-
Articles/Ads
Article GENERAL MEETINGS. ← Page 5 of 14 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
General Meetings.
NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION . —A general meeting was held at the London Tavern , on the 18 th January , for the purpose of considering the propriety of altering the society ' s third rule , and other business . Mr . Lucas ( Chairman of the Directors ) presided . Mr . LOCKHART , of Dunstable , proposed that the following clause in the third rule be amended , viz .: — " That two Directors , not being trusteesor the present medical Directorsshall annually retire blot or
, , y rotation , such Directors to be ineligible for re-election for two years . " He would move that the rule be so altered as to render the retiring directors eligible for immediate re-election . The members would retain all their privileges , with this advantage , that when they had good and efficient directors , they would have the power of securing a continuance of their services . Mr . H . Coles Brown seconded the motion ; and Mr . Thomas Burr
, of Rochester , supported it . Mr . JAMES RICHARDSON moved as an amendment that the rule should be allowed to stand as it was . He thought the endeavour to change it looked like an attempt on the part of the Directors to retain their situations for life , and 120 / . or 130 / . a year might be no despicable matter . Mr . BALLAM seconded the amendment . Mr . R . GAMMAN ( one of the Auditors ) had come to the conclusion ,
for reasons he gave , that it was highly desirable to alter the rule . If they changed the old Directors , they would lose the benefits of their past experience . Great names had been recommended to be got , but great names could not devote sufficient attention to the interests of the
institution ; and what they wanted was working Directors , who would devote their energies to the personal supervision of the society ' s concerns . Mr . SHAW was in favour of the amendment , because he thought the opening for two new Directors every year threw a popular life , and the healthful spirit of competition , into the institution . Mr . C . ANSELL ( the Actuary ) did not attribute the great prosperity of the institution to the mere fact that the Directors could not be re-elected until an interval of two years had elapsed . They would find that the
increase of business was mainly owing to the bonuses , which operated like tonics . The bonus in 1842 had the effect of doubling their members , and their business had similarly increased in consequence of their 1847 division . The question was a much narrower one than many persons seemed to think ; it was this—the old Directors possessed knowledge which neiv Directors had to acquire ; and the members had to consider whether they could intrust themselves with the power of electing
or rejecting those who were commended by past services . Mr . GORING did not consider the proposed alteration would cramp the power or diminish the privileges of the members ; on the contrary , it would give them the option of doing what the rule debarred them from doing . After some further discussion the question was put , when only about ten hands were held up against the alteration of the rule . The motion
was accordingly declared carried , by a very large majority , by the Chairman ; after which it was proposed , and unanimously resolved , that the clauses of Assurance effected by the institution should be inserted in the society ' s rules . Thanks were then voted to the Chairman , and the proceedings terminated .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
General Meetings.
NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION . —A general meeting was held at the London Tavern , on the 18 th January , for the purpose of considering the propriety of altering the society ' s third rule , and other business . Mr . Lucas ( Chairman of the Directors ) presided . Mr . LOCKHART , of Dunstable , proposed that the following clause in the third rule be amended , viz .: — " That two Directors , not being trusteesor the present medical Directorsshall annually retire blot or
, , y rotation , such Directors to be ineligible for re-election for two years . " He would move that the rule be so altered as to render the retiring directors eligible for immediate re-election . The members would retain all their privileges , with this advantage , that when they had good and efficient directors , they would have the power of securing a continuance of their services . Mr . H . Coles Brown seconded the motion ; and Mr . Thomas Burr
, of Rochester , supported it . Mr . JAMES RICHARDSON moved as an amendment that the rule should be allowed to stand as it was . He thought the endeavour to change it looked like an attempt on the part of the Directors to retain their situations for life , and 120 / . or 130 / . a year might be no despicable matter . Mr . BALLAM seconded the amendment . Mr . R . GAMMAN ( one of the Auditors ) had come to the conclusion ,
for reasons he gave , that it was highly desirable to alter the rule . If they changed the old Directors , they would lose the benefits of their past experience . Great names had been recommended to be got , but great names could not devote sufficient attention to the interests of the
institution ; and what they wanted was working Directors , who would devote their energies to the personal supervision of the society ' s concerns . Mr . SHAW was in favour of the amendment , because he thought the opening for two new Directors every year threw a popular life , and the healthful spirit of competition , into the institution . Mr . C . ANSELL ( the Actuary ) did not attribute the great prosperity of the institution to the mere fact that the Directors could not be re-elected until an interval of two years had elapsed . They would find that the
increase of business was mainly owing to the bonuses , which operated like tonics . The bonus in 1842 had the effect of doubling their members , and their business had similarly increased in consequence of their 1847 division . The question was a much narrower one than many persons seemed to think ; it was this—the old Directors possessed knowledge which neiv Directors had to acquire ; and the members had to consider whether they could intrust themselves with the power of electing
or rejecting those who were commended by past services . Mr . GORING did not consider the proposed alteration would cramp the power or diminish the privileges of the members ; on the contrary , it would give them the option of doing what the rule debarred them from doing . After some further discussion the question was put , when only about ten hands were held up against the alteration of the rule . The motion
was accordingly declared carried , by a very large majority , by the Chairman ; after which it was proposed , and unanimously resolved , that the clauses of Assurance effected by the institution should be inserted in the society ' s rules . Thanks were then voted to the Chairman , and the proceedings terminated .