summing up of the Judge, must occupy. If the action against SIR EDWARD WATKIN had not blocked the way, the partners in OVEREND and Co. might by this time be presenting their defence. As it is, the action against the Directors of the Humber Iron Works Company, which came to nothing has made it impossible to proceed with the Overend trial, inasmuch as the sittings terminate on Saturday next, and on Monday the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE will be trying assize cases in the country, The consequence is that this great trial cannot now take place before December. The public will agree with the remark of the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, that such a necessity is “lamentable.” It does not appear, however, that blame attaches to any of the parties—certainly not to the defendants, who cannot but desire a termination of this present state of suspense. It is understood that effective measures are being taken for a proper presentation of the case of the Court when the proper time arrives, and we shall be glad if they prove such as will make further newspaper discussion of the topic until then necessary.

EQUITY COURTS.—JULY 27.

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
RE CHARLES LAFFITTE AND CO. (LIMITED.)

Some time since a scheme for a compromise of the suit of Gray v. Lewis and others and other suits was brought before the Master of the Rolls, who then declined to sanction it, unless the views on the contributories of this company were favourable to it. The official liquidator thereupon took steps to bring the scheme under their notice, and the result was that though it was protested against some of the shareholders, he was able to bring it forward with considerable support from that body. The substance of the compromise was, that the National Bank should pay to the liquidator 28,000. Odd in discharge of certain claims admitted against the company, and should also indemnify the company against the debts specified in the schedule to the scheme; the bank was also to pay the costs of the liquidator in the winding up, and of the plaintiffs in Gray v. Lewis. The bank, moreover, was to recover or hold on their own behalf all the moneys received by Charles Lafitte on behalf of the company, or credited to him, and for their benefit in that respect they were to be at liberty to use the name of the company.

His Lordship approved the compromise, on which an order would be made on the 9th August, unless the opponents indemnified the parties supporting the scheme.

THE HERCULES INSURANCE COMPANY (LIMITED).—

THE report of Mr. William Joseph White, official liquidator of this company, which is being wound up in the Court of Chancery, has been issued, and adds another chapter to the already long list of public company scandals of the last few years. We have no space to spare for even an abstract of this voluminous document, to which all interested will no doubt have easy access, but we may just notice that the Hercules Company passed through two or three phases before it assumed the title and became the company which is now being wound up. With regard to one of these transitions the official liquidator says—The whole of the previous income of the company had been consumed; that all the paid-up capital of the company had also been expended; that there was not a shilling in hand or invested to meet the current risks upon existing policies; and that, on the other hand, the company had incurred about 3,000l. of ascertained indebtedness beyond its outstanding and running liabilities; and that the actuary gave a certificate as follows: “I have carefully estimated the commercial value of the financial position of the ‘Hercules Fire and Life Insurance Company,’ and am of opinion that in consideration of the equality and extent of the business already secured, and the arrangements made for conducting a marine branch, the original shareholders may fairly demand a payment of 2,000 fully paid up shares of 10l. each for the surrender of their property and its goodwill, considered with its present and prospective advantages.”

IT would be a great mistake for anybody to suppose that the records of the Bankruptcy Court afford anything like a faithful or comprehensive index of the personal and domestic miseries inflicted by pecuniary embarrassment. Indeed, if we confined our observation to the individuals who ordinarily claim its protection, we might be disposed to place its clients among the ranks rather of the fortunate than the unfortunate portion of mankind. Their approaches to, their passage through, and their exit from it, are almost invariably of an agreeable character; the rough places being made smooth for them at every step. No one can doubt that getting into debt, at least, is an easy process. There is nothing arduous in ordering what you cannot pay for, and, as society is at present organized, not the smallest difficulty exists in finding people to credit you wealth you do not possess. Indeed, the difficulty is on their side, not on yours. They struggle for the favour of your worse than worthless patronage, and vie with each other in the effort to convince you that the date of the liquidation of your supposed engagements is of no earthly consequence. They not only provide the wheels for your painless locomotion over the economic inequalities of life, but they provide the grease as well. Easy-going natures, constructed without the drag of conscience, may be excused for closing with the seductive offer of so pleasant a journey; and for a time the pace is as even as could be desired by the most luxurious and the most sensitive. Jolting sets in at length, it is true; and after some exceedingly uncomfortable jerks, motion ceases altogether. Your conveyance has pulled up at the door of the Bankruptcy Court. But to the mind duly seasoned by a course of self-indulgence, which self is quite incapable of paying for, this sudden termination of a prosperous ride has few terrors, if any, and it is difficult to say whether the face of the average insolvent is more radiant when he is moving smoothly in the direction of the Court, or when he smugly emerges from it a free man, jauntily prepared to renew his genial experience on a larger or smaller scale, according to his opportunities and the credulity of others equally obliging with those who equipped him in his first adventure.

But if this is a faithful picture, as we believe it to be, of the vast majority of those whose names figure in what perhaps ought properly regarded as the most decidedly criminal court in the kingdom, the story, if we could but accurately tell it, of those who, dragged to its vicinity by no full consent of their own, spend the remainder of their lives in avoiding the disgrace of a nearer approach, would present very different features. And to how many would the unhappy tale be applicable? Yet when we consider the snares and pitfalls that lie across the path of the ingenuous traveller through life, we cannot be surprised that the number is so great. Human nature prepares half of the deception, and human malice the other half. With a pardonable exultation in the strength and energy of early manhood, the young beginner is sanguine that he will not fail where so many seem to have succeeded; and, judging by their apparent prosperity, he concludes that he has only to follow in their footsteps in order to arrive at what they have reached—a pleasant home, a comely partner, a circle of children, a troop of friends, ease, elegance, and respect. He does not know that the life of the individual whose fortunes he thus contemplates with such emulous eyes has been for years the victim of distressing cares, the sole depository of horrible financial secrets, an unnoticed athlete, wrestling decade after decade with the gripe of debt and discredit. Possibly the poor wretch has at length flung his foe, and in the plenitude of years laid the ghost that so long had dogged him; but at what a cost!—the cost probably of all that can be called happiness. Possibly the enemy is still within his gates, and the most that he can hope for is, that his death, hastened as his life has been discounted, by anxiety, may, through the means of some substantial life policy, discharge his obligations. In any case he holds on, holding absolute disaster at bay—hiding it from his wife, hiding it from his sons, hiding it if possible from his bankers, hiding the full extent of it even from himself. Thus this apparently easy gentleman is a false beacon, luring the rising generation to miseries of which he is himself the subject. Did some friendly Asmodeus unroof for the young and sanguine beginner of whom we have spoken, all the households he thinks so comfortable, and whose placid condition is the main encouragement of his hopeful views, doubtless it would damp his ardour, but at the same time it would most opportunely temper his daring. It would impress him with a salutary horror of risk, and a sane aversion to counting birds in the bush as birds in the hand. Unhappily, he repeats an experiment, the most important facts and conditions of which are held back from him. He advances, believing the road to be clear, when in reality it is encumbered, and in all probability does not make the discovery of the truth till he is too far advanced on it to dream of returning. He finds himself in the thick of a flight, and he flight—his motto being the old one, Pro aris et focis. Here behind him are all those whom he holds most dear, those in fact who constitute his life. He can neither abandon them, nor carry them off the field. He has been entrapped into a conflict where he anticipated at most a military promenade or progress, and all he can do is to battle stoutly, and strive to save his flag and his honour.

We do not make these remarks with the object of discouraging energy or enterprise. Far from it. But we would have those whose happiness is not yet imperilled to accompany courage with caution, and to acquire that habit of mind, more common with our ancestors than unhappily with us, which regards a little that is safe as infinitely preferable to much that is but insecure. To him who is devoid of moral sense, debt is a small matter; indeed a series of insolvencies may be regarded by such a one as little different from a series of legacies. But the honourable mind must suffer from pecuniary embarrassment visitations of agony that no pen can adequately describe. The position can be compared only to that of a swimmer with a big stone round his neck, yet bound by everything sacred not to sink. What frantic and desperate efforts must be made to avoid that dreaded consummation. Lucky the man who, so circumstanced, does not escape one great and glaring ignominy by having to endure a succession of petty concealed ones. The man, says SOCRATES, who accepts money from another buys himself a master. Where he owes it, he buys himself many masters. Certainly he is no longer his own. He possesses no genuine leisure, and his rest can scarcely be called rest. He is the slave of mean necessities. He must do what pays best, not what pleases or profits most. And he is just as little a free man in the selection of his familiars as in the choice of his avocations. He is compelled to be civil to people to whom it would be better both for his own moral nature and for society generally that he should display a wholesome scorn; and it will be only by an effort of supreme philosophic virtue if he does not come to regard life rather as a fiendish curse than as a Divine gift. The sight of a brave man struggling against the gods is a very different spectacle from that of his contention with the demons of ignoble debt.

THE Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which is one of the most intelligent and influential Chambers in the country, has for many years persistently supported the Bank Act, and refused to concur in any act or movement against it. But the last most signal failure of the Act in 1866 seems to have made its warmest friends and firmest adherents at least sceptical, if not avowed unbelievers, in its vaunted virtues, and a week to-day the Chamber, at its quarterly meeting, petitioned the House of Commons for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Bank Act of 1844, and into the monetary and currency laws of the country generally. The resolution of the Manchester Chamber was carried by a large majority; in fact, with only one dissentient. Sir EDWARD W. WATKIN, who moved it, in suggesting grounds for inquiry, contend himself with pointing out certain anomalies, such as English Bank notes not being legal tender either in Scotland or Ireland, and the circumstance of the Act having been suspended on thee several occasions. He mentioned also that “in 1857, when the Act was suspended and power was given to the Bank, it immediately transferred two millions from its Currency to its Banking Account, and offered to discount good paper at 10 per cent. upon a liberal and generous scale. But in 1866, when the Act was again suspended, not one farthing was taken from that account, and all that the Bank did was, mainly for their own purposes, to keep up this rate of 10 per cent. for fourteen weeks, getting all the time an enormous profit by their various transactions.” The motion was opposed by two members only, Mr. P. B. FERGUSSON and Mr. MITCHELL, “who thought there was no case for inquiry, the Bank Act having accomplished the great end and object of making the security of the Bank note undoubted, even in time of panic. This was all that could be urged in favour of the Act against the damning evidence that was urged against it, and apparently in ignorance that the fact assumed has been again and again exposed and exploded. The security of the Bank note was never questioned, never doubted or suspected, either before or since the passing of the Bank Act of 1844. It was not to secure the Bank note that the Bank Act was proposed; it was not to secure the Bank note that its provisions were needed, nor was it for that purpose that they were framed or adopted, nor have they had, nor could they have had, any such effect in their operation. “The security of the Bank note” is a grand phrase, no doubt, and one eminently calculated to beguile a timid and credulous public, but it was a delusive phrase, and the imposture is now seen through. The Bank note needed no further security, and the Bank Act conferred no further security upon it; but on the contrary, the operation of that Act has repeatedly tended to endanger the Bank note, and, if it had not been suspended, would have destroyed its prestige for the moment, and if for the moment, for ever. It is quite certain, and nothing could well be more certain than that if certain joint-stock banks had withdrawn their balances from the Bank of England, as they might have done, and the Act had not been suspended, the Bank of England must have closed the doors of its Banking Department on the 11th of May, 1866, and that in that case the integrity of the Bank of England note all over the world would have been utterly destroyed. That, as Sir EDWARD WATKIN maintained, was not a matter of mere supposition, but was a matter of fact.

There is hardly any subject to which the Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain can devote their time and attention with more advantage than this subject of the currency. Beyond all question the present system has operated most injuriously upon the interests of those engaged in trade and commerce; whilst it is equally clear that it has operated most profitably for the interests of a comparatively small and insignificant number of great influential capitalists, money-dealers, and speculators. The currency of this and of all other countries is, or ought to be, the creature and servant of trade and commerce; whereas our system makes trade and commerce the victim and slave of the currency. The money market governs and controls all our mercantile operations, whilst the money market itself is governed and controlled by the speculative or other operations of a small class which is only indirectly, and to a limited extent, connected with or interested in commerce. Currency and money dealing, loan contracting and the foreign exchanges, are subjects of considerable complication, no doubt, and require no small amount of application to comprehend them in all their bearings thoroughly; but there are certain broad and obvious facts, and some elementary principles, which the practical knowledge and strong common sense of the members of the mercantile community ought to be able to deal with in a ready and rational way. They well know, for instance, that of all things it is most essential that the currency—which is the measure of value in all other commodities—should be of the most unvarying character as to value itself. The value of all other commodities will be continually varying, according to the supply and the demand for them, and it is of vital importance that the value of the money or currency by which those variations are to be ascertained should not be continually varying also, but should be, as nearly as possible, of definite and permanent value. This is not only in perfect accordance with the suggestions of common sense, but is recognised as a fundamental principle by political economists; yet our present monetary system not only permits but promotes and necessitates perpetual variations in the value of the currency. The Bank is constituted sole mistress and manager of the currency, and the Act of 1844 not only makes it the duty but the interest of that corporation to promote these fluctuations in the value of money. Neither very dear nor very cheap money is desirable in the interests of commerce; but the Bank of England, under certain circumstances, is compelled to issue more and more notes until it has made money excessively plentiful and cheap; and under certain other circumstances is compelled to withdraw more and more notes until it has made money excessively scarce and dear. And that, according to Lord OVERSTONE and the philosophers of the new currency school, the authors and framers of the Bank Act, is just as it should be. For great bankers, loan contractors, and speculative investors, no doubt, it is just as it should be, because this system has had the effect of periodically transferring millions and hundreds of millions of capital from the tills and pockets of the mercantile and industrious classes to the capitalist classes. It is for the mercantile and industrious classes to say whether, under such circumstances, the system has “worked well” for them, and whether it is expedient or desirable that such a system should be longer permitted to continue. That it works well for the Bank of England is shown by the dividends paid to its proprietors. In October, 1866, the divided paid by the Bank on a capital of 14,533,000l. was at the rate of 13 per cent. per annum. That was in the midst of the panic, and out of the enormous profits made by a 10 per cent. rate for fourteen weeks. In the previous half-year ending April, 1966, although a period of great prosperity, the dividend was at the rate of 10½ per cent. only; and in the corresponding half-year, ending October, 1865, a period of still greater prosperity, it was at the rate of 10 per cent. only. But the commerce of England has not been created, and must not be supposed to exist for the Bank of England; and it must not be sacrificed or victimised to the extent of hundreds of millions in order that the Bank shareholders may receive an additional 3 per cent. on their stock.

Mr. LOWE has not thought fit to entertain the request of the influential body which has petitioned the Government. Manchester may doubt, but he sees clearly; Manchester may be dissatisfied, but he is happy. Even so, however, we think he would have done well to admit that there may be something in the opinions of men not ordinarily supposed to be deficient in perspicacity. Manchester opinions have a wonderful capacity for becoming the opinions of the rest of England, and they may do so in this case.

IT was not without reason that we said on Wednesday that the failure of the Albert would make the safety of Insurance Offices a public question of prime magnitude for a considerable time to come. The managers of the Albert have told the world for several years past that their business has been annually increasing: but suppose it had not; suppose it had barely maintained the level of eight years ago, still 22,881 policy-holders, and more reversionists in expectancy, would be affected by its downfall. Every one of the policy-holders has insured for some specific purpose—to benefit some particular person or persons; perhaps to enhance the scanty comforts of a sister; more probably to secure a living for a widow, and a start for the children. Letters which reach us are full of harrowing details of the distress which the prospects of the liquidation are causing, and which must be aggravated when the full extent of the losses becomes known. Here is a man who long ago left England to labour amidst the mineral wealth of a new country and in an unhealthy climate, and who year after year has been sending home the savings of his working life to make good the position of his family. The outgoing mail will inform him that his efforts and sacrifices have been in vain. In another case a professional man lies in great danger, and his conscious moments are filled with the thought that the hopes of his life are wrecked. A third letter describes the anxieties of a widow, who a week ago was fathering her few things about her, and looking forward to retire to a village with the modest subsistence to be derived from the interest of the scanty sum to be received from the Albert.

And now some folks are going about with eyebrows arched, shaking their heads like Lord BURLEIGE, and with a look of solemnity and pity are saying that “by business men the Albert has been known for years to be an unsafe office,” adding, with the calmness of philosophers who are provided for, that if people will bestow their confidence without care, they must take the conse-quences. If such remarks as these were merely made to exalt the worldly wisdom of one class of people at the expense of another, they would not be worth notice; but they are made to form part of an argument against indispensable reforms. That argument, shortly state, is:—“Business men know abundantly—therefore do not regard the demands of those who ask to be permitted to know just enough to prevent their being swindled.” True it is that business men know; they have many means of knowing: they have their banker who sits in a centre to which rays of financial information are always converging from ten thousand points; they have their lawyers—some great legal firm—who know the secrets which big City men strive to hide; and a few guarded words from either of these parties are often enough to save clients from false moves and ruinous investments. Further, they are perpetually drawing upon, as well as increasing, the great body of unwritten information which circulates in their own classes. Thus they can no doubt very well take care of themselves. But how should the mere man of science, or the working parson, or apothecary, or clerk, arrive at the saving knowledge which they possess? It is something like a cruel mockery to be telling people who have taken the best advice within their reach, now that they have lost their money, that they have bestowed their confidence without care. There were people in London who knew that Overend and Gurney’s must come down years before some members of the firm suspected danger; and yet when the crash came it was seen that not only bankers, and lawyers, but wealthy London merchants had trusted the firm to the last. What is asked, as it was asked last session, but in vain, is that the offices shall be compelled by law to publish their accounts, and in such a way as that all who are interested shall know how the companies stand. We see nothing unreasonable in such a request, which, it seems to us, must be granted if life insurance is to remain in the hands of voluntary associations. It is said that such publication would do more harm than god, for if the investments of the companies were specified in detail—and no other kinds of specification would deserve the name—“they might pass with the public as very desirable securities, although the majority of business men in London might at a glance perceive their dangerous character.” Well, at any rate give the public an opportunity of judging, and then if there are people who, seeing that the funds of one company are invested in Turkish Stocks, or City Offices Debentures, prefer that company to another which has put out its money at mortgage or invested it in Consols, let them take the consequences. Those who use the argument we have described must forget that when once the nature of an insurance company’s investments is known they may be made the subject of discussion, and nothing would be easier than to distinguish and compare the character of different classes of securities, and their suitability as investments for insurance funds without prejudice to fair and healthy schemes.

These considerations were urged upon the Legislature many months ago, and they must be urged again. The case of the Albert, when it has been developed, will prove an argument which it will be impossible to resist. The Albert Office has been taking the money of the public for many years, and is now liable for near 8,000,000l. The sums which should have been set aside to meet these obligations have been, we are assured, most shamefully used; indeed, the affairs of the company, when they come to be known, will supply an instance of mismanagement scarcely surpassed in associated enterprise. And policy-holders have been compelled to stand by in helplessness for years because the law gives them no opportunity of looking into the accounts in which they, more than any others, are interested. It is idle to talk of a single policy-holder relying upon his own judgment when the facts on which it should be exercised are withheld. What could any individual policy holder do in the case of a badly conducted office against a clever but dishonest manager, whose position, and it may be his liberty, depended on his keeping the concern going, and who would not stop while money could be found to meet demands on the office? If the purpose of the objections we have been considering were to prevent all improvements in assurance business by discrediting the modern offices which adopt them, and to build up and confirm the monopoly of offices of deserved reputation for stability, but which charge enormous premiums, founded on early and imperfect experience, we could better understand them. There are now such old offices, very rich and most respectable, which, adhering to old tables, unfairly overcharge the prudent young assurer, to spare him who comes to them late in life. It is a question with many whether Life Assurance is not becoming too great an interest to be left to private enterprise. Without going the length of asserting that it is so, we may express the opinion that the transactions of Life Assurance Companies are so peculiar that the publication of authenticated information as to the essential of their position is a national interest to be secured by legislation. Let us try whether this is sufficient for the public security; and if it should not be, we may then require more.

MR. S. LAING is a gentleman of brilliant apprehension and of imagination most courageous. The author of “Monte Christo” would hardly have ventured upon so bold a scene as a company of railway shareholders meeting on some fine afternoon, and cheerily smoking bank notes to the amount of 4,000,000l. in their pipes. But what is more, Mr. LAING almost wishes the Brighton shareholders had consumed their capital in this sumptuous style; at least he says it would have been better for them than making branch railways which have not only absorbed 4,000,000l. of capital, but have entailed on them as annual loss of 35,000l. We have never seen the reason why the ordinary shareholders of the Brighton Line have to go without dividends presented more compendiously. But Mr. LAING follows up his picture with a reflection which we cannot immediately comprehend. “Nothing,” he said, “could be more starling than the facts and figures shown in the report of the directors, and [they] ought to be a warning to Parliament in future as to how they sanctioned branch and duplicate lines.” Why a warning to Parliament? We will venture to say that no member of either House (except a shareholder of the Company) ever ate his dinner with less appetite or slept less soundly because he had given his sanction to these branch lines. If people come to Parliament very much wanting to make a railroad that will be useful to the public, and very angry with whoever seeks to hinder them, Parliament will assuredly grant the permission without conceiving itself under any obligation to protect the shareholders who may be presumed to know their own interests better than either Lords or Commons, Railway proprietors know well by this time that they have no protection, but prudence, against the ill-consequences of their own acts.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK has published a “Letter to the Bankers, Merchants, and Directors of Public Companies in the City of London,” setting forth a “proposal to extend the system pursued by her MAJESTY’s Civil Service Commissioners to candidates for commercial appointments” Some fourteen years ago, it will be remembered, the Government offices were crowded by clerks, numbers of whom were wholly unfit, from natural incapacity or want of education, for the performance of their duty to the public. But on the 21st of May, 1855, an Order in Council was issued, in pursuance of which a Commission was constituted whose duty it was to ascertain with regard to each candidate for a public appointment—1. That he was within the limits of age. 2. That he was free from any physical defect or disease which would be likely to interfere with the proper discharge of his duties. 3. That his character was such as to qualify him for public employment; and 4. That he possessed the requisite knowledge and ability for the proper discharge of his official duties. The public utility of these examinations may be judged of by the following figures taken from the last report of the Commissioners:—Out of 40,194 candidates who had obtained nominations to various Government offices during the last fourteen years no less than 9,461 have been rejected. Of these 1,042 were rejected as not being within the prescribed limits of age; 480 were found to be physically incapable; 616 were unable to produce satisfactory evidence as to character; 7,323 were deficient in knowledge or ability. And it is a remarkable fact that of these 7,323 only 216 were rejected for want of general intelligence and cultivation, and that the remaining 7,107 cases were rejected for deficiency in the ordinary qualifications of reading, spelling, writing, and arithmetic, and in the subjects specially connected with the practical work of the respective offices in each department. At all events, therefore, the Civil Service Commission has relieved the public service of nearly ten thousands incapable of inefficient public servants, who would otherwise have been foisted upon it; and their places have been filled by candidates who, at least, possessed the primary elements of greater efficiency. Sir JOHN LUBBOCK think that it would be of immense advantage to the banking and mercantile community if some such preliminary examination by independent official authorities could be had as to the character and qualifications of candidates for commercial appointments. For more than twenty years the Bank of England has required all candidates for employment in that establishment to go through a Pass examination, and the Sun Fire Office and some other large establishments have something similar. But a special “Examination Committee” can scarcely the practicable in any but the largest establishments, and there can be no doubt that an independent examination would be preferable in all. Sir JOHN LUBBOCK therefore proposes “that the Council of the City of London College should be requested to do for the mercantile community of the City what the Civil Service Commissioners do for the Government offices.” The beneficial effects of this system as applied to the Government offices have been, as we have shown, great and undeniable; and the question arises how far the commercial establishments of London are in a position to derive advantage from similar aid. The total number of Government clerks in 1861 was 16,736, whilst those in mercantile offices were 55,657, of whom no less than 22,000 were in London. It may be argued, as Sir JOHN LUBBOCK says, “that the personal interests of private employers will always be sufficient to check many of the very gross scandals which have from time to time occurred in public offices; but on the other hand, the pressure of friends and relations, of customers and directors, notoriously leads in many cases to most inefficient and objectionable appointments, though it is difficult to say how far this evil extends.”

We take it that in the second clause of this sentence Sir JOHN LUBBOCK has summed up whatever there is of utility in his scheme. The bankers and merchants of London do not require the assistance of any set of persons enable them to discover the talent which they require in their clerks; neither did the Government in 1855. The Civil Service Commission was formed for a very different purpose, to fulfil a function which, as Sir JOHN LUBBOCK shows, the great financial and mercantile corporations of the City of London at the present day require to have performed, These examining bodies are found capable of serving as a kind of advanced shield to protect employers from the importunities of patrons and connexions whom it is not deemed prudent to offend. There, we suspect, their utility begins and ends, It is not pleasant for the manager of a bank to tell a good customer that the young gentleman in whom he has interested himself is incompetent; and it might sometimes be highly convenient to be able to state that the invariable practice of the establishment is only to receive as candidates for appointments those who had passed an examination before a certain board. We wish we could discern either in this or any other direction some prospect of an improvement in the position of the ordinary clerks of our merchants and bankers, a subject painfully forced upon our attention by the letters we continue to receive. If any one imagines that a Board of Examiners is wanted to purvey linguistic or literary ability for the use of our business men, he has only to read the correspondence we have been publishing to be undeceived. From those letters it is apparent that by many worthy men the value in exchange of talent of this kind is popularly overrated. It cannot be too generally understood that the remuneration of the ordinary duties of clerks will in the main depend upon the proportion between the demand for their labour and its supply; and that those who desire to rise above its low level can only expect to do so by manifesting special ability to advance the interests of their employers; in which ability we include all the moral qualities which give a title to confidence. The correspondents who have stated their grievances in these columns have our warmest sympathy; but that is but a false kindness which disguises the plain truth.

ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

The following has been addressed to the shareholders, policy-holders, and annuitants in the Albert Life Assurance Company:

“Ladies and Gentlemen,—A commercial disaster rarely equalled but never surpassed in the annals of Assurance Companies has befallen your company—at a time, too, when you were induced to believe by the specious announcements daily issued by the executive that your affairs were in a prosperous condition. It is useless at the present moment to refer to the causes which have produced this disaster, but we invite your attention to the rapidity with which it has been consummated. On Thursday, the 12th instant, a private meeting of some shareholders was held at the company’s offices, when, in the presence of your chairman and directors the manager, Mr. Arthur Raymond Kirby, made an elaborate statement respecting the financial position of the company, and pointed out the extent of sacrifices to which you collectively and individually should submit. A legal gentleman subsequently addressed the meeting, and while deprecating the ruin as well as the delay and expense incidental to the action of the Court of Chancery in the administration of your affairs, submitted certain resolutions which were adopted en masse, any discussion thereon being deprecated. We have been informed that a petition to wind up the company had been actually presented on the day previous gentleman referred to is one. On Friday, the 13th instant, in the presence and with the approval of the company’s solicitors, after a discussion before the chief clerk of the Vice-Chancellor which did not occupy five minutes, as order was made to appoint Messrs. Arthur Raymond Kirby and Samuel Lowell Price liquidators provisionally until the hearing of the petition, on the 10th of September next. Notwithstanding all the revelations which have lately taken place respecting the management of joint stock companies, it may excite observation, if not suspicion, that this hurried step was taken during the vacation, immediately after the judges had left town, and when no public discussion could possibly have taken place in your interest or for your protection. Your company, which is stated to have liabilities on policies and annuities exceeded 7,000,000l., with a premium income amounting to 300,000l. a year is virtually remitted to the custody of its former manager. We are advised that the selection of Mr. Kirby is highly objectionable, inasmuch as his father or himself has had the chief control of the affairs of your company since its formation in the year 1838, the deed of settlement providing that in addition to a substantial salary former should receive 5l. per cent. on the premium income of the company, out of which he should have amassed a colossal fortune. Apart from every other consideration, we are of opinion that the gentleman who has been, to some extent, instrumental in placing your company in its present disastrous condition should not be the person specially selected to manage your affairs at this momentous crisis. If you coincide in our opinions, and are prepared to co-operate in the appointment of an independent liquidator, who will devote himself solely to your interest, be good enough forthwith to signify your assent, by letter, addressed as below, to the committee which is about being formed for the protection of your interests.—We are, &c.,

P.S.—It would be very desirable that all shareholders should attend in person at the meeting convened by the company for 26th inst., and not entrust their proxies to any official or other person connected with the directors.”

“London, City Terminus Hotel, Cannon-street, August.”

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Sincere thanks for to-day’s article. You deserve well of the public for the spirited way in which you have taken up this affair. I trust you will not let it sleep. The only, and I fear the insuperable difficulty is to bring the guilty directors to book. Happily our judges are untarnished with favouritism; and if it should get into court there may be some chance of getting a return of a percentage of premium which would lessen the loss. You advert to the sad and serious distress of children and widows most justly; and I could tell you of a case where a holder has paid his premium regularly for 15 years, and now to all appearance it is lost, and that through the heartless cold-blooded knavery of unscrupulous promoters, actuaries, managers, and directors. If the law allows these nefarious swindles to go scot free, good bye to English honour, and also to English enterprise. We are fast becoming the reproach of the Continent, and shall soon arrive at the climax if our law does not step in to punish and to compel restitution for these robberies. With the thanks of many shareholders, I am, &c.,

A HOLDER. Shrewsbury, August 20.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—“A Victim” has hit the right nail on the head. I have also been paying the full premium on a policy effected with the Western Life Office for upwards of 20 years. That is one of the many companies swallowed up by the Albert. I am disposed to make earnest inquiry after the directors of the Western, who were, I believe, substantial men.—I am, &c.,

VOX. August 21.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Replying to the question of a policy-holder in your issue of the 20th inst. as to who are Messrs. Williams and Wyman, who profess to take such a warm interest in the affairs of the policy-holders in this company, I was induced some time ago, in consequence of their advertisements, and after a lengthy correspondence, to pay them a visit, with a view to obtain the information they stated they were in possession of regarding the above company. I could find no Mr. Wyman, but in his place a man making up “tinctures for the toothache,” in a miserable room, very barely furnished; there were no clerks, and no provision for them in the shape of desks or chairs. In an adjoining room was a person who said he was Mr. Williams, but from whom I could get no information whatever, unless I first paid him the sum of 2s. 6d. per cent. on the amount of my assurances. After a lengthened effort on my part to obtain information without avail, unless the fee was paid, I left, fully persuaded that they had no information of value to impart. My impression when I left was, and is still, that they merely wished to make dupes of those policy-holders who were foolish enough to part with their money. I would recommend all my brother policy-holders to avoid taking any action until we have before us the plan of reconstruction which is promised in a few days. A committee of policy-holders for purpose of investigation can easily be formed without the intervention of Messrs. Williams and Wyman, who admit that they are neither policy-holders nor shareholders in the company.

A WARWICKSHIRE POLICY-HOLDER. August 20.

ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—In your article of to-day on the affairs of this company, you refer to the Bank of London and National Provincial Insurance Office, and remark that, in connection with the amalgamation of that office with the “Albert,” Mr. Clench received 8,000l. “as compensation.” Now you mention this, I presume, as something which appears unusual and uncommon, and therefore deserving of comment and remark; but I think, with all submission, that the time has come when these questions should be clearly understood, and not dealt with unjustly as improprieties or mysteries. My salary, as manager of that company, with a life appointment, having been the founder of the company, was 1,500l. per annum. I was asked to surrender this appointment, I never sought this offer, nor did I desire to resign my position; I was offered compensation in order to carry our a beneficial arrangement, for the proprietors, and I received, as you state, 8,000l. There is no doubt that by the light of recent events I was most unwise giving up my position for any such sum of money, it being far below the present estimated value. Mr. Gladstone, in a recent valuation of salaried interests, asked the people of this country, through their representatives, what they considered fair compensation for the loss of office? The House of Commons has said, in reply, that they were entitled, on an average, to fourteen years’ purchase of their salaries. Taking, therefore, the amount of compensation sanctioned by both Houses of the Legislature, I should have been entitled to fourteen years’ of my 1,500l. per annum; this would have amounted to 21,000l. You announce that I only received 8,000l., and I must say that were the transaction to come over again I should be justified in adopting the pronounced opinion of Parliament, viz., that men are entitled to fourteen years’ purchase of salaries where they are called upon to resign their offices, not from misconduct, but with a view to promote and facilitate the welfare of the undertaking.

I think representing the interests of a high class commercial paper, you might fairly be asked to deprecate the hasty expression of views and opinions upon the affairs of the Albert Company, particularly when it is considered that at this moment those affairs are stated to be “under arrangement,” and that the interests of thousands of persons may, to a great extent, be influenced, and depend upon the wisdom and discretion of the press, the natural leaders of public opinion. I feel sure, therefore, that you who exercise such influence will not permit a crusade to be directed against the efforts which, I am informed, are now being made to place the affairs of this company in a position which will, it is hoped, diminish the anticipated loss to the smallest possible amount. I am also informed that an excessive mortality may be responsible for a great deal of the present position, as it is currently reported that about 400,000l. has been paid upon policies within a very recent period.

It is now more than ten years since the amalgamation above referred to took place, and from that time I have had no voice or part in the management of the Albert Company. A great number of my friends are policy-holders and shareholders, and I have naturally been anxious to ascertain the probable result of the present inquiry; and I am assured that the proposed reconstruction of the office will be conducted under the advice and assistance of the most eminent actuaries of the day, and if carried out, the loss will be nothing like that which rumour has suggested. It appears to me, therefore, that a little patience and forbearance on the part of the public and the press will be invaluable to the best interests of the policy-holders, at least, until we have before us the promised report of the pending investigation.—I am, &c.,

EDMD. CLENCH. Gresham Club, August 21.

TO THE EDITOR OF DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—With reference to your correspondent “W. H.’s” letter of to-day, in addition to the offices he mentions as having been at different times absorbed by the “Albert,” it may be as well to mention that on the transfer of the business of the “Merchants and Tradesman’s Mutual Life Office” to the “Albert” in 1859, Mr. George Thomson, the manager, was awarded a life annuity of 600l. per annum, and Mr. Musgrave, the secretary, that of 300l.—the gross annual income of the “Merchants and Tradesman’s being under 30,000l. at the time of the transfer. In the great libel case, “Clench versus James Irving Scott,” the proprietors of the “Reporter Insurance Monitor,” it was openly and fairly admitted in evidence at the Mansion-house that these gentlemen were in due receipt of these annuities. If your correspondent “W. H.,” therefore, will multiply 900l. by 10, he will find that they have received the very decent sum of 9,000l. to date out of the “unfortunate policy-holders’ premiums.” Spread over a period of about twenty years—it commenced in 1849—no less than twenty-two life offices, unable individually to stem the torrent of public competition have been “absorbed” by the “Albert;” and if the managers, secretaries, and directors of all these “unfortunates” have been as liberally dealt with as the manager and secretary of the “Merchant, and Tradesman’s,” then “There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave to tell us” where the annual premiums of these “unfortunate policy-holders” have gone to. Your correspondent “W. H.” should read the memorial of the Indian policy-holders in to-day’s City article of the Times, which throws some little light on the affair, and has led to the collapse of the office. Does it require any suggestion to the mind of any honest man as to whether the directors of this concern are not as legally liable for their misappropriation of the unfortunate policy-holders’ premiums as the late directors of the “Royal British Bank” were made to be. The whole concern has been nothing more nor less than a systematic sacrifice of the many for the gain of a few for years past. It is to be hoped the influential policy-holders will insist on the free admission of the press at the meeting on Thursday next. It is their only chance of reparation.—I am, &c.,

WILLIAM ASHDOWN. 10, Crown-terrace, Bell-green, Lower Sydenham, August 21.

TO THE EDITOR OF DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I very much sympathise with the remarks of your correspondent Mr. W. J. Clark, of Bath, appearing in your issue of to-day, having reference to the affairs of the Albert Insurance Company, and share with him in surprise that so much should be said of that company while the International (now in liquidation), which I know to be of an equally bad complexion, although upon a smaller scale, should be allowed to escape public censure and animadversion. I have had occasion, in my professional capacity, for many years past, to inquire into the affairs of this latter society, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is, that if ever there was a case where united and decided action on the part of share and policy-holders was needed to rectify the gross and palpable defects in the share registry, tending materially and unduly to increase the liabilities of the shareholders, and to diminish those of the present and past directors; also to compel the executive to make good the reserve fund (rendered imperative by the deed of settlement), the International is pre-eminently that one. The leading journals having taken up the matter energetically, and public attention having been thereby drawn to it, there seems fortunately no fear but the subject will now be fully ventilated. I am, &c.,

CHAS. DRAKE, Solicitor. Weavers’-hall, 22, Basinghall-street, August 21.

TO THE EDITOR OF DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I agree with the letter singed “A Holders,” written from Shrewsbury, in your issue of to-day. I am very glad that you have ventured to insert letters about “The Albert.” Hitherto I have endeavoured to get attention drawn to this Insurance Company, but my letters have been refused insertion “for fear of the law of libel,” although I only stated facts and asked for information. I have insured in India in this company (and in the “Medical Invalid,” which was amalgamated with it some years ago) for many years for 1,000l. as security for regimental debt (for purchase of steps), and also as some premiums. I am now home from India on sick furlough, aged 37, with health broken down, so I doubt if any other company would accept my application for insurance. Many men must be similarly circumstanced, and must wish to know the worst, and as quickly as possible, so as to decide whether to let their policies lapse, and to try to insure elsewhere, or to go on paying in premiums to the Albert. It will not do to wait for months of litigation, feeling unsettled as to the future of one’s family, &c.

Anyhow, I think the directors and managers should be proceeded against, and am ready to subscribe for the purpose, for I suppose it is considered dishonourable, to say the least, for directors to publish false statements of business, &c., so as to entrap would-be insurers. The Albert is placarded all over India as being the most flourishing insurance office in the world. I for one have insured on the strength of these advertisements.—I am, &c.,

A POLICY-HOLDER (INDIAN BRANCH) IN THE ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY. Junior United Service Club, August 23.

TO THE EDITOR OF DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—The points the public is concerned in having made imperative that each office should publish in its prospectuses and advertisements, are—

The paid up as well as nominal capital.

Rates charged. Is the loading for management and contingencies 20, 25, or 30 per cent.?

Percentage actually incurred for management 5¾, 11, 50 or what?

The proportion held in reserve to sums insured. How invested? In the funds, heritable securities, or railway debentures.

And the call for legislative interference can only be based on the immensity of interests involved, the extremely remote period when the liabilities become due, and the impossibility of forming a judgment as to the soundness of offices without such data.—I am, &c.,

W. J. C. Glasgow, August 21.

IT would appear that the immediate cause of the collapse of the Albert Life Assurance Company was a request, backed so formidably as to be equivalent to a command, that the Directors should cause their assets and liabilities to be valued by Professor DE MORGAN. Somebody in the office knew that the Professor’s pen would prove the Ithuriel’s wand, one touch of which suffices to make deceitful things return to their own shape; it was evident that the reign of delusion was doomed, and a tremendous rush was made to the Vice-Chancellor’s Chief Clerk. In the fact of these facts, will public writers continue to pooh-pooh the value of enforced and independent injury as a security for policy-holders and proprietors? The mere publication of balance-sheets is no security at all; the public cannot be sure that they get sound and bona fide information. We have no doubt that, as Mr. NEISON told the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Assurance Associations in 1853, generally speaking the accounts of insurance companies are drawn up for the purpose of giving a clear view of the actual state of the concern. But it is no consolation to people who suddenly discover that they have been victimised to be told that others are secure. Before the same Committee, Mr. F. WHITMARSH, the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies, said of some of the Assurance Companies (question 70), “They return their balance-sheets (72) in such a state that I do not suppose one person in 500 could understand them (73). I believe I am warranted in saying that oftentimes these balance-sheets are manufactured for the very purpose of the return: one side for the public—the other for themselves (74). I consider these returns worth nothing (75). I should say they are calculated to mislead.” This was said sixteen years ago, and if a proper use had then been made of the warning, great mischief might have been averted. But the prospects of reform in this matter are greatly damaged by the clamour made, as often as the subject comes on for discussion, for an authoritative investigation of the accounts of all assurance offices by the Board of Trade, followed by the issue of the Board’s licence to the company to continue in business. The insuperable objection to schemes of this kind is, that they would involve the responsibility of the Government for the due payment of the sums assured, quite as much as if the Government had the business and profits of life assurance in its own hands. No Legislature would ever sanction such a proposal. But, not to object to proffered remedies without indicating a substitute, let us suggest another plan. We have just seen that the very shadow of an approaching independent investigator in the person of Professor DE MORGAN sufficed to put an end to the receipt of premiums by the Albert. Suppose that instead of this salutary check being dependant on the fact that, as in this case, a number of policy-holders insured for large sums joined in a detailed and specific request, some independent tribunal existed at all times, juridical in its powers and able to command the services of clerks and accountants—a Court of Accounts, as it might be called—before which the accounts of any assurance company might be brought as a matter of right, and under suitable guarantees as to costs, by a dissatisfied policy-holder, would not any advantage which the proposed intervention of a department of the Government in assurance matters could afford the secured? We venture to think so, and although, of course, we can imagine scores of objections to such a proposal, they are such as would, if admitted, lead to the conclusion that assurance business is not a thing to leave in the hands of private companies at all.

THE ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Will you allow me to add my mite to the correspondence appearing in your journal on the lamentable collapse of this company, by impressing upon the policy-holders the absolute necessity of appointing an independent liquidator with Mr. Price; and further, that at the meeting on Thursday next, such liquidators should be specially instructed to report forthwith upon the several amalgamations that have taken place with the Albert; an account of the sums paid in connection with such amalgamations; and the names of the persons who have received those sums? I impress upon the policy-holders the necessity for appointing a thoroughly independent liquidator, because I know that some who have received large sums in connection with those amalgamations are in active communication with those who, according to present arrangements, will have much to do with the winding-up of the company. None are so fully alive to the fraudulent character of most of the amalgamations that have been carried out as the professional amalgamators themselves, who will naturally strain every nerve to prevent that publicity which you are so strenuously demanding. In illustration of this fact, allow me to record an incident which has occurred within the past few weeks in connection with another assurance company, which will, I fear, speedily follow the Albert. A friend of mine who had by reason of four amalgamations become a policy-holder in the company to which I allude, not being satisfied with its stability, and knowing that it had recently paid to these professional amalgamators no less a sum than 22,000l. for the transference of the business of one office, applied to the secretary for the terms upon which he could surrender his policy. The price offered by the company was 26l., being about one-fourth of the amount which a good and solvent office would have gladly given for the surrender. My friend did not accept the offer, but in lieu thereof threatened, though his solicitors, immediate criminal proceedings against the directors, for fraud in connexion with the several amalgamations into which they had entered. The result of these threatened proceedings was an increased offer of 50l. for the policy, then 100l.; and ultimately 150l.; being nearly the whole amount paid in premiums. My friend, not desirous to appear as public prosecutor, pocketed the money, and severed his connection with the society. The company here in question is liable for outstanding policies to the amount of eight millions sterling, and has swallowed up by amalgamation nearly twenty other assurance offices. For your own information, but not for publication, I enclose you the name of the company here alluded to, with the name of the policy holder and the solicitors employed in recovering the money. To my mind this incident proves that if the policy holders will only take prompt action, a large portion of the enormous sum fraudulently obtained though these amalgamations may yet be recovered. I quite agree with your correspondent, Mr. Clench, that the time has come when these questions should be clearly understood,” and to this end the public will be greatly indebted to him, if through your columns he will give a short account of all the other amalgamations in which he has been interested, together with a statement showing the sums received and services rendered.—I am, &c.,

INVESTIGATOR. August 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—In common with all who are concerned in this most gigantic imposture I feel greatly indebted to your able articles respecting it. Your correspondent “G. R.,” on Saturday, calls public attention to the clause in the Albert policies which sets forth what funds or property shall be answerable for all claims upon the company. In August, 1863, I insured my life in the Western Life Assurance Society, which, as all the world now knows, was one of those absorbed into the insatiable maw of the Albert. My policy is now before me, and it states that in consideration of the payment of certain sums half-yearly “the capital, stock, and funds of the said society shall, according and subject to all the provisions of the deed of settlement of the society, and the supplemental deeds thereof, and regulations duly made under the powers therein contained, stand charged, and be liable to pay, and shall to the extent of such stock and funds only, but not further or otherwise, pay to the executors, administrators, and assigns of the said assured, within three calendar months after proof satisfactory to the board of directors of the said society shall have been given of the death of the said assured, the full sum of,” &c. That is the bargain the policy-holders of the Western have made. Why should they be asked to submit to the limitations imposed by the policies of the Albert? It may be said that by paying their premiums to the Albert they have acknowledged it and accepted its terms. But they were entirely helpless in the matter. They had a circular sent to them announcing the intended amalgamation, or intimating it had taken place, I forget which, and no doubt the great bulk, like myself, continued to pay their premiums because they did not like to lose what they had already paid, or were disinclined to put themselves to the trouble and expense of making proposals in any other office. It might, perhaps, be worth while for the Western policy-holders to inquire how far the shareholders of that company are liable to them. I do not know whether the law will allow it or not; but it would only be equitable if policy-holders who were disinclined to go on paying premiums in the re-organised society (if ever it be re-organised) should receive back a portion at least of the money they have paid.

In your article of Saturday you say, “When the Bank of London and National Provincial Company was transferred to the Albert, Mr. Clench got 8,000l. as compensation; the directors got 3,000l., Mr. Cave 5,000l., and the secretary an annuity of 600l. a year, in all nearly 30,000l.” This sort of thing having taken place in one instance raises a suspicion that the precedent was followed in all. I don’t know the names of the directors of the Western at the time of the amalgamation with the Albert, but the three who signed my policy are John Leigh, Thomas Stalker, and John T. Hibbert. Now, I wish to know if these gentlemen were directors of the company at the time it was absorbed in the Albert; and if they were, whether they received any, and, if any, how much compensation. I should also like to know whether the palms of the secretary and other officials were greased by way of making things pleasant, and expending amalgamation. These are plain questions, and I hope they will have plain answers.—I am, &c.,

JOHN ADDISON. Stourbridge, August 23.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I certainly think it shows a considerable amount of temerity—not to use a stronger expression—on the part of Mr. Edmund Clench to write you in the strain of an injured individual respecting the unfortunate affairs of the Albert, with which, undoubtedly, he has had a great deal more to do than you have yet hinted at, and it would be desirable that Mr. Clench should give some more information on the question of amalgamations, as he professes to think “that the time has come when these questions should be clearly understood.” In your lead-article of to-day you have very temperately disposed of Mr. Clench’s most admirably-drawn picture of himself as an unfortunate fac-simile of the disestablished clergymen of the Irish Church, and also of his inferential comparison of the Albert Life Office to the State; but probably in order that “these questions should be clearly understood,” Mr. Clench would be good enough to enlighten you and the public on the following points:—1. Were not the following sums paid by the Albert for the transfer of Mr. Clench’s company—The Bank of London and National Provincial Life Assurance Company—vis.:

To Mr. Edmund Clench£8,33368
To Mr. Thomas Cave8,33368
To Mr. Thomas Walker8,33368
Total to them£25,00000

  1. Before the transfer took place had Mr. Clench’s company purchased or taken over the businesses of the “Merchants and Tradesmans,” “Anchor,” and “Falcon” Offices? And if so, did Mr. Clench derive any and what pecuniary benefit from these transfer?

  2. Had Mr. Clench anything to do with the transfer of the businesses of “The Family Endowment” and “Kent Mutual” Offices, to the Albert, and what did he, the respective managers and directors of these offices receive for the transfers?

  3. Is it true that Mr. Clench and two other gentlemen, both M.P.s not unknown to fame in the assurance world, are assisting the directors of the Albert in “the efforts now being made to place the affairs of this company in a position which will, it is hoped, diminish the anticipated loss to the smallest possible amount?”

These are a few easy, but I hope pertinent questions which it might be as well to have answered before Mr. Clench’s lecture to you “as representing the interests of a high class commercial paper,” receive the attention which it no doubt merits, and I am sure both the public and those immediately interested in the affairs of the Albert will feel that you can well afford to listen to Mr. Clench’s excellent advice; but they will at the same time trust to you to go on in the path on which you have so nobly entered, and continue to animadvert on the mismanagement of the Albert, as well as to press for legislative action in the protection of life assurers, and, let me add, in the true interests of sound insurance institutions.—I am, &c.,

CIVIS. August 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—The letter signed “Edmd. Clench,” in your impression of to-day, and your article commenting thereon, exhibit very clearly the respective and widely different views held by “company-mongers” on the one side, and by the general public on the other. The former class look upon a company simply as an institution to be got up for the purpose of putting money in their own pockets, and to be got rid of for the same purpose, neither though nor sympathy being given by these disinterested financiers to the probable, and to them certain, fate of their victims. The amalgamation of the Bank of London and National Provincial” was, however, I believe purchased by the “Albert” at a lower price than that of the “Medical Invalid,” and it is in hopes that the most searching investigation will be made into this and similar questionable transactions that I venture to ask.—How much did Mr. Charles Douglas Signer, the secretary, receive as compensation? Was it 10,000l.; and did some hitch occur in the amalgamation on his account? Were the “Medical Invalid” directors who did not join the “Albert” board compensated with a sum equivalent to two years’ fees? How much was paid to the late F. G. P. Neilson, the actuary? How much to Mr. H. B. Sheridan, M.P., the “negotiator?” The “Medical Invalid” was always considered a much better and sounder office than the “Albert,” which absorbed it, and it is the “Medical Invalid” Indian business alluded to in the letter of a “Policy-holder, Indian Branch,” on which the “Albert” has been living. Without particularising any other amalgamations, let me suggest that some shareholder insist, at the meeting to be held on Thursday, the 26th, upon a full statement of the various sums paid as compensation upon the carrying out of each, and, a more important matter far to shareholders originally in the absorbed companies, ask for a balance-sheet of the “Albert” at the date of each amalgamation. The disclosures which now must inevitably take place, it is to be hoped, will open the eyes of the insuring public to the way, long know to those in the insurance profession, by which these and other amalgamations have been brought about—Ex uno disce omnes, and will induce them to reflect whether 20 or more defunct companies, each unable to continue its own business, constitute the best and safest security when made up into one monster office, which never publishes the amount of its liabilities, or the cost at which it procures its new, and manages its entire business. Referring to the latter part of Mr. Clench’s letter, I would respectfully suggest his reading the last number of the Post Magazine, a publication with which he is no doubt well acquainted, where he will find some idea of the kind of reconstruction to be hoped for by his friends, of a company whose deficiency is put by the officials at a preseat (present?) value equal to at least a million sterling—the statement given at the meeting of shareholders on the 12th was, I hear, a deficiency of one and a half million sterling. Apologising for the length of my letter on the ground that at present the public has little or no idea of the misery this failure will cause.—I am, &c.,

Wikli

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—The praiseworthy manner in which you have taken up the cause of the policy-holders in the Albert has induced me to request publication of the following. A letter in my possession, which I received from the secretary in answer to my inquiries concerning a bonus, states that at the valuation of the company by Professor de Morgan, for the five years ending December, 1866, the profits were not large enough to render a division of them desirable at that time. Now, what I wish to call attention to is the fact of the valuation above referred to. Is it possible that the company was insolvent then? If not, it can only have gone wrong for the last two and a half years. I have paid premiums for twenty years out of hard earnings, and was originally insured in another office which amalgamated with the Albert. My consent was not asked, and I only received information of the fact when the premium became due. And the Albert offered, if I was not satisfied, to give me the surrender value, as they termed it, of my policy, which amounted to about one quarter of the premiums paid. Thus I have been victimised without mercy all this time to enrich others.—I am, &c.,

A POLICY-HOUSE FOR TWENTY YEARS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I am one of the unfortunate sufferers by the Albert Insurance Company. Twenty years ago I insured in the Kent Mutual, which office was subsequently absorbed in the Albert. If I had put by my annual premium, and allowed it to accumulate with interest, I should now have had nearly two-thirds of the amount of my policy. So far I look upon this sum as a positive loss, for I never anticipate getting any part of it back; and to insure in any other office at my present age would cost me nearly, if not quite, double the amount of premium. Of what use is it for men like myself (who at a sacrifice of many comforts, and even necessaries, which my family have required for these twenty years) to insure against death, if there is no security for the due performance of the engagement of the life office with whom I insure? Are not the directors legally liable for the premiums paid? I have received a circular from “Williams and Wyman,” of Northumberland-street, Strand, strongly urging me to resist all attempts at a compromise, and to send my proxy to Mr. Thos. Hunter, of 1, Gresham-buildings, for the meeting on the 28th prox. I do not find either of these names in the “Directory” for 1869. Can you tell me who and what they are? I do not expect they are working for nothing; but I am not disposed to commit my interests any further to the care of men whom I know nothing.—I am, &c.,

G. R. S. August 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Referring to the letter of your correspondent an “Indian Policy-holder,” the people of this country have also just cause for complaint against the false statements published by the Albert Life Office. A few weeks ago, when in the north of England, I noticed a huge placard issued by the company, the announcement thereon being as follows:—“Nearly the largest Life office in the world. Capital, 500,000l. Annual income, 350,000l. Claims paid, Five Millions, Assets, Four-and-a-Half Millions.” It may be deemed advisable to inquire at the meeting on the 26th as to the party or parties responsible for the gross falsehood contained in the statement which I have italicised as above.—I am, &c.,

W. W. August 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I hope the policy-holders will keep a sharp look out for the item “Compensation to office holders,” which is almost sure to appear in any scheme devised by the Albert executive. I cannot but think that the wisest plan is to wind up the whole affair; for what fresh blood can we expect to put I anything “re-constructed” out of such a concern as “The Albert” seems to have been?—Unfortunately I am,

A HOLDER OF TWO POLICIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Prior to the meeting to be held on Thursday next of persons interested in this concern, it would be well to call the attention of those policy-holders who were transferred to the Albert from other companies, and who have been wise enough to retain their original policies, that it is probable they may have a remedy against the shareholders of both companies. While the Albert was fulfilling its engagements a transferee who had once paid a premium to that office and taken its renewal receipt virtually acknowledged the transfer, and his original right became dormant. But now that the office is in liquidation, in the words of Sir John Coke, “It doth revive again.” Should this view of the question be correct, it will be a great comfort to your correspondent, an Indian policy-holder, and to others who had insured in the Medical and Invalid and Family Endowment Offices.—I am, &c.,

AN ACTUARY. August 24.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I have been instructed by the meeting of policy-holders, held at the offices of my firm to-day, to communicate to you that a Committee has been formed to ascertain the rights and to watch over the interests of the policy-holders. Its objects are not necessarily antagonistic to the shareholders, but simply protective of the policy-holders; to prevent litigation, to expedite an equitable settlement, and to promote a safe reconstruction or transfer, if it does not involve the release of the shareholders from their liability.

Policy-holders will observe, by the advertisement in your columns, that they are urged to communicate with your obedient servant.

JAMES WADDELL, Honorary Secretary, 7, Poultry, E. C.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Having ascertained that the provisional official liquidators, Mr. Kirby and Mr. Price, had, upon an ex parte application, obtained a transfer to them of a sum of 12,000l. cash, and liberty to convene meetings all over the country at the expense of the estate, I at once instructed the solicitors of myself and co-policy-holders to take steps to get recalled the direction for this great and, as it appeared to us, most unnecessary expense, which I estimate roughly at 2,000l. This was attempted to be done by a summons for the immediate appointment of a policy-holders’ representative, but the summons was opposed by the liquidators, who evidently desired no interference with their arrangements. I succeeded, however, in getting the summons adjourned to the judge, to be heard after the petition on the 10th of September, and I now ask all policy-holders who are averse to such meetings being held at their expense, and communicate their views to me at once. I wish also to call the attention of the policy-holders to the fact that if any accident were to befall Mr. Price, by which the duties of the provisional official liquidator could not be fulfilled by him, Mr. Kirby would be the sole liquidator and representative of the company. A pleasant prospect truly.—I am, &c.,

ALEX. WERNER. 41, St. Mary-axe, August 24.

  1. Text from MEGAdigital (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities), MEGA² IV/19, licence CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/); the editorial apparatus of the MEGA is not reproduced. ↩