as "migration of labour," it is a sine quâ non. The first step is to require the general societies to co-operate with the diocesan in working out the system. There is no need of new machinery, but simple re-adjustment of the old. The machinery we employ in Bangor supplies a working model on a small scale. It works smoothly, inexpensively, and in a business manner, and it has stood the test of experience. The Clergy Mutual Insurance Society, peculiarly well adapted for the purpose, undertakes all our work free of cost. They can supply us, if need be, with policies to cover all we require-retiring pensions, educational endowments, annuities, &c.; and we can for ourselves regulate and adjust their application to a hair's breath by the simple process of assignment. The special and peculiar objects, if any, of the contributing societies would thus be kept separate and distinct, though held together under one policy. There is nothing therefore, per se, to prevent the various general societies subsidising the diocesan and allocating to them a portion of their funds in amounts varying according to the size and requirements of each diocese. All their rights would be reserved, down to the minutest particular, by the terms of the assignment, and the value of the diocesan policies would be raised to meet adequately the various contingencies of clerical life. Just as the Incorporated Church Building Society co-operates with the Diocesan Society in assisting a clergyman to build or restore his church, so the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy would co-operate with the diocesan agency in assisting him to provide for his own wants.

Let a beginning be made when the machinery has been adjusted by fixing a certain date, on and after which every fresh ordinee shall necessarily come under the operation of the new régime. In other denominations, those who enter the ministry, enter also into a benevolent society adapted for their special needs. Let us follow their example, and then automatically the old system will give place to the new. And so, without having to raise new funds for the purpose, or having recourse to an Act of Parliament to deal with our private affairs, we can, if we are like-minded and agreed, obtain for ourselves, step by step, a national system founded on provident principles, free from all disagreeable associations, and one which will secure for the clergy of the Church of England that definite and adequate provision for their wants which has long been the privilege of other communities.

The Rev. W. MOORE EDE, Rector of Gateshead.

EVERY young man, on admission to holy orders, ought to realize two things; one a probability, the other a certainty. The probability is that he may live to a good old age, and that the infirmities attendant on old age may render him unable to work and unfit to hold a cure of souls. The certainty is his own death at some time or other. However strongly in his diaconate he may favour the theory of a celibate priesthood, experience proves there is a very great probability that when he dies there will be one or more persons dependent on him for support. Among the injunctions given in that most authoritative of all clerical manuals, "The Pastoral Epistles," is this, "If any man provideth not for

his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

With this declaration in the Scripture, whose authority as a rule of life he proclaims, it becomes the duty of every man who enters the ministry to make such provision for the future as lies within his power.

It is a plain religious duty, the neglect of which cannot be atoned for by the claims of charity, the zeal displayed in parochial work, or the eloquence manifested in preaching. We clergy cannot with any consistency inculcate the duty of thrift and self-help on others, if we neglect it ourselves. It is a great slur on any man's ministerial career if after death a begging appeal has to be sent round for those for whom he might have made some provision, but for whom he has made none.

To make the double insurance of a pension for himself, should he need it, and a provision for wife and children should he die, is more than the incomes of many of the clergy will permit.

The critics often say that the energy of the Church Congresses evaporates in talk, and that there is never anything to show for all the oratory. That criticism cannot be levied against the discussion which took place on Clergy Pensions at the Church Congress of 1885, for that led to the very definite result of the establishment of the Clergy Pensions Institution, which is admirably adapted to enable every clergyman to effect this double insurance. By the careful, well-considered scheme of this society, a clergyman who joins it secures, should he be struck down in the midst of an active career, that all his premiums, plus the increase of compound interest, shall be paid to his wife and family; whereas, should he live till the infirmities of age incapacitate him from work, his payments, plus accumulated interest, can be commuted for a pension. But it may be said, if he commutes his contributions for a pension, what becomes of the provision for wife and family? He would only commute for a pension in the event of old age, and then, under ordinary circumstances, his children would be old enough and in a position in which they could maintain themselves and their mother also, should she survive.

It is very satisfactory to notice that no sooner was the possibility of making provision in this way placed before the clergy by the establishment of the Clergy Pensions Institution in 1886, than 1,500 clergy availed themselves of it, and fresh members are still joining. In the report of the House of Laymen for the Province of Canterbury on this subject, it is said, "It would doubtless be advantageous in many ways if a scheme for clergy pensions could be so universally adopted by the clergy as to become national, and your committee see no reason why in due time this state of things should not be attained. For the present they fear that such special legislation as would be necessary to set on foot a compulsory scheme is quite out of the question."

For my part, and this is my main point, I do not see that we need to wait for any Act of Parliament-the less Parliament has to do with our Church affairs the better. It is quite true, as these laymen point out, our clerical stipends come from many different sources, and not from a common fund, and therefore a certain percentage cannot be deducted from our pay for pension purposes, as is done in the case of the India Civil Service, some of the railways, and other large companies ; but we have bishops, and I see no reason why they should not—nay,

every reason why they should-say to every curate who applies for a license, "There is a duty which every man ought to discharge as soon as he begins to earn a livelihood, and which you, as one called to teach others, should observe yourself. I shall expect you, if I grant you this license, to set by 5 per cent., for the purpose of making provision for the future, by insuring in the Clergy Pension Institution." In the case of the contumacious, episcopal difficulties could be made when a man desired to change his curacy. It may be objected that the bishops have no legal authority to impose any such condition. True; but the extent to which episcopal pressure can be exercised when it is not opposed to public opinion and is backed by prospects of refusal of episcopal patronage is very great. But how about the incumbents? How would you reach them? Are curates the only persons who need compulsion? No. Nevertheless we may leave the incumbents alone if only we secure the curates. Self-interest will prevent a man who has insured while unbeneficed ceasing to keep up his premiums when beneficed.

But I may be told that such a contribution as I have suggested would secure no adequate result. Let us look at the figures. Take £120 as the stipend of a deacon, assume that as curate he never receives more, and when incumbent does not increase his premium, five per cent. would pay a premium of £6 per annum. Ordained before his twenty-fourth birthday, this would give in round numbers

This is the minimum result on the assumption that the amount required at a man's diaconate is not increased in later life when his income is larger. But it may be urged many incumbencies are no better paid, some even worse paid, than curacies. That is, unfortunately, too true. But it is just those very clergy whose circumstances prevented them making more or much more than the compulsory minimum provision, who would benefit most from such compulsion, because there are various sources from which the minimum they had been able to secure would be augmented.

(1) The figures I quoted are calculated on the basis of 2 per cent. compound interest. The investments will probably yield an amount considerably in excess of that, and so far have done so. Any such excess after paying for management will be devoted to augmenting the pensions bought by the clergy themselves.

(2) If the clergy support our own Ecclesiastical Buildings Fire Office as they ought to do, by transferring to it the insurance of all the ecclesiastical property under their charge, there will be a surplus from that source of many thousands a year, which will be devoted to the augmentation of the pensions of the clergy. If I am correctly informed, even now, with the present amount of business, there is likely to be a surplus of £4,000 or £4,500 to be devoted to clerical objects, and this could be quadrupled without costing any of us a penny, if only we all would take advantage of our own Church Fire Office.

(3) The laity, when they see the clergy are determined to help themselves to the very best of their ability, and recognise how very small

that ability is in the case of many, will not be slow to assist the efforts of the poorer clergy by augmenting the insurances and pensions of those who are most inadequately paid. They will do this systematically and regularly, and not, as at present, spasmodically and inadequately. The support already given to the Clergy Pensions Institution is evidence of this. What we have to do is to make it national, by supporting the Diocesan Committees which are being formed, and persuading the bishops to bring their influence to bear on the younger clergy.

ADDRESS.

The Rev. R. M. GRIER, Prebendary of Lichfield, Vicar of Hednesford, Staffs.

THE Counsel given by Mr. Childers this time last year at Manchester has received but scant attention. He advised the Church to ask for the administration of her own funds, with a view of making the best use of them for the fulfilment of her mission. Whether the demand would be conceded, I do not stay to consider. The practical man, always on the fidget lest he should be thought a fool, is my pet aversion; I beg my younger brothers to give him a wide berth. If we aim at what is right, God will make it possible. Besides, I am not at all sure that if the Church desired so to dispose of her endowments as manifestly to promote her efficiency, a simple measure of justice suggested by an able and experienced financier and statesman might not be brought within the sphere of practical politics, whilst I am quite sure that if her schemes commended themselves to every man's conscience as in the sight of God, some means would be found for giving effect to them.

One advantage of the proposed plan would be, that the sale of advowsons and next presentations, between which and simony there is often so little difference as to make no matter, would come to an end, and with it the irremovability of parish priests, an evil which, more than any other part of her system, hinders her progress, and is the occasion-sometimes, I had almost said the justification, of Dissent. Another would be that she could set aside a far larger sum than is now available to provide without delay for the needs of new populations. I have lately, through the kindness of my Diocesan, been appointed perpetual curate of a large mining parish. Its ten thousand inhabitants, amongst whom there is not a single rich man, are scattered over an area of more than eight square miles. Up to within three years of my institution, the value of the living was £120 a year and a house; and the clerical staff consisted of the incumbent and two assistant curates, supported by grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and societies. Naturally the great bulk of the people are alienated from the Church; if it had not been for the Nonconformists they would probably have been alienated from religion. Now the living is worth £300 a year, but at least £10,000 is needed for the development of the Church's work, and really I ought not to have to ask this Church Congress for that amount. Wheresoever the poor congregate, it is the duty of the National Church immediately to extend her ministrations to them, and by so acting, she would, as it seems to me, be making a wiser use of her moneys than by the liberal payment of clergymen in parishes where a wealthy laity ought not to be spared the honour and privilege of contributing to their support. You perceive that I advocate the re-adjustment of clerical incomes; and I should begin at the top. Not that I am an ecclesiastical Robin Hood, intent on robbing rich prelates to pay poor presbyters. I plead for an increase of territorial bishops by the sub-division of

the emoluments of existing Sees. If the Bishops are to have, as they ought to have more power, there must be more of them, so that they may know by their own observation what is being done in every corner of their dioceses and by every one of their clergy. Even as things are, with the machinery of the Church growing more and more complicated day by day, and with new agencies constantly springing up to enable her the better to discharge her duties, she cannot wait for the guidance and encouragement which are needed, until a sufficient sum of money has been contributed by private individuals to provide for her a sufficient staff of chief officers with £3,000 a year apiece and a palace. Bishops are necessary to the Church; the temporal accidents of the English episcopate are not necessary to Bishops. It may be desirable that they should each have £3,000 or £4,000 a year: it is essential that their oversight of those under their rule should be effective. My belief is that the great bulk of the beneficed clergy should have not less than £500 a year. But I had rather that we had much less than that there should be far fewer of us; and for the same reason that I should object to the increase of our stipends by the diminution of our number do I advocate the diminution of the Bishops' stipends for the increase of theirs.

Mr. JONAS WATSON,

I rise to a point of order. We are here to discuss Church Finance and Clergy Pensions, and not Bishoprics.

The Rev. Prebendary GRIER.

We have to discuss Clergy Pensions and Church Finances. Surely this is a question of Church Finance, and the Church ought to consider it.

The Right Rev. the CHAIRMAN.

Order, please. The question before us is Church Finance and Clergy Pensions; I do not think, if the speaker thinks it desirable to go into this question, that he is out of order as regards Church Finance.

The Rev. Prebendary GRIER.

But is it desirable that they should receive their present stipends? Do they gain influence by them? With whom? With the democracy? There is nothing which an intelligent artisan can less readily understand than the contrast which the position of great ecclesiastics presents to that of the inferior clergy, unless it be the contrast which it presents to his own, to say nothing about that of the earliest members of their order. With the middle classes? I am not aware that the Bishop of Wakefield has a greater hold upon their affections than the late Bishop of Bedford, who had less than £2,000 a year, had not a seat in the House of Lords, and was an episcopal outrage on the geography of his country. With the clergy? There may be few of them impudent enough to say what I am saying now in public; there are almost as few who do not say it in private. With the rich? Possibly with some of them. There will always, no doubt, be people with a gold standard for everything and everyone; but what do they do for the Church? As a rule, with some noble exceptions, the rich laity give less in proportion to their means and give more capriciously than any other section of the community. They profit more by the endowments of the Church; they are allowed a larger share in the counsels of the Church; they have a larger number of connections in the hierarchy of the Church; and they make far fewer sacrifices for her than any other class. During the last quarter of a century it transpires that 83 millions of pounds has been raised in the Church for religious purposes, i.e., about £3,300,000 a year, or something less than the annual interest upon the capital which we owe to the pious