The Sun.
London, England, 1870-09-14 00:00:00

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.

In the year 1869 no fewer than twenty new
societies, professing to afford benefit during sickness
and at death to their members, or families of their
members, were registered in Ireland. Four societies
were legally dissolved, and the total number estab-
lished at the end of December was over 150. In his
report, the Register refers to an attempt made by
a Belfast Association to secure for its members
benefits at death by the means of the Post
Office Assurance. The society were, he states,
with . regret unable to make satisfactory terms
and the plan was abandoned. The advantages to be
gained, if life policies with Government security,
were allowed to be conceded to the supporters of the
different societies, would, in the registrar's opinion,
be most important; and he is not without hope that
some. means may yet be found to obtain them. It is
one of the defects of the system, he contends, that
such privileges are withhold from these admir-
able institutions—one which will, no doubt,
be properly discussed when the entire question
of friendly societies comes before the Royal Com-
mission recently appointed to inquire into their
regulations and working. Some of the Irish benefit
clubs have the most singular of names. In the
Registrar's list we find the following among others :
—The." Belfast Flax Roughers," and the "Belfast
Linen Lappers, the " Count Sarsfield Foresters," the
"Flowery Land Mortality Club,' the "Lily of
Israel Club," "St. Mary of Egypt's Burial Society,"
"Pius the Ninth's Burial Society," the "Protestant
Partnership's Friendly Society;" and the " O'Connel-
lite Brotherhood." Several of the railway compa-
nies, it may be mentioned, have co-operative stores.,
for their officials, and the Royal Irish Constabulary

have established annuity societies for their widows
and orphans,

'I'IIE RITUAL COMMISSION REPORT.

Religious questions are professedly likely to pro-
voke dissension, and how difficult it is to obtain
agreement on secondary points may be gathered
from the " fourth and final report" of the Ritual
Commission. It is signed by all the commissioners,
' with three exceptions, but the signatures by no
means imply wholesale assent. Twenty-one pages
.of objections very soon enlighten the perplexed
reader on this point, and a careful examination shews
him that every member of.. the commission findi
some one thing to dissent from. Sixteen of them
find two subjects for dissatisfaction in the report.
Two of them, Lords Portman and Ebury, dissent
from five points, while Sir Robert Phillimore and
Lord Carnarvon decline to sign at all, on account of
doubts, and Sir John Coleridge neither signs nor ex-
plains himself. This is not encouraging. The com-
missioners who were :appointed to secure general
uniformity in practice have certainly failed to obtain.
it in theory. Worst of all, seventeen of the com-
missioners are unable to concur in the course taken
by the others with respect to the im-
portant question of the Athanasian Creed. Some
important changes are proposed. The clergy are
allowed to divide the three services, which comprise
the Morning Service. One sponsor is to be sufficient
at baptism, and parents:are to be allowed to be spon-
sors for their own children. The Rubric prescribing
the use of the Athanasian Creed is left, but an expla-
natory note is added which does not much improve
matters. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop
of St. David's, Dean Stanley, the Professors of
Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge, and some eminent
parish clergymen would have liked stronger mea-
sures. Another vexed question, the use of the
Burial Service over unbaptised or excommuni-
cated persons, is attempted- to be compromised.
The old Rubric is retained, but the minister is to
read "at his discretion" an abbreviated service pro-
vided for him, subject to the responsibility of sub,
mating his conduct to the ordinary. After all, then.
the commissioners have not accomplished much,
being forced, in the little they have done, to fall
back upon ministerial and public discretion. We
scarcely needed this experience to convince us how
difficult it is to legislate on questions of faith and
doctrine.