supported by all the military achievements of Marlborough, and by all the financial skill of Godolphin, was beyond question mainly due to the exertions of the clergy. It furnished a striking proof that when fairly roused no other body in the country could command so large an amount of political enthusiasm, and it was also true that, except under very peculiar and abnormal circumstances, no other body had so firm and steady a hold on the affections of the people. Never was there a period less characterised by that intellectual torpor, which we are accustomed to associate with ecclesiastical domination, yet in very few periods of English history did the English Church manifest so great a power as in the reign of Queen

Anne.'

Such was the position and influence of the Church of England when the Bounty Board was established, just one hundred and seventy-two years ago. What is her present position and influence it is not the province of this article to describe, but we take notice that in the late session of Parliament a Bill was brought in by Mr. Bass and Mr. Monk for the total abolition of the Bounty Board and the transfer of its duties to others.

The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are nominated in the charter of their creation, and consist of the Archbishops, the Bishops, the Deans, the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, the Judges, the Queen's Counsels, the Serjeants-at-Law, the Chancellors and the Vice-Chancellors of the two Universities, the Mayors and Lord Mayors of cities, the Aldermen of the City of London, the officers of the Green Cloth, the whole of the Privy Council, and the Speaker of the House of Commons--in all about 600 persons. Their duties, which have in the course of years been largely extended, now consist in the collection of the revenue from first-fruits and tenths, its application to the augmentation of small livings, the control and investment of a constantly increasing capital, the lending of money to the clergy for building and kindred purposes. In recent times the augmentation grants have invariably been met by voluntary benefactions. For example, 200l. offered for the augmentation of a living by an individual benefactor, or through public subscription, is met by the Bounty Board by a grant of another 200/. The whole 400/. is then handed over to the Governors, invested by them, and the interest paid by them to the incumbent of the benefited living. From the year 1809 to the year 1820, an annual sum of 100,000l. was placed at the disposal of the Board by a Parliamentary vote; the revenue was appropriated to the augmentation of certain specified livings, the capital sum remaining in the hands of

the Board for investment. Thus has been accumulated in the course of years a capital which now amounts to between 3,000,000l. and 4,000,000/., which is held by the Governors, and placed by them upon a great variety of securities. Interest at the rate of 37. or 341. per cent. is paid to the incumbents of the augmented livings. It is computed that through this instrumentality the addition to incomes now being received by incumbents has reached an annual sum of 250,000/. and is increasing at the rate of about 1,000l. a year. The augmentation of income has been coupled with a corresponding addition to duties. New churches have been built, in consequence of a sufficient endowment having been provided for the performance of services, and the residence of the clergy has been secured by the erection of suitable parsonages. The capital in the meantime has been used to facilitate various ecclesiastical purposes, other than the augmentation of small livings, to the great benefit of the Church. Thus in 1777, under the provisions of Gilbert's Acts, the Governors were enabled to lend money at interest for the building of new and the improvement of old parsonages. Since that year about one million has been lent under that head alone. By virtue of similar Acts of Parliament, large sums have been lent for the building episcopal and capitular residences. In the year 1843, under an Act of Parliament, 600,ocol. was lent by the Governors to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. This sum has lately been repaid, and again invested by the Board. The operations of the Board are now extended to such a degree that either as payers of augmentation grants, or as receivers of the interest of money lent for building purposes, they are in yearly correspondence with 10,000 beneficed clergymen. In the judgment of Mr. Bouverie's Select Committee, which sat in 1868, and took evidence in reference to this peculiar corporation, 'the business was carefully and well conducted,' and in their opinion neither economy nor convenience would be promoted by its amalgamation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.' But a recommendation was added worthy, perhaps, of greater attention than it has ever received, either from the Church or from Parliament, to the effect that the Board should be rendered 'more conformable to the shape in which it actually works, by being reduced in number, the members having a more defined responsibility, and there being a considerable lay element in the new constitution.'

So in the course of years from its foundation to the present time, both by Acts of Parliament, and also by a series of orders under the sign manual, many changes have been

made affecting the modes of procedure and the application of the funds arising from the Royal bounty of Queen Anne. The scope of the Governors' work and the area of their responsibilities have been enlarged almost in proportion to the increase of their capital. At length, by the Dilapidations Act of 1871, the Board were made, for the purposes of that statute, the bankers of the clergy, and the recipients of all money paid under it. They were also, as we have stated above, made necessary parties to the insurance of all ecclesiastical buildings. In their capacity as bankers a sum of about 80,000l. is constantly lodged in their hands.

This sketch of the history and action of Queen Anne's Bounty Board will enable us the better to form a judgment on the part they have been called upon to play in the matter under consideration, and of the wisdom of the course which they themselves have adopted.

In the year 1872 Lord Egerton, one of the acting Governors of the Board, introduced, as we have seen, into the House of Lords a Bill for the Insurance of Ecclesiastical Buildings. In the succeeding year the Governors passed the following resolution :

'Having considered the Report, they determine to wait for a time, but record their opinion that it strengthens the impression entertained by them that it is desirable in the interests of the Church that a measure on Fire Insurance similar to the Bill submitted to the House of Lords should become law.'

In the same year they passed the following resolution :—

'The Governors agreed that the Church of England Fire Insurance Bill should be introduced into the House of Commons; Mr. Alderman Besley to act on behalf of the Board as to the measure during its progress through Parliament.'

On February 16, 1878, a similar Bill having been introduced into the House of Commons, they passed the following resolution:

'That this Board approves the principle of the Bill introduced by Mr. Leighton for compulsory insurance with this Board of ecclesiastical buildings, and that a Committee be appointed to consider the details of the Bill when printed, and to suggest what is necessary to give effect to the provisions thereof.'

Before they had received the Report of their own Committee, and while the Select Committee of the House of Commons was still sitting, on May 13, 1878, they again met and passed the two following resolutions :

Ist. That the Board is of opinion that it has no machinery suitable for giving effect to the provisions of the Bill in the way proposed.

2nd. That no part of the funds at present administered by Queen Anne's Bounty Board ought to be applied in any way to the undertaking of insurance.'

It should be stated that the Board was composed of different individuals on each occasion when they considered the subject. They did not rescind their former resolution. approving the principle of the Bill-on the contrary it remains a record of their opinion. The explanation suggested is that the first resolution represents the opinion of the Board on the principle, the two last on the details of the scheme. Perhaps, however, the publication of the above resolutions will make some think that the recommendation of Mr. Bouverie's Committee in 1868, with regard to the constitution of the Board, was not ill-timed.

At the beginning of the session of 1878 two Bills were introduced into the House of Commons, affecting very materially the position of the Bounty Board. The one was introduced by Mr. Bass and Mr. Monk, with the object of entirely extinguishing the Board and transferring their duties to the Ecclesiastical Commission. The other was the Bill of which we treat, which proposed to throw upon that body functions possibly exceeding in their pecuniary importance to the Church any which they have up to the present time performed.

It had long been observed that the Dilapidations Act, having introduced the principle that the clergy should be compelled by law to insure the buildings belonging to their benefices, had cast a new burden upon them. The continuous and inevitable decay from lapse of time was an expense which, in one form or another, had always belonged to them. The new Act, while it rendered this old charge more onerous, by creating an extremely expensive method of procedure, at the same time originated a new burden. So it resulted that the clergy were compelled to pay amongst themselves large sums under the head of 'Dilapidations,' and at the same time, under the head of Fire Insurance,' to pay to strangers, that is to say, to the shareholders of the private Insurance Offices, large sums to secure themselves against the very unlikely risk of fire. It was, however, perceived by some that the severity of the compulsory payments under the old denomination of Dilapidations' might be materially relieved if the clergy were enabled to keep amongst themselves the compulsory

payments under the new head of 'Insurance.' The main groundwork, therefore, of the Bill was to reserve to the clergy themselves the profits arising from their own premiums. The premiums themselves were to be reduced from IS. 6d. to Is. per cent. for ordinary first-class risks. The insurance policy was to be perpetual, and instead of lapsing every year was to remain in force without renewal, as a charge upon the incumbent for the time being. By this means it was intended to free the incumbent from the danger of losing the advantage of his insurance in case of a fire breaking out when his premium was in arrear. The tiresome obligation of exhibiting the receipt of the last year's policy at the Archidiaconal visitation was dispensed with; the profits were to be retained for the benefit of the Church. But together with these advantages, the original Bill contained a clause that the business was to be conducted by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, that is to say, by a body of 600 persons. The compulsion to insure with them was to extend without exemption to all the buildings which came within the scope of the Dilapidations Act, but it was left to the Governors to decide the class under which the insurance was to be effected, that is to say, whether the premium was to be`Is., or Is. 6d., or 2s., or more. The authority given to the surveyors was almost unlimited, and seemed to exclude appeal. It was not evident on the face of the Bill how the profits were to be applied. There was no arbitration clause, nor were the conditions of the insurance to be found in the schedule of the Bill. Moreover, the Governors had power to give up the business after a year's notice. It will be seen how fully these objections were maintained, and the alterations in the Bill when it emerged from the Select Committee show how fully the force of some of them was appreciated.

The Bill came on for its second reading early in the session of 1878. The debate proved that although the House of Commons were willing to consider any Bill of such a character which was proposed in the interests of the clergy, yet that upon the merits of this particular Bill they were profoundly ignorant. When members were told on one side that the clergy approved, that Queen Anne's Bounty Board approved, that the House of Lords had approved a similar Bill six years before, that a Select Committee of their own House had approved the principle, that the Lower House of Convocation had approved, that the parochial clergy had been consulted through the Rural Deaneries, and that no less than 140 Rural Deans had signified approval, they were inclined