Poor-law made the practice of thrift possible. In many quarters law and custom have combined to prevent its growth among rural labourers who had been taught to live on the rates—to extract as much permanent relief as they could out of a nearly bankrupt body of ratepayers and to do in return as little hard work as was possible. The condition of things was then completely changed. The industrious man had a little better chance, and the idlers were put to the rout and, much to their disgust, forced to work, or at any rate to attempt to do so. Even the best benefit societies remained under a cloud and, till Parliament later on took the matter in hand, worked under great disadvantages. Frauds were committed; funds were made away with, and no redress could be obtained. Thrifty habits were discouraged on every side.
All England is ringing with the praise of thrift. Not Scotland, for a Scotchman is born thrifty—just as he is said to be born not able to understand a joke. And as to Irishmen, it is to be questioned whether they have such a word in their dictionary at all. No class of mutual thrift institution has flourished there, says the latest writer on the subject, Rev. Francis Wilkinson; and mostly our earlier thrift societies were started by a landlord for his own benefit, rather than for that of the members. Those were drinking days, says Mr.
Wilkinson. The public-house was not only the home, but the cause of their existence; and as an evidence of the value of benefit clubs to the publican, we find the establishment of such advertised as one of the assets when the house is put up for sale. Then there was the competition of rival houses. The “Blue Boar” must have its “friendly” as well as the “Black Lion” over the way; and thus the number of clubs, as well as of public-houses, increased beyond the requirements of the village or parish, and deterioration was the natural result; and this was the humorous way in which the past generation acquired the habit of thrift, of which nowadays we hear so much.
It is very hard to be thrifty. He who would become so has to fight against tremendous odds. Let me illustrate my case by my own unpleasant experiences. I had a friend who was a mining broker. One day I had been studying the late Captain Burton’s valuable work on Brazil, which seemed to me a country of boundless resources and possibilities. The next day when I got into the train to go to town, there was my friend the broker. I talked with him about Brazil in a rather enthusiastic strain. He agreed with everything I said. There was no such place in the world, and I could not do better than buy a few General Brazilian shares. They were low just at that time, but if I were to buy some I should be
certain to make ten shillings a share in a month, at any rate, and by a fortunate coincidence he had a few hundreds he had bought for an investment, and as a friend he would let me have a few. I am not a speculating man. The fact is I have never had any cash to spare; but was tempted, as our Mother Eve was by the old serpent, and I fell. I bought a few General Brazilians. As soon as I had paid for them there came a call for a shilling a share, and a little while after another call, and so it went on till the General Brazilians went down to nothing. Shortly after this my friend left the neighbourhood. He had got all his acquaintances to invest in shares, and the neighbourhood was getting unpleasant for him. He began life in a humble way; he now lives in a fine place and keeps his carriage, but he gets no more money out of me, though occasionally he did send me a circular assuring me of an ample fortune if I would only buy certain shares which he recommended. I may have stood in my own light, as he told me I did, but I have bought no more mining shares since.
Again, take the case of life assurance. Every one ought to insure his life when he marries. Like a wise man, I did, but like a fool I took the advice of a friend who recommended me a society which paid him a commission for his disinterested and friendly advice. After a time it declared a bonus which, instead of receiving
in cash, I thought it better to add to the principal. In a few years, that insurance society was wound up. After the affairs of the company had been carefully investigated at an enormous and surely unnecessary expense by a distinguished firm of City accountants, another company took over our policies, marking them about a fourth of their original value. My bonus was not even added to my principal; and now, being too old to go anew into a life assurance company, a paltry sum is all I can look forward to to leave my family on my decease. It is really very ludicrous the little games played by some of these insurance companies. It is not every one who raises the cry of thrift who is anxious to promote that saving virtue. It is too often the case that even the professed philanthropist, feeling how true it is that charity begins at home, never troubles himself to let it go any further. We have Scriptural authority for saying that one who neglects to provide for his own house has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. We are abundantly justified, then, in looking after the cash. A great philosopher remarked that there are times when a man without money in his pocket may find himself in a peculiarly unpleasant position. It was, I think, Hazlitt who said it, and he was right. Be that as it may, it is a melancholy truth many of us have learned by experience. I can send
to gaol the poor wretch who in the street picks my pocket, but the company promoter who offers me a premium for thrift, and then robs me of my all, or as much of it as he can lay hold of, gets off scot free. Friendly societies, as they are called, are on this account often to be much suspected. The story of one that smashed up is interesting and amusing. The chief promoter early in life displayed his abilities as a rogue. He became a letter-carrier, only to lose his situation and undergo a severe term of imprisonment for stealing letters. Subsequently, he entered the service of an Assurance Company, but had eventually to be dismissed. Then he got a new character, and started afresh as a Methodist preacher. Afterwards he founded a friendly society, by means of which he raised large funds for the benefit of himself, and apparently no one else.
Let me give another case out of my own personal experience. Last year I received a prospectus of a company that was formed to purchase the business of a firm which had an immense number of shops engaged in carrying on a business in various parts of the metropolis. A firm of accountants reported that the gross returns of the firm in 1894 amounted to over £103,000, and it was added that the profit of the company would admit of annual dividends at the rate of nine per cent., and allow of £1,300 for the expenses of management and
reserve. It was further shown that a considerable saving of expenditure could be effected, which would ensure an additional dividend of three per cent. Well, the thing looked so feasible that I wrote for and obtained five shares, thinking I had done a sensible thing. A few months afterward a West-end firm offered me a large number of shares at par, stating that the company were about to pay a dividend, and that the profit on the year’s earnings would be some fifty per cent. However, I did not accept the promising offer, and I thought no more of the matter. In January of this year a gentleman sent me a circular offering me shares at a shilling under par, assuring me that the company was about to pay a dividend of ten per cent. in the course of the next week. Again I declined to increase my holding, and it is well I did, as no dividend has been paid, although the circular stated that the business was of “a most profitable nature,” and “sure to considerably increase in value in the course of a few months.” Since then a Manchester firm has twice written to me to offer the pound shares at sixteen shillings each. These tempting offers I have declined, and the promised dividend seems as far off as ever. Surely outside brokers who put forward such lying statements ought to be amenable to law, as well as the promoters of the company itself. To my great disgust, since the above was