whole argument, and says so much with reference to both institutions which is no less true now than then, that we feel confident our readers will not object to have it reproduced here.[47] "Benefit Societies have done much good; but they are attended with some disadvantages. In particular, the frequent meetings of the members occasion the loss of much time, and frequently of a good deal of money spent in entertainments.[48] The stated payments must be regularly made; otherwise, after a certain time, the member loses the benefit of all that he has formerly paid. Nothing more than the stated payments can be made, however easily the member might be able at the moment to add a little to his store. Frequently the value of the chances on which the societies are formed, is ill calculated; in which case, either the contributors do not receive an equivalent for their payments, or too large an allowance is given at first, which brings on the bankruptcy of the institution. Frequently the sums are embezzled by artful men, who, by imposing on the inexperience of the members, get themselves elected into offices of trust. The benefit is distant and contingent; each member not having benefit from his contributions in every case, but only in the case of his falling into the situations of distress provided for by the society. And the whole concern is so complicated, that many have hesitation in embarking in it their hard-earned savings. With such disadvantages who would not rather choose the simple, secure mode of investment offered by the bank--free (as the banks were at that time) from them all? But if they must have the Benefit Society, with its contingent and distant benefits, working men should not rest here. Thousands of the working classes could well afford to pay their weekly sums to secure their sick and burial money, and yet have enough to spare to provide against the other rainy days of their life. A poor man's savings are continually liable, while in his own custody, not simply to professional thieves, but also--and there is far more danger of it--to be pilfered by himself and his family. They are often lost by being intrusted to improper hands; they are still oftener worse than lost in the ale-house or the gin-palace, and the money which properly taken care of might give the means for occasional enjoyments of a harmless kind, providing for the legitimate wants of his children, or which might support all during the intermissions of employment to which all are exposed, may be worse than squandered."