unskilled and poorly paid workers. It was recognised seven years ago-seven last January, to be precise-that at least "a third of our workers were unable, out of their earnings, to get enough food to keep themselves in proper physical efficiency," to put it in the words of a high and much quoted authority. Another authority said England was "not a decent place" for poor people to live in. Another declared we had a "wholesale right of poverty that wrung the heart and parched the throat."

On top of this we have got a tax on wages, yes, even as much as a shilling a week on some poor labourers. Tens of thousands are purchasing 7d. stamps for their cards on the mere off-chance of getting a job on the docks and similar places, for if their cards are not stamped they stand no chance.

No, not even of a job clearing snow off the streets. Within a few miles of my house-in Sheffield to be exact-on the occasion of the last great snowstorm, poor half-fed fellows waited at the corporation depot from midnight until four o'clock in the morning and then were refused on this very account.

In the shipbuilding and housebuilding trades, which come under the unemployment as well as the sickness part of the scheme, poor casual labourers are having to pay both sets of contributions, including the supposed employers' shares-total, Is. a week. Even the poor charwoman's half-crown is taxed 10 per cent, and sometimes 20 per cent.

This means still more hardship, more privation, more illhealth, more pauperism. The contention that people will be kept out of the workhouses by this scheme, as it stands, will not bear scrutiny. Let us dip a little deeper.

The better-off workers, the first class mentioned above, who are in really sound societies, and who are able to pay for something more than the unguaranteed and doubtful benefits of the state scheme; may manage to keep off the poor rates when sick or disabled. But this is precisely the class that has kept off without the scheme. They have insured and doubly insured themselves in a net-work of societies and clubs, democratically controlled, economically managed, and in which they have taken pride and pleasure.

The poorest, who have hitherto gone into the workhouse hospitals when sick, will still have to go to those institutions, for the new scheme gives them nothing that can be called insurance without an abuse of the English language. Had the funds been

pooled in one truly national scheme, with simple and economical administration, solid benefits-real insurance-could have been given.

Again, had the contributions been based on a fair taxation principle-payment according to ability-say a half penny for every half a crown of wages, there would have been far less hardship. As it is, the contributions are a cruel burden upon the poorest, and in return there is no real insurance.

I have been accused of writing bitterly of this scheme. But how can I-I who know the horrors and tragedies of poverty -write sweetly of this scheme designed by well-fed lawyers, labelled "social reform," and palmed off as "9d. for 4d"?

Many of those who have managed to get into approved societies are unable-or will be unable-to pay for benefits additional to those of the state section, which are not guaranteed, and they will be little better off in the long run than the postoffice contributors. The scheme is carefully designed to group the strong and fortunate with the strong and fortunate, and the weak and unfortunate with the weak and unfortunate.

There is no real mutual help in it. There is nothing truly national in it. There is no real insurance in it. Those who have escaped pauperism by their own voluntary thrift, and who desired to be left alone, are now half pauperised, while those who have been pauperised through misfortune are not rescued from pauperism by the new scheme.

Large numbers of our workers who have been insured against death, at least to the extent of covering the funeral costs, will now be unable to continue the premiums, taxed as they are by the compulsory scheme. The result will be that many more in the future than in the past will have to be buried by the Guardians.

One of the worst effects of the act is that it is destroying existing sickness relief agencies. Cheaply managed clubs are dissolving by the hundred, and our people are being left to the mercy of a scheme so costly that the promised benefits cannot be given after the money accumulated in the probationary period is exhausted. Just let me quote an illustration.

Tom Smith is a labouring man in a big works. Without the Insurance Act his position was this: He paid 3d. a week to the works club, 5d. a week to an outside sick and dividing society, 3d. a week to an insurance company, and Id. a week to the local

hospital. The management of the works club cost nothing, and the employers made a generous contribution every year.

The funds allowed for a regular Christmas "share-out," besides sick pay and funerals grants. The outside club was managed for a mere trifle, and its funds also allowed a yearly "shareout" besides the benefits. In return for his contributions of Is. a week, Tom Smith got these benefits-a couple of Christmas "share-outs," together amounting to more than the wages lost by the holidays; in case of sickness, £1 a week-10s. from the works club and 10s. from the other one-payment beginning with the first day; absolutely free hospital treatment for all his family as well as himself if needed; in case of the death of his wife, £10-£5 from the works club and the same from the other; in case of his own death, his widow would get £27-£12 from the insurance company, £10 from the works club, and £5 from the dividing one.

He pays

With the Insurance Act Tom's position is this: 101⁄2d. a week instead of Is. just now-that is, 4d. to the state scheme in respect of sickness, and 21⁄2d. for unemployment; 3d. to the insurance company; and id. to the hospital. The two clubs have ceased to exist. Now what are the benefits?

If Tom is off two weeks sick, and is lucky enough to get the full promised benefits, he will draw 10s. 6d. instead of £2. He is over fifty, and so is only entitled to 7s. a week, with nothing for the first half week. Instead of specialist treatment at the hospital as a matter of course, he has to go to a "panel" doctor -possibly an over-worked and inefficient one.

If his wife dies he gets nothing. If he dies his widow gets £12 instead of £27. This does not exhaust the list of losses, but enough has been mentioned to show that Tom is a loser by the 9d. for 4d. scheme.

As for the unemployment benefit a mere 7s. for two weeks if he gets it-this is simply an instrument of oppression in the hands of Tom's employers, for the benefit is not payable if he is reported for "misconduct," or leaves his work without "just cause." But this brings us to the industrial and social "ticketof-leave" system, which is the most objectionable feature of the whole scheme, but cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that this will be keenly resented when it comes to be thoroughly experienced, and will do more than anything else to drive the best of our men out of the country.

EFFECT OF THE WAR UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL INSURANCE IN

THIS COUNTRY 1

To sum up, we can safely say that the financial and economic condition of the wage-earner has improved steadily in the past few years. Wages have increased and in spite of the great rise in the cost of living, the result has been a condition approaching prosperity for the working classes. Hours of labor have been shortened, working conditions have been improved and there is practically no labor surplus. Thrift has been encouraged and developed. Finally, prohibition has begun to have its effect in helping to lift the wage-earner to a higher economic status.

It would appear that this change in the wage-earner's condition has had two important effects upon the development of the social insurance movement in this country. First, it has lessened the need for the compulsory form of social insurance and, second, it has greatly developed voluntary methods of providing the protection. With regard to the first effect, the fact must be admitted that changed conditions have greatly lessened the number of people in this country who require assistance in this form. There are, it is true, certain classes of workers whose earnings have not increased sufficiently to meet increased living costs-as, for instance, teachers, some salaried workers and certain small divisions of the wage-earning class. There is also a small class of individuals who are still in the condition of poverty or near-poverty. It must be, however, that the last mentioned either are not able to earn or have no wage-earner upon whom they can depend. Considering the wage-earning or small salary classes as a whole, however, the statement can safely be made that the part who are in need of compulsory social insurance benefits at this time is comparatively small.

Unemployment insurance, disregarding the needs of striking workmen, is almost unnecessary at this time. The necessity for old age help is lightened to some extent by the employment at good wages of many more old age workers. If one should read any one of half a dozen volumes upon the subject of social insurance, I am certain that he would agree that the class

1 From article by B. D. Flynn, President, Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Society of America. Časualty Actuarial and Statistical Society of America. Proceedings. 6, pt. 2: 169-76. May 28, 1920.

for which social insurance benefits of a compulsory character are urged does not contemplate one whose economic and financial condition is that of the wage-earner today. Those for whom social insurance benefits are urged by these writers now exist only in a comparatively small class whose condition would more nearly need charity or other voluntary assistance. If we accept Dr. Rubinow's designation of those who should be the beneficiaries of compulsory social insurance as the working class which cannot afford commercial insurance, we must admit that there are comparatively few at the present time in this division. The second, and perhaps most interesting, effect of the changed conditions is shown in the great increase in the effectiveness and diversity of the methods by which the worker can obtain protection by voluntary means. The workman has had the money to pay for his insurance and the employer, who has likewise enjoyed prosperity during these years, has been willing to help or in many cases completely finance the cost. The influenza pandemic and other developments have shown to the worker the great necessity for protection in event of sickness or death. Industrial insurance companies-both life and accident-report enormous increases in the amount of insurance issued to industrial workers. A large volume of ordinary insurance has been sold also to workmen who prior to a few years ago purchased industrial insurance. Employees mutual benefit associations conducted in connection with industrial establishments have been reorganized and membership greatly increased. Moreover, many new beneficial associations of this character have been started.

There is a further most interesting and significant development during the past few years of the voluntary means of providing social insurance benefits-namely, group insurance. This form of protection as related to life insurance is ordinarily paid for entirely by the employer and provides protection for the dependents of his employees. The general prosperity of the employer has given him the means and his desire to better his relations with his employee has given him the inclination to provide this protection. Group insurance, which did not gain much headway before 1915, has grown at a rapid rate, practically doubling in volume during the year 1919. At the end of that year the total volume of insurance in force amounted to $1,084,515,433, insuring approximately 1,350,000 employees. Production At the is going ahead in 1920 even faster than during 1919. rate at which the idea is being adopted by employers through