TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION V. 829 



he has been polluted, and to which he has become indifferent, during a long and 

 ill-spent life. If he could look forward to his pension, as Mr. Booth proposes, 

 would he feel a glow of moral superiority and of conscious pride in his manhood ? 

 Hardly. His motto would only vary the Epicurean ' Let us eat and drink, for 

 to-morrow we die ' to ' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow ' (that is, when 

 we complete our sixty-fifth year) ' we shall get pensions of 5s, a week.' But 

 in regard to his prospective pensioners generally, however deserving, Mr. Booth 

 admits ' that a provision for old age, obtained compulsorily under the law, and 

 paid out of taxation, would carry with it none of the moral benefit which would 

 attend the winning of a pension by direct personal sacrifice . . . nor would 

 it directly minister to independence of chtiracter,' though he contends, in a some- 

 what too sanguine spirit as it appears to me, ' that no one would make less 

 voluntary effort to save because of it, and that many would increase their exertions 

 in this direction.' I should have thought that, on the contrary, looking to the 

 widespread inclination to prefer provision against sickness to insurance for old 

 age, which is a well-known feature in the habits of the working classes, and to 

 which the arrangements of the friendly societies bear such striking witness, the 

 mere fact of having a pension of 5s. a week to fall back upon would be sufficient 

 to deter most of them from making further provision for the declining years which 

 they may nerer live to see. Granted, however, that the advantages of a universal 

 pension scheme from taxation were fully shown, there still remain several points 

 touched upon by Mr. Booth which should make the cautious mind pause before 

 consenting to its adoption. For instance, Mr. Booth says : ' It is not to be for- 

 gotten or disguised that year by year the sum needed ' (for pensions) ' must 

 steadily increase, faster very likety than the rate of iucrease of the whole popula- 

 tion. . . . Happily, wealth is increasing faster than population.' When it is con- 

 sidered that the initial cost is estimated at 16,000,000/. per annam, this is a very 

 disquieting suggestion, and quite sufficient in itself to make the boldest hesitate 

 before plunging into such a sea of uncertaint}-. Then the administrative details 

 of carrying the scheme into effect would necessarily be somewhat complex ; and 

 Mr. Booth shows that, when the official army of registrars and superintendent- 

 registrars has been set in motion, the arrangements for fixing the age of the 

 applicant made, and the precautions against fraudulent claims in two places taken, 

 a great deal of difficult and harassing work will have been done. He contends, 

 indeed, that the sj'stem is simple as compared with any scheme of national insur- 

 ance, but he says enough to show that, as might be expected, a very considerable 

 amount of trouble both to officials and claimants will be inevitable. And, finally, 

 he makes no provision for the expenses of the scheme, which, he thinks, need not 

 exceed from 10s. to 20s. in each case, suggesting that this amount ' could be de- 

 ducted from the first payments of pension, at the rate of 2s. 6d. a week till paid.' 

 It is to be feared that, looking to the necessity which there certainly would be, 

 especially in towns, of keeping a constant watch over each case to prevent fraud, 

 such as the drawing of a pension after the decease of the pensioner, the .•services of 

 registrars would be in pretty continuous demand, and those services would have 

 to be paid for. 



But it may be said that national pension schemes have been set on foot in other 

 countries, and that there is no reason why we should be behindhand in the good 

 work. It is true that in Germany three insurance laws have been passed, and 

 according to Mr. Wilhelm Bode — whose article in the ' National Eeview ' of March 

 last should be read by all interested in the question — the latest, that for old age 

 and sickness, is by far the most unpopular. It is generally called the ' IQebegesetz,' 

 or ' Sticking Law,' from the immense number of stamps which it is necessary to 

 use in carrying its provisions into effect, and its administration appears to have 

 been found intolerable. A report on the working of the law during the first year 

 (1891), made by Herr von Botticher in the German Reichstag in February last, 

 shows that there were 173,668 claims for old-age pensions under this law during 

 the year, of which 132,917 were allowed, the average amount of pension being 125 

 marks, or 61. a year. It is to be obser»-ed that these persons obtained pensions 

 ■without having contributed anything to the insurance fund. Mr. Bode states that 



