The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-04-17 00:00:00

The same benefit may be secured by yearly premiums, pay-
able for a limited time only. Those payable during 21 years
will be found nearly the same as other participating offices
require for the whole life.
JAMES WATSON, Manager.
Edinburgh, March, 1849.

AGENT FOR LIVERPOOL:
JOHN REID, Commission Merchant, 13, Oldhall-street

MEDICAL OFFICER :
Dr. MOFFAT, 37, Bedford-street North

THE SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION.
?THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEET-
-ING of CONTRIBUTORS was held in the WATERLOO
Rooms, EDINBUROH, on WEDNESDAY, 21st February, 1849,—
CHARLES MORTON, Esq., Writer to the Signet, the
Senior Director, in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN congratulated the Members on meeting to-
gether for the first time as a Corporation ; and, after adverting
to the advantages, both general and special, conferred by the

Statute of Incorporation, explained the alterations proposed to
be made on the provisions of the Deed of Constitution in re-
ward to forfeiture of Policies, which are detailed in the Report.
He stated that the other alterations proposed were merely for
the removal of slight practical defects which the experience of
. .

eleven years had developed in the working of the

"The only other alteration to which I shall advert is the in-
troduction of a clause giving power to the Directors to pay the
sums in Policies within the stipulated period of six months
after the death of a Member—of course, under deduction of
interest for the period to run. We have frequently found, on
the death of a parent,. that prompt payment of the provision
was a matter of great importance to his family, and in practice
the Directors have never hesitated to pay the claim at once
whenever an early settlement was wished. It has been thought
advisable, however, that an express authority to that effect
should be embodied in the Regulations.
" Such, gentlemen, are the alterations proposed to-day for
your approval. We consider them very important, not merely,
for the Interests of our own Institution, but for the promotion
of the great cause of Life Assurance, and especially of Mutual
Assurance. In. Mutual Assurance Societies there is no place
for conflicting interests. Ours is a law of love. All of us are
interested in each others welfare; and all are alike benefited
by making our own and our neighbour's policy an indefeasible
an certain provision, where the transaction has been entered
into with honesty and fairness. We propose these alterations,
therefore, as being sound in principle, and certainly in nospirit
of over-competition. We should be happy to see other offices
follow our example, so that all of us may he in a position to do
the greatest tunJunt of good amongst our fellows. Still I must
say I am glad that this Institution has had the honour to pro-
pose these changes. We are the first to combine Moderate
Premiums with the system of Mutual itssurance.: and, at the

risk of losing the support of a powerful class, we have ever re-
probated the system of bribery, which, under cover of a com-
mission to la-v agents, tended to lead them to sacrifice the in-
.• .

ial System
Ist, if you

right that we should also stand foremost in r
and injudicious restrictions, and in placinc, the Mitt
on the most liberal footing; and I cannot doubt tl
shall concur in the views of the Directors, and shall sandlon
the changes which have formed the subject of their anxious
_ • A A • .irrlltchnn menthe thga Irchrmr h.e+

will follow, not only to our own Institution, but to the cause of
Life Assurance in general.
A RCH znALD THOM.QON, Esq., as Convener of the Committee,
brought up the
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORS.

The year to which the present Report refers has been un-
exampled in commercial difficulty and depression, and although
the amount of new business falls somewhat short of the pre-
vious year, the Directors conceive that they have good ground
for congratulation in the results which they are enabled :to
state. . .

The number of new Policies issued, namely 430
than in any year since the commencement, with the e

ink year

the immediately precec, He amount fAs
effected by these Policies is £172,714 65., and of the
Premiums thereon, £5,199 9s. 2d.
Notwithstanding the increased number of members

knnual

high rate of mortality in the country, heightened by the ra-
vages of the epidemic which has been so fatal in many parts of
Scotland, it is gratifying to state that the amount of claims
emerging in the past year is considerably lower than was re-
ported in the preceding year. Among members assured for
capital sums thirty-one deaths have occurred, the total amount
of their Policies being £14,650. Several annuities and contin-
gent assurances have terminated favourably for the fund.
rjlefloteml
At Slat December, 1848, upwards of 3,400 policies had been
issued. The amcunt of subsisting Assurances was ..1,254,478
r'eos3p4e9r3oous3sc.onsndition of the
135., and the income from Premiums alone, exclusive of re-
venue)otrhte
then
a Accumulatedalluded
dto
oFtuhned
p,
Branches in Glasgow and London, to the Statute of Incorpora-
tion, and to the alterations on some of the details of the Deed
of Constitution referred to in the Chairman's address—pro-
ceeoine,•.]
In the sound administration of an Assurance Society, it may
be assumed that the assured should have the highest prac-
ticable security for the attainment of the object contemplated
_ .

by him

Nor ought this security to be dependent on the good
feeling or liberal conduct of t..e Directors, but should be abso-
lute, as forming an integral part of the contract between the

contingencies which involve a forfeiture of the Policy ouxht to
be as few as :s ccmpatible with the safety of the Society,: In the
older Assurance Companies, which were mostly proprietary,
such contingencies were comparatively numerous, in part ap-
pearing in specific terms on the face of the Policy, and in part
deducable, by legal inference, from its phraseology. This mul-
tiplication of forfeitures. probably arose
.in no small degree
from a desire on the part of the Com:tames to increi se their
profits by depriving the assured of the benefits for which he
had paid. No such inducement can exist on the part of So-
cieties for Mutual Assurance in which the interests of the
assurer and the assured are necessarily identical. The injus-
tice of these forfeitures, as well as their influence in deterring
from assurance, are self-evident. And it is obviously for the
interest both of the Community and of Assurance Societies

that such grounds of forfeiture should be abolished
consistent with safety. And although theabrogation, or relax
ation of some of them may. when each is considered apart,
have no great effect in promoting Life Assurance generally, or
the welfare of a particular institution, yet, when combined,
such abrogations will operate forcibly in creating the desired
feeling of security and confidence, and in giving the
a steady advance in liberal principles.
Such feelings of insecurity have of late become E

I, as far as

promise

prevalent, from the construction which, in some cases,
been given to the warranty, or condition that there shall be
forfeiture, if the proposal and declaration made at admissio
as the basis of the contract, shall contain any untrue avermen

This rule has hitherto formed a part •of the articles of A

Companies, and it has been so interpreted as to subvert all
reasonable confidence in the validity of the contract. For it
has been held that, although there be no fraud, or concealment,
or misrepresentation, and although both the applicant and his
referees acted with perfect good faith in making the averment,
yet if it should be eventually found to be "untrue." the policy
was forfeited. The most obvious, as well as most common,
illustration of the effect of this interpretation is to be be found
in the assured having, at the date of the application, the germ
of a malady which ultimately proved fatal, but of which he was
entirely ignorant at the date of his declaration, and the exist-
enceofwhich was ascertained onlyby a post mortem examination.
Here the object of the assurance would be absolutely defeated,
and the company might profit largely, while the assured was

with entire goo'd faith. The-actual state of the 1.
Wert is very unsatisfactory for the assured, and it
inn that there should be a demand for a change
if Assurance Companies. . . . Your director,

_
the exception of the averment as to age, there shall be no for-
feiture unless the averments be fradulent as well as untrue.
This appears to be the just and reasonable construction of the
contract, and that by which, notwithstanding the formerwords
of the Deed of Constitution, the directors would have governed
themselves in practice. But according to a principle already
indicated. they hold the sound course to be that the security of
the assured should be derived, not from their discretion, hut
from his right under the Deed of Constitution. This is the full

length to which the principle of indefeasibility can safely be
carried, for the doctrine maintained by some that the policy
ought to be indefeaSible even if fraud did exist, appears to be
wholly untenable, for reasons which are too clear to require
detail. The sound and just reasons for defeasibility through
fraud ought not to be disregarded. on the ground that the in-
stances in which frauds would be perpetrated would probably
be rare. The forfeiture resulting from an untrue averment as

to age has however been retained, because on that pointacctl-
rate information can be procured with ordinary care, and no
encouragement should be given to inattention to so important
a part of the basis of the contract. But the power of allowing
the correction of innocent error as to age is given to the direct-
ors by the amended rules.
In connexion with the general question of forfeitures, it has
also been thought advisable to annul the rule in two specific
ca- es, and to modify it in a third.
Hitherto forfeiture has been the result if the assured should
din by the band ofjustice, or in a duel. These forfeitures ap-
pear to have originated partly from an erroneous idea enter-
tained by Assurance Companies that it was their duty to act as

a kind of moral police, arid partly from the actual Clanger of
loss accruing from the state of the law and the unhappy usages
of society. A sanguinary code of laws multiplied capital
punishments, and a false idea of honour had rendered the
practice of duelling, of too common occurrence. But capital
punishments haves partly by the alteration of the laws, and
partly by public opinion operate ngthrough the verdicts ofjuries,
ceased to exist, except in cases of deliberate murder. Duelling
is now almost extinct, and in the few instances where it does oc-
cur the results are so seldom fatal, that, as a cause of death, it
is so minute as to be inappreciable. No countenance can justly
be held to be given to the practice by abrogating the for-
feiture; and the true tone which Assurance Companies should
now adopt is to regard duelling as an evil, the immediate ces-
sation of which, it may be safely assumed, will be accomplished
by the joint influence of principle and of the improved habits
of society.
While these forfeitures have been abrogated, another has been
modified, as involving matter of difficulty. According to a strict
view, suicide should be a cause of forfeiture only where it has
been committed with the intention of defrauding the assurers.
But the extreme difficulty of obtaining proof that such was the
object, has rendered it necessary to adopt a broaderrule, which
has varied in the regulations of different Assurance Societies.
In some there is a forfeiture if the party assured die by his
own hand, although the act would not amount to fele de se;
while, in others, it was provided that he must he held felo de
se, and, therefore, of sound mind. The former rule is ad-
verse to every dictate of justice and sound feeling. For, if
the suicide be insane, although his hand be the instrument,
his malady is the true cause of death, as much as if he died
through cholera or fever. Jn accordance with this view the
rule has been so modified as that there shall be no forfeiture
unless the deceased was of sate mind, or, in other words, wil-
fully and deliberately took away his life. In thus modifying
the forfeiture, the loss by suicide will be hardly appreciable.
From statistics which have been furnished to your directors.
by high medical authority, it appeals that the deaths by suicide
amongst the members of the community whose habits of mind

would lead them to assure are so very few that a calculation o
loss would be practicably unattainable.

Where the policy has been assigned for onerous cases, it i,
proposed that there shall be no forfeiture, as far as regards thi

•s, by the-fa

the Assured by suicide.

No argtiment is necessary to eat.

lish the propriety of tb,s alteration, whether with regard to
justice to the Policy-holders, or with a view to the commercial
value of the Policies.
This Report, with the relative States and the Report by the
Auditors, having been read by the Manager,
ROBERT CHALMERS, Esq., Publisher, submitted the fol-
lowing Motion:— _ .

"The Meeting approve of the Report now read; and furti
approve of the alterations on the Deed of Constitution a
Laws and Regulations submitted by the Directors, and adc
he Laws and Regulations so altered as the Laws and liegul