TKANS.VCTIONS OF SECTION F. 82/ 



subject to State control; in fact, having expended public money, Government 

 ■would only be doing its duty by claiming complete supervision of the affairs of 

 any society so aided. Whatever form the national pension scheme took, it meant 

 an enormous burden being cast upon the country, and the rate and tax payers 

 would have to supply the means, to a very great extent. The lowest estimate 

 would mean many millions per annum. In fact, the members of the Manchester 

 Unity would be in the position of not only providing for themselves but contribut- 

 ing to a greater number in the aggregate who, through laziness, dissipation, and 

 want of thought to provide for a rainy day, neglected all the opportunities afforded 

 by such societies as theirs, or by any other means, to make any provision at all for 

 the future. This struck at the very root and foundation of friendly societies, and 

 would eventually endanger, if not destroy, all such institutions, as it would be 

 unjust that the careful and watchful should pay for the reckless and vicious, and 

 even be punished by having to provide for their maintenance. . . . He himself 

 thought that any scheme should be self-supporting, and that the public funds 

 should not be drawn upon to provide pensions. The country had been made what 

 it was by individual character, and friendly societies had done very much to form 

 that character among the hard-working population, and might now be regarded as 

 bulwarks of strength to it.' 



At another point in the working-man's social scale, we find the following 

 resolution passed by the Executive of the London Deckers' Union in March last. 

 While its political economy is perhaps not so good as that of tlie Oddfellows, and 

 its language is stronger, it breathes the same spirit of dislike of interference with 

 the management of a Pension Fund : — ' That this Executive Committee of the 

 Dockers' Union hereby declares its opinion that any section of Pension Fund not 

 being directly controllable by payees should not be countenanced in any way. We 

 are of opinion, also, that it is an insidious attempt to perpetrate an unjust taxation 

 upon wages. Also a means of retaining a large portion of the workers' earnings 

 for employers' own benefit; while the possible good of such a system is so remote, 

 the longevity of the toilers so low an average, and industrial mortality so higb 

 through insufficient wage and unhealth}' environment, that we consider it opposed 

 to economic fairness and a curtailment of remuneration, relieving capital and 

 property of burdens at the expense of the already overtaxed and underpaid 

 workmen.' 



Nor is the dislike to interference confined to schemes of State aid, for we read 

 that in February last a well-known manufacturing firm in Lancashire oflered to 

 subscribe 1,000/. a year towards a Sick and Pension Fund for their workpeople, 

 and that the proposal was rejected by a majority of more than two to one, on the 

 ground, no doubt, that it would be prejudicial to the perfect freedom of the latter. 



Among the other schemes, Mr. Vallance, the Clerk of the Whitechapel Board 

 of Guardians, the value of whose contributions towards the science of Poor Law 

 Administration and cognate subjects has been so widely acknowledged, suggests 

 that wage-earners should be encouraged to put hj small weekly sums, to be met 

 by similar sums contributed, under legal enactment, by their employers, with a 

 view to the formation of a bonus at death, if happening before sixty-five, or of 

 pension after that age. The well-known objection to all such schemes is, that an 

 employer might be tempted in some shape practically to deduct from wages the 

 amount which he would be called upon to contribute. 



The proposal of Mr. T. Fatkin, Secretary and JNIanager of the Leeds Permanent 

 Benefit Building Societ}', points to the investment of savings, under the manage- 

 ment of municipal bodies, in local securities yielding a higher rate of interest than 

 that given by the Government, the compound interest on which at 3 or 3^ per 

 cent, would give greater benefit to the investor. This scheme, again, is one of 

 which it is obvious that advantage would only be taken by persons firmly resolved 

 to make some provision for the future. 



I need not .specially refer to other schemes which have been recommended, 

 with the exception of that of Mr. Charles Booth, whose views on any subject 

 connected with the welfare of the poor must always command the highest respect. 

 Mr. Booth has made a proposal which from its comprehensive boldness has 



