Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Dilapidations Act, 1871, and to provide for the Insurance against Fire of Buildings belonging to the Church of England.' Presented by Lord EGERTON. Ordered to be printed July 16, 1872.

3. House of Commons' Ecclesiastical Buildings Fire Insurance. A Bill to provide for the Insurance against Fire of Buildings belonging to Ecclesiastical Benefices in England and Wales. Proposed and brought in by Mr. LEIGHTON, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Mr. WHITWELL, February 4, 1878. 4. The same, as amended by the Select Committee, June 28, 1878.

5. Reports of the Committees to the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury on the Law of Ecclesiastical Dilapidations, February 6, 1872, and May 3, 1876.

6. Report from the Select Committee (Mr. Bouverie's) on Queen Anne's Bounty Board. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 1868.

7. Report from the Select Committee (Mr. Goldney's) on the Law of Ecclesiastical Dilapidations. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 1876.

8. History of Queen Anne's Bounty. By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON.

WE heartily wish that Parliament would show as much sagacity in dealing with Church as with general questions. The great majority of members of Parliament are Churchmen as well as landowners or citizens. The clergy like many other classes demand greater freedom from parliamentary interference, and draw the same distinction between the questions which ought to be handled in Parliament, and those which ought to be left under their own control. Believing as we do that the Church, and not Parliament, should initiate legislation on such matters as religious worship, ritual, doctrine, Church extension, and the like, we at the same time recognise the fact that there are other quasi-ecclesiastical matters which cannot be settled without Parliament. In order to obtain freedom in the one case, and good management in the other, Churchmen should not overlook the necessity of a complete parliamentary organisation. The Church party put forth their utmost efforts to save the Irish Church. They were defeated. Untaught as yet, however, by the experience of past defeat, they still seem inclined to act as though they thought that what is everybody's business is sure to be somebody's. They are inclined to trust too implicitly to the ability and loyalty of those who at elections repeat the shibboleth of Church

and State.' They are satisfied to remain without a regular parliamentary machinery of their own. Convocation, Church conferences, and synods do not appear to have the slightest influence on any Government. Those in the House of Commons who appear to be well affected towards the Church are inclined to overlook details, and act as though at the present moment there were only two Church questions before them, The Burials Question' and 'Disestablishment.' We repeat that there is either real ground for alarm, or else that there is real want of leadership. It is our belief that a better fight will be maintained on both these questions by a contemporaneous consideration of others; and that the habit of acting together on other kindred subjects will enable Churchmen to work together better whenever the main points of their position may be attacked.

Passing from these general observations, it is our object in this article to discuss the issues involved in one of those minor questions which affect the clergy, that is to say, the insurance of ecclesiastical buildings against loss by fire.

The subject has long been familiar to a certain number of active-minded clergymen and laymen, but it is clear that it has never engaged general attention. Parliament would be a very unwise and a very unpopular assembly if it passed laws, however good in themselves, which were not demanded in an unmistakable manner by those whose interests they touched. Successful legislation requires two ingredients--a popular impulse and a sound principle. So, if those, for whose special benefit a new law is proposed, do not take special heed to the legislation, few others are likely to do so, and no Parliament is likely to trouble itself with the furtherance of the work.

That it is an act of prudence almost amounting to a moral obligation for a clergyman to insure the buildings belonging to his benefice, will generally be admitted. Up to the year 1871 considerable discretion in this respect was permitted, and except in those cases where money had been borrowed on the security of a living, an incumbent was under no positive obligation to insure. In that year, however, was passed an Act of Parliament known by the name of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, the 54th section of which runs as follows:

'Every incumbent shall insure, and during his incumbency keep insured, in the joint names of himself and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, the house of residence, and farm, and other buildings, outbuildings, and offices belonging to his benefice (including the chancel, when liable to repair it), against loss or damage by fire, in some Insurance Office, or Offices, to be selected by himself, to the

satisfaction of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, in at least three-fifths of the value thereof; and he shall cause the receipt for the premium for such insurance for each year to be exhibited at the first visitation of the Bishop or Archdeacon next ensuing after the same shall become payable.'

And the 55th section :

'In case of fire, if the Office shall elect to pay the sum insured, instead of causing the buildings to be reinstated at the expense of the office, the sum so paid shall be paid to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and dealt with as moneys standing to the credit of the dilapidation account.'

In the following year (1872), a Committee of the Lower House of the Convocation of the Southern Province was appointed to consider what alterations should be made in the law relating to the Dilapidations of Ecclesiastical Buildings. The members who formed the Committee were the Prolocutor, the Archdeacons of Taunton, Ely, and Berks, the Rev. Lord Alwyne Compton, the Rev. Messrs. Dayman, Fagan, Hopkins, Howell, Sumner, Tatham, Woodgate, and Gibbs (Chairman). In their Report, amongst other valuable suggestions on the main subject of their consideration, they made the following observations on fire insurance :—

It is

'As a class, ecclesiastical buildings are less liable to be burnt down than other buildings, and consequently form one of the most profitable classes of insurance for the Fire Insurance Offices, and yet the same premium is charged for them as for other buildings. credibly reported that owners of many houses, instead of insuring them in any Fire Office, become their own insurers, by annually putting aside, or at least saving themselves from paying the amount of premium which the Fire Office would charge. In the event of fire, this saving is available for restoring the damaged building, and the owner has the profit which otherwise would belong to the Office. Your Committee are of opinion that the Church might act as such owner of all its buildings and become its own insurance office. Your Committee therefore recommend that legal provision be sought to enable the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to act in this matter in behalf of the Church, and to undertake the insurance of all ecclesiastical buildings and their contents against damage by fire, in a method similar to that which is now in operation in connexion with the Fire Offices. Your Committee further recommend that all new incumbents be obliged to insure with the said Governors. The premiums might be paid by the clergy as tenths now are, and be recoverable by the Governors in the same way. The facilities which the office of the Bounty Board affords for this proposed work in connexion with that which it now performs, no less than the kind of property insured, justify the Committee in expecting that these in

surances might be effected at a less percentage, and also that there would result a profit income applicable to increase the fund for the augmentation of small livings, or to pay the expenses of the surveyors and registrars under the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871, or for other Church purposes. The provision here recommended would be especially beneficial to the clergy by diminishing both the trouble and the expense occasioned by the 55th section of the Act; for, as the Governors would know the fact of insurance and could secure the payment of the premium, a proviso might be added that the receipt of the premium of insurance be not exhibited at the visitation, when the insurance has been effected at the office of the Bounty Board. The Governors might also be empowered to accept the insurance of the whole fabric of the church on the application of the churchwardens and others.'

This proposal, explained and recommended as above, was formulated into a Bill and introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Egerton, that same year. The Bill was read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee, and amended by the Committee without limiting the principle upon which it was based. It was not, however, proceeded with further in the session of 1872.

In the year 1876, we find the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury again taking up the matter, and referring it to another and larger Committee. The Report of the Committee runs in the following words :

'Whether the Church of England, by means of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, should become its own fire insurance office, is another branch of the inquiry now before your Committee. In most of the replies made to their inquiries, this proposal was approved. Some, indeed, approved it subject to no fees being called into existence, but others gave it their unconditional support.'

The Committee proceed to recommend that another Bill should be introduced into Parliament, and the profits of fire insurance should be applied

' in aid of the dilapidation account of the several benefices in proportion to the amount of the several premiums received from those benefices.'

Partly in consequence of this Report, but perhaps more in consequence of the deep dissatisfaction felt by the clergy with the operation of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, Mr. Goldney, in 1876, moved in the House of Commons for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject. In an exhaustive Report, the Committee give the weight of their authority in favour of a scheme which had occurred to more than one person, and which was powerfully supported by the

Bishop of Peterborough, which would include, in one annual payment either to a Diocesan Board, or to Queen Anne's Bounty Board, the charges for dilapidations and the premiums for insurance. By this simple method, one payment, annually made, would secure the incumbent from loss arising either by decay of time, or by accident, or by fire.

It was earnestly hoped that the session of 1877 would not have passed away without a Bill founded upon the report of Mr. Goldney's committee being introduced by the Government. Representations had been addressed to the Home Secretary, and the clergy anticipated relief. No Bill, however, was brought forward. In the meantime, the Dilapidations Act continued in operation, causing hardship in particular cases, and creating unnecessary expense in all cases. The unpopularity of the Act, to some degree, extended itself to the authorities into whose hands its execution was entrusted, that is to say, to the Bishops and to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.

Queen Anne's Bounty Board is an institution, if not ancient, yet long established, and is one of those peculiar growths issuing from the connexion of the Church with the sovereign of these realms. Bishop Burnet, in his History of His Own Times, tells us how, 'in the year 1704, on her own birthday, which was the 6th of February, Queen Anne sent a message to the House of Commons, signifying her purpose to apply that part of her revenue that was raised out of firstfruits and tenths paid by the clergy to the increase of all the small benefices of the nation.' The revenue amounted to 15,000l. a year, and had never been applied to any good use. Indeed, in Charles II.'s time, the Bishop says it went chiefly among his women and natural children. When the Queen's message was brought into the House of Commons it was opposed by the Whigs and supported by the Tories. In the House of Lords the Bishops were zealous and unanimous for the Bill, so it was carried and passed into law.'

It was high time, indeed, that something should be done to improve the social and pecuniary condition of the clergy. We need not here describe, again, a state of things which underlay the vivacious pictures of Lord Macaulay and Mr. Lecky. But we may point out how both historians admit that, notwithstanding the hard lot of the rural clergy, their political influence was enormous. In writing of the general election of 1710, Mr. Lecky makes these remarks :

"The immense power displayed by the Church in this struggle was not soon forgotten by statesmen. The utter ruin of a Ministry

« ПретходнаНастави »