If any excuse be wanting for once more bringing this question forward for your consideration, it is not because the question itself is unimportant. The frequency of the cases involving it upon which the opinion of actuaries is sought, and the magnitude of the interests concerned, will be allowed by all to furnish ample grounds for the utmost possible care and pains in determining the principles by which the advice given should be regulated. Upwards of 15 years have elapsed since Mr. Jellicoe's well-known paper on this subject was read before the Institute. How far the practice of actuaries has been influenced by the conclusions laid down in that paper I do not know; but from the fact that (so far as I am aware, at least,) the subject has not been reopened since, it would seem that these conclusions have been accepted by the profession, and that in the opinion of those most competent to form a judgment there is nothing more to be said about them. If this be so, I am afraid that I shall incur the suspicion of rashness when I say that the excuse I have to urge for reopening the question is, that the conclusions laid down by Mr. Jellicoe do not commend themselves to my mind as perfectly satisfactory. I propose very briefly to state my reasons for differing from him; and should I fail, as I well may, in convincing others of the correctness of my views, I shall be consoled by the reflection, that however firmly established, and apparently beyond discussion, any truth may be, it is a profitable thing for most, perhaps for all of us, if a rash sceptic now and then compels us to review the grounds of our confidence, and to restate to ourselves, if not to others, the reasons for the faith that is in us.