Mr. T. Hare.

or less activity and state of trade in the chief manufacturing towns and districts, and where labourers may be 15 March 1882. needed, or are in excess. In the distribution of the eleemosynary funds, in alms houses, or pensions, or other rewards, they should, as I have elsewhere pointed out, be treated as rewards for those members who are shown "to have expended the best years of their lives "industriously and providently, and to have brought up their children well."

There is still another, and even a yet higher service which these great companies could render to their affiliated members. The chief of the difficulties of the working man and his family in our populous centres of traffic and labour, is that of obtaining a comfortable dwelling, within his means. He is often compelled to live in filthy lodgings, at the mercy of those from whom he must rent them, and exposed frequently to boisterous and perhaps drunken fellow occupiers of the house, over which he has no control. Such a condition and its surroundings strike at the root of that temperament of mind which would promote habits of order and culture. Nothing appears to me more important than that the town as well as the country labourer should feel that he has a home, into which he may at all times quietly return, and where he may gather and preserve any books, furniture, or other articles for his comfort and enjoyment. The same want, and its accompanying evils, exists abroad. In a book, treating elaborately of the state of the labourers in Paris and other towns in France, I have just read,—“ Le loyer

pour le travailleur est souvent la cause du désordre "dans le ménage, surtout avec l'élévation exorbitante "de ces derniers temps. L'impossibilité de trouver un logement d'un prix possible, la rapacité et les prétentions de certains propriétaires, sont la cause souvent, très-souvent, de découragements incroyables, "de haines implacables, et la base de misères effrayantes 66 et d'avilissements honteux."

66

A portion of the accumulated funds of the companies, and the produce of some of their present real property,

as it could be advantageously sold, might be gradually employed in the purchase of house property in London, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the great centres of labour, or on spots readily accessible therefrom. Any necessary alterations and improvements in the property may be made adapting it for the habitation of the members of the company and their families to whose places of employment it affords convenient access. Of these properties the company should hold the fee, and enable their associate members to purchase or take leases for any terms of years which they may agree upon, payments graduated or otherwise, being accepted from the purchasers, prices and rents being fixed at a rate which shall be sufficient fully to reimburse the company. A house may be let as a whole or in rooms or flats, as required by the tenant, and if he desires to extend or to surrender his lease, he may do so at rates regulated by tables calculated to secure the company from loss, but without exacting profit. Or the workman may remove to another situation or another town in which the company, if they have premises there, may enable him to exchange his dwelling on suitable terms. In this disposition of property it will be observed that I contemplate nothing in the way of charity. I am regarding the company as employing a portion of its wealth in securing comfortable homes for its members, avoiding at the same time any loss of capital, but seeking no accumulation of profit from the transaction.

The highly endowed companies, the objects, conditions, and destinations whereof are the subject of this inquiry, may wisely and justly be brought into harmony with their early history, and made the nucleus of a coöperative union, of far greater extent, and wider and more benefical influence, than any which has yet grown up, or been formed during the progress of modern civilisation. They may be the means of binding together the various sections of employers and workmen, and directing their attention to objects in which they have a community of interest, and which minister to the prosperity and well-being of all.

I desire to explain that part of my former evidence which expressed my belief that the obstacles imposed by what is called the Mortmain Act to the devise of real estate for charitable or public purposes are a great misfortune. It seems to me that there cannot be too much of the land of the country devoted to public purposes, the State reserving to itself the power of regulating such purposes, so that they shall not be otherwise than beneficial, and placing the estates under the management of agents appointed for prescribed districts, who, while securing for the institutions for which the trusts are held, the due produce and profit, shall yet have regard to the general utility and benefit. The efforts and interests of occupiers in all the works of cultivation and of improvement might be promoted and carried out in every variety of form. Tenancies not longer than for a life or lives, or a term of years of similar duration, may be created by way of sale or lease, according as it may be deemed best in the joint interest of the public and the purchaser or lessee. By the word sale I mean that the lease may be granted free of rent, in consideration of the sum paid by the lessee at its inception or by subsequent instalments, if the lease be not made at the full rent at the time. Where the management is by a public officer, as that of all lands held in mortmain or on perpetual trusts should be, the personal views, prepossessions, or prejudices of a private owner of agricultural land, often almost inevitably antagonistic to any thorough encouragement or development of the subordinate interests of tenants and occupiers, are entirely eliminated, and inducements for unlimited expenditure of capital and labour in improvements may be held out.

If a private owner was asked by tenant to grant him a lease of a part of his estate for his life or for a term of 50 or 70 years, with unrestricted powers of improvement, the private proprietor, actuated by reasons with which most persons might sympathise, would probably refuse such a concession. It would deprive him of that authority and dominion over that portion of his estate. and the occupiers might have power to deal with it in a manner that would be unpalatable or offensive to him. A long lease, moreover, granted on the payment of a gross sum to the owner of the fee, would be inconsistent with most settlements of real property. These obstacles to the creation of subordinate holdings of an independent character under private ownership, would have no existence in the case of the public estates. The public would have no prejudice against parting with their authority over such of its lands for the term agreed upon, and would be satisfied and secure on the possession of the annual rent or of the equivalent capital sum. Again, the tenant under public ownership might be enabled at any time, under suitable terms, to extend or to surrender his lease or commute his rent. Tables of value and duration might be settled analogous to the terms on which insurances for life or pensions at specified ages are arranged. No special arrangements of this kind are generally possible with regard to interests in lands held under private owners. The commercial facilities of dealing with land would be thus indefinitely multiplied. The interposition of the State to prevent land from being devised to public purposes, which has gone on for nearly 150 years, therefore, appears to me a most absurd and mischievous policy.

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF Bedford, K.G.

THE RIGHT HON. LORD COLERIDGE.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR RICHARD ASSHETON CROSS, G.C.B., M.P.

SIR NATHANIEL M. DE ROTHSCHILD, BART., M.P.

MR. HENRY LONGLEY

299. (The Chairman.) I need hardly ask you whether you are a Charity Commissioner?-I am.

300. How many years have you held office ?-Nearly eight years; I was appointed in 1874.

301. You have, in your official capacity, had dealings with various amongst the City Companies?-With

some.

302. We understand the Companies are bound, under an Act of Parliament, to submit an account of their expenditure on charitable purposes yearly to the Charity Commissioners ?—They are.

303. Has that Act been complied with ?—Yes, it has with more regularity than is the case in most other charities. I have got a paper here which shows the dates of the latest accounts which we have received from the Companies, which will show that they are not far behindhand. The accounts appear to have been all rendered for the year 1880, with only two or three exceptions, and a considerable number for the year 1881; and when I say that they have been rendered for the year 1881, that is really more than they are bound to do, because they are not bound to return the accounts till the 25th of March 1882, so that this is what we should consider a very good state of accounts.

1

304. On the whole you consider that they have discharged their duty under the Act in a satisfactory manner?-So far as rendering accounts is concerned.

305. Do you require the production of vouchers, or do you in any way verify the statements which they make to you?-No, we do not. I should be glad to read a passage or two from the earlier reports of the Commissioners upon that subject, because there has been a good deal of misapprehension in the public mind as to the duty of the Commissioners in that respect. In the 14th Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1866, we say that certain advantages which have been stated are all "secured without any general examination or central audit of all the accounts "in our office. The Charitable Trusts Acts do not "prescribe, nor as we think contemplate such a gigantic "operation, for which, moreover, the existing establish"ment and machinery of our office would be utterly "inadequate. In all necessary cases, however, the "accounts are subjected to a rigid examination under our direction." I cannot answer your Lordship's question better than by quoting that.

66

306. I understand it to mean that you do not insist upon the production of vouchers or go into the question of accounts in general, but that you would do so if you thought there were special reasons calling upon you to do so in any particular case?--Yes; and I should be glad to add that we do not institute an examination of all the accounts that come to the office by any means. A Bill was before Parliament last year for enabling us to institute an effectual audit of those accounts, which Bill did not become law.

307. Taking such a case as that of a school or any building for charitable purposes being erected by a Company, in compliance with a charitable bequest, out of trust money, would you be bound to

satisfy yourselves that all the trust money authorised to be spent upon the building had been so spent, or would you take the statement as you received it ?—I had better describe our practice in that matter. The Companies, like other trustees of charities, have no power to expend capital without our sanction; they must come for our sanction for the expenditure of capital, and we should require certificates from the architect that the amount was required. So far as the capital was in the hands of the Company, unless our attention was specially directed to any suspicion of anything being wrong, we should take it as your Lordship puts it.

308. In cases where the charity takes the form of pensions or gifts, I presume you have no power to satisfy yourselves that the persons receiving those gifts are in a condition to require them ?-If we were informed or had reason to believe that the Company were not fulfilling their trust, we could send an inspector and inspect the mode of administering it; and if after inquiry it appeared to us that the Company were not discharging their trust, we could ask them to apply to us for a scheme, and if they did not do so, we should certify a case to the AttorneyGeneral, who would bring it before the Court of Chancery in order that a scheme might be made compelling strict adherence to the trust.

309. But you would require to be set in motion by some complaint or appeal made to you ?—Yes; we have no means of ascertaining more than that. The charities of the country are too numerous for us to be always inquiring into them; our attention is directed in a great many different ways to abuses in charities.

310. Are you aware of any cases in which a Company having trust money in its possession has diminished in numbers and finally broken up?-I am not aware except from reading papers furnished to me by the secretary of the Commission. We have no information as to Companies other than as trustees of charities.

311. Then it would be a purely hypothetical question to ask you what means you would adopt for the protection of a trust estate in such a case?—I have no experience.

312. It is a case which has never arisen ?-It is a case which has never arisen. The small Companies have in some cases no trust estates; it is usually the large Companies that we have to do with.

313. Are you aware that the trust estates and corporate estates of a Company are very closely connected?—Yes, they are no doubt.

314. In many cases we have been given to understand that the charities which are trusts are rentcharges upon lands which are the property of the Corporation?-Very frequently.

315. In such a case would you have any power to interfere to prevent the land being sold ?-No. The land in such a case would be vested in the Company subject to the charitable trust affecting the whole land, that is subject to a rentcharge in the way in which any land may be subject to a rentcharge.

316. Then if the land were sold the rentcharge would remain upon the estate ?—Yes; if the land were sold the rentcharge would remain upon the estate. Of course there is a great risk of a rentcharge being lost in such a case, and numberless cases come before us in which rentcharges have been lost. It is a most precarious kind of charitable property, and one which we try to get commuted into capital.

317. Can you state of your own knowledge whether it has happened that when money has been left to Companies in early times, to be invested in land for charitable purposes, the Companies have not been able to point out to the Commissioners the land so purchased. or to show that the trust to buy land had ever been executed ?-I believe that to be the case. I have not in my mind any particular case, but I have a strong impression that cases of that kind can be found. 318. I presume that that would only apply to trusts where the money had been left at a very remote period?-Yes, I think so. Trusts in the last century

there would not be much difficulty in tracing, as far as my recollection goes.

319. I will put a more general question to you. Can you state your impression of the manner in which the Companies, generally speaking, have discharged their duties as trustees ?—I have only experience of a limited number of Companies; and in regard to those Companies I should say that they have been. exceedingly liberal in their administration of the trusts, and in many cases, which are already known to the Commission, they have subsidised the trust funds, in many instances very largely, out of their corporate income. On the other hand, our experience is that their administration of the trusts has been on a very generous scale as regards expenses, almost lavish in some cases.

320. They have been liberal in increasing the trust funds where they were deficient, but they have not been very economical in their administration of them? -No, not in the management.

321. Have any questions arisen with regard to the Companies' trust estates; questions affecting the proprietary right between the Company and the trust?Very frequently.

322. Are you of opinion that in such cases loss of trust funds has been caused by such legal difficulties as you have referred to ?-I have a case here which I think the Commissioners are aware of, but it is stated in a very compendious form in the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, in which it is obvious that a very considerable loss had been sustained in consequence of a particular view, which ultimately turned out to be the right one, not having been taken by the Company. (1) It is the case of the Drapers' Company, Howell's Charity; the reference is the 20th volume of the Schools Inquiry Commission Reports, page 154, and there it is stated that the charity was founded by Thomas Howell in 1540, who left to the Drapers' Company 12,000 ducats for providing certain yearly portions and so forth; and in 1559 the Court of Chancery ordered the Company, the income being 1057. a year, to deduct 217. for expenses, and to pay the remaining 847. to the four orphans, whose connexion with the founder was to be ascertained by the Bishop of Llandaff. "No further direc"tions being given concerning the amount of payments "to be made, the Company paid the specific sum of "847. a year for the purposes of the charity, and carried "the rest of the income to the account of the Company "until the year 1845, when the Master of the Rolls

declared the whole of the funds in hand and the rents "of the land to be applicable to the purposes of the "charity, and directed that application should be made "to Parliament for powers to extend the charity." I believe that the income of the charity is now 6,4007. a year.

323. (Sir Richard Cross.) I believe you have inquired into the details of this case of Howell's Charity?—Yes. A scheme for the alteration of the

(1) See evidence of Drapers' Deputation, p.

charity is now before us. It was delayed in consequence of the appointment of a Committee the year before last to inquire into higher education in Wales,

324. Do I understand that they got into this difficulty by paying over what they thought they were bound to do, and having a great surplus, which they used for other purposes?-They read a decree of the Court of Chancery, which was made in the 16th century, as obliging them only to devote to that purpose 847. a year. When the case came before the

Court of Chancery again in the 19th century the Court said that they ought to have devoted the whole income to the charity.

325. (The Chairman.) I understand that in that case the Company considered that the property was their own, subject to a fixed charge for charitable purposes?-That is so.

326. And it was ultimately determined by the Court of Chancery that the whole property was trust property? Yes.

327. (Sir Richard Cross.) How do you distinguish on the Charity Commission? Have you any broad line of distinction between trust property and corporate property ?-We have nothing to do with corporate property.

328. Do you inquire whether certain property is corporate property or trust property?—Yes. When a case is brought before us we get the fullest information we can, and sometimes we find it necessary, as in the Wax Chandlers' case, to send to the Court of Chancery.

329. Can you draw a distinction between one and the other ?-Yes, whenever there is a trust declared by an instrument of the founder for a charitable purpose.

330. If there was money left to a Company, to the Wax Chandlers' Company or the Goldsmiths' Company, or any other Company, simply in the name of the Company, without any trust attached, you would not consider it was trust property at all?—No.

331. You would not consider that the mere fact of such a body as one of these Companies having money left to them would imply a trust for public uses?— No; we should look and see if it was a trust to charitable uses within the intention of the Statute of Charitable Uses, which is our guide.

332. You would not take it that there was an implied trust from the fact of the money being left to the Company, but you would look to the specific trust in which it was left?—Yes; a charitable trust, of course, may be inferred from expressions and so on.

333. The mere fact of a Company having money left to them does not imply a trust ?-No; that is my opinion.

334. (Mr. James.) It has been represented to us that there is no power at present to prevent any of those Companies (assuming that legislation was defective, and that the Company should be dissolved,) from appropriating and dividing amongst themselves the property; assuming that the dissolution of the Company took place, what would become of the trust property? It would still remain affected by the charitable trust, and it would be our duty to see that trustees were appointed.

335. You would appoint trustees?-We cannot appoint trustees without proper application, and if we could not get trustees appointed in any other way, we should ask the Attorney-General to bring the matter before the Chancery Division for its decision.

336. At the time of the passing of the Municipal Act in 1835, there were many of these guilds in provincial towns ?—Yes.

337. And in some of those cases there were small trusts attached to those guilds ?—Yes.

338. Are you aware whether any of them were extinguished at that time?—I have not been able to find any trace of that. I had an intimation that I might be asked such a question, and I made inquiries in our office, and I find that though we are aware of the existence of some of the country guilds as trustees

of charities, we have nothing to show that any have failed. We have eight or ten as trustees of charities.

339. Are they trustees that you appointed yourselves?-No; they are trustees appointed by ancient founders of certain charities, some of them very ancient; the Merchant Venturers of Bristol and the Keelmen of Newcastle are two specimens.

340. You say that you find that the Companies were rather liberal and lavish as regards the management of trust property; that would not apply to all the trust property in the hands of the official trustee, because over that they have no control?-They have absolute control over the income. The official trustee is merely the custodian of the capital; it is the duty of the official trustee, and he is bound by the Act by which he is constituted, to remit the dividends to the acting trustees.

341. But by the appointment of official trustees, where the trust funds have been transferred to an official trustee, there has been an enormous saving in the charge and expenses to the Company ?—A very considerable saving, because it saves all transfers in the first place.

342. Do you know the exact amount of trust property at present invested in the hands of official trustees, which belongs to the guilds ?-No; but I can furnish the Commission with that information. I should say that it is a very small amount, and they have not been at all willing to avail themselves of what we consider the advantages of the official trustees.

343. Can you account for that unwillingness ?It is a reluctance among many trustees; they prefer to have the custody of the capital of their funds; while we, on the other hand, maintain and think we are warranted in maintaining that they are trustees to spend the income, and they can only spend the capital either by the sanction of the Court or our Board.

344. But they think, I suppose, that they are better custodians?-Yes.

345. (Mr. Burt.) I understand you to say that the Companies generally have complied with the law in rendering their accounts ?-Yes.

346. There are exceptions, I suppose?-All the Companies, I think, have rendered the accounts. The paper that I have in my hand shows that every Company has rendered the accounts. The Bowyers' Company appears to be behindhand, and the Wool Winders; but it is doubtful whether they have more than one charity each.

347. I understood you to say that there were one or two exceptions ?-The exceptions are these, that in a few instances we have not the accounts of 1880, but the 1879 accounts were the latest accounts.

348. They are not due yet for 1880, are they ?They are due for 1880, but not for 1881; though in some instances we have them for 1881, they are not due till the 25th of this month; but in a great many cases, nearly one-third of the cases, we have them for 1881. The accounts, I should say, are as a rule sent with very fair punctuality, and in the case of the Companies that I have to do with personally, they are exceedingly well made out.

349. You have power, I suppose, to compel the Companies to send them in ?-Yes.

350. (Lord Coleridge.) There are two questions which I should like to ask you. One is this: has it ever been decided, and, if so, can you tell me where, that the charters constitute no trust? (1) (2)—I had occasion to look into a question analogous to that last year, and I have brought some notes which I made then. There are two cases I think which are generally cited. One is that of the Attorney-General v. the Corporation of Carmarthen, which is reported in Cooper, page 30; and the note which I have of that is that a court of equity will not interfere to prevent misapplication of corporate funds, as distinct from funds held by the Corporation, on express charitable trust.

(1) See Goldsmiths' Memorial, p. (2)See Clothworkers' Observations, p.

The next case that I have is the Mayor of Colchester v. Lonten, 2 Vesey and Beavan, page 226. In that case it was held that the "court of equity does not "attach the doctrine of trust, as applied under the "words 'corporate purposes,' to alienation of their

66

property by a civil corporation." There, Lord Eldon refused to interfere to prevent the alienation of corporate property not affected by the charitable trust.

351. That does not quite answer my question; those are municipal corporations. I am supposing the case of a corporation created by charter for a particular purpose, not invested with municipal authority, or a municipal corporation; but a corporation with special object; has it ever been decided that the charter so creating them and pointing out to them that object create no trust ?-I have not been able to find any case. Last year I took pains to try for a case, and I asked Sir Arthur Hobhouse to be good enough to help me, and he furnished me with most of the cases that I have here, all of which are on municipal corporations.

352. You see that there is a broad distinction in point of law?—Yes. I searched as closely as I could for such a case.

353. As far as you can judge, is there any principle of equity which should prevent the High Court from enforcing, if it could find it out, the obligation imposed upon the corporation by its charter ?—I am not aware of any authority upon the subject. The only distinction which I thought I saw was that these charters were granted not directly for a public use.

354. That is rather what I am suggesting. Supposing it was granted for a specific purpose, is not the very ground upon which you enforce trusts that the money is entrusted to the corporation for a specified and distinct purpose, and not entrusted to it for its general objects ?—Yes, no doubt.

355. Would it not be carrying a little further the same principle, where the corporation itself has a special object and not a general public object, and that object I will assume for the purpose of my question, capable of being ascertained from the charter, that it should be capable of being enforced?-I really am not aware of any authority upon the point.

356. It has never been decided to the contrary ?— It has never been decided to the contrary, and I was very much pressed by the same question last year; I forget how it arose, but I took pains to ascertain how it was.

357. When was it first decided that a charity is not entitled to the equivalent of the whole bequest? Do I express myself clearly to you? I will assume that lands were bequeathed to the Goldsmiths' Company, we will say, then being worth 30l. a year, for the purpose of maintaining some poor scholars, and that 201. a year was to go to the specified object, and the remaining 101. was left unspecified, and would, therefore, pass to the general funds of the corporation. When was it first decided that when that 301. becomes 3,000l., the 201. only should remain allocated to the charity, and the whole of the rest of the increment go to the private funds of the corporation ?-It has been so decided from ancient times, certainly.

358. What is the principle upon which they should not be entitled to the proportion? I quite understand that, if the thing goes on increasing, the Corporation are to benefit in the increment as well as the charity; but why is the charity not to benefit at all; upon what principle was that ever decided?-It depends very much upon the terms of the gift; that is fully explained in Lord Cairns' judgment in the Wax Chandlers' case. He draws the distinction very clearly there. I should wish to refer to that and also to Lord Cranworth's judgment in the case of the Attorney-General v. the Dean and Canons of Windsor, in 8, House of Lords' Cases, page 369.

359. I know the fact is so, but I want to know the history of it?-Those cases will explain it in a great

measure.

Mr.

22 Mar. 1882.

360. (Sir Richard Cross.) Will you give us shortly H. Longley. what that case to which you refer was?-It was an information by the Attorney-General against the Dean and Canons of Windsor, at the instigation of the Military Knights of Windsor, seeking to establish that they were entitled to a proportion of the increased value of certain property which the dean and chapter held, and it was eventually determined (and it is the only case in recent years in which the AttorneyGeneral has been defeated) that the Military Knights were not entitled, and that the dean and chapter were entitled to hold it subject to a fixed charge.

361. (Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild.) You say that the Companies do not care to make use of the official trustees; is that on account of the different investments that are made, or do they invest generally in consols?—In consols almost exclusively.

362. And they do not choose other investments ?— I do not think that the Companies, as trustees of charities, are so fond of other investments as other trustees are. I think the Companies have great belief in consols, and in the general management of consols.

363. (The Chairman.) With regard to the application of the Companies' charities, are you aware how their trust income can be spent; have you got the figures before you ?—Yes, I have the figures.

364. Should we be accurate in taking it at 75,000%. for the relief of poor members, 75,000l. more for education, and 50,000l. for miscellaneous charitable objects, making 200,000/. in all ?—I am afraid I cannot verify those figures. I asked our Registrar of Accounts when I heard that I was to be examined, whether he could get out the figures, but he said it would take a very long time. I have no doubt that this information is quite as correct as any that we could furnish.

365. Have you any knowledge of the details of that expenditure; would it come before you?-Yes, we have all the accounts; we can see how it is all spent if we refer to the accounts; and in the cases with which I have had personally to do I am aware of a good deal of the detail.

366. First of all, with regard to the relief of the poor members, how is it administered; are there almshouses and pensions, or in what other form is it administered?—I am not aware of any form other than almshouses and pensions in which it is administered, except that money grants are made in some cases, but a very large proportion of it is administered in almshouses, and a very large sum in pensions.

367. Do you consider that that system has worked satisfactorily upon the whole ?-I have had no means of ascertaining how far it has met the wants of the poor of the Companies, because I do not know how many poor there are in each Company; we hear hardly any complaints on that score; the Companies are generally anxious that their almspeople should have sufficient stipends; and in many cases they have made up the payment from their own corporate funds.

368. We have had it stated that to the 200,000l. which I mentioned just now they add out of their corporate income 140,000l. more ?-That I have no personal knowledge of, and if the accounts would not show it, we should have no means of verifying it; they might, but the Companies are not bound to tell us all that.

369. With reference to the educational endowments, are you acquainted with the Mercers' Company?—Yes; I have had a good deal to do with some of the charities of the Mercers' Company.

370. They are trustees of St. Paul's School, and also of the Mercers' School ?-They are.

371. Are those schools largely endowed ?--Very largely. St. Paul's School has an income of about 12,000l. a year, which is now administered by a scheme made by the Endowed School Commissioners, about the year 1874 or 1875, which has since been amended in some details by the Charity Commission.

372. Have you had an opportunity of examining those schemes in detail ?-Yes, I have; I have got the scheme here, and I have got the details.

373. Do you consider that the endowment is properly expended for the purpose for which it is intended? -Perhaps I had better state a few figures; the income being 12,000l. a year, the scheme requires them to maintain a school, or rather two departments of a school, for 1,000 boys, and a school for 400 girls, both of which are to be maintained within a short distance of London. The annual charges prescribed by the scheme, that is to say, for the payment of the masters for the free boys, and exhibitions for the girls, and for repairs, are 6,3407.; besides that, the income would have to bear the expense of examinations, management, and other expenses; then they have to buy sites for these two schools, and to build the schools, which would involve a very large appropriation of capital. Nothing has yet been done in respect of the school for girls, because the governors are employed now in establishing the school for boys. I should say that the school is subject to two governing bodies; the Mercers' Company are the estate trustees, and manage the property, and pay over the income to the governing body, specially appointed under the scheme. The Charity Commissioners have sanctioned the expenditure of 41,000%. upon a site near Hammersmith, close to the Metropolitan District Railway, and they have sanctioned an expenditure of 91,000l. upon the school buildings, and those buildings have been in progress about a year, and pending the establishment of that school we understand that the governors do not propose to do anything in respect of the girls' schools; they are meeting this expenditure as far as they can out of the income of the school; but they will not be able to meet it all. So that the endowment, so far as we are aware, is very judiciously applied at present in carrying out the scheme, and probably, after the deductions of capital are made which are necessary to give full effect to the scheme, there will not be any large surplus.

374. Are you also acquainted with the Mercers' School?—No, I have had no dealings with it.

375. Then you are not in a position to give an opinion as to its usefulness ?-No, I am not. I believe that a scheme for an endowment connected with it is either now in progress or will shortly be taken in hand.

376. Now with regard to the miscellaneous and charitable objects, we know nothing of them beyond their names; taking the Mercers' Company as a type, can you tell us at all what they are ?—I think they are very largely almshouses and pensions, and small charities or doles, and of course education, with which we have dealt already. The Mercers' Company have very large pension charities and almshouse charities. One of the largest is Trinity Hospital, Greenwich, which was the subject of a scheme made by the Charity Commissioners five or six years ago, in which there was a very large surplus income indeed, which has been provided for by a scheme.

377. I take it from what you have said that in a considerable number of those cases the charities of the Companies have been examined by the Charity Commissioners, and schemes framed, and that they have been put in order?—I should think that a great many of the more important ones have been, but by no means the larger proportion, if you take them numerically, but the more important ones have. There is one very important charity of the Mercers' Company not taken in hand, that is Sir Richard Whittington's Hospital, which is a case which calls for a scheme very loudly.

378. What is the case of that hospital; can you give us any account of it ?-The income is over 10,000l. a year. The original foundation was by Sir Richard Whittington for an almshouse. The Company expend 2,6007. upon the college, as it is called, and 4,5507. for 130 out-pensioners; and they spend in compassionate allowances to about 60 persons close upon 3,000l. a year. I should say that there is no express trust for anything but the inmates of the hospital; therefore it is essentially a case requiring a scheme, because, as it has been often held by the Court of Chancery, the trustees have no power to