to read the Bill a second time. But when they heard almost every one of these statements questioned, if not flatly contradicted, and when, moreover, it was urged that to sanction the Bill would be to create a system of gigantic monopoly,' that it would be a breach of trust to allow the funds of Queen Anne's Bounty to be used in a method not contemplated by its founder,' that 'the scheme was quite certain to end in ruin, and was a mere speculation,'-when they heard all these things asserted in opposition to the Bill, and when, moreover, the Bill was not brought forward by the Government, but by a private member, it was only natural that the House should readily accept the middle course, which relieves it from all responsibility; and so the Bill was referred to a Select Committee.

The Committee in the present instance consisted of the following seventeen members :-Earl Percy (chairman), Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Monk, Mr. Birley, Mr. Whitwell, Mr. Bristowe, Mr. Hardcastle, Sir Thomas Acland, Mr. Cotton, Sir Sidney Waterlow, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Rowley Hill, Mr. Wait, Mr. Mc Lagan, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, and Mr. Hall. The last two were unable to attend.

In comparing the names on the Committee with the published lists of Directors of Insurance Offices, we find that at least six were Directors of Fire Insurance Offices.

It was necessary for the promoters of the Bill, if they were to carry its principle, to show generally

Ist. That the clergy desired the Bill.

2nd. That the scheme was financially sound.

3rd. That it was possible to give to Queen Anne's Bounty Board a machinery equal to the work.

The exact contrary of each of these propositions was maintained by the opponents of the Bill; and so battle was joined. We will now discuss the arguments submitted to the Committee under separate heads, not in our own words, but in the words of the witnesses themselves, whose character and position we will first describe.

The clerical witnesses were the Rev. Michael Gibbs, Vicar of Christchurch, Newgate Street, London, Proctor in Convocation for the Diocese of London, Prebendary and Treasurer of St. Paul's Cathedral, Chairman of the Committee of Convocation for the amendment of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act; the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chichester; the Rev. Lord Alwyne Compton, Rector of Castle Ashby, and Archdeacon of Oakham; the Rev. H. A. Jeffreys, Hon. Canon of Canterbury Cathedral, Vicar of Hawkhurst, Rural Dean, VOL. VII.NO. XIV.

H H

member of Convocation; the Rev. George Trevor, Canon of York Cathedral, Rector of Beeford.

The actuarial evidence was given by-Mr. Cornelius Walford, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, Chairman of the Colonial Life Insurance Company, standing counsel to several Insurance Companies, author of the Insurance Cyclopædia; Mr. Plummer, the Manager of the Wesleyan Methodist Trust Assurance Company; Mr. Dudgeon, the Manager of the County Fire Office in Ireland, which takes the Insurances of the Irish Church property; Mr. Ansell, an actuary; Mr. Tomkinson, Chairman of the Committee of the Associated Fire Insurance Companies; Mr. Aston, Treasurer and Secretary of Queen Anne's Bounty Board.

In taking evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons the Chairman examines the witness in chief in the first place, and after the conclusion of his examination, every member of the Committee is invited to put any question he likes to the witness. The intention of the Committee is first of all to call before them the persons most conversant with the subject who are willing to give evidence, and then to obtain from them all that can be said for and against the scheme submitted to them. For the sake of brevity and clearness, we have divided the evidence under certain distinct heads, giving in the words of the several witnesses themselves their opinions. We have in some instances inserted the question as well as the answer, in order the more exactly to show the drift of the argument.

On the question of the opinion of the clergy in reference to the Bill, the Rev. Michael Gibbs said:

'The subject of Ecclesiastical Fire Insurance has been under the consideration of Convocation, and their opinion is that Parliament should take it in hand. The action of Convocation in the matter during the last six years has been to appoint two Committees to report on the question.'

The Report of these two Committees upon which the Bill is based have been referred to at length in an earlier part of this article; we therefore omit them here.

'As far as I have collected, there is a very large preponderance of clerical feeling in favour of the Bill, there are not half a dozen cases in my knowledge in which the feeling is doubtful. I have seen answers from 150 Rural Deans, not one of which is entirely adverse, but three or four object to the compulsory part of the Bill. It appears, from the circulars which have been sent out to the Rural Deans, that the parochial clergy all over England and Wales have been consulted through the Rural Deaneries. Broadly, I consider

that the rural clergy are in favour of the principle of compulsion as defined by the Bill, because the whole thing turns upon that point.'

The Rev. Canon Trevor, a determined opponent of the Bill, gave, on the same point, evidence of an exactly contradictory character. He said :

'I have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the opinions of a number of the clergy in different parts of England. Our Rural Deanery consists of twenty-five clergy, of whom seventeen or eighteen were present at our Deanery meeting, and we were unanimous against the Bill,

"The Chairman.—Can you give the Committee any idea of the number of persons amongst the clergy who have expressed their disapproval of this Bill?

'Canon Trevor-No. There has been no opportunity afforded of seeing the Bill.

'Sir Thomas Acland.-I have not gathered from your evidence that any very large number of clergy have signified their opposition to the Bill?

'Canon Trevor-Not to me; but there are petitions against it, and several letters have appeared in the Guardian against the Bill from other clergymen.'

In answer to other questions, it appeared that Canon Trevor had himself written letters against the Bill, which appeared in the Guardian, the John Bull, and the Morning Post.

'The Chairman.-I understand you to say that this Bill originated with some dignitaries in the Southern Province, and to a certain extent that it was the child of Queen Anne's Bounty Board? 'Canon Trevor.-It was.

'The Chairman.-Will you state to the Committee what the grounds for those opinions are?

'Canon Trevor.-My grounds are, that a circular was sent to all the Rural Deans; it does not bear the name of the Bounty Board, but by the shape, and the appearance, and the style of it, it appears to come from the Bounty Office. I do not know who else would have money to pay for it; and it bears the names of two or three dignitaries of the Southern Province, from which, I suppose, they are the parents of the Bill. They recommend the measure, but they do not send a copy of the Bill with the circular.'

On this point the Canon was further pressed by Sir Thomas Acland and Mr. Bristowe, the latter of whom is an acting member of Queen Anne's Bounty Board.

'Sir Thomas Acland.-Upon what grounds do you state that the circular came from the Bounty Board Office?

'Canon Trevor.-That it was printed on a large paper in a

luxurious sort of way; that some office must have printed it; and I could not think that any other office would have done it.

'Sir Thomas Acland.-If you had been told that an individual member of this Committee had sent them round himself, and had paid for them himself, would you consider that luxurious evidence conclusive proof?

'Canon Trevor.-It might have come from the House of Commons certainly.

'Mr. Bristowe.-You are still under the impression, apparently, that the Bounty Board are concerned in bringing this Bill forward?

'Canon Trevor.-I do not know whether they are or not. I judge from reading the Bill, that it is promoted by the Bounty Board. I do not know who else could promote the Bill.

'Mr. Bristowe.-Is it not rather a strong statement on your part, judging from the Bill itself, to say positively that it is an emanation from Queen Anne's Bounty Board?

'Canon Trevor.-No, I did not say so. I have no means of judging that.

'The Chairman.-Will you kindly tell the Committee what the chief points are to which the clergy take exception in this Bill?

'Canon Trevor-We take exception to the compulsory character of it. In the first instance we say that it is a violent invasion of vested rights, a thing which Parliament never sanctioned at any time whatever.

'Mr. Hardcastle.-When you use the expression, "injustice of the Bill," do you consider that the compulsion to insure is an injustice?

'Canon Trevor.-I said not; I said it was a strong measure. It is a violation of the ordinary rights of men; but I think, under the circumstances, it might be justifiable.

'Mr. Hardcastle. Then an existing Act of Parliament having compelled the clergy to insure, you think it is an injustice to compel them for their mutual benefit to insure in a cheaper way than they could otherwise have done?

'Canon Trevor.-Yes, I do think that an injustice. If the clergy do not think it is for their mutual benefit, and if they do not think it will be cheap, I think it unjust to make them insure in any particular scheme.

'Mr. Rodwell.-If the theory of this Bill were carried into prac · tice, namely, a reduction of premiums from 1s. 6d. to 1s. per cent., you would not deny that that would be a benefit to the poorer clergy? 'Canon Trevor.-Cæteris paribus, that would be a benefit to them.

Mr. Rodwell.-Cæteris paribus, I assume. Supposing you give the clergy the facility of insuring at Is., what they now have to pay Is. 6d. for, is not that an unquestionable benefit to them? 'Canon Trevor.-Yes; that speaks for itself.'

Canon Trevor pressed this point, and in answer to another question said :

'If all the clergy in the kingdom petition for it, they have no right to take my money to make their insurances cheaper.'

The Canon also stated :

'I maintain that the clergy, who are the parties interested, have not been consulted. They were not consulted on the Bill, but upon a paper which I call delusive.'

On this point he was at issue with the Rev. Canon Jeffreys, who stated, in answer to questions from Mr. Stanley Leighton :--

'As Rural Dean an offer was made to forward me a copy of the Bill, by the member who has charge of it. I am sure all the Rural Deans were treated in the same way, and that they have been consulted. I am not aware of any readier method of consulting the parochial clergy than through the Rural Deaneries.'

We proceed now with the clerical evidence.

The Bishop of Chichester said: 'My opinion is that the clergy should be allowed the advantage of mutual assurance; that they constitute a body large in extent, and a great number of whom have houses which they are compelled to keep in repair, and to reinstate if they are destroyed by fire; that there is an Act already, compelling them to insure; and that, therefore, it is only fair to them that they should insure to the greatest possible advantage. I think all compulsion is regarded as a hardship; it is impossible to devise such a means of doing anything as will not offend some one particular man. The English mind revolts against compulsion; but, at the same time, it is sometimes desirable to compel men to their own good; and in this case the good to be obtained is so considerable, that I think the experience of a few years would probably overcome the repugnance to compulsion, which, I am ready to admit, exists here and there, and may probably exist extensively. The justification of the present Bill is that many of the clergy desire a system of mutual insurance to be established for their advantage, under the authority of Parliament. The success of such a scheme depends upon compulsion, in order to secure certainty and uniformity of application.'

The Rev. Lord Alwyne Compton came to state what passed in Convocation when the Bill was discussed there. He said that the actual vote was taken on the compulsory clause, but that the Bill was debated throughout. The numbers in favour of the Bill were 47 and against the Bill 8. He considered that Convocation in this matter fairly represented the feelings of the clergy.

On the vote of Convocation, Canon Jeffreys gave somewhat similar evidence.

Canon Feffreys.-I wish to state that the votes in Convocation