---
Title: Notebook “Trade and Finance 1869”. I. The Albert Life Assurance Company, August–September 1869
Description: Newspaper cuttings pasted by Jenny Marx (daughter) for Marx into the notebook “Trade and Finance 1869”: letters to the editor, leading articles and reports of meetings from the Daily News of 21 August to 2 September 1869 on the collapse of the Albert Life Assurance Company and its amalgamations, and on the Albert, the European and other life offices.
Author: Karl Marx
Date: 1869-08
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1869%20Notebook%20%E2%80%9CTrade%20and%20Finance%201869%E2%80%9D.%20I.%20The%20Albert%20Life%20Assurance%20Company%2C%20August%E2%80%93September%201869
---


*Newspaper cuttings, from the manuscript, MEGAdigital (MEGA² IV/19).[^lic] [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1869%20Cuaderno%20%C2%ABTrade%20and%20Finance%201869%C2%BB.%20I.%20La%20quiebra%20de%20la%20Albert%20Life%20Assurance%20Company%2C%20agosto-septiembre%20de%201869)*

## *Trade and Finance* *1869*

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—There is a great evil in the practice of the directors of several of the leading Life Insurance Companies permitting their actuaries to become connected with new offices as consulting actuaries or as valuers of their liabilities, the names of those gentlemen, and their connection with offices of high repute, being calculated to give confidence where none should exist. Take the case of the Professional Life Office, which went to grief some years ago. Three well-known and able actuaries a very short time before its doors were closed, professed to have valued its outstanding risks, and pronounced its ability to provide for them as unquestionable. I know nothing of the matters beyond what then appeared in print, but soon after I had occasion to see one of them on the affairs of another office which has since come to grief, to whom I said that his report had astonished me, as I knew that the office was in a very different state to that which he had represented it to be. I then ascertained from him that he knew nothing whatever of the affairs of the office by personal investigation. All he knew was that he had received from the manager a statement showing, as he supposed, the amount insured by each policy, and that of each future renewal premium, with instructions to make a valuation by a given table of mortality and interest at a given rate. Whether the statements laid before him were true or not he told me was no business of his to inquire into, as all he had to answer for was the correctness of his valuation. I think it a disgrace to some of our great and undoubtedly respectable offices, that their chief assistants should be supposed to be so ill-paid or so little wanted as to have time to undertake not only to make valuations for solicitors and others, but also to be the actuaries of rival establishments. The evil has slowly grown until it has been made a means of deceiving the public and bringing ruin on thousands. Let the directors of honest companies look to this, and see that they are not indirectly made parties to mischief.—I am, &c.,

CAUTION.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Mr. Clench, in his letter which appears in your paper of to-day, says, “the proposed reconstruction of the Albert will be conducted under the advice and assistance of the most eminent actuaries of the day.” Now I ask Mr. Clench and these “eminent actuaries” if it is not a notorious fact that money spent (on the purchase of rotten offices) is always treated as the accumulated fund? A case tried some years ago against a Mr. Carpenter would expose many assurance frauds, if reprinted.—I am, &c.,

W. J. August 24.

#### THE ALBERT ASSURANCE COMPANY.

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—The unfortunate share and policy holders of the Albert are greatly indebted to you for the interest manifested on their behalf; and the sound advice given in your leader of to-day confers an additional obligation. Just twenty years ago I insured my life in the “Metropolitan Counties” for 1,000l. Sometime afterwards there were unpleasant rumours afloat, and I was more satisfied when a transfer of the business of that office took place to the “Western,” knowing some of its directors to be men of wealth and character. My confidence, however, was soon again shaken, as in a few years we were “shunted” into the “Albert;” the result of which is now shown. I have paid 27l. 10s. per annum for the 20 years, or a total of 550l., which, with the interest thereon, amounts to a much larger sum. Should I lose the whole of this it will not be of material consequence, as I am thankful to say business has prospered with me; but had I only been holding a situation of limited income, and debarred my family many comforts to keep up the annual payments, and having now a wife and eleven children depending at my decease on the sum insured for, it would have been a most distressing position for them to be placed in; and I fear such is the case in many instances. The point to be determined in my case is, are the shareholders of the companies which were transferred to the “Albert” now liable? If so, as your correspondent “W. W.” states that the “Metropolitan Counties” had a paid-up capital of 100,000l., and the “Western” of 500,000l., I have clearly a demand against them. At this stage I would strongly urge on both the shareholders and policy-holders the necessity of engaging two professional men of undoubted skill and character to represent their separate interests, having the same “unity of purpose,” and on no account to fall into the views of the parties who are so deeply interested in patching up and again floating this so-called “unfortunate company,” as, in my opinion, no amount of “Clenching” will make it safe and trustworthy.—I am, &c.,

J. G. M. August 26.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I came up to town this forenoon to attend a meeting of shareholders and policy-holders referred to in your paper a few days ago, stopping at Cannon-street station. I went to the Committee who advertise that they hold meetings at the hotel; and one of them informed me there was to be no meeting there. He thereupon asked me to sit down and read a paper he put in my hands. Having read it (the purport of which was that Mr. Kirby should be removed from the position of liquidator), he thereupon produced a book in which about half a dozen gentlemen’s names appeared for sums of from 1l. 1s. to 3l. 3s. I declined to subscribe, although agreeing in the point that Mr. Kirby is not the right man for liquidator. On my saying I would go to the office of the company, he insisted on my giving him back the paper. I then went to the office of the company, where I found the clerks employed sending out notices similar to what appears in your paper of to-day, and calling a meeting for the 9th September of policy-holders. My object in this letter is not to find fault with the object the Cannon-street gentlemen may have, but to caution the policy-holders no to be led away by them, or by any other of those gentlemen who advertise in your columns; but to wait till the meeting, and then replace Mr. Kirby by some commercial man of standing. The proposals of the directors ought in common fairness to be considered calmly. I hope they may have the effect of staying the wild state which a number of those interested have got into. My advice to all is to hold their hands till the meeting, and then replace Mr. Kirby by some gentleman of experience in insurance business, but one perfectly clear of all company making.—I am, &c.,

A POLICY-HOLDER ONLY. London, August 26.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I have read with much interest your remarks upon the proposed reconstruction of this unfortunate concern, but while fully concurring in the desirability of frustrating, if possible, the designs of the whole band of professional wreckers and would-be liquidators, who are no doubt at this moment hovering, Vampire-like, over what they conceive to be their legitimate prey, I would urgently impress upon the policy-holders the inexpediency of giving their assent to any arrangement without first comprehending its principles and carefully examining its details. The statement put forth under the authority of Messrs. Jellicoe and Bailey appears to me to be suggestive of one very important inquiry, viz., does the value of the annuities (150,000l.), with half of which it is proposed to saddle the new concern, include the special annuities payable to negotiators and others, as compensation for bringing over a lot of rotten businesses? If this question be answered in the affirmative, I would suggest that every liability the company, or rather the directors, may have entered into in this way be at once renounced, on the ground of no proper consideration having been given. I will not trespass farther on your space, beyond reminding those who hold policies, that if they allow themselves to be bustled in the excitement of the moment into putting their signatures to forms of assent, or other documents emanating from official quarters, without perfectly understanding the nature of the power they are conferring, they will only have themselves to blame should a further reconstruction and further reduction become necessary at no distant date.—I am, &c.,

FIAT JUSTITIA.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—We are very greatly indebted to you and others for the ventilation of opinions regarding this office. One thing I would ask—that some reliable centre be organised in behalf of the premium payers, whose interests, I think, are antagonistic to the shareholders, and both against the directors and managers. I have paid nearly thirty years—originally to Freemasons’ Office—and I should be glad to see the question tried if we cannot recover the value—surrender—of our payments. Were the office prosperous, it would be monstrous that certain parties should filch such sums. How much more monstrous that, in our ruin, they should expect to retain these immense sums, and escape the responsibilities of losses incurred by themselves. It is a wide-spread calamity, and I trust will continue to receive your powerful sympathy.—I am, &c.,

A PREMIUM PAYER OF LONG STANDING. Norwich, August 25.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—A somewhat long experience of Life Assurance has convinced me of the difficulty felt by many persons in grappling with the figures of an actuarial statement; the following plain explanation of the proposal made by the Albert Office to its share and policy-holders may therefore be useful. Put shortly, the office proposes to extinguish 7-10ths of its liability, and give each assurer for 1,000l. a policy for 300l. This is all they can afford to do, no doubt, as the following figures (their own) show sufficiently well:

| £1,147,847 | Value of liability under policies. |
|---|---|
| 75,223 | Half 〃 〃 annuities. |
| £1,223,070 | Confessed liability, as shown in their scheme. |
| £271,500 | Cash in hand. |
| 55,250 | Half the amount of debts and claims (if such an arrangement can be made). |
| £216,250 |  |
| 150,000 | Estimated realization of capital. |
| £366,250 | Claimed assets as shown in their scheme. |

All that follows is a plain rule of three sum. As the assets they ought to have are to the assets they have, so are the sums assured that exist to those they can now undertake—a proportion of about 30 per cent. This is perfectly consistent with the letter of the Albert proposal, although perhaps the consistency is not on the surface. The office offers to keep on the existing policies, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent. only; but the offer is contingent on the payment of the original premium for the whole sum, and the position of the assured under these circumstances is identical with the one they would hold if the amount of the policy had been decreased seventy per cent., with a corresponding diminution in the premium—perhaps an imaginary case will show this point more clearly than general statements. A man about 38 years of age assures thirteen years ago with the Albert for 1,000l. at a premium of 30l. per annum; the office now offers him a policy of 750l. at the same premium. What the figures of the office justify would be an offer of a policy for 300l. at a premium of 9l., and this offer they in effect make, coupled with another of a new assurance for 450l. at the correct premium for the man’s present age of about 5l. The two assurances represent 750l., the sum given, at a premium of 30l., the amount required. The position, therefore, is plain and simple; seven-tenths of the existing sum assured is lost to the policy-holders, and they are asked to pay forty-five per cent. of new assurance premium. These being the facts, the next question is, How are we to treat a shareholding body which has lost to its policy-holders something more than 5,500,000l. out of 8,000,000l.? The answer of the liquidators is creditable to their humanity: “The shareholders owe 324,000l.—say we let them off for 150,000l. ‘estimated realization,’ then construct a new company out of the old materials, with the old spent capital to represent the new basis of security, and where they will receive not more than 5 per cent. per annum out of the profits made in the future by those who have for years been paying premium on 100l. to obtain a policy for 30l., as the result of the Albert management.” Every one would, of course, wish to give all assistance to those unfortunately connected with this miserable affair; but there are two things that ought to be done—the whole position should be clearly understood, and the penalty should fall as far as possible on those who are responsible for the calamity.—I am, &c.,

R. W. August 26.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I have carefully read the statement contained in the Daily News of to-day regarding the affairs of the Albert Assurance Company. It is very im-portant, before any suggestion for reconstruction be assented to, that definite information be obtained how it is the company has an estimated assurance capital of only 271,500l., derived from the premiums received and the paid up capital, when it ought to have had, according to the report of the actuaries now consulted, a fund amounting to at least five times that sum derived from the premiums alone. This loss of capital must have resulted from improper management, either by accepting bad lives, or by investing in bad securities, of from a laxity which allowed an actual plunder of the funds of the company. The truth, whatever it may be, ought to be carefully sought and made known to the public. If the accounts have been properly kept, they will show where the money has gone. If they have not been efficiently kept, a personal responsibility and blame must rest on some one for that neglect. If the mortality has been excessive, that fact may readily be shown; and to what extent it has been excessive, and under what circumstances. To bring into bankruptcy a life assurance company, transacting business of the magnitude transacted by the Albert, positive blame must rest somewhere, and not mere misfortune; and whatever the actual cause or causes of failure may be, to reconstruct the company under the old management, or with the old materials, will be as disastrous as to send to sea a vessel reconstructed from the materials of a ship wrecked and broken up, on account of dry rot being in its timbers.—I am, &c.,

W. H. T.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I and many of my friends have policies to a large amount in the Albert, having been transferred from other offices which we believed to be sound. I have paid premiums upon a 2,000l. policy for 25 years, and now what is my position? To secure the same amount to my family it would cost me nearly double the premium. For the information of the public who are not thoroughly acquainted with the difference between good and bad insurance companies, I will add that I have a policy of 1,000l. taken up in the Scottish Equitable office at the same time as the one I have with the Albert. At the present time my 1,000l. policy is increased by additions of profits to 1,500l., whilst my 2,000l. policy in the Albert is worth—what? Probably nothing. And had I insured for 3,000l. in the Scottish Equitable, the policy would now be worth 4,500l. in case of my death.—I am, &c.,

B. H.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—One great evil resulting from the amalgamation of insurance companies, and one not prominently noticed by any of your correspondents, is the creation of sinecure positions. The Amalgamating Society generally stipulates that some of its most important officers, such as secretary, superintendent, &c., shall have positions in the new concern which will command salaries equal to those which they formerly received. When we then consider that the Albert had united with about twenty offices, we are not surprised to find that it had at its collapse between ninety and one hundred such sinecures. Surely so many parasites must have contributed largely to bring about the late disastrous issue by sucking the life-blood of the concern. So many dead-weights are enough to sink the finest craft. Amalgamated companies are very similar to a fleet of pirate junks which prey upon honest commerce, and, like the pirates, the unarmed and unsuspecting passengers in both cases are cruelly massacred.—I am, &c.,

AN INSURANCE SUPERINTENDENT. Manchester, August 25.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I am a medical practitioner, and have worked hard all my life for small fees. Twenty years ago, by the practice of the strictest economy, I began to pay 185l. annually to the Family Endowment Society (absorbed by the Albert in 1861), and paid it most regularly for a life annuity of 200l. in my old age; these payments swallowed up every farthing I could save from my income, and amounted to a very large sum. I am now more than 70 years of age, incapable of practising my profession as I used to do. All the savings of my long life have been swindled from me by this society, and I am left without a penny to support my wife and family. This is a very hard case.—I am, &c.,

X. Y. Z.

#### THE ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—In the year 1857 or 1858, an amalgamation was carried out between two London assurance offices. It was subsequently discovered that the chairman and directors of one of the offices put into their own pockets 5,000l. The case is best explained by giving the following questions that were submitted to counsel on the occasion, and the answers of Sir Roundell Palmer thereon. Sir Roundell Palmer’s advice was acted upon, a bill filed, and the 5,000l. refunded. The case may interest your readers at the present moment.—I am, &c.,

A. T. London, August 25.

| QUESTIONS. | ANSWERS. |
|---|---|
| 1. Whether the chairman and directors were justified in withholding from the meeting of the shareholders summoned for the purpose of transferring the society in question to the “———,” the fact that they were to receive the sum of money paid for such transfer, and whether the suppression of the fact did not invalidate the object for which the meeting was convened? | 1. I am of opinion that the chairman and directors were not justified in withholding this fact from the meeting. |
| 2. Whether the money received by the chairman and directors should not have been credited to the account of the whole body of members in this “———” society, instead of having been divided by the chairman and directors and put into their own pockets? | 2. Assuming that the chairman and directors did in fact, when professing to explain to the meeting the purport and terms of the agreement which they were considered to sanction, omit all reference to the stipulation for the payment of 5,000l. to themselves (and that the agreement itself was not publicly read at the meeting), I think the chairman and directors cannot lawfully retain for their own benefit the money received by them, but that they are clearly bound to account for it as trustees to the whole body of shareholders (Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Rus. 562). I express no opinion upon the question whether they could have retained this money if the matter had been explained to the meeting, and assented to by a large majority only against the will of any dissentient shareholders or shareholder. |
| 3. Counsel will be good enough to advise the members whether they have any and what remedy against the said chairman and directors, looking to the terms and provisions of the deed of settlement? | 3. A bill in equity by one or more shareholders on behalf of themselves and all others, expect the defendants, against the chairman and directors will be the proper remedy. |

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—With reference to the important question of liability on the part of the shareholders whose companies have been transferred to the Albert, should that liability, as “An Actuary” surmises, “revive again,” it may be some consolation to the policy-holders originally insured in those companies to know that a large amount of uncalled capital must still be available to meet their claims. The following is a statement of the nominal capital of seventeen companies out of the twenty-two whose business has from time to time been transferred to the Albert. In several of those offices the capital had been fully subscribed prior to transfer: Anchor, 1,000,000l.; Beacon, 150,000l.; Empire,100,000l.; English Provident, 50,000l.; Falcon, 100,000l.; Family Endowment, 500,000l.; Kent Mutual, “pro-tected by an ample guaranteed capital; London and Continental, 100,000l.; Manchester and London, “with a numerous and wealthy proprietary,” 500,000l.; Medical, Invalid, “subscribed capital,” 500,000l.; Merchants’ and Tradesmen’s guaranteed fund, 100,000l.; Metropolitan Counties, 100,000l.; National Guardian, 100,000l.; National Provincial, alias Bank of London, 1,000,000l.; Oak Mutual, guarantee fund, 50,000l.; St. George, 100,000l.; Times, 250,000l.; Western, 500,000l.; Here we have independent of the “ample guaranteed capital” of the Kent Mutual a nominal capital exceeding five millions (5,200,000l.) subscribed to in numerous cases by a wealthy proprietary. Surely, then, if the shareholders’ liability in the defunct companies has only lain dormant, liable to be called into action in the event of the Albert not meeting its claims, the failure cannot be so great as is just now anticipated.—I am, &c.,

W. W. August 25.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Nineteen years ago I assured my life in the “Anchor.” Their business was transferred without, I believe, the assured having a voice in the matter, to the “Albert,” and the only intimation of the transfer that I at least ever had was, that instead of receiving the usual yearly notice of my premium being due from the old office in Cheapside (where there is now a flourishing dining-room), I was summoned to pay in Waterloo-place, and so, woe is me! I have continued to do for years past. I have every reason to believe that the “Anchor” took lives of any kind, and as long as premiums were paid all went merrily as a marriage bell, but when those lives began to fall in, the concern as inevitably got into difficulties, as the Albert has now done from precisely the same reasons. Though a grievous sufferer by the Albert’s downfall, I cannot but congratulate the public on the clearing of the horizon which must be the result, and I do hope for the sake of the public at large that life assurance will be managed on improved principles hereafter. It is high time that the wings of promoters, agents, self-appointed managers and directors, should be clipped, and if anything will call attention to the unmerciful and impudent swindling of the public by insurance companies, surely the collapse of the Albert will do it—if not, why all I can say is that the public deserve to be gulled. My mind is irresistibly called to one of Dickens’s ablest satires, and though irritated and naturally desponding over the probable loss if the little sum I had hoped to secure to my family, I cannot but remember with a smile the “Anglo-Bengalee Disinterested Loan Society,” in “Martin Chuzzlewit,” the magnificent Tigg Montague, and the complaisant, though wary Jobling, in connection with the affairs of the company under inquiry.—I am, &c.,

FORTY-THREE. London, August 25.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—The collapse of the Albert Life Company appears to have taken many by surprise, but the surprise to many has been that the event had not taken place long since. Here is a company professedly doing about 336,000l. per annum, with only about 630,000l. funds invested; and I judge it will be found having a liability of about 11 millions, being about 5l. 10s. 2d. in hand to meet every 100l. assured—(you will see by published statistics enclosed that I have not overstated the figures)—and yet some persons are surprised that the company had come to a standstill. There are more surprises in store for some people; there are above a dozen life companies now in existence having less than 9l. in hand to meet every 100l. assured, and this does not include several industrial class companies, they being in a far worse position. Company letter A, 1l. 12s. 6d. in hand to meet every 100l.; B, 2l. 6s. 8d.; C, 2l. 10s.; D, 2l. 14s. 11d.; E, 3l. 18s. 5d.; F, 4l. 8s. 10d.; G, 5l. 7s. 7d.; H, 5l. 16s. 4d.; I, 6l. 2s. 1d; J, 6l. 13s. 11d.; K, 6l. 17s. 1d.; L, 6l. 18s. 10d.; M, 8l. 4s. 3d.; N, 8l. 9s. 2d.; O, 8l. 10s. 6d.; P, 8l. 18s. 1d., being about an average of 5l. 14s. in hand to meet every 100l. assured, these companies having liabilities amounting to nearly 35,000,000l.—five out of the above list having liabilities amounting to about 30 millions. I am aware it will be said that the liabilities will not arise for some years. I am quite aware of that, but I am sure that if the Albert was obliged to come to a standstill with 5l. 10s. 2d. in hand to meet every 100l. assured, those in the list with less than that amount cannot be safe, and I fancy that sensible men would not select companies having less than 9l. per 100l. in hand. There has been quite a rage for amalgamations to benefit various parties behind the scenes, and to enable secretaries and managers to boast of their large annual income. We have, including the Albert, four life companies who have between them absorbed 86 companies, many of these being at the time in a wretched position, and yet the sellers, the life traffickers, have managed to net large sums for the transfer of these insolvent companies. The public have been astonished to see how easily some people have made their way in the world, living in mansions, keeping their carriages, and standing ready to contest any manageable borough, and yet none have dared to speak out; but the game is nearly played out, and a few more Albert displays will bring the actors to the surface, and show them in their true light. Government would do great service by legislating on the subject of life assurance, enforcing every company to publish annually such a balance-sheet as could be understood by the public, and having Government auditors who should be associated with the company’s auditors, and give or withhold a certificate as the circumstances required. We often hear persons boasting of the security of proprietary companies. It does not appear that the capital of the Albert could save it, and unfortunately all the companies in the list I send are blest with shareholders. There is great truth in the well-known statement of one of our greatest actuaries, “that no amount of capital will save a company reared on a false basis.” I hope the assurable public will be more cautious in future, and not become connected with companies simply because a friend of theirs happens to be an agent, but use their common sense as they would in any every-day commercial transaction; and, above all, to eschew flaming reports and puffing circulars.—I am, &c.,

JOHN SEARCH. London, August 24.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—As a policy-holder in one of the assurance companies which have gone down with the Albert, I thank you for the valuable aid you are giving to us, the policy-holders, by your powerful leading articles, and the insertion of letters in your columns. It is pretty evident that companies have been formed not to prosper, but for the sake of the plunder which falling concerns are made to yield to the harpies which hang about their track. The case of the International has already been referred to by one of your correspondents. The liabilities of this unlimited company were, last year, handed over to the Hercules, a young and a limited company, with, I believe, a comparatively small proprietary. According to the report of Mr. W. J. White, the official liquidator of the last-named company, the liabilities of the International are given as 329,685l. It is presumed that the holders of the original shares in the Hercules are not liable; if it be so, the uncalled capital of this company is only 134,752l. to meet the liabilities of both. What a prospect for the policy-holders of the International! The cost of handing over the policy-holders as above, from the International to the Hercules, was upwards of 20,000l. The principal part of this sum appears to have gone into the hands of two individuals, as a fee for the operation performed. Premiums paid by policy-holders are frequently the fruit of hard work, care, and stint, and yet, forsooth, these are flung wholesale into the hands of avaricious schemers. Policy-holders should earnestly unite in an appeal to the Court of Chancery to set aside all illegitimate amalgamations. And, further, that all actuaries, agents, managers, and others, who by way of bonuses in these amalgamations, have taken above and beyond what the Court shall deem to be just and equitable, shall be compelled to disgorge for the benefit of the policy-holders. In some cases the amount which these individuals ought to receive would be nil. Anxious to see justice done as far as the wrong-doing of the past will permit. —I am, &c.,

A SUFFERER. August 24.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I enclose a prospectus of the Albert Life Office, which is very carefully prepared for the purpose intended, but the only facts given upon which the condition of the office is to be determined are the annual income of the company from insurance contracts, and the assets, including the value of the premiums. Any person wishing to insure his life ought to be satisfied that the office is well and economically managed, that the security is ample, and that there is a fair division of the profits. For this purpose the following particulars are absolutely necessary:—The sums and annuities assured, the value of the sums and annuities, the additions, the value of the additions, the amount of the annual payments, the value of the annual payments, the annual income from premiums, the annual income from invested assets, the annual costs of management, a statement of the assets and how invested. There should also be a table of all the policies, showing the sums assured, and additions by way of bonus and annual premiums. In this table parties of the same age would have their policies considered as one collective policy. Now the Albert prospectus does not even state the total income, the invested assets, and the liabilities—that is, the sums assured and bonuses. It shows a large income from assurance contracts, namely, 328,622l. 7s. 2d., and that the assets amounted to 4,652,236l. 1s. 2d.; but unfortunately this includes the value of the premiums. In April, 1868, I wrote to the secretary for the amount of the assets, exclusive of the value of the premiums, and the amount of the sums assured, and bonuses. I did not ask for much, as I was afraid if I did it might frighten him, but he never answered my letter.—I am, &c.,

R. J. PARSONS. Mansfield, August 24.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Presuming this public company, whose annual income exceeds a quarter of a million sterling, to be legally registered, will any number of the members holding not less than one-fifth part of the whole of the shares for the time being issued apply to the Board of Trade to appoint a competent inspector to examine into and report on its affairs under the powers of the 56th and following sections of the Companies Act, 1862, and to this end, on the order for winding-up the company being made, obtain the leave of the Court. Such an authoritative proceeding will do much to allay the fear which has seized the minds of many connected with this unfortunate company. Regarding the meeting about to be convened in London of the policy-holders, would the company’s executive arrange that our attendance thereat should in no way prejudice our rights against third parties or companies? We, holders of policies granted by other companies which, it is said, claim to have amalgamated with the Albert, while uniting for our common good, ought carefully to ascertain our exact legal position before committing ourselves to any line of conduct.—I am, &c.,

SAMUEL HARLEY KOUGH. Church Stretton, August 24.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—We will be obliged by your correcting an error in your otherwise accurate report of what took place yesterday before the Chief Clerk. We objected, it is true, to pledge our clients to bear the expense for the representative of the policy holders, but with this distinction, that whereas the objection was to bear such expense throughout the whole liquidation, yet as it was clear that the application must go before the judge personally, our clients offered, until that period, to attend the proceedings (and meetings, if necessary), at their own expense. The difficulty that the Chief Clerk felt in dealing with the application was, that the leave to hold the meetings, &c., had been obtained from the judge direct.—We are, &c.,

G. S. and H. BRANDON. 15, Essex-street, Strand, August 25.

BY this time the great body, both of shareholders and policy-holders in the Albert Assurance Company know their true position. It is a painful subject to dwell on, but we had better discuss it directly and plainly. The shareholders understand that whatever money they may have severally paid upon their shares is all lost; and that whatever sums remain unpaid upon their shares, is lost also; although upon the former they were receiving only the other day 5 per cent., as the dividend of a profitable concern. It will increase their regret to know that after they have thus lost all their capital—amounting to 500,000l.—as much as 986,000l. is still needed to place the concern in a position to fulfil its engagements, and that as this sum cannot be found, the Company is completely and unequivocally insolvent. Now this is a state of things upon which one might well pause to condole with the shareholders. They invested their money in a class of business which, although it deals with the contingent and the future, is, when soberly conducted, as little speculative as any in the world, and they suddenly find that it is not only lost, but lost with discredit. We are heartily sorry for them, but our first regrets are due to their creditors. The shareholders have lost much, but not nearly so much as the policy-holders, who in no case had anything to gain, have lost through the way in which the former allowed their business to be conducted. The proprietors of a ruined company often speak of what they have lost by it, as if it were something other than themselves; but in the eyes of creditors—in this case the policy-holders—the shareholders are themselves the company, and it is by them that the creditors lose. But it is useless to dwell longer on the case of the shareholders. Their melancholy fate is to pay up to the last farthing of their legal liabilities, without the consolation of knowing that they thereby shield the widow and the orphan from loss.

Let us turn, then, to the policy-holders, and in their case the first question that confronts us is, Supposing the official view of the affairs and resources of the Albert, which we published yesterday, to be correct, why should a policy-holder consent to the scheme put forward by the provisional liquidators? That proposal, it will be remembered, is substantially that every subsisting policy before being transferred to the new company shall be cut down in order to bring it into proportion to the amount of assets of the old company, which the new company is to take over, together with its liabilities. As we explained yesterday, this cutting down would average 25 per cent.; but each case would be dealt with separately, so that while a young policy-holder who had insured in the old Albert for 1,000l. would be asked to consent to take for it a new policy for 950l., an older one might be asked to accept a new policy for only 600l. This is one the face of it unequal, but it is an indispensable condition of the scheme; for if terms were proposed which would make it better worth the while of the young lives to go off to other offices than to remain in this, and the New Albert were left with merely the old lives, there would be an immediate end of the matter. The inequality may be either accepted or rejected, but with it stands or falls the scheme. But to return to our question, Why should a policy-holder entertain this scheme? Well, not for some reasons that are being mentioned. Not because it is endorsed by very eminent solicitors. Not because its facts are guaranteed and its calculations superintended by able actuaries and accountants. Not because every business man instinctively shrinks from the thought of a fine connection dispersed, and sunken capital rendered for ever unproductive, and the liabilities of future schemes rashly undervalued and ignorantly thrown away—not, we say, for all these or for other like reasons. If policy-holders are to hold up their hands at meetings, or sign printed forms in favour of this scheme, it must be on the clear understanding that in this way they may best promote their private interests.

The most obvious objection to the scheme is that this proposed average reduction of 25 per cent. of the sum assured is not the whole loss which a policy-holder is practically asked to accept. A moment’s consideration will show that it cannot be, for no one whose assets are only 6s. 8d. in the pound can pay 15s. except by external assistance, which in this case is not to be had. The Albert is only able to propose so small a reduction as 25 per cent. on policies because policy-holders accepting the new arrangement will have to continue to pay their old full rates for a diminished advantage; will have to pay in the most favourable case upon 1,000l. to secure 950l. The letters which we publish elsewhere show that we have here the materials for some very elaborate calculations: but the subject need not be embarrassed by recondite inquiries. Every policy-holder can judge for himself, by consulting the tables of companies of acknowledged stability, whether the annual payment which is necessary to secure a certain sum under the new Albert scheme would secure more or less if otherwise employed. This is the simplest way of looking at the matter. The 6s. 8d. in the pound which is available towards satisfying the claims of policy-holders, certainly ought to enable the new company to offer policy-holders much better terms than they can get elsewhere. Supposing that the present constituents of the company can agree to hold together, they ought to be able to conduct their business upon much easier terms than a company either with a new connexion to form or bearing burdens inherited from earlier days.

It would be idle, or rather impossible, to ignore the truth that the proposal now before the policy-holders is very much prejudiced by the fact that the complete severance of the new company from the personnel of the old management is not made sufficiently clear. Policy-holders cannot and must not be asked to accept a new plan at the hands of those who have been concerned in ruining the old company. We do not say that they are expected to do so; we do not overlook the statement in the Proposal that in no case will Mr. KIRBY act as an ordinary liquidator. This is good as far as it goes; but, then, who is going to take charge of the new scheme and carry it through? Policy-holders will not be likely to move until they see some persons in whom they have con-fidence standing forward to answer at least for the conduct of the experiment. It may be that, as criticisms, these remarks are premature, and we cannot doubt that those who are provisionally acting in this matter intend to afford the amplest guarantees in the character of the new leaders of the Company. But we only repeat what policy-holders are saying on all hands, and we trust that, at the meeting of shareholders to be held to-morrow, explanations will be given which will satisfy all reasonable expectations.

#### ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMMITTEE.

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—On behalf of this committee I have to request the favour of your permitting me to explain the circumstances under which the name of its chairman appears amongst those of the committee appointed at the meeting held at the Agra Bank on Friday last. At that meeting it was agreed that if arrangements for the purpose could be made an amalgamation of the two committees should be effected, but with the understanding that no one connected with the former management of the company should be a member. That arrangement having been departed from, this committee will continue to act independently as heretofore.—I am, &c.,

JOHN PIKE, Hon. See. Committee Room, City Terminus Hotel, Cannon-street, August 30.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—With reference to a question asked by a shareholder at the meeting on Saturday last, “whether Mr. Sadler, as solicitor to the Medical, Invalid, and General Insurance Society, received 2,000l. compensation upon the amalgamation of that society with the Albert Office,” I am in a position to state that the late Mr. R. R. Sadler received no compensation at all. I shall feel obliged by your inserting this contradiction, in justice to Mr. Sadler.—I am, &c.,

FRANK RICHARDSON. 28, Golden-square, August 30.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—Twenty-years ago, being then twenty-nine years of age, I took an endowment policy for 500l. in the Western Life-office, the amount to be paid to me on attaining the age of 55, or to my legal representatives, in case of premature decease. I contracted to pay 25 annual premiums of 19l. 17s. 6d. each, which I did for several years to the Western, when one morning I received a notice from the Albert Life-office, the first intimation I ever had, that I was, in future, to pay the annual premiums to them. On making inquiry I learnt that the Western was no longer in existence, and had transferred its business to the Albert. The surrender value of my policy at that time was 77l. 5s., and on making an application for it was informed that the Albert could not allow any surrender value in Western policies till after five annual premiums had been paid to them, and then only on that amount. So that I had no alternative but to go on paying, and having only my head and my hands to depend upon for my daily bread, under the many vicissitudes in trade and business, it has not been without some pinching, screwing, and sweating that I have been able to regularly meet them. In May last I paid the twentieth annual premium, making an aggregate of 397l. 10s. already paid; there are now five more annual premiums due; altogether 99l. 17s. 6d. and then my part of the contract would be fully completed, and I should, or rather ought to be, entitled to the sum of 500l. As it happens I have never parted with the original policy I received in May, 1849, from the Western, and it is now before me, although I have paid the premiums for several years past to the Albert.

There being no Albert now to take the future premiums, and the reconstruction of the office being extremely problematical, I am advised that I have an immediate claim against the directors of the western, who signed the policy, for the actuarial surrender value of the 397l. 10s. already paid. I cannot expect more, as had my life become extinct in the past my legal representative could have claimed the full amount insured. Failing in this I have lost 400l., which is only as a drop of water in the ocean compared with the thousands, and tens of thousands that have gone into the pockets of the managers, secretaries, directors, and other officials of the 22 defunct Life offices, swallowed up in the Albert. I can but turn the moral page, and say with Plato, “I too am a philosopher”—and console myself with the reflection that I am none the worse than I should have been if I had never seen the inside of the Western or any other Life office, and instead of screwing, pinching, and sweating as I have done for 20 years to meet these payments, I had made myself as jolly as those who take no heed of the morrow, who never dream of life insurance, and had spent the money annually on brandy and water and cigars.—I am, &c.,

JOSEPH CARTWRIGHT. 10, Philips-road, Peckham-rye, August 23.

* * *

##### TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,—I was requested by a client, unfortunately a shareholder as trustee for a lady, to attended the meeting called for this morning of shareholders, but on our arrival at the offices we were informed that no solicitors could be admitted. Of course the projectors of the proposed reconstruction have their solicitors, but no one else was to be assisted. If the proposed scheme is so advantageous and obviously the best course, why pursue such tactics as these, altogether unusual, and, I venture to say, improper? Of course, if the suspicions of some of your correspondents are well founded, it is easy to understand the reason; but I may say my client held no preconceived opinion, and was only desirous to do what was best, but he will certainly require more amount of persuasion to take the course of the projectors than if openness and straightforward steps were adopted. My client simply refused to enter the room, and I agree with him in his opinion that it is very doubtful if the Vice-Chancellor, under whose directions these meetings are stated to be held, will approve of this course. The reason given at the door, viz., that the room was not large enough, was evidently a lame excuse.—I am, &c.,

A SOLICITOR. August 28.

#### THE ALBERT LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

On Saturday, a meeting of the holders of ten shares and upwards was held at the offices in Waterloo-place, Pall-mall, for the purpose of considering the property of registering the company under the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1862.

The chair was taken by Mr. NEALE, a director, who said he presumed that no one could feel the slightest hesitation with regard to the course suggested, for no one could doubt that it would be greatly to the advantage of everybody to put the company under the protection of the Joint Stock Companies Act. He did expect, therefore, that there would not be one dissentient to the resolution which he should conclude by moving. But he had further to state that Mr. Price, one of the provisional liquidators, had prepared a very careful report, containing, as he was informed, a complete history of the company’s transactions so far as they could be ascertained. The question, therefore, was whether the meeting would have the report at once read, or whether they would first pass the resolution which he would now formally propose, namely, “That this company be forthwith registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1862.”

Mr. NORTHMORE seconded the motion.

A general opinion was expressed that the resolution should be disposed of first, but

Mr. COTTRELL wished to ask whether the passing of this resolution was the only business the meeting had been called to perform, or whether it would be open to them to inquire into the reasons which had brought the company to its present very lamentable pass?

The CHAIRMAN said it was entirely for the meeting to decide what course it would take.

Mr. COTTRELL said it struck him that the shareholders had better consider the position in which they were placed before they consented to pass a resolution framed by the directors who had brought the company into such a position by their own wilful misconduct. They ought to have known long since that the concern was perfectly insolvent, and yet they had gone on for the sake of keeping their own position till the company had become the opprobrium of the insurance world. (Cheers.) Before the meeting passed the resolution it seemed to him that it ought to have some little explanation, and he thought it would be prudent to appoint a committee of shareholders to meet a committee of policy-holders in order to go carefully into the affairs of the company, and to report thereon. (Cheers, and cries of “No, no!”) He wished in the mean time to ask why it was that a meeting of influential shareholders had been called on the 12th inst. Of that meeting he had received no notice, though from the number of his shares he thought he might have been invited to it.

Mr. KIRBY—Had you sold your shares, Mr. Cottrell?

Mr. Cottrell—No, I had not.

Dr. WHITE said the question for the meeting was a very simple one. It was a question whether they preferred going into the Court of Chancery, and facing the nice little legal expenses which that would entail, or whether they would take steps for keeping the settlement of their affairs in their own hands. The directors were perfectly willing to have a committee appointed, and to allow it to examine their books; but that was a matter which they would have an opportunity of considering hereafter. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. JACQUES said that Mr. Cottrell did not refuse to pass the resolution. He only asked first for explanation.

Mr. ED. LEE said that before agreeing to the resolution he should like to ask a few questions. In the first place, he desired to know whether, if they established a new company, it was proposed to give 50 per cent. of the first year’s receipts to their agents. In the next place, he wished to ask whether the late manager’s will had not been proved under 60,000l., and whether his annual income had not been at the rate of 15,000l. (Cries of “Question.”)

Dr. WHITE—Cannot you ask your questions afterwards?

Mr. LEE—I shall ask them when it pleases me. (Interruption.)

Mr. Slater said the majority seemed to be studying their pockets rather than principles of high honour and integrity. He had quite expected to hear some statement respecting the means by which the company had been brought into its present state. (Hear, hear.)

The CHAIRMAN—But the meeting has expressed an opinion that the report shall be read after the resolution has been disposed of.

Mr. TARRING said the shareholders could have but one wish, and that was to ascertain what remained of their property; and to take care that the new company did not fall into a position no better than the old one.

The CHAIRMAN—This solution has nothing to do with a new company. It is merely to authorise the registration of the old one, in order that it may enjoy all the privileges and advantages that are conferred by the Joint Stock Companies Act. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. C. E. LEWIS, solicitor to the provisional liquidators, said he would explain the exact meaning of the resolution, and in doing so he should speak with a sense of the responsibility which belonged to his position, and as one bound to tell them not only the truth, but the whole truth. The object of registering the company under the Companies Act of 1862 was to enable the shareholders, at a subsequent meeting which must be called for that purpose, to resolve, by the requisite majority, that the company should be voluntarily wound up rather than allowed to go into the Court of Chancery. What was now proposed was a necessary preliminary step, without which such a meeting could not be held at all. It was merely a formal act to put them in a position to do something else.

Mr. SLATER asked why the meeting had been restricted to holders of ten shares and upwards.

Mr. LEWIS—This is a formal meeting, and it is so restricted by the deed of settlement.

Mr. SLATER—I can quite understand that; but we are under a different locus now.

Mr. LEWIS—No, Sir. We are holding a legal meeting.

The resolution was then unanimously agreed to. After this,

Mr. PRICE rose for the purpose of reading this report, but before doing so he said he had been afforded the fullest information by the offices of the company. He wished also to explain the term “profit and loss,” as he used it. In a life insurance company there were periodical valuations of the assets, its policies and liabilities. These valuations were made by actuaries, and they depended not only on the number of the policies but upon the ages of the insurers. If there should at any time be an excess of mortality it would cause a serious difference in the value of the reversionary interest of the company in the premiums at the next valuation. In this instance, when they came to the later periods, they would find a very considerable decrease in the actuarial value of the premiums. When, therefore, he talked of “losses” of hundreds of thousands, and in the last period of upwards of a million of money, they would understand that he did not mean a loss in the sense in which an ordinary trader would say that he had lost so much money; he meant only the differences between the actuarial value of the company’s assets at one period compared with their computed value at some anterior date. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Price then read the following

##### REPORT.

“This company was established in 1838, under the title of the Freemason’s and General Life Assurance, Loan, Annuity, and Reversionary Interest Company. In December, 1849, the title was changed to the Albert Life Assurance Company, and so remained until September, 1860, when, on the amalgamation of the Medical, Invalid and General Life Assurance Society, it was changed to the Albert and Medical Life Assurance Company. On the absorption of the business of the Family Endowment Life Assurance and Annuity Society, in March, 1861, the name was again altered to the Albert Medical and Family Endowment Life Assurance Company, and so continued until April, 1863, when it re-assumed its title of the Albert Life Assurance Company. The capital is 500,000l., in 25,000 shares of 20l. each, all of which have been allotted. Upon each of the shares 3l. have been paid; but in many instances further sums have been paid up at the desire of the holders, and in others, shares, with an agreed sum to be taken as paid up, have been issued as part of the arrangements upon taking over the business of other companies. The total amount of the capital now standing to the credit of shareholders is 178,001l., leaving a sum of 321,989l. yet to be called up. Upon the formation of the company it was stimulated by the deed that the shareholders should receive 5 per cent. interest, and that the whole of the profits upon the policies not entitled to a share of the profit should be divided amongst the shareholders, and the profits upon the policies issued on the participating scale should be apportioned between the holders of such policies. But it was found impracticable to continue this principle of division after the amalgamation of other companies, and from the 1st January, 1862, the profit has been divided in fixed proportions, namely, 80 per cent. to the policy-holders, and 20 per cent. to the shareholders. Interest has been paid up to January last, at the rate of 5 per cent., and during some years a bonus of 1 or 2 per cent. was added. The company has branch offices in England at Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Nottingham; also at Berlin, and in India, and China; and agencies throughout the United Kingdom. The Indian branch was established at Calcutta in September, 1860. It was commenced by taking the business of the Medical, Invalid and General Life Assurance Society, which had been established in 1851. This company had absorbed, in 1853, the business of the New Oriental Life Assurance Company. The Indian business of the Family Endowment Society was added in 1861, and in 1865 that of the Indian Laudable Mutual Life Assurance Society. The head offices of the company in India are at Calcutta, where, as also at Bombay and Madras, there is a local board, a secretary, and staff. There are branches conducted by managing agents in China and Ceylon, namely, at Hong Kong and Colombo, the former having been very recently established. There are about 100 agents throughout the East Indies. The expenses of management in 1868 at the head office and at the branch establishments in England and abroad were as follows:—Directors’ and auditors’ fees, 4,220l. 10s.; salaries (including that of the present management, 1,200l.), 9,440l. 17s. 1d.; medical officers, 2,528l. 8s. 7d.; advertisements, stamps circulars, and postages, 6,255l. 6s. 3d.; law charges, 753l. 2s. 3d.; rents, taxes, and miscellaneous expenses, 5,781l. 5s. 9d.; agent’s commission and expenses, 24,204l. 11s. 9d.—making a total of 53,194l. 0s. 11d. Many of the premiums being received quarterly, a considerable increase of expense has been thereby incurred. The yearly charge on annuities is now 18,500l. For some years past the company has almost ceased to grant annuities. This company has at various times either amalgamated with other companies, or has taken over their business. The following is a list of such companies, with the dates and cost of each such amalgamation or transfer, exclusive of any loss upon the assets handed ever:—

| The Beacon Life Assurance Company, September, 1856 | £2,239 | 13 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The National Guardian Assurance society, February, 1857 | 16,816 | 14 | 11 |
| The London and County Assurance Company, March, 1857 | 201 | 7 | 0 |
| The Time Life and Guarantee Assurance Company, March, 1857 | 21,250 | 14 | 11 |
| The Bank of London and National Provincial Assurance Association, September, 1860 | 100,000 | 0 | 0 |
| The Medical Invalid and General Life Assurance Company, September, 1860 | 77,735 | 14 | 8 |
| The Family Endowment Life Assurance and Annuity Society, March, 1861 | 22,650 | 0 | 0 |
| The Kent Mutual Assurance Society (registered) July, 1862 | 15,528 | 13 | 6 |
| The Western Life Assurance Company, June, 1865 | 25,616 | 1 | 8 |
| The Indian Laudable Assurance Society, July, 1865 | 972 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 283,011 | 0 | 4 |

It has been impossible, as yet, to distinguish the profit (if any) or the loss resulting to the Albert Company from each of these amalgamations, it having been the custom to include the premiums received and the claims and annuities paid under each in the general accounts of those items in the books of the Albert Company. The balance of loss debited to profit and loss since 1855 in respect of assets is 85,538l. 15s. 4d., and has arisen almost wholly upon those taken over from the amalgamated companies. Besides the liabilities under policies there are debts due by the company to general creditors amounting to about 20,000l. Of this about 14,000l. is due to the estate of the late Mr. George Goldsmith Kirby. Mr. Kirby was the original projector of the company, and the terms of his engagement as stated in the deed of settlement were—that he should receive the annual sum of 400l., and also 5l. per cent. Upon all premiums received; that he should be permitted to occupy as a private business, rent free, the premises in Waterloo-place not required by the company; that he should be allowed to carry on his professional business on his own account, and have the conduct of the legal business of the company, for which he was to be allowed usual professional charges. When the an amalgamation with the Medical Invalid and General Office was effected in 1860, it was arranged that Mr. Kirby should take one-half per cent. Only upon its premiums, and allow a yearly reduction from his total commissions of 500l. From the 1st January, 1864, to 31st December, 1867, Mr. Kirby’s account had been credited with one moiety of the 5 per cent. Commission, of which 6,188l. 11s. 3d. remained unpaid, and he was entitled to the other moiety, amounting to about 18,000l. On the 4th December, 1867, the following arrangement was made, viz., that in lieu of the above 18,000l. Mr. Kirby could accept 15,000l., payable by six half-yearly payments with 5 per cent. Interest, the first instalment to be paid on the 1st January, 1868, and that subsequently to the 31st of December, 1867, Mr. Kirby was not to be entitled in any one year to more than 3,100l. in respect of commission. In default of payment of any of the above instalments and interest for thirty days after due date, Mr. Kirby’s original rights to receive, and the agreement was not to prejudice his right to the balance of the moiety which he had not received. On account of the 15,000l. and interest, two instalments, of together 5,312l. 10s., have been paid, the latter in Jury, 1868, since which nothing has been paid. On Mr. Kirby’s death, in April, 1868, the commission arrangement terminated.

##### ACCOUNTS.

The accounts I have prepared, which are very voluminous, will be produced at the forthcoming meetings of the shareholders and policy-holders. They show the following yearly results of the income and expenditure of the company from the 1st January, 1855, to the 31st of December, 1868. This period covers all the amalgamations with and the purchases of the business of other companies. A valuation of the assets and liabilities, as on the 31st December, 1854, was made in 1855, and there was then a balance of 53,314l. 16s. 5d. in favour of the company. Since that date the following is a summary of the transactions of the company, between 1855 and 1858, 1858 and 1861, 1861 and 1866, and between 1866 and 1868, at each of which dates a valuation of the assets and liabilities was made.

In the following tables the cost of the amalgamations and the loss upon assets, previously stated, are not included. The profit or less stated to have been made includes the difference between the then present values of the premiums and assurance liabilities at the beginning and end of each period, and at the last valuation the calculation was made upon net premiums, whereas, in the former valuations, it had been based upon the gross premium income:

1855 to 1858.

| Date. | Premiums. |  |  | Interest. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  | Claims and Annuities paid. |  |  | Expenses. |  |  | Dividends. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. |
| 1855 | 14,037 | 9 | 7 | 3,840 | 15 | 3 | 13,969 | 10 | 0 | 31,847 | 14 | 10 | 21,905 | 17 | 1 | 4,284 | 0 | 5 | 3,688 | 9 | 9 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 30,878 | 7 | 3 |
| 1856 | 17,102 | 1 | 4 | 4,801 | 14 | 9 | ... |  |  | 21,903 | 16 | 1 | 24,031 | 19 | 5 | 4,202 | 18 | 7 | 4,018 | 3 | 8 | ... |  |  | 32,253 | 1 | 8 |
| 1857 | 52,303 | 16 | 5 | 3,193 | 1 | 7 | 580 | 1 | 11 | 56,076 | 19 | 11 | 26,544 | 0 | 8 | 11,937 | 2 | 11 | 4,233 | 0 | 2 | ... |  |  | 42,714 | 3 | 2 |
| 1858 | 69,152 | 18 | 10 | 2,026 | 8 | 9 | 1,005 | 18 | 9 | 72,158 | 6 | 4 | 46,423 | 2 | 2 | 15,162 | 19 | 10 | 5,133 | 4 | 2 | ... |  |  | 66,719 | 6 | 2 |
|  | 152,596 | 6 | 2 | 13,862 | 0 | 4 | 15,555 | 10 | 8 | 182,013 | 17 | 2 | 118,904 | 19 | 4 | 35,587 | 1 | 9 | 17,072 | 17 | 9 | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 172,564 | 18 | 10 |
| The profit made during the above period appears to have been £27,808 14s. 3d. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

1859 to 1861

| Date. | Premiums. |  |  | Interest. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  | Claims and Annuities paid. |  |  | Expenses. |  |  | Dividends. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. |
| 1859 | 108,103 | 11 | 4 | 1,132 | 15 | 3 | 4,749 | 18 | 5 | 113,986 | 5 | 0 | 57,466 | 5 | 2 | 22,515 | 1 | 11 | 6,034 | 11 | 8 | ... |  |  | 86,015 | 18 | 9 |
| 1860 | 134,544 | 18 | 4 | 4,279 | 4 | 8 | 3,040 | 2 | 1 | 141,864 | 5 | 1 | 89,816 | 8 | 4 | 27,513 | 12 | 6 | 8,835 | 8 | 1 | ... |  |  | 126,165 | 8 | 11 |
| 1861 | 268,494 | 2 | 11 | 12,917 | 0 | 11 | 3,441 | 0 | 5 | 284,852 | 4 | 3 | 218,599 | 18 | 1 | 55,376 | 16 | 5 | 9,759 | 2 | 9 | ... |  |  | 283,735 | 17 | 3 |
|  | 511,142 | 12 | 7 | 18,329 | 0 | 10 | 11,231 | 0 | 11 | 540,702 | 14 | 4 | 365,882 | 11 | 7 | 105,405 | 10 | 10 | 24,629 | 2 | 6 | ... |  |  | 495,917 | 4 | 11 |
| The profit during the above period amounts to £33,650 14s. 9d. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

1862 to 1866

| Date. | Premiums. |  |  | Interest. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  | Claims and Annuities paid. |  |  | Expenses. |  |  | Dividends. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. |
| 1862 | 261,291 | 8 | 5 | 8,459 | 1 | 0 | ... |  |  | 269,750 | 9 | 5 | 204,718 | 13 | 3 | 53,117 | 19 | 10 | 12,607 | 10 | 7 | ... |  |  | 270,444 | 3 | 8 |
| 1863 | 274,363 | 5 | 1 | 10,282 | 6 | 7 | ... |  |  | 284,645 | 11 | 8 | 227,976 | 2 | 2 | 49,712 | 14 | 6 | 23,530 | 7 | 3 | ... |  |  | 310,219 | 3 | 11 |
| 1864 | 263,608 | 11 | 3 | 7,777 | 15 | 3 | ... |  |  | 271,386 | 6 | 6 | 224,591 | 17 | 5 | 55,238 | 18 | 11 | 12,610 | 10 | 7 | ... |  |  | 292,441 | 6 | 11 |
| 1865 | 304,061 | 7 | 6 | 9,818 | 19 | 10 | ... |  |  | 313,880 | 7 | 4 | 226,608 | 5 | 4 | 57,006 | 9 | 10 | 9,556 | 8 | 6 | ... |  |  | 293,171 | 3 | 8 |
| 1866 | 331,714 | 16 | 3 | 12,402 | 13 | 9 | ... |  |  | 344,117 | 10 | 0 | 331,833 | 0 | 5 | 60,789 | 12 | 0 | 13,625 | 9 | 0 | ... |  |  | 406,248 | 1 | 5 |
|  | 1,435,039 | 8 | 6 | 48,740 | 16 | 5 | ... |  |  | 1,483,780 | 4 | 11 | 1,215,727 | 18 | 7 | 275,865 | 15 | 1 | 71,930 | 5 | 11 | ... |  |  | 1,563,533 | 19 | 7 |
| A loss was made during the above period of 281,702l. 11s. 3d. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

1867 to 1868

| Date. | Premiums. |  |  | Interest. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  | Claims and Annuities paid. |  |  | Expenses. |  |  | Dividends. |  |  | Sundries. |  |  | Total. |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. | £ | s. | d. |
| 1867 | 317,033 | 4 | 0 | 12,372 | 0 | 7 | 100 | 17 | 1 | 329,506 | 1 | 8 | 278,339 | 15 | 3 | 73,777 | 12 | 0 | 9,041 | 15 | 3 | ... |  |  | 361,159 | 2 | 7 |
| 1868 | 308,318 | 2 | 5 | 12,217 | 9 | 9 | 125 | 19 | 8 | 320,661 | 11 | 10 | 281,687 | 17 | 10 | 53,194 | 0 | 11 | 9,039 | 15 | 0 | 1,125 | 3 | 10 | 345,046 | 17 | 7 |
|  | 625,351 | 6 | 5 | 24,589 | 10 | 4 | 226 | 16 | 9 | 650,167 | 13 | 6 | 560,027 | 13 | 2 | 126,971 | 15 | 11 | 18,081 | 10 | 3 | 1,125 | 3 | 10 | 706,206 | 0 | 2 |
| A loss was made during the above period of £1,036,630 13s. 7d. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

The following, therefore, is a summary of the profit and loss since 1854:

|  | PROFIT. | £ | s. | d. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1854 |  | 53,314 | 16 | 5 |
| 1855 to 1858 |  | 27,808 | 14 | 4 |
| 1859 to 1861 |  | 33,650 | 14 | 9 |
|  |  | £114,774 | 5 | 6 |
|  | LOSS. | £ | s. | d. |
| 1862 to 1866 |  | 281,702 | 11 | 3 |
| 1867—1868 |  | 1,016,630 | 13 | 7 |
|  |  | 1,298,333 | 4 | 10 |
|  | Deduct profits | 114,774 | 5 | 6 |
|  | Total loss | £1,183,558 | 19 | 4 |

The position of the Company on August 14, 1869, was:

| DR. |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To amounts due on deposit and current accounts |  |  |  | £19,203 | 9 | 5 |
| To sundry liabilities for claims unpaid, about |  |  |  | 80,000 | 0 | 0 |
| To a count due to Western Shareholders, &c. |  |  |  | 3,622 | 15 | 7 |
| To unpaid dividends about |  |  |  | 1,100 | 0 | 0 |
| To loan on public investments, secured by assets, per contra |  |  |  | £32,615 | 17 | 0 |
|  |  |  |  | £103,926 | 5 | 0 |
| To balance of present value of liabilities under policies, after allowing for value of premiums | 1,147,487 | 0 | 0 |  |  |  |
| To present value of liabilities under annuities | 150,445 | 0 | 0 |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | 1,297,932 | 0 | 0 |
| To capital subscribed | 500,000 | 0 | 0 |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | £1,401,858 | 5 | 0 |
| CR. |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| By public investments | £100,868 | 1 | 3 |  |  |  |
| Less loan per contra | 32,615 | 17 | 0 |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | £68,252 | 4 | 3 |
| By loans on mortgages and bonds |  |  |  | 60,879 | 7 | 10 |
| By branch and agents’ balances |  |  |  | 41,178 | 5 | 10 |
| By leasehold property, &c. |  |  |  | 5,873 | 5 | 0 |
| By loans on policies and other assets | 61,872 | 2 | 10 |  |  |  |
| Estimated at 50 per cent. |  |  |  | 30,936 | 1 | 5 |
| By life interests and reversions |  |  |  | 22,726 | 14 | 1 |
| By re-assurance policies | 35,812 | 9 | 8 |  |  |  |
| Estimated at 75 per cent |  |  |  | 23,859 | 7 | 3 |
| By cash |  |  |  | 23,315 | 17 | 2 |
| By uncalled capital | 321,959 | 0 | 0 |  |  |  |
| Estimated at |  |  |  | 100,000 | 0 | 0 |
|  |  |  |  | 430,021 | 2 | 10 |
| By deficiency |  |  |  | 971,837 | 2 | 2 |
|  |  |  |  | £1,401,858 | 5 | 0 |

SURRENDERS OF POLICITES.

| The following amounts have been paid for the surrender of policies during the last five years: |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1864 | £10,209 | 13 | 8 |
| 1865 | 9,127 | 12 | 9 |
| 1866 | 10,631 | 6 | 4 |
| 1867 | 17,453 | 5 | 2 |
| 1868 | 19,296 | 3 | 1 |

These accounts have been prepared with as much exactness as the limited time given for their preparation has rendered possible. S. LOWELL PRICE. 13, Gresham-street, City, 28th August, 1869.

The cost of the Bank of London and the Medical Invalid Companies created some sensation, and the total sum called forth exclamations of horror.

Mr. PRICE explained that the names of various other concerns had been mentioned in the newspapers, but those companies had previously been taken over by others which had been purchased. The list given above included all those which the Albert Company itself had taken. The sums specified included allowances and compensations. Of the loss on the last period, no less than 956,973l. represented the differences in the valuation of the company’s assets and claims, as compared with the last stocktaking. Previous valuations had been made on the gross premiums, a principle which he could not but regard as very inaccurate, whereas the present one allowed 22½ per cent. for “loading.”

Mr. KIRBY—And that was charged on three millions and a half.

Mr. SLATER wished to know why, when the uncalled capital amounted to 321,000l., it was estimated to produce only 150,000l.

Mr. TARRING said a great deal had been stated by the press with reference to the amalgamations and the enormous sums paid to various parties—negotiators, secretaries, and managers in connection with them. He should like to know whether Mr. Price had been able to ascertain the amount of the payments, and if so, whether they were included in the account which had just been read. For instance, the cost of the amalgamation with the Bank of London and National Provincial Assurance Association was stated in the account to be 91,641l. Did that amount include all the various sums that passed from hand to hand at the time when the transaction took place?

Mr. PRICE said he had ascertained, so far as it could be done, from the books of the Albert Company—and he thought it was impossible that any account cold have been omitted—the cost of each of the amalgamations. He had also analysed the cost of each, including the various heads under which the payments were made, and he would now read the result to the meeting.

Mr. TARRING, before that was done, wished to ask Mr. Price whether he considered it possible that in the handing over of one concern to another any payments were omitted from the accounts for the purpose of satisfying certain parties, and consequently did not appear in any accounts which the Albert Company now possessed.

Mr. PRICE said he did not think that was possible in the case of that company.

Mr. TARRING said he alluded to the passing of accounts into other hands after the agreement for the transfer was made.

Mr. PRICE said the books of the Albert Company only showed its own transactions, and he was going to give them the result of the investigation of the Albert books. Of course it was impossible for him to tell what had been done in other companies, but so far as the Albert was concerned he believed he could give every payment which had been made on account of amalgamations. He would first state what occurred in the case of the Bank of London Association, which might be a guide to the others. There was paid to various parties who were connected with the Bank of London Association, by way of compensation as it was called, 34,116l. There was a claim upon a company for 25,000l., and taken over at that amount, which was properly estimated to be then worth only 15,000l., occasioning a cost to that company of 10,000l. The Bank of London Association had an unliquidated account for preliminary expenses, and profit and loss, of 36,400l., which was returned as paid. The law costs of the Bank of London Association for the deed of settlement amounted to 3,689l., and that was also paid. There was likewise due from the Bank of London Association to the Anchor Assurance Company 7,405l., which was also paid. Those sums amounted together to 91,641l. 18s. 4d.

Mr. TARRING inquired whether Mr. Lewis had the names of all the parties to whom the payments were made.

Mr. LEWIS replied that he had.

Mr. TARRING thought that under the circumstances the cases might properly from the subject of an inquiry on the part of the shareholders, but that it would be better to defer the matter to a later period.

Mr. J. S. FIRMIN inquired whether it was a fact that Mr. Clench, the manager of the association just referred to, obtained 8,300l.; Mr. Cave, the fire manager, 8,300l.; and Mr. Walker, the actuary, 8,300l., making altogether 25,000l.?

Mr. PRICE replied that that was so.

Mr. FIRMAN then asked whether the directors had a couple of hundred pounds each.

Mr. PRICE—Yes.

Mr. FIRMIN wished to know also whether the shareholders in the Albert Company became liable for annuities of 600l. and 400l. payable to the manager and secretary of the Merchants and Tradesmans Life Office, which had been amalgamated with the Bank of London Association.

Mr. PRICE—Yes.

Mr. FIRMIN further asked whether the fire business of the Bank of London Association was purchased of the Albert by the Liverpool and London Association for 25,000l. agreed price, 10,000l. only being paid, because certain conditions were not complied with.

Mr. PRICE said he had not the information desired. He had given the gross amounts, but did not possess the details.

Mr. FIRMIN thought the accountant of the company should make out a full list.

Mr. PRICE said the claim of 10,000l. upon a company which he had mentioned was a claim upon the Liverpool and London Association, and was included in the amount which he had given.

Mr. FIRMIN said, with regard to the Beacon and Times Associations, he thought Mr. Sheridan had 8,000l. as his share.

Mr. PRICE replied that there were several items of compensation in the books, amounting altogether to 2,700l., and Mr. Sheridan had 2,000l. There was an annuity given to that gentleman of 665l., which was afterwards purchased by the Albert Company for 8,725l.

Mr. FIRMIN believed Mr. Sheridan had 2,000l. for the National Guardian purchase.

Mr. PRICE said he had.

Mr. FIRMIN—Then, in the case of the Medical Invalid, he had 11,000l.

Mr. PRICE said he had 15,750l.

Mr. FIRMIN believed that in the case of the Family Endowments Association Mr. Sheridan received money from the Albert Company.

Mr. Price thought the meeting should bear in mind that Mr. Sheridan was not the only gentleman who was fortunate enough to receive considerable sums.

Mr. FIRMIN went on to remark that in the case the Medical Invalid Association the Secretary, Mr. Singer, had 15,000l.

Mr. PRICE replied that he had.

Mr. FIRMIN inquired whether Mr. Saddler, the solicitor of that association, did not receive 2,000l.

Mr. PRICE said there was a long list, but he did not find Mr. Saddler’s name in it.

Mr. FIRMIN then asked whether the directors of the Medical Invalid Association who did not join the Albert board did not receive 1,100l. each.

Mr. PRICE replied that a great many persons had that amount, and that he could give the names if they were required, adding that about twenty-five or twenty-six persons received sums ranging from 150l. to 15,000l.

Mr. FIRMIN went on to inquire whether in the case of the Kent Mutual Association, Mr. Preston, the secretary, did not receive 3,000l. ?

Mr. PRICE said he obtained 3,500l.

Mr. FIRMIN—And Mr. Clench?

Mr. PRICE—3,500l.

Mr. FIRMIN said he thought Mr. Sheridan figured again in that case.

Mr. PRICE—For 1,500l.

Mr. FIRMIN thought that after all those statements there could not be any doubt as to where the money went. (Hear, hear.) Those figures spoke for themselves. (Hear, hear.) In the balance-sheet for 1866, which he had then before him, there was not the slightest reference to the payment of any such sums as had been mentioned in the way of compensation. There was, he believed, no allusion to anything of the kind in any of the balance-sheets. In 1867 the directors did not issue a balance-sheet, and the reason was evident.

Mr. PRICE observed that the form of the accounts for 1886 would exclude such items; they might have appeared in some other accounts.

Mr. NORTON said although the balance-sheet was one only of assets and liabilities, some account ought to have been given of the manner in which the company’s money had been dispersed.

Mr. TARRING said he wished to put a question with regard to the secretary. When they received any notice on paper the secretary’s name had always been attached, and they were warranted in supposing that he was the executive officer of the company. He had, however, been informed that that gentleman had seldom, if ever, been allowed to be present at meetings of the Board—that he had, in fact, been systematically excluded; and he wished to know whether that was a fact.

The CHAIRMAN said it had not been customary for the Secretary to be present.

Mr. TARRING having repeated his question, and there having been loud calls for the Secretary.

Mr. EASUM (the Secretary) said—I answer candidly that I have not been present at the board meeting of this company—(cries of “oh, oh”)—except in the absence of the managing director or manager, when I have been requested to attend.

Mr. TARRING—Have you not been present as the officer of the board to take minutes, and to attend to the business of the board?

The SECRETARY—I have not.

Mr. TARRING—You have not been allowed to do that?

The SECRETARY—I have not attended. (Loud cries of “Why?” and “Explain.”)

Mr. TARRING thought that would be a matter for subsequent inquiry. (Hear, hear.) What he wanted was to get at the facts.

Mr. NORTON inquired how long the present direction had existed?

The CHAIRMAN said he had only been a director of the company since its union with the Western Life Assurance Company in 1865. He did not know the dates of the appointments of the other directors, but there had been no new directors since he joined.

A SHAREHOLDER having asked who was the chairman of the Albert Board.

The CHAIRMAN replied that no one had filled that office permanently, the directors having taken the chair according to a monthly rotation.

A SHAREHOLDER wished to know whether, after the death of the late manager, Mr. Kirby, it was not made a condition at the appointment of the present manager that the claim of his father against the company should not be pressed.

Mr. KIRBY—Not that I ever heard of; certainly not.

A SHAREHOLDER complained that no answer had been given by Mr. Price to the question why the uncalled capital, amounting to 321,000l., was put down in the accounts just presented at 150, 000l.

Mr. PRICE replied that the list of shareholders, which had been carefully gone through, included the names of many persons who never contemplated having a penny more to pay in that unfortunate company, and who were in fact utterly unable to pay any call. His desire had been, not to make the best of the matter, but to let the shareholders know the worst at once. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the statement which he had read was in accordance with that desire. It was possible, and in fact not improbable, that somewhat more than 150,000l. might be realised, but he had been very desirous that they should not go away with an impression that the assets were larger in amount than at the worst they might be expected to prove. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. SLATER asked Mr. Price if he had examined what might be considered the real assets of the company—in which term he did not include uncalled capital.

Mr. PRICE had not personally done so. If, for example, he had seen a mortgage on an estate in Somersetshire it would have been impossible for him to say whether the property was worth the money. He had, however, gone through all the securities, and he had questioned the proper officer as to the basis on which those securities had been valued. In several cases where he thought that assets had been put at something above their value, he had estimated them at less than their nominal value.

Mr. SLATER—But are there any of them that would be at once convertible?

Mr. PRICE—Some of them; but others of them are not. I believe, however, that if you keep the management of your affairs in your own hands, the assets may be realized for the sum I have put down for them.

A SHAREHOLDER—Am I to understand that you look upon half the shareholders as insolvent? (A laugh.)

Mr. PRICE—I should be very sorry to put the matter in that way. I may say that I have had considerable experience in the liquidation of companies, and I believe it will be found that I am not far wrong; but I should be sorry to throw any imputation upon the circumstances of individual shareholders. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. COTTRELL said that in 1867 the balance-sheet showed assets amounting to 634,000l. The premiums in 1867 were 331,000l., and those in 1868 were 301,000l. It appeared, therefore, that the company had lost the whole of its premiums for the last two years, and two-thirds of its assets.

Mr. PRICE had no doubt that the reduction in the assets was owing to the difference in the actuarial valuation of the premiums and liabilities; but during the last two years there had been a considerable excess in the payments over the receipts. However he should be able to give further information at the next meeting. The figures he had read merely contained the results of a great mass of accounts which were in the rough upstairs; and at the next meeting he should be able to produce a profit and loss account.

Mr. TARRING said that in 1861 the assets were entered in the report at 749,000l.; in 1862, at 736,000l.; and in 1863 at 714,000l. He was not able to carry the comparison any later; but here was a very serious falling off in the assets; and yet the condition of the company had been represented as progressive and prosperous. He did not wish to say anything against the directors, who were all honourable men—(cries of “Question”)—but it was clear that they had been misled. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the late manager, Mr. Kirby, but he thought they must consider him to have been wholly to blame. He believed, from what he knew of Mr. Kirby, that he had been the mainspring of the company, and that the confidence the directors had in him had been such that they were always ready to do his bidding. That being the case he very much regretted that that gentleman’s son should have been announced as one of the provisional liquidators, and he would move that Mr. Kirby be requested to resign.

Mr. PRICE said Mr. Kirby had only consented to act temporarily, and not as an ordinary liquidator. He had been very much indebted to Mr. Kirby for the assistance which he had given him, and he thought that under the circumstances the motion would not be a very gracious one.

Mr. TARRING could not but think that under the circumstances Mr. Kirby’s retention of his office, temporary though it was, would complicate the final settlement of the affairs of the company; and unless Mr. Kirby resigned, he should feel it his duty to press his motion.

MR. GRARY entirely agreed that it would not be consistent with the interests of the company that Mr. Kirby should be a liquidator in the ordinary sense of the term; but his office was in reality a merely temporary one. It must be recollected that there was another, and he feared a much more difficult, body to deal with—the policy-holders; and he thought it was extremely desirable, with reference to that fact, that Mr. Kirby should remain in his present office. He wished to know what were the intentions of the directors. Would they call the shareholders together again, or would they consent to an adjournment till after the meeting of the policy-holders?

Mr. PRICE said it was intended to call the shareholders together again as soon as that could be legally done. As to his colleague, he thought it would be very damaging to their interests if they dismissed him, or asked him to withdraw. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. KIRBY could have had but one object in accepting the office, for he got nothing by it except a great deal of correspondence and a certain amount of abuse in the newspapers. He had consented to act as provisional liquidator simply for the purpose of carrying the thing through, and if it was thought that his continuing to act would not answer that purpose he should withdraw. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. BIDDER suggested that it was essential that Mr. Kirby should remain, for the sake of the company’s agents, who retained a great deal of confidence in him.

Mr. KING and Dr. WHITE also joined in deprecating the motion.

A GENTLEMAN, who was not himself a shareholder, but who said that he represented a large number of shareholders in Yorkshire, asked leave to address the meeting, but Mr. LEWIS said that it would be contrary to the deed of settlement to allow any one who was not a shareholder to take part in their proceedings.

Mr. LEE then intimated that he wished to withdraw his seconding of the motion requesting Mr. Kirby to retire from the office of liquidator.

Mr. LEWIS observed that when the company was called upon to decide whether there should be a voluntary winding up, an opportunity would be afforded to determine who should carry on the liquidation. Mr. Kirby and Mr. Price had, as co-liquidators, been requested to attend a meeting of policy-holders to be held at Manchester in the following week. The question raised must come before the Vise-Chancellor on the 17th of the succeeding month, and there could be no doubt that at a very early period the shareholders would have an abundant opportunity of giving practical effect to their wishes. That meeting could not desire to throw any difficulty in the way of calm and patient consideration on the part of the policy-holders. If he understood the feelings of the meeting, whatever might be the views of the shareholders with regard to past mismanagement, their object was in the main to resuscitate the company, and thus prevent complete disaster. (Hear.) He thought that however they might differ with regard to details, their desire was to prevent the company from becoming an entire wreck, a result which could do the policy-holders no good, and must bring great distress and disaster on the shareholders. (Hear, hear) After listening to the statement of details which had been made by Mr. Price—a statement which was very full, considering the short time that that gentleman had been engaged in the work of investigation—the shareholders present must feel that there was not the least disposition to keep back anything relating to past mismanagement, or to shield any person, but that Mr. Price’s object had been to present such a statement as it was their duty and their interest to obtain. The chairman had told them in effect that if they passed the formal resolution which constituted the only business they were called upon on that occasion to transact, they would not find that they had been caught in a trap and be sent away without any information. Mr. Price’s report would be presented at a future meeting, with the addition of further information, and the shareholders would then have full opportunity of sifting everything in any way they might think proper; but he (Mr. Lewis) now asked them to show that they approved of the attempt which was being made to reconstruct the company and prevent a common disaster to policy-holders and shareholders. (Hear.) In conclusion, he would suggest that the meeting should be adjourned to a future day, believing, as he did, that a frank, straightforward, and candid course was most likely to lead to the desired result.

Mr. TARRING said he was far from wishing to divide the meeting, and after the remarks just made by Mr. Lewis he had no desire to press his resolution. (Cheers.) His sole object, in fact, had been to carry out what Mr. Lewis had just mentioned.

A SHAREHOLDERS having inquired what would be the effect of an adjournment upon the resolution which had been passed with regard to registration.

Mr. LEWIS replied that the Act of Parliament only required the assent of a majority to such a resolution, and it had in fact been carried unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN also intimated that nothing which might occur could prevent the registration.

Mr. LEWIS said it appeared on reflection that there were legal difficulties in the way of an adjournment, and what he would suggest therefore was that the chairman should pledge himself to call a meeting of the shareholders for the following Tuesday three weeks, that being the earliest period at which a meeting could take place after the registration. (Hear, hear.)

THE unfortunate policy-holders of the Albert Life Insurance Company are anxiously looking forward to the meeting on Thursday next, and to the explanations which must then be given as to the company’s means of discharging its liabilities, and the causes which have led to its present position. Of the latter we shall say no more at present than that they may be summed up in two words—Plunder and Waste; two things which commonly go together. It is hardly to be expected that a very detailed history of the progress of the Albert on the road to ruin can be given at the meeting next week, but it will be found that the disasters of the company are chiefly assignable to the two causes we have mentioned. A professional contemporary, from whose article we have borrowed elsewhere, gives the following illustration of the matter in which the frequent amalgamations of the Albert were made pleasant, at the expense of the concern:—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.; Mr. WALKER, 5,000l.; and the Secretary an annuity of 600l. a year; in all nearly 30,000l. When there is time to attend to them—and there will be plenty—the history of the Albert will afford an abundance of similar illustrations. For the present, however, policy-holders will be most anxious to know what are the resources, actual and potential, of the Company. With respect to the assets, we have nothing to add to the approximative statement given in another column; but there is one point of much interest to all parties to which we would allude. It was stated in this journal on Wednesday that although the Albert was not registered under the Limited Liability Act, “the liability of the shareholders “appeared to be restricted by certain clauses in “the policies.” A disposition has been shown in some quarters to contest this very qualified statement, which was only offered as an element of a very complicated question. The policy-holders and shareholders of the Albert will be fortunate if they succeed in wholly avoiding litigation as to their respective rights and obligations, and it would be presumptuous on the part of any one to anticipate the decisions of the Courts. It will be found, however, that our previous remarks were well founded. In a neighbouring column we print an extract from one of the Albert policies, which should be carefully read. As too often happens in similar documents, its language is studiously involved, but the sense we have assigned is undeniably there. The policy sets out certain funds or property of the Albert “which shall alone be answerable for all claims and demands upon the society,” in respect of each policy, and it is further declared that “neither the Directors signing the policy, nor any other proprietor, nor holder of shares in the capital of the Society, shall, when any claim or demand is made in respect of a policy, be individually subject or liable to such claim beyond so much of the shares then held by him in the said capital.” We refer to the letter of our correspondent “G. R.” for the full text from which we quote, and proceed to inquire in what consists the property thus, according to the policy, liable to the claims of policy-holders. In the first place, there is the “Proprietors’ Fund,” then the “Assurance Fund,” and, lastly, that portion of the capital held in shares which has not been called and paid up. These are declared to be “alone answerable” for all claims of policy-holders, and these limitations each policy-holder has accepted. As we have already said, we do not pretend to predict what a Court of Equity would have to say to the clauses to which we have referred. There is no doubt whatever that any such clauses inserted in the deed of a proprietary Assurance Company, such as the Albert is, would be illegal and perfectly nugatory. But, it is argued, the limitations of the company’s liability being embodied in every policy, form in each case a part of a special contract between the assurers and the assured. This is a matter upon which each policy-holder can obtain advice. We are more concerned, however, to place the elements of a judgment fairly before the public than to insist on a particular opinion.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN has come forward to vindicate his position as one of the principal amalgamators of the Albert Assurance Company. His name, as he reminds us, was mentioned at the Shareholders’ meeting on Saturday, as one who had received commissions for policies introduced to the office. There is no need to be periphrastic on such an occasion as this, and we may therefore recall the statement of Mr. PRICE, the accountant and one of the provisional liquidators of the Albert, that Mr. SHERIDAN had received as much as 28,475l. for his services in connection with the transfer of five companies to that office. The honourable gentleman—Mr. SHERIDAN is M.P. for Dudley—informs us that “some of the statements made at the meeting are incorrect”; but in what respect, and whether the amounts are under or over stated, he does not explain. We may therefore infer that any inaccuracy there may be is not material. His object in writing is to remove an impression conveyed by a shareholder at Saturday’s meeting, that the Albert Office had “failed to profit by its transactions with him.” This is a very mild way of putting the matter; we may, however, say at once that if by the Company Mr. SHERIDAN means the handful of persons who hold the shares, it is a question hardly worth discussing, and certainly not one which the public is much troubling itself about. The interest of the shareholders is not to be mentioned in the same breath with the vastly greater interest of the policy-holders which they took in charge, and which they have betrayed.

What has most forcibly struck the public in the history of these amalgamations is the extreme care that has been taken of every interest, actual, contingent, or conceivable, except that of the policy-holders, for whose sake every Insurance Office professes to exist. We saw on Monday that the cost of taking over the assets and liabilities of the ten amalgamated offices amounted to 283,000l.—considerably more than half the nominal capital of the Albert, and within 45,000l. of its realised and realisable sum. It is further known that these ten offices had absorbed twelve others by a similar process before they were merged in the Albert, so that we have been contemplating only a part of the operations of a great amalgamating interest which could only be served by the artificial production, sustenance, and transfer of other interests which ought, above all others, to be marked by stability and permanence. We also saw on Monday what interest Mr. KIRBY had in the multiplication of these purchases. Every 10,000l. which he added 500l. per annum to his commission. In like manner the managers, secretaries, promoters, and other functionaries whose services were no longer required in the absorbed offices were taken good care of. Even the Albert shareholders celebrated the waste of their own capital and the assumption of heavy responsibilities by declaring and driving profits that were never earned. But what the public would like to know is, who was taking care of the poor policy-holders in the amalgamated offices all this while. Mr. SHERIDAN tells us that that was no business of his. The Albert people, he says, published no accounts, and withheld the knowledge of their financial condition from all persons but those especially appointed to investigate their affairs. In fact he was “only an agent in the matter, acting upon instructions, and receiving as payment a commuted commission on the business done.” Mr. SHERIDAN, then, was certainly not thinking of the policy-holders of the Beacon, Times, National Guardian, Medical Invalid, or Family Endowments Association, when he took his enormous commissions. He did not, he says, pretend to be. Then was this duty left to the officers of these societies? That cannot be. They had no interest in entertaining doubts or making inquiries about the solvency of the Albert. They were being well paid for that highly figmentary article, the goodwill of a clerkship, which Mr. CLENCH lately told us ought not to be reckoned as worth less than fourteen years’ salary. It appears, then, that these poor policy-holders were treated like so many sheep, to be shorn, slaughtered, melted down, packed off, or otherwise treated as suited the interests of a number of professional traders in insurance accidents, events which they best knew how to bring about. It was with the policy-holders’ money that these amalgamators were paid fees such as are unheard of in legitimate commerce, and which were themselves fortunes; it was the policy-holders who had to suffer most by this trafficking in companies; and it is with the policy-holders that the public now most deeply sympathise. The opinion of the public is expressed on all hands with unmistakeable clearness. The policy-holders have been plundered most unmercifully, and without pretending at present to assess the exact amount of blame due to every party, we must say that the deep discredit of those transactions is reflected upon all who were concerned in them, but chiefly upon those who profited most, and most exceptionably, by them.

---

[^lic]: Text according to MEGAdigital (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), 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.