offered to the freebooters' eye. None but the conspirators could be in duced to testify against the Liveries. CHAPTER III Greatness of the prize offered the freebooters in spoliating the Companies-Freemasons' Societies marked as next objects for attack-Too faithful discharge of duties reason of attack on Livery Companies with view to plunder-Lord Chancellor Selborne testifies before the Commission-His Lordship declines to entertain any question of redistribution of the City Companies' fundsThe several Companies' adhesion to the cause of supporting Technical Education voluntary-The Lord Chancellor replies emphatically and decisively to crucial question as to the various Livery Companies' properties being strictly private ownership-His Lordship repeats declaration that the Companies' control of their properties is absolute-The Lord Chancellor's assurance that the Courts of Assistants' attendance and conduct of business eminently thorough, and that the fees received are in no way gifts or dividends-His Lordship asserts that no sums of money are ever divided among the Courts of Assistants except for business attendance-Emphatic declaration of the Lord Chancellor that no General Charitable Trust exists upon the charters of the Mercers' Company-Firth's discomfiture and utter breakdown-The Grocers' Company's Laxton (Oundle School) case; Lord Langdale's decision thereon-The Kneseworth case of the Fishmongers' Company-Herbert's case from his work on the twelve great Companies. The greatness Ir must not be lost sight of that if the second private and conof the prize fidential circular, bearing the frontlet mark of the same would-be spoliators as assisted in the birth of number one, and which without any authority used for designing purposes Lord Derby's, certain of the Commissioners', and the Lord Chancellor Selborne's names emanated and was issued from the same source at a moment of perplexity and with a view to goad the seemingly tardy editorial help, it points to the Freemasons' confraternities as early objects for like dealing as is proposed for their brethren of the ancient Guilds. Surely the Livery Companies were enough for even the most rapacious? Intended purposes of these kinds are never openly avowed at first inception. There needs to be the usual preliminary gentle dalliance. The conspirators against the London Liveries dared not in early dawn of their intent deal other than tenderly with so great a matter. Many millions were at stake. It was the grandest prize possible of revelation to the eye of modern freebooters. The thing was unique. None but the very ablest men should have embarked in the errand of aiming at its possession. It needed great ability and such an absence of truth in the composition of the individual as is rarely found. None but adepts could possibly be squeezed through the very narrow apertures of the class of society requisite to set the machinery in motion. All seemed to work with tolerable smoothness up to the point of witnesses before the Commission, and here an utter breakdown manifested itself. Not a single person could be induced to testify against the Companies save the promoters of the agitation themselves, and two or three individuals, who to air paltry grievances of their own had been driven to the front. Having arrived so far, it became needful to seek outside for help, and in doing this calamity fell on the heels of the spoilers. In their dilemma of appealing for newspaper sympathy, a designed plot against the Freemasons is confidentially disclosed in mere outline. Nobody is to know of it, but everybody may be well assured it is none the less crafty or determined, and the various bodies of Freemasons need to mount extra guards on their citadels, for the enemy, they may rest assured, is at hand. Freemasons. Examination into the Freemasons' past discloses the fact that there Freemasons' were bonds of more than sympathy between the Freemasons' societies and Societies dethe several fraternitics of the London City Guilds in the olden days. signated as the All were loving societies recognizing human brotherhood as their great attack. Bonds next objects of bond of union, and this sacred tie has been perpetuated until now. To of sympathy assist the brethren in time of affliction, when their little business worlds between the may cease to yield the rewards of success, was their chief aim, each London Liverecognizing the hand of the Almighty in these dispensations, and for this ries and the sanctified purpose all who could, contributed liberally of their substance to found fraternities corresponding in more features than one with the City Liveries of England's Metropolis. And with what dignity does not history relate them as bearing themselves in all times of trial and persecution! We can only trust that the solidity evidenced in Masonic life through long-past ages may continue as the buildings they are known to have reared. From Solomon's Temple in remote ages, and in the cathedrals, palaces, abbeys, and halls of the middle ages, their signet-mark is easily to be found on special stones well and truly laid, and whose whereabouts can be traced by the good mason who knows the secret of where to seek it. In common with our own ancient Guilds, they have ceased to have exclusive connection with masons' work of building; but like them, they are now societies of benevolence and charity. Their provincial lodges all contribute to the Grand Lodge, which on its part organizes and distributes the charities. Working masons who hold on to their connection with the society are relieved from the Masonic funds should the world in its business aspects frown upon them. How close then is the resemblance between the Freemasons and the City Liveries, not only in the fact that neither can be said generally to follow the crafts of their days of origin, yet both inherit moneys transmitted through their respective founders, and each continue their functions of brotherly love and charity, and prosecute the same in our present day with real devotion and singleness of heart. The spoiler of one would, we may be assured, be the willing distributor from the coffers of the other. Each has the same enemy to keep at bay, for has he not secretly made known his desires when prosecuting his efforts to seize the treasure-house of the first hoped-for victim? The Freemasons generally will be on the alert. The cause of their brethren of the London Liveries is too just and too strong to need more than their sympathy; this the Freemasons will heartily extend to them, the ancient Guilds, their associates through long ages past, and with whom there must be tie and bond such as cannot exist with any of new-born histories. Looking into the properties and incomes of the Freemasons' societies, it will be seen that the Freemasons are holders of no small possessions, and that their charities are noble. The three English Masonic charitable institutions, which are supported by the voluntary contributions of lodges, chapters, and individuals, together with contributions from Grand Lodge, Grand Chapter, and other Masonic bodies, received up to the time the office doors closed on the 31st of Too faithful discharge of duties the reason of the Livery Companies being objects for attack and plunder. December last, show the total sum of 48,7471. 58. 1d. for the year 1884. Of this amount the Benevolent Institution, which grants annuities to aged Masons and Masons' widows, received 19,8247. 158. 2d.; the girls' school, 14,9287. 198.; and the boys' school, 13,9937. 10s. 11d. During the last nine years the Benevolent Institution has headed the list six times, and, with the exception of last year, when the boys' school, by an extraordinary and special effort on its behalf, received over 25,000l., has succeeded this year in obtaining the largest amount ever received in one year by any of the three institutions. In the same year the Board of Benevolence, which meets once a month, voted 92521. to indigent Masons of all nationalities, and the widows and orphans of deceased Masons; but in doing so they exceeded the income of the fund of benevolence by about 2000l., for which sum they had to draw on the capital of the fund. "Charity Universal" is inscribed on the banner of the City of London Liveries' Guilds; a glance at the benefactions of the Fishmongers' Company, printed in this volume as fairest and best exemplification of the deeds generally of the various Companies, shows how faithfully it is carried out. Each proportionally with their means disperses abroad, not only to their brethren of the Guild, but without stint wherever they deem help to be most needed. Englishmen are not altogether unfair in their judgings, and will ask the question why should the properties of the London Liveries be exposed to the envious eye of a class of men casting about for possible prey, such as in this instance is inquired into with admitted intent of exceptional action? Undoubtedly, the prize is one so great as to be almost beyond the hoped-for clutch of the least conscientious, but it should in all honesty have none the less national protection. Every honest man will demand to know why it is that property which is proved to give such hearty pleasure and admitted practical advantage to so many thousands of persons should, in spite of the seeming protection of the law, be so much more in danger than property such as that owned, for instance, by his Grace of Bedford, one of the Commission who appends his sign-manual to a mode of dealing with the Liveries' possessions he would repudiate as utterly unwarrantable in self-application? It is not impossible or even improbable, that in his case the property administered by the noble owner yields but moderate satisfaction to him as the solitary possessor. There is but one reply to the cogent question, and it is forcibly impressive. The Companies that have passed through the ordeal with so high credit to themselves as faithful executors of noble trusts have placed themselves in jeopardy, not by using their great possessions ill, but by a too faithful discharge of solemn duties; by exercising prudently and beneficially the right of use; by neglecting that which alas! is too commonly the case, the right and means of abuse. This, and this only, is the real charge truthfully appertaining to their case. It is false to assert that the persons composing these public bodies are the chief beneficiares. The only considerable benefits any of them derive from their presumed wealth are indirect and contingent. The utmost that Messrs. Firth and Beale, at whose instigation their rights have been questioned, have been able to prove, is that if one of them fell into misfortune without fault of his own or through mismanagement of his worldly affairs-not seriously blamable, he is provided for by his Company. Do not the Foresters and Oddfellows aim to approach them in this noble feature of human fraternity? The Livery Companies are living channels and instruments of handing down for our example the loving protectiveness of bygone days, when men were less selfish than now, when the heaping up of riches for individual gratification and supposed enjoyment was less practised than in our time. Millionaires were few in those days, now they are plentiful as blackberries. Well will it be if these realize that great riches have proportionate duties and responsibilities; at any rate, let us not busy ourselves in dispersing that which they for loving charity bequeathed, and which faithful stewards, in an unbroken line to our own generation, have with such earnest zeal and uprightness watched over and protected. Earl of Sel The Lord Chancellor was brought under examination on the tenth The Lord day of the Commission receiving oral testimony. The first portion of Chancellor of his lordship's evidence was given in his capacity as representative of England, the the City Guilds' Technical Institute, owing its origin and maintenance borne, under to the City Companies. After having, in conjunction with Sir Frederick examination Bramwell, F.R.S., his lordship's colleague in the Technical Institute of the City management, fully explained its origin and maintenance as arising with Livery Companies' Comthe City of London Livery Companies, the Lord Chancellor was mission. addressed by the Earl of Derby, as Chairman of the Commission :— "I suppose we may take it that the object of this deputation is twofold, that in the first place you wish to bear witness to what has already been done by the Companies and by the Corporation in aid of technical education, and in the next place that you wish to indicate a purpose to which the funds of the City Companies might be more largely applied, in the event of there being any interference with their distribution by the State?" It was evident that the Commissioners, in their programme of interrogatories, were desirous of setting off at a pace somewhat too fast for the learned Chief of the Realm's law. The Lord Chancellor replied, "I do not think that I can say yes to that question. I do not think our views have extended in the least degree whatever to that second object. We, of course, are totally ignorant of what the Commission may think it their duty to do or to recommend, but we have had no object in coming here to-day, except to inform the Commission of what has been done, in compliance, as we understood, with the wish of the Commissioners." This reply did not seem as encouraging as certain members of the Commission had hoped; accordingly the Earl of Derby, who, as Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Lancashire, has had many years' experience in examination of witnesses, gently opened a somewhat indirect approach to the Lord Chancellor's citadel in his query, "Then I will put my question in another way. I presume that one of your objects in coming here is to show what has been done for technical education, and to guard against the possibility of less being done in the event of any redistribution of the City Companies' funds?" The answer to this question is just what his lordship and every other man of sound sense must have known would be given by England's Chancellor, or any other great law authority. Lord Selborne, with some little warmth, replied, "I decline to contemplate anything which may be done in the way of His Lordship Redistribution of the City Companies' funds. It is not at all for me to declines to anticipate any opinion or judgment which may be formed on that entertain any question of subject. If I am permitted to say so, I see that a gentleman who has Redistribution appeared before this Commission has referred to a speech which I made of the City in the House of Lords about the Inns of Court, as if it were to be Companies' funds. inferred from that that I thought that Inns of Courts and the City Companies were in pari conditione. I do not think so at all. The reasons that lead me to think the Inns of Court a public institution have no application whatever to any Company, or, at all events, to the only The several Companies' adhesion to the cause of supporting Technical Education shown by the Lord Chan cellor to have been voluntary on their parts. The Lord Chancellor replies em phatically and question as Company I know, that is, the Mercers' Company, not the slightest. There fore I decline to enter into any question of redistribution at all." Lord Derby, evidently desirous of impressing the strictest impartiality, in an assuring manner stated, "The Commission, I may say, have not expressed any opinion upon that subject?" a remark met with a dry, but not less significant, "Oh! no!" Lord Derby then said, "I think we may take it, from what you have said, that when the movement among the Companies for technical education was begun, it was a purely voluntary one on their part, and absolutely unconnected with any apprehension of interference from outside?" To which the Lord Chancellor replied,— "I think the dates I have given will show that that is so. Nobody can possibly speak as to other people's minds; but the fact that the Clothworkers' Company began this movement (on their part, at all events) in the year 1873 will show, I think, that it was begun at a time when no propositions were before the public affecting the status of the City Companies. It is impossible for me to say that that was so at the time that the Institute was formed, because, in point of fact, a motion was made in the House of Commons at that time, or about that time, upon the subject. My own judgment was not influenced in the least degree whatever by that circumstance. I have always thought that the City Companies, assuming them to be (as I believe them to be in law) absolute and perfect masters of their own property, as absolute and perfect masters of their own property, as distinct from that which they held on trust, could do nothing better with their property than promote objects which were in the public interest, and my judgment, in cooperating with this undertaking, was entirely uninfluenced by anything which was suggested in the way of interference." At this point the Chairman of the Commission put the crucial question, "Are we to take it from you that the City Companies are entitled to their property in the same manner and as fully as a private owner would be?" Met in a manner, and with a distinctness worthy of the great lawyer. "In point of law they are, in my opinion, absolutely entitled to it, and under no trust whatever. It will, of course, be understood that I do not speak of estates which have been given to them on any special trusts. Morally, I do not think that I, as a member of a City Company, should choose to be a party to using it in exactly the same way as I should use what was my own as an individual." Lord Derby next put an equally vital question to the distinguished perties being witness, thus, "You acknowledge a greater moral responsibility to the strictly private public than in the case of private property, but not any greater legal ownership. right?" "That is my impression," replied the Lord Chancellor, emphatically continuing, "I do not know that I can express it much better. They are ancient institutions; the funds, which I call their own property, were derived, as far as my knowledge extends, from their own subscriptions, and gifts by their own members and others, intended to be for their absolute use; and, although I do not think the present generation ought to put those gifts into their pockets, yet, on the other hand, I cannot admit for a moment that they are upon the footing of public trusts." Lord Chief Justice Coleridge here came in with the very pertinent question, "I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he draws any distinction between an ordinary natural person and a person like a corporation created by law?" The Head of the Law met the Lord Chief Justice's important query with the decisive answer: "There is that distinction undoubtedly, and |