conferred by the Act on the Society in London;
such bodies having exclusive control over
their funds, and being thus separate and
independent.

The Act determined that the necessary
fund should be raised in the following
manner: by the payment to the Society of one
shilling from every captain, and of sixpence
from every seaman in the Merchant Service,
while in employment. These payments were
enforced by penalties. The Act also
determined that the seaman was to be relieved out
of the fund of that port to which he had most
contributed during his last five years' service
at sea. And it empowered the Society to
appoint ofncers for the collection of the
dues.

That this plan started well, and was brought
forward in perfect honesty, seems clear enough.
The ship-owners and merchants subscribed to
carry on the management, subscribed,
likewise, in seasons of distress. The institution
seems, in the first instance, to have been
considered, indeed, in great measure a charitable
one. But the proper view of it is as a
Maritime Poor Law, or rather an Assurance
Society enforced by law. The payment was
essentially a tax, of course; and if ever a
society ought to have done what it pretended,
this was just the one. The duty was to
relieve; but to relieve men from their own
funds, and from funds, too, raised by the
order of an Act of Parliament.

The history of the Society cannot be
accurately traced; for the books were destroyed
by the fire at the Royal Exchange, in 1833.
One thing is perfectly clear, that the hospital
contemplated by the Act was never erected.
Yet the institution, on the whole, seems to
have been tolerably satisfactory, till within
the last thirty years. No one can accuse
seamen generally of being an agitating class.
They went on paying away—paying to the
Fund—paying to Greenwich Hospital; and,
we will be bound to say, not knowing, in
hundreds of instances, why they were paying,
or what they were paying for.

Between 1820 and 1830 complaints began
to be made. A dim growling gradually
arose from port to port. Jack slowly awoke
to the fact that the pensions were very small
which seemed odd; that he was forced
to pay a compulsory tax for an uncertain
pension, which seemed odder still; and
that he had, all this while, been paying
sixpence to Greenwich Hospital, which he
had no just reason for paying. Jack, we say,
began to overhaul this business with some
surprise.

An "agitation" began—or, to speak more
appropriately, there was a "bit of a breeze"
—which resulted in the passing of the
Act of the fourth and fifth of William the
Fourth. This Act (firstly) transferred the
unjust sixpence from Greenwich Hospital to
the Merchant Seaman's Fund, and increased
the payment of masters to two shillings a
month; secondly, It made the Fund chargeable
with the willows and children of sailors
who had subscribed for twenty-one years, or
who were receiving relief as "worn-out" at
the time of their death. It likewise enabled
masters of "coasters" to compound for
voyage-payments by taking half-yearly ones
instead. It likewise extended the Society's
operations to Scotland and Ireland.

This Act likewise did something else. It
turned out a complete failure, and gave a
death-blow to the Society which it was
intended to reform. The clause throwing the
widows and children on the Fund, increased
the number of claimants, in a ratio quite
disproportionate to the increased amount from
the Greenwich Hospital sixpence. While it
ordered the local trustees to send reports of
their accounts to the London Corporation, it
gave that body no power to examine them.
Powerless members were supposed to rule
irresponsible trustees. Irresponsible trustees
sent up incomplete accounts; and the whole
were "shot" into Parliament just as they
came.

So much for this Act of the fourth and
fifth of William the Fourth. Let us glance
at the evils to which this unfortunate Fund
gradually became exposed.

One great evil clearly discernible by any
person of common sense, arose from the
relation of the "out-ports" to the London Board.
Abuses of "centralisation," and "every village
its own bungler"—theorists might turn a
glance here with advantage. It seems that out
of one hundred and nineteen ports, only forty-
six were managed by the London Corporation,
leaving seventy-three to "independent
trustees," appointing their "own officers,"
&c., &c. The evidence on the Committee of
Inquiry into the matter, in 1840, evolved the
fact that there was no restriction as to investment
of Trust Funds. So, at one place money
was lent to banks which failed; at another,
to harbour securities and turnpike-roads; one
witness had a hazy recollection that they
"divided the surplus balance among them,"
and so forth. But here, from Report of that
Committee, are the "evils "in brief:—

"First.—That at many of the out-ports,
pensions are not regulated with regard to the
peculiar circumstances of the applicant;
length of service or total blindness not being
taken into consideration, as all pensioners
receive the same sum.

"Second.—That the returns to Parliament
from the Merchant Seamen's Corporation are
inaccurate and imperfect.

"Third.—That the accumulated balances
have not, in many instances, been invested in
Parliamentary securities, as directed by the
ninth section of the original Act, and fourth
section of the present Act, but lent on bonds
of corporations of public companies, or lodged
in private banks.

"Fourth.—That the method of paying
pensions at the out-ports is very irregular; at