548 



INSURANCE-IPSWICH. 



best advantage presuming the managers to be 

 honourable and expert men. If the individual die 

 before his proper time, a much larger sum is drawn 

 out by his representatives. If, on the contrary, he 

 live beyond the average, and make payments be- 

 yond the amount of the sum originally assured, 

 still, in the long-run, when he dies, his heirs get 

 not alone that sum, but something more, in propor- 

 tion to the excess of his payments and the profits 

 made by the investment of the Society's funds, les- 

 sened only by his contingent for the expences of 

 the Society. In many cases, where a policy was of 

 moderately long standing, it has been found that the 

 sum originally assured has been doubled, or more 

 than doubled, while the premium, or annual sum paid 

 for assurance, had of course sustained no increase. 

 " Such being the equitable and beneficial princi- 

 ples on which Mutual Assurance Societies are es- 

 tablished, it is clear that they present, to men in 

 the enjoyment of income, but possessing little pro- 

 perty, a most suitable and favourable means of pro- 

 viding in a greater or less measure for the endeared 

 and helpless relatives who may survive them. 

 That only about 80,000 persons in the united 

 kingdom should have taken advantage of Life As- 

 surance, being but one in sixty-two of the sup- 

 posed number of heads of families, surely affords a 

 striking view of shall we call it the improvidence 

 of mankind, or shall we not rather designate it as 

 their culpable selfishness ? For what is the predi- 

 cament of that man who, for the gratification of his 

 affections, surrounds himself with a wife and chil- 

 dren, and peaceably lives in the enjoyment of these 

 precious blessings, with the knowledge that, ere 

 three moments at any time shall have passed, the 

 cessation of his existence may throw wife and 

 children together into a state of destitution ? When 

 the case is fully reflected upon, it must certainly 

 appear as one of extremely gross selfishness, not- 

 withstanding that the world has not been accus- 

 tomed to regard it in that light. If, indeed, it 

 were utterly impossible to provide for a widow and 

 orphans, no fault could fairly be found. And, no 

 doubt, the little blame bestowed by the world on 

 this account is owing to the fact, that, till a recent 

 period, no means of providing for these relatives 

 existed. They were in those days invariably left 

 to the mercy of the public. But that this occa- 

 sioned many evils we may be abundantly satisfied, 

 from the earnestness with which the founders of 

 Christianity press the duty of succouring the 

 widow and fatherless one of them representing 

 religion as almost entirely consisting in that bene- 

 volent action alone. Assuredly, if there had not 

 been much misery from this cause, there would 

 h-ive been no need for so much urgency on the sub- 

 ject. But if we only consider for a moment how 

 mainly every one is engaged in providing for him- 

 self, we must be satisfied of the extreme precari- 

 ousness of any provision which is expected to come 

 from parties not responsible. It is therefore the 

 duty of every man to provide, while he yet lives, 

 for his own : we would say that it is not more his 

 duty to provide for their daily bread during his 

 life, than it is to provide, as far as he can, against 

 their being left penniless in the event of his death. 

 Indeed, between these two duties there is no es- 

 sential distinction, for Life Assurance makes the 

 one as much a matter of current expenditure as 

 the other. One part of his income can now be 

 devoted by a head of a family to the necessities of 

 the present ; another may be stored up, by means 



of Life Assurance, to provide against the future. 

 And thus he may be said to do the whole of his 

 duty towards his family, instead of, as is generally 

 the case, only doing the half of it. 



" It may be felt by many, that, admitting this 

 duty in full, their income is nevertheless insufficient 

 to enable them to spare even the small sum neces- 

 sary as an annual Premium for Life Assurance. 

 The necessities of the present are in their case BO 

 great, that they do not see how they can afford it. 

 We believe there can be no obstacle which is apt 

 to appear more real than this, where an income is 

 at all limited ; and yet it is easy to show that no 

 obstacle could be more ideal. It will readily be 

 acknowledged by every body who has an income 

 at all, that there must be some who have smaller 

 incomes. Say, for instance, that any man has 

 400 per annum; he cannot doubt that there are 

 some who have only 350. Now, if these persons 

 live on 350, why may not he do so too, sparing 

 the odd 50 as a deposit for Life Assurance ? In 

 like manner, he who has 200 may live as men do 

 who have only 175, and devote the remaining 

 25 to have a sum assured upon his life ; and so 

 on. It may require an effort to accomplish this; 

 but is not the object worthy of an effort? And 

 can any man be held as honest, or any way good, 

 who will not make such an effort, rather than be 

 always liable to the risk of leaving in beggary the 

 beings whom he most cherishes on earth, and for 

 whose support he alone is responsible? It may 

 perhaps be thought that we feel strongly on this 

 subject : we own that we do ; but if the generality 

 of men saw the case in its true light, they would 

 feel as strongly as we do. They are only com- 

 paratively indifferent, because there has as yet 

 been but a brief experience of a system for redeem- 

 ing widows and orphans from poverty. When 

 Life Assurance is as universally understood and 

 practised as it ought to be, he who has not made 

 such a provision, or something equivalent, for the 

 possibility of his death, will, we verily trust, be 

 looked on as a not less detestable monster than he 

 who will not work for his children's bread ; and 

 his memory after death will be held in not less 

 contempt." 



IPSWICH; a borough-town in the county of 

 Suffolk, England, sixty-nine miles N.E. from Lon- 

 don. It stands on the banks of the river Orwell, 

 just below its junction with the Gipping, from 

 which the town derives its appellation, as in Dooms- 

 day-book it is called Gyppesvitz, or Gyppeswic, 

 since altered to Ipswich. It was anciently forti- 

 fied and encompassed by a ditch and rampart, which 

 were partially destroyed by the Danes, who took 

 and pillaged the place in 991, and again in 1000. 

 A castle is said to have been erected here by 

 William the Conqueror, which was demolished by 

 king Stephen; but the fortifications were renewed 

 in the fifth year of John, when a wall was built 

 round the town, with four gates, denominated from 

 the four cardinal points of the compass; and of 

 this wall a portion is still remaining. The first 

 charter of incorporation was granted to the inha- 

 bitants in 1199, by king John; but Edward I., in 

 the thirteenth year of his reign, deprived them of 

 their franchises, which, however, on their subse- 

 quently furnishing ships for his service, he restored ; 

 and in 1291 granted a new charter, confirming 

 those of John and Henry III. Other charters 

 were granted by succeeding princes, the last being 

 that of Charles" II. 



