In the reports ov life insurance companies ther is offen found a statement to the efect that the value ov the liabilities has been calculated by a tabl which exhibits a hiher rate ov mortality than has been experienst. The inference sugested, and aparently intended to be drawn, must be that such a cours is more prudent than a valuation made by a tabl that woud represent with tolerabl accuracy the mortality experienst. In other words, it is implied that, the hiher the rate ov mortality exhibited by the tabl uzed in the valuation, the greater wil be the values of the policies obtaind by its use. This may at first siht seem to be a very reasonabl conclusion, but those who hav made numerical comparisons between the values ov policies as givn by different tabls, wil not need to be told that it is wholly eroneos. This is by no means a new observation. Remarks to this efect wil be found in a paper by Mr. Jellicoe in the Assurance Magazine, vol. 3, p. 186: see also a paper in the same volume, p. 143, by the late Mr. Hopf. More recently the point is wel bro't out in Mr. Manly's Messenger Prize Essay, vol. 14, p. 304.

Often as the method of estimating the liabilities of life assurance companies has been discussed by the Institute, there seem to me to be some reasons why it will not be entirely useless to devote another evening to the subject. The Act of 1870 has now been sufficiently long in force that, with one or two exceptions, all the existing companies have furnished the particulars required by the 5th and 6th schedules, which give, in considerable detail, the methods and results of their valuations. A tolerably minute examination of these documents, as they have from time to time appeared, has satisfied me that much difference of practice still exists even among those who would consider themselves in agreement on the main principles; and the 105th number of the Journal contains a paper by Mr. McCandlish, which, being an address ex cathedrâ to the Edinburgh students from the President of the Actuarial Society, may have an authority to which, as it seems to me, some of its doctrines are hardly entitled, and which therefore should not pass altogether unchallenged.

After I had written the first draft of an article on the above subject, my attention was drawn to two articles by Mr. King “On Mortality amongst Assured Lives.” I had felt much diffidence in saying anything having the appearance of adverse criticism of the valuable works issued by the Institute; but now that I observe that Mr. King's articles, which are in some measure founded on opinions similar to my own, have been received with marked approval, I feel more confidence in stating plainly what appear to me defects in the HM and HM(5) Tables. But whatever I may say respecting them, I trust that my assurance will be accepted that I entertain feelings of the highest respect for the eminent knowledge and ability of the distinguished persons concerned in their preparation, with the most hearty and grateful appreciation of the benefits which they have conferred on the profession. I need hardly say that nearly all that I know of the subject of mortality amongst assured lives, is due to them.