are 29, and slightly in excess of what the reserve fund of £3,000 can bear. I have had a return made to me of their ages and the amount of their weekly allowances, and I find by a careful calculation that the society should have in hand to meet these annuities alone the sum of £3,625. In the present condition of the society, with so many young members on the books, I do not apprehend any danger from the above small deficiency; but the danger I have alluded to must be watchfully kept in view. I am pleased to find that the tendency of the new rules points towards increased caution; this shows that the managers are conducting its affairs in a wise and prudent spirit.”
“Peter Hardy, Actuary to the London Assurance.“
The Last Letter. The many “ifs” contained in the Actuary’s opinion and the dangers to the society in the non-fulfilment of the conditions to which those “ifs” applied were apparent to almost the meanest capacity, and could therefore not escape the criticism of so intelligent and astute reasoner as Mr. Hume, who could hardly fail to see in the said report the very elements of the society’s unsoundness which he had pointed out from the first. Hence, in this his last communication the reverend gentleman said – “I have read, with attention Mr. Hardy’s opinion, and am glad that so respectable an actuary has declared the Old Friendly Benefit Society to be in so good a condition. There are, however, two or three “ifs” in the opinion which make me doubt the fulness of the information on which it is founded; and I therefore venture to ask Mr. Richardson whether he gave Mr. Hardy the ages of all the members, or only those of the 29 permanent annuitants? I have good authority for saying that no actuary could form a correct opinion of this or any similar society without knowing the ages of all the members. We need hardly have gone to an actuary to tell us that a benefit society is safe from falling so long as “proper precautions are observed in limiting the number of members who shall be admitted to the permanent sick-fund allowance”... How can you honestly limit the number of members who shall find rest on the permanent sick-fund of a society formed for that purpose? It appears by Mr. Hardy’s own showing that there are already too many on this fund. What then, is to be done? Are the supernumeraries to be cast off? and all fresh comers to be denied until death has cleared the way? Mr. Hardy says admit new members, but I don’t see how you can honestly admit new members to a Benefit Society and then limit the number of the benefitted. They all pay alike, and all have an equal claim, -
