Reefs.— Barrier reefs are rare; fringing reefs are numerous, except on the E. side, which is nearly free, and there are many small isolated reefs and volcanic banks among the islands. If the reefs impede navigation they form some good harbours. The best is on the S.W. side of Vavau; another is on the N. of Tonga at Bangaimotu.

Islands. — The most considerable island is Tonga, or Tonga-tabu (the Sacred Tonga), in the S. group, about 21 by 12 miles, and 128 square miles in area, which contains the capital, Nukualofa. The vegetation is rich and beautiful, but the scenery tame, the land seldom rising above 60 feet. Eoa, 9 miles to the S.E. and nearly 12 by 5 miles, is 600 feet high, and much more picturesque, diversified by rocks and woods. Vavau, in the N. group, is next to Tonga in size, 42 miles in circumference and 300 feet high. Next to these come Nomuka and Lefuka in the Habai group, about 19 miles in circumference; Tofua, 2846 feet. Late, 1820 feet, and Kao, 5080 feet high, which are volcanic, and smaller. Vavau and the neighbouring islands are higher and more varied in contour than those to the S. The islands of the central group are numerous and very fertile. Earthquakes are frequent; from 1845 to 1857 volcanic eruptions were very violent, and islands once fertile were devastated and nearly destroyed. A new island rose from the sea, and was at once named “Wesley,” but disappeared again.

Climate.— The climate is enervating; it is damp, with heavy dews and frequent alternations of temperature, which averages 75°-77° F., though considerably higher in Vavau. Cool S.E. trade winds blow, sometimes with great violence, from April to December. During the rest of the year the winds blow from W.N. W. and N., with rain and occasional destructive hurricanes.

Fl<∕τa. — The vegetation is similar to that of Fiji, but more definitely Indo-Malayan in character; it embraces all the plants of the groups to the E., with many that are absent there. Ferns abound, some of them peculiar, and tree ferns on the higher islands. There are 4 palms, among them the Kentia of Fiji. For the rest, Gramineae, Rubiaceae, Ficoideae, Myrtaceae, Euphorbiae, Malvaceae, and Leguminosae predominate. All the usual fruit trees and cultivated plants of the Pacific are found. The most valuable timber trees are the tamanu {Calophyllum Bur- manni), milo {Thespesia populnea), futu {Barringtonia speciosa), mohemohe, tavaki, and Casuarina or iron-wood.

Fauna.— The only indigenous land mammalia are a small rat, and a few curious species of bats. The dog and the pig were no doubt introduced by man. Sheep and cattle imported of late years by Europeans do not multiply, owing to insufficient space and pasture. Of birds some 30 kinds are known, an owl being the only bird of prey; parrots, pigeons, kingfishers, honey-suckers, rails, ducks, and other water birds are numerous. There are snakes and small lizards, but no frogs or toads. Of insects there are relatively few kinds; but ants, beetles, and musquitoes abound. The fishes, of an Indo-Malay type, are varied and numerous. Turtle and sea-snakes abound, as do mollusca, of which a few are peculiar, and zoophytes.

People.— The inhabitants are, intellectually, perhaps the most advanced of the Polynesian race, and exercise an influence over distant neighbours, especially in Fiji, quite out of proportion to their numbers, which do not exceed 20,000 or 25,000. Their conquests have extended as far as Niue, or Savage Island, 200 miles to the E., and to various other islands to the N. In Cook’s time Poulaho, the principal chief, considered Samoa to be within his dominions. This pre-eminence may perhaps be due to an early infusion of Fijian blood: Pritchard {Polynesian Reminiscences) observed such crosses to be always more vigorous than the pure races in these islands; and this influence seems also traceable in the Tongan dialect, and appears to have been partially transmitted thence to the Samoan. Various customs, traditions, and names of places point to a former relation with Fiji, but Fijian influence in Tonga is insignificant compared with that of Tonga in Fiji (see Fiji). Their prior conversion to Christianity gave the people material as well as moral advantages over their neighbours, and King George, a very remarkable man, and far in advance of his people, has, during a long reign, made the most of these.

Until recently there were, as in Japan, two sovereigns; the higher of these, called Tui Tonga (Chief of Tonga), was greatly reverenced, but for at least the last 200 years has enjoyed little power. The real ruler, and the chief officers of the state, were members of the Toubo family, from which also the wife of the Tui Tonga was always chosen, whose descendants through the female line had, under the title of “tamaha,” special honours and privileges, recalling the “vasu” of Fiji. Below these came the Eiki or chiefs, and next to them the class called Matabulé. These were the hereditary counsellors and companions of the chiefs, and conveyed to the people the decisions formed at their assemblies. They also directed the national ceremonies, and preserved the popular traditions. During the long civil wars in the early part of this century, the institution of Tui Tonga lapsed, and various chiefs became independent, but they were gradually subdued, and the whole group united by King George. He commuted for a money payment the service due from the common people to their chiefs, whom he assembles in a sort of parliament, having in 1862 established a “constitutional government” Taxation is heavy: a poll tax of 4 dollars is levied and strictly enforced.

The limited extent and resources of the islands tend to minimize foreign settlement and interference, but missionary influence is, directly or indirectly, supreme. The régime is accordingly somewhat strained and severe, and restless spirits have to seek a vent for their energies in Fiji or elsewhere. Crime, however, is infrequent, and morality, always above the Polynesian average, is improving; nearly every one can read, and there is a general appearance of order and comfort. The people have strict notions of etiquette and gradations of rank; their natural independence and self-esteem is perhaps fostered by their frequent employment,as the teachers of others, for which, however, they show much aptitude; otherwise they are amiable and (especially in the upper ranks) courteous. They are arrogant, lively, inquisitive, and inclined to steal,—their attacks, in earlier days, on Europeans, when not caused by misunderstandings, being due probably to their desire to obtain property which to them was of immense value. They are brave and not devoid of energy, though the soft climate and the abundance of food are against sustained exertion or great industrial progress. They value children, and seldom practise infanticide, and cannibalism only in exceptional cases. Their women are kindly treated, and only do the lighter work. Agriculture, which is well understood, is the chief industry. They are bold and skilful sailors and fishermen; other trades, as boat and house building, carving, cooking, net and mat making, are usually hereditary. Their houses are slightly built, but the surrounding ground and roads are laid out with great care and taste.

There are some ancient stone remains here, as in the Caroline Islands, burial places (feitoka) built with great blocks, and a remarkable monument consisting of two large blocks with a transverse one, containing a circular basin in the centre.

The principal diseases are leprosy and elephantiasis, tona (the thoko of Fiji), influenza, ulcers, scrofula, consumption, and ophthalmia. Owing to the absence of swamps, fever of a severe type is rare.

The chief articles of export are cocoa-nut oil and copra; a little sugar, cotton, and coffee, the cultivation of which is encouraged by the king; and fresh provisions for ships, as yams, pigs, and poultry. The chief imports are cloth, cotton prints, hardware, mirrors, <fcc,, but these are not on the increase. Whale fishing (once extensive) is still carried on among the islands by European and American vessels.

See Cook's Voyages; Mariner’s Account of the Natives of the Tonga Islands; Dumont d’Urville’s Voyage de l' “Astrolabe”; West's Ten Years in South Central Polynesia; Brenehley’s Jottings during Cruise of H.M.S. “Curaçoas 1865; Meinicke, Die Inseln des Stillen Oceans ; Waidegrave in R. Q. S. Journal, 1850.

The origin of the friendly society is, probably in all countries, the burial club. It has been the policy of every religion, if indeed it is not a common instinct of humanity, to surround the disposal of a dead body with circumstances of pomp and expenditure, often beyond the means of the surviving relatives. The appeal for help to friends and neighbours which necessarily follows is soon organized into a system of mutual aid, that falls in naturally with the religious ceremonies by which honour is done to tho dead. Thus Archdeacon Gray tells us that in China there are burial societies, termed “long-life loan companies,” in almost all the towns and villages. Among the Greeks the tpavoι combined the religious with the provident element. From the Greeks the Romans derived their fraternities of a similar kind. The Teutons in like manner had their guilds. Whether the English friendly society owes its origin in the higher degree to the Roman or the Teutonic influence can hardly be determined. The utility of providing by combination for the ritual expenditure upon burial having been ascertained, the next step—to render mutual assistance in circumstances of distress generally—was an easy one, and we find it taken by the Greek epavoι and by our own guilds. Another modification—that the societies should consist not so much of neighbours as of persons having the same occupation— soon arises; and this is the germ of our trade unions and our city companies in their original constitution. The interest, however, that these enquiries possess is mainly antiquarian. The legal definition of a friendly society quoted above points to an organization more complex than those of the ancient fraternities and guilds, and proceeding upon different principles. It may be that the one has grown out of the other. The common element of a provision for a contingent event by a joint contribution is in both; but the friendly society alone has attempted to define with precision what is the risk against which it intends to provide, and what should be the contributions of the members to meet that risk.

It would be curious to endeavour to trace how, after the suppression of the religious guilds in the 16th century, and the substitution of an organized system of relief by the poor law of Elizabeth for the more voluntary and casual means of relief that previously existed, the present system of friendly societies grew up. The modern friendly society, particularly in rural districts, clings with fondness to its annual feast and procession to church, its procession of all the brethren on the occasion of the funeral of one of them, and other incidents which are almost obviously survivals of the customs of mediaeval guilds. The last recorded guild was in existence in 1628, and there are records of friendly societies as early as 1634 and 1639. The connecting links, however, cannot be traced. With the exception of a society in the port of Borrowstounness on the Firth of Forth, no existing friendly society is known to be able to trace back its history beyond a date late in tho 17th century, and no records remain of any that might have existed in the latter half of the 16th century or the greater part of the 17th One founded in 1666 was extant in 1850, but it has since ceased to exist. This is not so surprising as it might appear. Documents which exist in manuscript only are much less likely to have been preserved since the invention of printing than they were before; and such would be the simple rules and r words of any society that might have existed during this interval—if, indeed, many of them kept records at all. How usual is it for a voluntary society of any kind to die away with the generation of men among whom it was founded! On the whole, it seems probable therefore that the friendly society is a lineal descendant of the ancient guild—the idea never having wholly died out, but having been kept up from generation to generation in a succession of small and scattered societies.

At the same time, it seems probable that the friendly society of the present day owes its revival to a great extent to the Protestant refugees of Spitalfields, one of whose societies was founded in 1703, and has continued for 176 years among descendants of the same families, whose names proclaim their Norman origin. This society has distinguished itself by the intelligence with which it has adapted its machinery to the successive modifications of the law, and has very recently completely reconstructed its rules under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Acts, 1875 and 1876.

Another is the society of Lintot, founded in London in 1708, in which the office of secretary has for more than hilf a century been filled by persons of the name of Levesque, one of whom has published a translation of its original rules. No one was to be received into the society who was not a member, or the descendant of a member, of the church of Lintot, of recognized probity, a good Protestant, and well-intentioned towards the queen [AnneJ and faithful to the Government of the country. No one was to be admitted below the age of eighteen, or who had not been received at holy communion, and become member of a church. A member should not have a claim to relief during his first year’s membership, but if he fell sick within the year, a collection should be made for him among the members. This society has only 50 members, but its funds exceed £2000. The foreign names still borne by a large proportion of the members show that the connexion with descendants of the refugees is maintained.

The example of providence given by these societies was so largely followed that Sir George Rose’s Act in 1793 recognized the existence of numerous societies, and provided encouragement for them in various ways, as well as relief from taxation to an extent which in those days must have been of great pecuniary value, and exemption from removal under the poor law. The benefits offered by this statute were readily accepted by the societies, and the vast number of societies which speedily became enrolled shows that Sir George Rose’s Act met a real public want. In the county of Middlesex alone nearly a thousand societies were enrolled within a very few years after the passing of the Act, and the number in some other counties was almost as great. The societies then formed were nearly all of a like kind,— small clubs, in which the feature of good fellowship was in the ascendant, and that of provident assurance for sickness and death merely accessory. This is indicated by one provision which occurs in many of the early enrolled rules, viz., that the number of members shall be limited to 61, 81, or 101, as the case may be. The odd 1 which occurs in these numbers probably stands for the president or secretary, or is a contrivance to ensure a clear majority. Several of these old societies are still in existence, and can point to a prosperous career extending over (in some cases) more than 100 years—a prosperity based rather upon good luck than upon scientific calculation. Founded among small tradesmen or persons in the way to thrive, the claims for sickness were only made in cases where the sickness was accompanied by distress, and even the funeral allowance was not always demanded.

The societies generally not being established upon any scientific principle, those which met with this prosperity were the exception to the rule; and accordingly the cry that friendly societies were failing in all quarters was as great in 1819 as in 1869. A writer of that time speaks of the instability of friendly societies as “universal”; and the general conviction that this was so resulted in the passing of the Act of 1819, 59 Geo. III. c. 128. It recites that “the habitual reliance of poor persons upon parochial relief, rather than upou their own industry, tends to the moral deterioration of the people and to the accumulation of heavy burthens upon parishes; and it is desirable, with a view as well to the reduction of the assessment made for the relief of the poor as to the improvement of the habits of the people, that encouragement should be afforded to persons desirous of making provision for themselves or their families out of the fruits of their own industry. By the contributions of the savings of many persons to one common fund the most effectual provision may be made for the casualties affecting all the contributors; and it is therefore desirable to afford further facilities and additional security to persons who may be willing to unite in appropriating small sums from time to time to a common fund for the purposes aforesaid, and it is desirable to protect such persons from the effects of fraud or miscalculation.” This preamble went on to recite that the provisions of preceding Acts had been found insufficient for these purposes, and great abuses had prevailed in many societies established under their authority. By this statute a friendly society was defined as “an institution, whereby it is intended to provide, by contribution, on the principle of mutual insurance, for the maintenance or assistance of the contributors thereto, their wives or children, in sickness, infancy, advanced age, widowhood, or any other natural state or contingency, whereof the occurrence is susceptible of calculation by way of average.” It will be seen that this Act dealt exclusively with the scientific aspect of the societies, and had nothing to say to the element of good fellowship. Rules and tables were to be submitted by the persons intending to form a society to the justices, who, before confirming them, were to satisfy themselves that the contingencies which the society was to provide against were within the meaning of the Act, and that the formation of the society would be useful and beneficial, regard being had to the existence of other societies in the same district. No tables or rules connected with calculation were to be confirmed by the justices until they had been approved by two persons at least, known to be professional actuaries or persons skilled in calculation, as fit and proper, according to the most correct calculation of which the nature of the case would admit. The justices in quarter sessions were also by this Act authorized to publish general rules for the formation and government of friendly societies within their county. The practical effect of this statute in requiring that the societies formed under it should be established on sound principles does not appear to have been as great as might have been expected. The justices frequently accepted as “persons skilled in calculation” local schoolmasters and others who had no real knowledge of the technical difficulties of the subject, while the restrictions upon registry served only to increase the number of societies established without becoming registered. In 1829 the law relating to friendly societies was entirely reconstructed by the 10 Geo. IV. c. 56, and a barrister was appointed under that Act to examine the rules of societies, and ascertain that they were in conformity to law and to the provisions of the Act. The barrister so appointed was Mr John Tidd Pratt; and no account of friendly societies would be complete that did not do justice to the remarkable public service rendered by this gentleman. For forty years, though he had by statute really very slight authority over the societies, his name exercised the widest influence, and the numerous reports and publications by which he endeavoured to impress upon the public mind sound principles of management of friendly societies, and to expose those which were managed upon unsound principles, made him a terror to evil doers. On the other hand, he lent with readiness the aid of his legal knowledge and great mental activity to assisting well-intentioned societies in coming within the provisions of the Acts, and thus gave many excellent schemes a legal organization.

By the Act of 1829, in lieu of the discretion as to whether the formation of the proposed society would be useful and beneficial, and the requirement of the actuarial certificate to the tables, it was enacted that the justices were to satisfy themselves that the tables proposed to be used might be adopted with safety to all parties concerned. This provision, of course, became a dead letter, and was repealed in 1834 by 4 and 5 Wm. IV. c. 40. Thenceforth, societies were free to establish themselves upon what conditions and with what rates they chose, provided only they satisfied the barrister that the rules were “calculated to carry into effect the intention of the parties framing them,” and were “in conformity to law.” In 1846, by 9 and 10 Vic. c. 27, the barrister certifying the rules was constituted “Registrar of Friendly Societies,” and the rules of all societies were brought together under his custody. An actuarial certificate was to be obtained before any society could be registered “for the purpose of securing any benefit dependent on the laws of sickness and mortality.” In 1850 the Acts were again repealed and consolidated with amendments (13 and 14 Vic. c. 115). Societies were divided into two classes, “certified” and “registered.” The certified societies were such as obtained a certificate to their tables by an actuary possessing a given qualification, who was required to set forth the data of sickness and mortality upon which he proceeded, and the rate of interest assumed in the calculations. All other societies were to be simply registered. Very few societies were constituted of the “certified” class. The distinction of classes was repealed and the Acts were again consolidated in 1855 by 18 and 19 Vic. c. 63. Under this Act, which admitted of all possible latitude to the framers of rules of societies, 21,875 societies were registered, a large number of them being lodges or courts of affiliated orders, and the Act continued in force till the end of 1875.

The law which now regulates friendly societies in Great Britain was passed in 1875 (38 and 39 Vic. c. 60) and amended in 1876 (39 and .40 Vic. c. 32). It still bears the permissive and elastic character which marked the more successful of the previous Acts, but it provides ampler means to members of ascertaining and remedying defects of management and of restraining fraud. The business of registry is under the control of a chief registrar, who has an assistant registrar in each of the three countries, with an actuary. It is his duty, among other things to require from every society a return in proper form each year of its receipts and expenditure, funds, and effects; a return once every five years of the sickness and mortality it has experienced; and also once every five years a valuation of its assets and liabilities. Upon the application of a certain proportion of the members, varying according to the magnitude of the society, the chief registrar may appoint an inspector to examine into its affairs, or may call a general meeting of the members to consider and determine any matter affecting its interests.

These are powers which have been used with excellent effect. Cases have occurred in which fraud has been detected and punished by this means that could not probably have been otherwise brought to light. In others a system of mismanagement has been exposed and effectually checked. The power of calling special meetings has enabled societies to remedy defects in their rules, to remove officers guilty of misconduct, <kc,, where the procedure prescribed by the rules was for some reason or other inapplicable. Upon an application of a like proportion of members the chief registrar may, if he finds that the funds of a society are insufficient to meet the existing claims thereon, or that the rates of contribution are insufficient to cover the benefits assured (upon which he consults his actuary), order the society to be dissolved, and direct how its funds are to be applied.

This legislation was the result of the labours of a Royal Commission of high authority, presided over by Sir Stafford Northcote, which sat from 1870 to 1874, and prosecuted an exhaustive inquiry into the organization and condition of the various classes of friendly societies. Their reports occupy more than a dozen large bluebooks. They divide registered friendly societies into 13 classes.

The first class includes the affiliated societies or “orders,” such as the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Rechabites, Druids, &c. These societies have a central body, either situated in some large town, as in the case of the Manchester Unity, or moving from place to place, as in that of the Foresters. Under this central body, the country is (in most cases) parcelled out into districts, and these districts again consist each of a number of independent branches, called “lodges,” “courts,” “tents,” or “divisions,” having a separate fund administered by themselves, but contributing also to a fund under the control of the central body. The Manchester Unity has (1878) 456 districts, 4121 lodges, 526,802 members, and £4,325,000 funds; the Order of Foresters 287 districts, 4414 courts, 521,416 members, £2,497,000 funds. It may give an idea of the great utility of these societies to mention that the various courts of Foresters paid their members 3,197,366 days’ sick pay in a single year, and paid burial money on 4666 deaths. Besides these two great orders, there are about forty smaller affiliated bodies, each having more than 1000 members; and the affiliated form of society appears to have great attraction. Indeed, in the colony of Victoria, Australia, all the existing friendly societies are of this class. The orders have their “secrets,” but these, it may safely be said, are of a very innocent character, and merely serve the purpose of identifying a member of a distant branch by his knowledge of the “grip,” and of the current password, &c. Indeed they are now so far from being “secret societies” that their meetings are attended by reporters and the debates published in the newspapers, and the Order of Foresters has recently passed a wise resolution expunging from its publications all affectation of mystery.

The second class is made up of “general societies,” principally existing in London, of which the Commissioners enumerated 8 with nearly 60,000 members, and funds amounting to a quarter of a million; these societies are managed at a cost, on the average, of about 10 per cent, of their income.

The third class includes the “county societies,” of which there were 11, 10 of which had £221,955 funds and 29,036 members, and 30 others approaching that type. These societies have been but feebly supported by those for whose benefit they are instituted, having all exacted high rates of contribution, in order to secure financial soundness.

Class 4, “local town societies,” is a very...