Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a member of a mutual society, you will pay, in most of the offices of that class, a somewhat higher rate-ranging from £2, 8s. to £2, 11s.-or about £12, 10s. in all;* and in that case you will be entitled to expect that, should your policy run for ten years, it will bear six instead of five hundred pounds; or you would be entitled to have your rate of payment considerably reduced for the future. In mutual assurance, there is formally the risk of a falling short of funds, and in that case you might be disappointed of the full sum you had insured; but practically, there is no such danger; for, when well conducted, the business of mutual assurance invariably flourishes; and there is hardly an office of that kind in Britain where you would not be safe from everything but a universal ruin of British credit. In fact, not only are safe views of mortality always assumed in such offices, but there are so many means of employing the funds to advantage, that mutual assurance is unlike every other kind of business, great prosperity being the rule, instead of the exception. There are some, however, who think the guarantee of a trading company so desirable, that they are willing to forego ultimate advantages on that account, or to content themselves at least with that share of the profits which certain companies agree to give to the assured.

Thomson.-In what form does a private party receive assurance of the payment which he bargains for?

Jones. He receives it in the shape of a bond, on stamped paper, usually called a Policy of Assurance, in which the company, by its directors, binds itself to make good the sum at the decease of the party, provided that decease be not by suicide or in a duel, or beyond certain prescribed geographical limits; provided also that the stipulated payments called premium have been duly made, and that no untrue averment was made as to the state of health and habits of the insured at the date of the insurance. The bond of the society, again, binds the several members to make good the sum, on the like provisions, but only as far as the funds of the body may, at the fall of the policy, be sufficient for that purpose. A policy of assurance is usually obtained on the condition of an annual payment, because this is the plan which suits the circumstances of most persons; but it may also be had on the payment of one sum. For instance, a gentleman of 37 years of age will have an assurance for £1000, with prospect of large additions, on paying about £450 at a mutual office. In the latter case, the policy is at all times a bank-note for at least the sum which was paid for it. But, even when it is obtained for annual payments, it soon acquires a certain value.

*One or two mutual offices of recent origin have rates somewhat lower, and more nearly abreast with those of the companies, yet still sufficiently safe. It may, however, be held as a ground of presumption against either the honesty or prudence of a scheme, if it insures life at thirty years much below £2, 2s. per £100, and other ages in proportion.

For example, an insurer enters, we shall say, at thirty, and has paid for ten years. Being now forty, he has only to pay for the remainder of life at the rate proper to thirty, which is much smaller. In the proportion of the one rate to the other is his policy of value. And he can accordingly use it as a security for any debt he may incur, or as a means of raising a loan; or he may sell it for a sum; which, however, I do not like to see anybody do, as it is like killing the goose for the eggs, and can only be justified by the pressure of extreme necessity.

Thomson. I would like, however, to understand the advantages of life-assurance to an individual a little more clearly. If I am a healthy person, and live to a good old age, I shall of course pay a great deal, and get back nothing; and perhaps, after all, what is got by my heirs may be much less than I have paid, besides perhaps not being needed by them; for before that time my children may be all well provided for otherwise. I think I have heard my neighbour Jackson occasionally indulging in a laugh at lifeassurance: all outlay, he says, and no return.

Jones. And will you allow yourself to be carried away by a thoughtless laugh? Take life-assurance at its own pretension. It is only a kind of lottery, and does not offer prizes to all. Strictly speaking, the surviving pay for the benefits given to the dead; but then who is to say, at the beginning of any year, which are to be the paying, and which the benefiting parties? When you conceive of a person paying for forty or fifty years, till his aggregate outlay greatly exceeds what his heirs ever can receive, you merely think of the blanks in the lottery. The fortunate in length of days are the unfortunate in the distribution of the funds. But then, consider-though you are a young man, you may die to-morrow. Die when you like, if you have only just paid your first premium, your heirs are entitled to the sum assured. You may be said in that case to draw one of the highest prizes. All having here an equal chance, nothing can be more fair.

Thomson. Still, it is a lottery, or a species of gambling; and I can imagine a nicely conscientious mind being at first sight a little startled by it.

Jones. Such is really the case. There are many excellent persons who do not think themselves at liberty thus to speculate upon the events of Providence. But I humbly think they are wrong. If it is a lottery, it is, I would say, one of a legitimate and even laudable kind. Taking its rise in one of the most respectable features of human nature-foresight, or a provision against contingent evils-and having most particularly in view the succour of the widow and fatherless—it is essentially a moral and humane institution. And surely, if it be allowable for any man to seek to gather actual property wherewith to endow those dependent upon him, it is allowable, where that is impossible or difficult of attainment, to secure the same end, since it can be

done, by a combination of means and a brotherly participation of risks. I contemplate life-assurance, not as an interference in any degree with the course of Providence, which some rashly assume it to be, but, on the contrary, the taking advantage of a means kindly offered by Providence for our benefit. For, consider on what it rests. That regularity in the ratio of mortality, without which there could be no life-assurance, is an institution of divine wisdom, as clearly as any other of the great arrangements of nature. When we assume this as a guide for certain conduct, not in itself reprehensible, we do no more than when we regulate a journey by what we know beforehand of the season and the length of the day. If we knew from infallible signs that there was to be a failure of grain crops five years hence, would it not be quite right to save up corn against that time, and thus equalise the evil over a wider surface? Now, if a thousand persons know that a certain number of them will die next year, are they not to be at liberty to act upon that knowledge, and insure each other against the calamities that might flow to their families in the event of their being left without sufficient property to protect them from the evils of poverty? I humbly conceive that we are called upon, by the most sacred considerations, to adopt such an expedient, seeing that it is attended by no practical evils of any kind, but, on the contrary, produces an unmixed good.

Thomson.-I admit the force of your arguments there; but it just occurs to me that an objection still lies with regard to the mercantile view of the subject. Say that I am a young hale man, carrying on a good business which fully employs my capital. I am likely to live for twenty years at least, and in that time have every reason to expect I shall provide for my family very amply. If I take money out of my business to insure upon my life, I so far diminish my means of carrying on business; and my chance of ending with brilliant success is lessened. This I feel to be a hardship, and it may even be the worse in the longrun for my family. You will see, then, that I have a great temptation, circumstanced as I am, to abstain from laying out money in this way, and rather to keep employing it in business, which makes me in the meantime such good returns.

Jones.-You have stated an objection which, I believe, is extremely apt to arise in the minds of men of business, but which I equally believe to be ill-founded. The question is simply this -are you to trust the comfort of your family to a chance, albeit a promising one, or are you not rather to make quite sure of it so far? Why, you speak of life-assurance being a kind of gamble. In many circumstances, the keeping out of it is a greater gamble. The plan which you propose instead, is like risking everything you have in the world upon a single throw of the dice, for the sake of a possible great gain, in which you may be disappointed. Resorting to life-assurance, on the other hand, is like simple trade, where little is risked, and a moderate but certain profit

For example, an insurer enters, we shall say, at thirty, and has paid for ten years. Being now forty, he has only to pay for the remainder of life at the rate proper to thirty, which is much smaller. In the proportion of the one rate to the other is his policy of value. And he can accordingly use it as a security for any debt he may incur, or as a means of raising a loan; or he may sell it for a sum; which, however, I do not like to see anybody do, as it is like killing the goose for the eggs, and can only be justified by the pressure of extreme necessity.

Thomson. I would like, however, to understand the advantages of life-assurance to an individual a little more clearly. If I am a healthy person, and live to a good old age, I shall of course pay a great deal, and get back nothing; and perhaps, after all, what is got by my heirs may be much less than I have paid, besides perhaps not being needed by them; for before that time my children may be all well provided for otherwise. I think I have heard my neighbour Jackson occasionally indulging in a laugh at lifeassurance all outlay, he says, and no return.

Jones. And will you allow yourself to be carried away by a thoughtless laugh? Take life-assurance at its own pretension. It is only a kind of lottery, and does not offer prizes to all. Strictly speaking, the surviving pay for the benefits given to the dead; but then who is to say, at the beginning of any year, which are to be the paying, and which the benefiting parties? When you conceive of a person paying for forty or fifty years, till his aggregate outlay greatly exceeds what his heirs ever can receive, you merely think of the blanks in the lottery. The fortunate in length of days are the unfortunate in the distribution of the funds. But then, consider though you are a young man, you may die to-morrow. Die when you like, if you have only just paid your first premium, your heirs are entitled to the sum assured. You may be said in that case to draw one of the highest prizes. All having here an equal chance, nothing can be more fair.

Thomson. Still, it is a lottery, or a species of gambling; and I can imagine a nicely conscientious mind being at first sight a little startled by it.

Jones. Such is really the case. There are many excellent persons who do not think themselves at liberty thus to speculate upon the events of Providence. But I humbly think they are wrong. If it is a lottery, it is, I would say, one of a legitimate and even laudable kind. Taking its rise in one of the most respectable features of human nature-foresight, or a provision against contingent evils-and having most particularly in view the succour of the widow and fatherless-it is essentially a moral and humane institution. And surely, if it be allowable for any man to seek to gather actual property wherewith to endow those dependent upon him, it is allowable, where that is impossible or difficult of attainment, to secure the same end, since it can be

done, by a combination of means and a brotherly participation of risks. I contemplate life-assurance, not as an interference in any degree with the course of Providence, which some rashly assume it to be, but, on the contrary, the taking advantage of a means kindly offered by Providence for our benefit. For, consider on what it rests. That regularity in the ratio of mortality, without which there could be no life-assurance, is an institution of divine wisdom, as clearly as any other of the great arrangements of nature. When we assume this as a guide for certain conduct, not in itself reprehensible, we do no more than when we regulate a journey by what we know beforehand of the season and the length of the day. If we knew from infallible signs that there was to be a failure of grain crops five years hence, would it not be quite right to save up corn against that time, and thus equalise the evil over a wider surface? Now, if a thousand persons know that a certain number of them will die next year, are they not to be at liberty to act upon that knowledge, and insure each other against the calamities that might flow to their families in the event of their being left without sufficient property to protect them from the evils of poverty? I humbly conceive that we are called upon, by the most sacred considerations, to adopt such an expedient, seeing that it is attended by no practical evils of any kind, but, on the contrary, produces an unmixed good.

Thomson.-I admit the force of your arguments there; but it just occurs to me that an objection still lies with regard to the mercantile view of the subject. Say that I am a young hale man, carrying on a good business which fully employs my capital. I am likely to live for twenty years at least, and in that time have every reason to expect I shall provide for my family very amply. If I take money out of my business to insure upon my life, I so far diminish my means of carrying on business; and my chance of ending with brilliant success is lessened. This I feel to be a hardship, and it may even be the worse in the longrun for my family. You will see, then, that I have a great temptation, circumstanced as I am, to abstain from laying out money in this way, and rather to keep employing it in business, which makes me in the meantime such good returns.

Jones. You have stated an objection which, I believe, is extremely apt to arise in the minds of men of business, but which I equally believe to be ill-founded. The question is simply this -are you to trust the comfort of your family to a chance, albeit a promising one, or are you not rather to make quite sure of it so far? Why, you speak of life-assurance being a kind of gamble. In many circumstances, the keeping out of it is a greater gamble. The plan which you propose instead, is like risking everything you have in the world upon a single throw of the dice, for the sake of a possible great gain, in which you may be disappointed. Resorting to life-assurance, on the other hand, is like simple trade, where little is risked, and a moderate but certain profit

« ZurückWeiter »