cedents as a

open to receive his libellous contributions attacking the London Mr. J. R. Liveries. This gentleman, in common with his brethren of the small Phillips' anteclique forming about the only attacking parties, was brought under exa- writer opposmination of the Commission, and in reply to the Chairman, Lord Derby, ing the Comstated that he was the writer of articles in various publications (though panies. unnamed), meaning, it may be presumed, of a class of which he was not. very proud; also articles antagonistic to the Companies in the British Quarterly, The New Quarterly, and Frazer's Magazine. Naturally this gentleman plumed himself on the admission of his lucubrations into these latter-named respectable periodicals. Lord Derby asked this excellent person: "Have you formed any idea as to the use to which you desire to put these very large funds if they are no longer to be applied as at present, but treated as public trusts?"

the whole of

into "hotch.

potch."

"Yes!" replied the worthy patriotic author. "My idea is this, that Phillips' prothe whole charitable educational endowments of the metropolis, including posal to realize all property which Parliament should take cognizance over, such as the various the corporate property of these City Guilds, should be brought into Companies' hotch-potch or into one mass, selling all the real estate and converting Halls and all, it into funds, and that when so brought together into a mass, Parliament and melt same should devise some scheme for its application and administration suitable to the wants and exigencies of the time we now live in, and that all the mischievous charities-that is, charities which have really a bad influence upon the recipients-should be absolutely suppressed, such as doles of bread and doles in kind, and that the objects to which Parliament should apply the revenue, should be mainly educational, and that in this, technical education should be liberally provided for, that elementary education should be subsidized, so as to decrease the school-board rates, and intermediate and university education provided for the metropolis." And when questioned by the Chairman as to what he could do with the Halls, replied, "I would sell the Halls, every one of them! I do not think they are wanted at all!"

Certainly Mr. Phillips has the merit of most perfect candour; he desires to sell the properties of the Guilds, " to bring it into hotch-potch or into one mass." There is no mistake about him, half-measures are no part of his creed; not even Commissioners to dispense the products of the auction sales were in his view necessary.

offered in

A very remarkable and telling fact in favour of the Livery Companies, Notwith. showing a general appreciation by the outside public as well as by their standing every own Liveries, is seen in that nobody could be induced to come forward ducement, to give testimony against them before the Commission. There was no witnesses lack of invitation. Everything was done that could be devised to pro- against the duce witnessess, and bases of complaint were ready at hand on which to Companies form charges. Notwithstanding all inducements, nobody turned up. No found. other such instance of numerous great public bodies' universal appreciation and freedom from enmity is known. There was positively no enemy to stand in the gate save the interested, well-drilled few who pursued their calling with such virulence,

"Whose gall coins slander like a mint."

Troilus and Cressida, Act i. Sc. 3.

In ordinary cases it only need be made public that any other company, say a railway for instance, was pilloried, and a general invitation given for attack, when shoals of assumed sufferers would instantly tender rehearsal of their woes, and there would be produced for airing no end of grievances. In the case under consideration there were absolutely none, inasmuch as the one solitary witness against the Goldsmiths'

were not

The witnesses Company, and an equally lone and sorry fishmonger against the against the Fishmongers' Company, both evidently having undergone severe trainGoldsmiths and Fish- ing under the agitators, can hardly be regarded as witnesses in the mongers sense usually applied. In the Goldsmiths' case the complaint was ludicrous nothing more than a natural outcome of a long strife assumedly examples. based on alleged trade obstructions, but when closely scanned appeared to result more probably from disappointed hope of elevation to office in the Company. In the case of the refractory fishmonger the main trouble was complaint of inefficiency on part of the officer appointed by the Fishmongers' Company to seize and condemn unwholesome fish. Whether the official pounced on the complaining witness's fish more frequently than he should have done, or whether a treaty of amity may not have been readily secured by possible elevation to Court dignity, was not made clear in the case. The only established result-and this was the same in each case-was that the Courts of neither Company coveted the honour of closer acquaintance with the parties, however anxious they may have been to advantage them by their presence. Taking, therefore, a perfectly fair view, it can be truthfully said that outside the gang of pursuers not a man could be found to testify against the Companies.

The Mercers'

Company and its regal expenditure on St. Paul's

School.

The example set by the Mercers' Company in its expenditure during a few years of no less a sum than two hundred and forty thousand pounds on St. Paul's School is no mean proof of the earnestness of the Livery Courts of to-day in their duty in the cause of sound education. Are not all the wealthier Livery Companies gradually pushing forward in the same direction and evidencing far more than willingness to develop public schools of a class to meet the need and feeling of modern times? There is not one of them of whom it can be said that it is indifferent to the cause of education. Their substance nobly expended in this direction during recent past years shows even more zeal and determination to widen this desirable path in their future labours for good. They know and feel that the great law of imitation inculcated by St. Paul in his remarkable words, "Conformed to the image of His Son," is an important element in the government of society. A boy imitates the ways of his master. The Saviour came into the world to be a sacrifice for sin and “an example of godly life." He dwelt on earth in order to found, as it were, this great law of imitation. Most of the charities administered so conscientiously by the great London Liveries may be said to have had their birth during times of great controversy in the religious world. They seem, as it were, to have descended from above as protests and proofs of what true religion really meant, and how conforming to the religion of the Almighty is the seeking out and nurturing the friendless ones who were more miserable than themselves. Yes, let it not be lost sight of that these grand societies are not only ancient, but have ever been religious institutions. In conforming as they have done in their charitable deeds to the image of the Saviour they have exercised practical work, and shown "an example of godly life." No club-house brawlers, no slanderers of good men are or ever have been leaders in their fraternities, inasmuch as the religion of mercy and love and truth has entered into their daily lives. It can never be forgotten that the Mercers' Company through St. Paul's School has done its work in a manner worthy of all imitation. It is approaching blasphemy to name it in connection with the traducers heading the conspiracy against these ancient guilds. St. Paul's School stands out prominent as an example of what its founder, Dean Colet, thought on such points. Although a Churchman, and the head of a religious body, and the master and ruler over a great Cathedral, he did not leave the government of the school which he founded to

Churchmen. He wisely felt that it might be swayed by that most dangerous of all parties-the religious party. He therefore left the Dean Colet government of this school in the hands of the Mercers' Company, a body and the of business men who had been unaffected by religious controversial strife. Mercers' Dean Colet acted wisely, provedly so in the integrity, zeal, and ability Company. with which the Company have devoted themselves to develop the school and the entire success attending their administration. From days antecedent to Dean Colet as now, the Mercers' Company has been governed by men of unblemished character, whose sole aim has been a thorough, faithful discharge of great duties. These have been well and truly done, so that with the Duke of Milan in Shakespeare's "Two Gentlemen of Verona," they can honestly retort on Mr. Beale and his compatriots with,-

"Where your good word cannot advantage

Your slander never can endamage."

executors.

Erasmus in a letter to Justus Jonas, thus quotes Dean Colet's reasons Dean Colet's for entrusting the management of St. Paul's School to the Mercers' Com- wisdom in pany. He says, "After he had finished all, he left the perpetual care making the and oversight of the estate, and government of it, not to the Clergy, not to Mercers' Comthe Bishop, not to the Chapter, nor to any great minister at Court, but pany his amongst married laymen, to the Company of Mercers, men of probity and reputation. And when he was asked the reason of so committing this trust, he answered to this effect: that there was no absolute certainty in human affairs; but for his part, he found less corruption in such a body of citizens than in any other order or degree of mankind."

Who shall say but that the good, prescient Dean may have had in his mind restless thoughts of future Firths and Beales wandering about, with wolfish paw of desired meddling with his property! The resorting to the executors he did, is clear evidence that he had such faith in the ancient Guild of Mercers as to endow them preferentially with his worldly goods even over his own clerical order, although high selection among this must have been in his power.

Clerk.

The Grocers' Company was represented before the Commission by The Grocers' Mr. J. H. Warner, a member of the Court, and Mr. W. Ruck, Clerk to Company the Company. Mr. Warner's evidence is second to none presented before the before the Commission in its importance in respect to the main Commission, points held in common by the various Livery Companies in regard J. H. Warner, represented by to charters, rights, and honest dealings with their estates and funds of the Court, throughout the past as in the present. Not even the Lord Chan- and Mr. W. cellor's evidence was more to the point than was Mr. Warner's. Able, Ruck, the clear, and given with evident sense of the dignity which should characterize upright men under the assail of libellous would-be dispossessors, Mr. Warner rose becomingly to the occasion. Mr. Warner created somewhat of a sensation, and the Commission could not avoid expressing, through Lord Derby, the idea that eminent counsel had drawn the Report of the Grocers, formally presented to the Commission, and subject of reference by Lord Derby. Unassumingly and with evident shrinking from any desire to take credit to himself, the able witness divided all such among his brethren of the Court and their able clerk, Mr. W. Ruck.

MR. J. H. WARNER, member of the Court, was thus interrogated by Lord Derby :

If I understand rightly, your view is that except as regards a very Evidence of small proportion of the property of the Company they are under no Mr. J. H. legal obligation to dispose of it in any particular way? Yes; I should say that is the case. Of course, I should admit a moral obligation.

Warner, of the
Grocers'
Company.

Mr. J. H.
Warner, of
the Grocers'
Company.

But you would not admit, if I understand you rightly, that there is more moral obligation on the part of the Company than on the part of any large possessor of income to dispose of it in any particular way?

I think a little more than that. I think we must look to the original constitution of the Company, which was that of a benevolent, religious, and social fraternity. The objects of that constitution still remain, and, I imagine, still have to be observed in the disposition of the property.

When you say that, do you mean that the Company could be compelled to observe them, or that, merely as a matter of good feeling, they would observe them?

That is a difficult question to answer. It is possible, I think, that the members of the Company might have some sort of right to enforce them, but I do not think there can be any other right except as between members of the Company.

You say that there is no external obligation?

No external obligation.

I daresay I have misunderstood it, but speaking broadly the revenue of the Company is about 40,0007. a year, is that so?

About that.

And the extent to which you consider there is any legal obligation is about 5007.?

Yes; about 5007.; I do not think quite so much, if we exclude the fixed payments of 3157. a year mentioned in the statement.

I put it roughly. I only speak in round numbers.

Quite so.

You are aware, I daresay, or I will ask you whether you are aware that that is a claim that is very much in excess of that made by any other particular Company?

I believe we stand quite alone in that respect. Of course the Commission is aware that the Company has got rid of very many of their trusts by the middle class school scheme under the Endowed Schools Act.

As I understood, your view is that the Company received land originally with some trusts attached to it?

In some cases; in others it was an absolute devise and gift to the Company with no trust at all.

But at all events in some cases with a trust attached to it?

I should rather say with conditions to be performed.

That then that property, or large portions of it at all events, was parted with and regained by the Company without the conditions ;-is not that your view?

That would apply to the particular portion of the Company's property which was regained by the Company, and the re-acquirement confirmed by the Act of James I.

I mean your view is that portions of the property of the Company are held by them free from any conditions at all from the beginning?

Yes.

And that considerable portions, though saddled originally with conditions, have now become, by the events that have taken place, free from those conditions in the hands of the Company? The conditions that have been got rid of in that way were connected with trusts which have been appropriated by the middle class schools scheme or else with superstitious uses?

I think there are no others.

Do not I understand from the paper you have handed in that there was

a getting back of some considerable portion of the property from, I think, Mr J. H. Edward VI. ?

That applied to so much of the Company's property as was devised for or in connection with superstitious uses.

That was parted with, and then got back from Edward VI. free from those uses; is that so?

I think it was not parted with. It became the property of the Crown under an Act of Henry VIII., and was afterwards regained by the Company.

Parted with, I mean by that lost to the Company?

Lost to the Company.

And that it was then re-annexed to the Company free from the uses that had theretofore attached to it?

On payment to the Crown.

And on that ground you say it is the private property of the Company?

Yes.

I understand you also to say that the Company, and I suppose you would say other companies too, but I confine you to your own, has nothing to do with the Corporation of London, and is no part of the Corportioan of London ?

Certainly it is no part of the Corporation of London. That was decided by Lord Chief Justice De Grey in Plume's case.

That is your view?

Yes.

The members and Livery of the Companies as such form part, do they not, of the Corporation?

I should say not. The Livery form part of a particular branch of the Corporation, the Common Hall, but only for very limited and special purposes.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW questioning Mr. Warner, asked: Can you tell me whether it is the practice of your Company to grant leases of all their property at rack rents, or is it sometimes the practice to grant at lower rents taking a premium?

We never take a premium.

Do you always grant at rack rents?

Or on building leases at the best rent that can be obtained by tender. Since you have had a knowledge of the Company, have the Company parted with any portion of their real estate?

They sold their Irish estate.

But beyond that?

Mr. Ruck tells me there have been small cases either of sale or exchange.

When property has been sold have the proceeds been treated as part of the corpus of the Company, or have they passed into the revenue account?

The proceeds are treated as capital.

That, I presume, you consider is the proper way of dealing with them?

I should say so, but on the other hand I see no difficulty in taking part of the capital for charitable purposes if required, as in the case of the London Hospital.

I presume you would not see any difficulty at all in taking any part of it, because you consider that the Company holds it just as any private individual would hold property?

I think we should be very unwilling to diminish the general amount of the Company's property; for instance, in the case of a large gift, such as

Warner, of the Grocers' Company.