charitable use?-You will not see my contention, which is that the Charity Commissioners are wrong, and that that 13,000/. must follow the 97. 10s.

948. (Sir R. Cross.) Does not that depend upon the way in which the property came to them ?—Not when the surplus comes to the Corporation.

949. Do you not remember the judgment of Lord Cairns ?—Yes, I do; I put it before you the other day, and when it comes into the company as income it is public income.

950. That is another question altogether, is it not? -It is public income, and cannot be considered as private.

951. (Chairman.) I think we are getting into a little confusion, when you say the Charity Commissioners are wrong in certain decisions they have given, I do not apprehend you to mean that they are legally wrong, and that they could legally have given any other decision, but that you think the principle upon which by the law they are compelled to act is not that which ought to be applied to the cases of Corporations ; am I right in putting that construction upon your answer?—No, the Corporation being a public body, as I contend, the money must go to public uses, and as near like the original uses as possible.

952. In short, in the case you mention, whether the Company has a legal right or not to the funds in question, you consider that it has not a moral right, is that your distinction ?—No, I take it the words legal right to mean established legal right. It has the right to pay 97. 10s., but not the right to put the other part of the income into its coffers. I say that that income must be equally applied to public uses, the Company being a corporation.

953. (Sir R. Cross.) I think you said that the particular charity which was entitled to the 97. 10s. would be entitled to the 13,000l. a year also ?—No, I say that it should be applied to the like uses.

954. What you mean is to get it quite clear, that the 97. 10s. must go to the particular charity, and that if the 13,0001. goes to the Corporation under the decision of Lord Cairns, the Corporation can only use that for some public trust, not for their own purposes, --that is what you meant ?-Clearly.

955. (Sir S. Waterlow.) Following out Sir Richard Cross' question, does not that really involve the whole question of whether, whatever property the Livery Companies have they have no right to exercise absolute control over it, dealing with it as they see fit? That is the whole contention.

956. (Sir R. Cross.) That is your whole case in fact? Yes, we want a new departure.

957. (Sir S. Waterlow.) As regards this particular Bradbury's trust you are willing to admit, as I understand, after the decision arrived at by the Charity Commissioners, that assuming the Corporations to be entitled to that which they thought and paid for out of their corporate funds, they are now appropriating what by law they are required to appropriate to trust purposes, and only dealing corporately with that which the law has permitted them hitherto to deal with? As a Corporation that is quite right. You have ear-marked all that property, it is at the present time corporate property, and we now know all about it.

958. Is it not a fact that the 100 acres which the Mercers' Company lost out of the 109 acres were conveyed from the Mercer's Company by an Act of Parliament in the reign of King Henry VIII., and have not been held by them since that time, and that the Company have had no control over it at all?—I am not blaming them, I only say it mysteriously disappeared. Herbert tells us in his book that the City bought it under an Act of Henry VIII.

959. How can you call it a mysterious disappearance when openly known to everybody by the Act of Parliament ?-We did not find that out for a very long time; we have had most important hints as to its arising out of church property in Conduit Street.

960. You cannot impute any blame to the Mercers' Company can you in reference to it, assuming that

they have the right to deal with their corporate funds? I say they have that right only for the like uses to which that 97. 10s. a year was left.

961. That is the main question, is it not ?—Yes. 962. The Mercers' Company cannot be blamed for what they have done in the matter can they ?-Why should not they do what is right?

963. They contend, of course, that they have the right to deal with their own property and that is the whole issue? That is a matter which you gentlemen are here to say something about hereafter.

964. In question 567 you refer to the operation of the law of mortmain as regards the livery companies, I presume that your objection is a fiscal one?Largely, but of course there is the other objection, that I do not like to see land locked up unnecessarily.

965. With regard to the fiscal part of the question, can you point to any company that has ever objected to a consideration of what they ought to pay in consequence of their not paying succession duty, and is it not a fact that two of the companies-the Clothworkers' and the Goldsmiths'-have in their reports suggested that some payment should be made by the companies in consequence of their not paying succession duty?—Yes, there is that, but it is a death-bed repentance.

966. Would that remove your fiscal objection ?— No, my objection of course is to any land being held in mortmain at all. If you get rid of fiscal payment every 30 or 35 years, you do not get rid of the fact of land being locked up in the market.

967. I think you objected to the companies not continuing their connexion with trade, are you aware that there are some of the companies which still carry on the trades with which they were originally connected?—I think we had that all out last examination in connexion with the Apothecaries' and Gunmakers'.

968. I have looked over the report of the evidence given last time, and I should like to ask you whether you are aware that the Stationers' only elect members of their own body or members of their own trade?—There is another argument put forward by the Goldsmiths' Company, namely, that they ought to represent the public also.

969. I ask you whether you are aware that the Stationers' Company only elect members connected with their own trade?-Yes, the Stationers' are a small Company chiefly dealing in old almanacs, and having some privileges in regard to copyright, for which they charge fees.

970. Do they not still carry on their trade in the publication of almanacs?-Yes, a small trade.

971. That is some evidence, is it not?-If the publication of Old Moore's Almanac is a great and beneficent purpose of a great City Company, I agree that it is some evidence.

972. Do they not exercise powers under the Copyright Act ?-Yes, for which they charge fees.

973. Do you question the legal right of the Companies to divide among themselves, if they thought of it to do so, their private corporate property?—They have no private corporate property.

974. I thought we agreed those were the words used by the judges?—I said it was a contradiction in

terms.

975. I refer to what they call their private property, as distinct from their trust property?—They cannot have any right to distribute it among themselves, it is public property.

976. Are you aware of the case of Brown v. Dale, which was tried before the Master of the Rolls in the High Court of Justice on the 21st of March 1878, in which the contention as to the right of the Fullers' and Dyers' of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to divide the whole of their property amongst the then members of the guild was raised ?—No, I am not aware of it.

977. I call your attention then to the decision of the Master of the Rolls in that matter. The Master of the Rolls there says, "Yes, it is a common trade guild, and they have absolute control over the pro

66

perty. These trade guilds are common enough, or

were at one time, singularly common. many thousands of them, which have now disap26 April 1882.❝peared, they were clubs, or voluntary associations, 66 or members of a craft or trade, and they dealt with "their own property as they liked without any trust "whatever. They had a right to do so, and this property must be divided accordingly"? That does not touch our case in the least, which is separate from that of the Corporation of Newcastle.

66

978. If the livery companies have not absolute right to deal with their property, how do you reconcile the fact that the courts have recognised their rights and have admitted their power to deal with it by confirming conveyances of all kinds within the last 50 years? Then they must re-invest the proceeds. So long as the corpus does not go out of the Corporation,

I do not mind if the court assent.

979. If they do not assent, what then?-Then I say it is a fraud if they do not.

980. I gather your answer to be, that if properties have been so sold, and the proceeds have not been re-invested for the same purposes, it has been a fraud?-Certainly. I do not know of any instance. I regretted to hear what you said as to its having been done. I was almost thinking that it had not been done, and that they were so honourable that they would not do it. If every case stand upon its own footing and you will let me know of any such case I shall be very happy to answer your question. My point is that the money is divided. In the case of the Leeds Corporation the sale had taken place before the Municipal Reform Act of 1835.

66

66

981. Question 670, referring to technical education runs thus :-" You spoke of technical education, and "said you do not approve of it as at present com"menced?" In reply to which you say, "No, I "take the view of Professor Huxley that sufficient "inquiry had not been made, and that the matter was jumped forward to appease the demand of public opinion for something." Are you aware that before the Livery Companies did anything in the way of promoting their scheme for technical education they took the opinion of Professor Huxley, and that their scheme is based upon his opinion and his recommendation jointly with the opinions of two or three other professors? Yes, Professors Donelly, Armstrong, and so on. I had the document here last time. You will see that in Professor Huxley's letter to the "Times," he rather complains that they have departed from their views, but I go further about that. I think they began altogether wrong in this vast expenditure of money before inquiry by men of the same stamp as Professor Huxley, and that they should have begun in our school boards,-I think that technical education really begins there.

982. How can you make that assertion when the Livery Companies in announcing their scheme, printed and published the opinions of those various professors and based their scheme upon their recommendations? I must bring Professor Huxley's letter, if you will allow me, to show the variation they made between his scheme and the scheme they adopted.

983. You are probably aware that such men as Mr. Spottiswoode, the President of the Royal Society, and Sir Frederick Bramwell are acting conjointly with the livery companies who propose the scheme?— Yes, I am aware of that.

954. Is it not a fact that the Court of Chancery has lately recognised the City Guilds' Institute as the best channel through which bequests for the purpose of technical education could be promoted?--I was not aware of it, I have not followed the legal intelligence lately.

985. But the Court of Chancery in appropriating some charitable trusts on the ci pres principle have recommended that the money should be placed at the disposal of the Guilds Institute, and I ask you whether that is not some evidence that in the opinion

of the Court of Chancery the scheme has been well prepared?-That is not evidence that a much wider scheme would not have been better.

986. (Chairman.) I should like to ask one or two questions in explanation. I understood you to say that you thought it doubtful whether the charters of the companies would not be found to be legally invalid if the question were tested ?-(1) The extract I put in from Magna Charta distinctly states that the King will not grant charters against the privileges of the citizens, and certainly it was against their privileges to give a right of search against any trader, and the Bill of Rights expressly regrants the charters, "so far as they are lawfully good."

987. Has that question ever been tested?—Not to my knowledge.

988. Has there not been every opportunity of testing it for an indefinite time past ?--I think not; they have ceased to trade and therefore so far as the offensive character of their charters is concerned there was an end of it. For two centuries and more they have not traded, except as regards the small things to which Sir Sydney Waterlow has referred. But the words are in inverted commas, and it seems to me a sort of mental reservation. Of course there are lawyers who have paid great attention to the subject. I only refer to it so that their opinion might be obtained. The words are to the effect that they so far confirmed the charters which they "lawfully had." My contention is that they had some unlawfully.

989. Do you think it likely that any court of law would determine that a charter which had been acted upon for 200 years, and more, was invalid from the beginning without any substantial alteration? Would it not be held to have become valid by long usage ?— The Court might decide that, but I say, if it were bad in the commencement nothing could make it good.

990. (Sir R. Cross.) Is that a tenable point now? -I am told that it is a good point.

991. (Chairman.) You spoke of its being desirable to take other means to obtain the evidence of the companies than those existing at present. Do you not think that it would be premature to suggest the use of compulsion until we know that the information

we

want will not be voluntarily given? We did suggest it before the Commission was granted, and you will remember Sir William Harcourt's answer was, that he would try this means first, and as you have a large mass of information given to you, you were probably wise in doing so, but I should have liked a Statutory Commission. That is only my view.

992. (Mr. James.) If you had a Statutory Commission, how do you think it would have been possible by having statutory powers to produce the evidence?I do not think it would have produced it; on the contrary, I think that it would very largely have extended it; you would then have the power to send for persons, books, and papers, as I instanced in the case of Winchester College and Lord Brougham.

993. You cannot compel or force people to speak, can you?-Lord Brougham did so somehow; he threatened to commit them if they did not.

994. Have you ever read a pamphlet on the reform of City guilds, by Mr. John Robert Taylor?-Yes.

995. There are a variety of personal and other charges made against members of the companies in that pamphlet, are there not?-That is the one in which he attacked Alderman Owden, is it not?

996. It is, but there are a good many charges against the companies and those connected with them. Do you know whether those charges were correct or not? They were never replied to. I do not know whether that may be taken as an inference that they were correct. The parties concerned may have thought them too bad or too mean to reply to.

(1) See the Goldsmiths' Memorial, p. 306.

and position of those gentlemen who have been admitted by redemption were the sole qualifications for membership; and lastly, that but very few craftsmen were among the number. I may add that I entertain the conviction that their charters are legally forfeited by the mode in which they have constructed the court of wardens, and, directly the duty upon gold and silver plate shall have been abolished, it is my intention to challenge their right to compel me to obey their laws, or even the Acts of Parliament themselves which were clearly passed upon the faith of those charters. Even to raise such an issue, right or wrong, would go far to break the back of such mischievous laws as now beset my trade.

1015. Why do you consider it necessary to wait for the repeal of the duty on gold and silver plate before you can raise that legal question ?-Because as long as the duty prevails the Hall mark is a safeguard to the revenue; and again, with regard to the duty, we are liable to the excise department of the Government. But with regard to the Hall marking laws the Government have nothing to do; they are simply in the hands of the Goldsmiths' Company. I wish, therefore, to wait until the taxation has been abolished.

1016. But if your objection be directed to any compulsory interference to your trade by any company, no matter how organized, is it material from that point of view to show that the Goldsmiths' Company does not, as a matter of fact, represent the trade?—I think it is highly desirable to show that, because it will go far to get the law altered so that that trade may be perfectly free, like other trades.

1017. We only want to get at your opinion, but as I understand it, if the Company were so altered that it really were composed of men for the most part skilled in the trade, still that would not remove your objection to compulsory interference ?-No; I should object more strongly to the Company being composed entirely of craftsmen.

1018. Then, in that case, I presume that the manner in which the Company is composed can, from your point of view, be a matter of no importance to you?— When their compulsory powers are taken from them, it is of no importance to me in the least.

1019. In point of fact you have come here to argue that particular point, that you think a compulsory power of interference with your trade, whoever exercises it, is undesirable ?-Exactly so.

1020. You would have no Hall marking and no tax? -I desire to have no taxation of my trade, but I do desire that Hall marking should be a voluntary institution, not, as now, compulsory. I also desire that it shall be carried on in a manner very distinctly different from the present plan. It is very much better done in France, where it is done by what is called "the touch," and not by "the scrape and parting assay" as it is in this country. The Hall marking is admirably done in France, and very badly done in this country by reason of the antiquated manner in which it is conducted.

1021. (Sir R. Cross.) You object to it altogether in either country, as I understand, as a compulsory institution ?-As a compulsory institution, most decidedly I do.

1022. What evil does the compulsory system work, or how does the compulsory system work in regard to your trade?—The compulsory system is a complete protection to the trade in this country. It prevents the importation of any foreign plate for the purpose of sale, and it works very badly as shown by the very small amount of trade done in the country. The amount of silver Hall marked during the last 25 years has decreased by about one third, namely, from about 994,000 ounces to 650,000 ounces; it is an absolutely decreasing trade year by year.

1023. (Chairman.) That, I presume, you ascribe mainly to the tax, or do you ascribe it to the tax and the system of Hall marking together?-To both, but more especially to the duty.

1024. (Sir R. Cross.) The tax has more to do with the decrease of trade than the Hall marking, has it not? The Hall marking, I should say, has a very bad effect seeing that it would keep men out of the trade. Men will not take their capital into a business which has legal restraints upon it; it is against the principle of freedom of trade that there should be any compulsion whatever attached to it.

1025. (Chairman.) Do you mean that there is a certain amount of annoyance and vexation caused by the process that has to be gone through?—Yes, you can hardly form an idea of the annoyance that is caused by it. The goods have to be sent down under certain regulations, they have to be there at a certain time in the morning and to be fetched away again at a certain time in the afternoon. Then I may tell you a very extraordinary fact connected with it. Supposing I were to send down to the Hall, say half-adozen teapots, half-a-dozen sugar basins, half-a-dozen cream ewers, candlesticks, or anything else, what is called a parcel of goods; supposing that by malice or by accident on the part of the workman a little bit of the rim of one of the smallest pieces was found to be defective the result would be, you would think, that they would break up that small defective article and mark all that which was not defective.

1026. (Sir R. Cross.) You mean defective in the quality of silver?-Defective in the quality of silver, You would think they would break up that one article and mark all the other articles that were not defective, and return the article that was defective to you. The very contrary happens. They break up the entire parcel; that is the habit with the Goldsmiths' Company, I believe by law. I have had cases brought before me where a man has lost 247. or 251. in workmen's wages alone, by having an entire parcel broken up. That must operate as a great restraint upon trade.

1027. (Mr. Pell.) They would only break up the defective article itself, I suppose?-No, they would break up the whole parcel. There was a man who a little time ago had his work broken up in exactly the way I am now describing to you. That certainly operates as a great restraint upon trade.

1028. (Chairman.) Then, in point of fact, your objection is threefold. You object to the manner in which this privilege of compulsory Hall marking is exercised; you object to its being exercised by a company which is not, to any large extent, composed of craftsmen, and you object to its being exercised compulsorily under whatever circumstances or by whatever body?-Exactly so.

1029. Reverting to the facts which you stated, I believed you were refused the information for which you applied ?—I was. On the 21st of March 1878, Mr. Prideaux desired me to attend at Goldsmiths' Hall. On Wednesday, the 3rd of April, I went and presented myself before the Court of Wardens, and was informed that I was not entitled to the information, and further that it could not be accorded to me by grace for the reason that I had publicly spoken offensively of the Company, referring to remarks made by me as a member of a deputation to the Board of Trade when I was endeavouring to get a select committee of inquiry into the laws relating to the Hall marking of gold and silver wares, the offence consisting in that I had stated that there were but three members of the craft on the then court, and that the four wardens at that time were respectively a civil engineer, a porcelain manufacturer, a stockbroker, and a merchant. That was my offence.

1030. Do I understand it to be your view that the Goldsmiths' Company (and possibly other trade companies) should be again more closely connected with the trade which it professedly represented ?—I think that so far as their funds are concerned they should be directed to a greater extent to the development of the industries of the country.

1031. You are aware that membership in these companies has been hereditary, and that therefore for

the last 300 years, at least, the great majority of the members have not been practically persons pursuing the trades which are mentioned in the names of the companies?—I am quite aware of that. Many of the companies never within living memory have had craftsmen on their governing bodies, or very rarely.

1032. Then in fact what you propose is not the doing away with the modern basis and reverting to a former condition of things, but establishing a condition of things which has never practically existed, at least in modern times, in connexion with the companies ?-Undoubtedly.

1033. I think you have expressed an opinion that a larger proportion of the funds of the companies should be devoted to technical education have you not ?—I have.

1034. Will you tell us a little more in detail in what manner you think they ought to be applied ?—I should like to see more of their funds devoted to the technical education of goldsmiths and silversmiths. I think that such funds should be applied to the formation of high schools after the manner prevailing abroad, which I may shortly describe as the school in the workshop or the workshop in the school. They should be open to lads from the elementary schools at 13 years of age. General education should then be proceeded with, together with the use and application of tools and machinery; drawing, chemistry, modelling, chasing, engraving, polishing, finishing, &c., should be taught in addition to French and German, which languages are invaluable to art workmen as enabling them to visit with advantage the museums and ateliers abroad. In other words, from 13 to 16, I would prepare youths for entrance into the workshop proper by an education mainly directed to the craft for which they were intended.

1035. Would there, in your view, be any difficulty in establishing such schools?-Not the slightest. The London and other School Boards might safely be trusted to work such schools with immense advantage to all trades, if funds were forthcoming for such a purpose. I would refer Her Majesty's Commissioners to the able writings of Professor Silvanus Thompson upon this subject. I have brought some of his writings with me.

1036. There is a movement in favour of technical education now going on under the patronage of the City Guilds. Have you considered that in reference to your proposals?-I have. But it is my opinion that we are beginning at the wrong end. First, we have lost much valuable time, and we must lose more valuable time before any result can be obtained from their technical college now in course of erection. Secondly, I maintain that technical education should be commenced at the earliest possible time, namely, at 13 years of age. The City Guilds scheme is far too ambitious, and in advance of the times, and will be comparatively useless if unaccompanied by schools such as I have described. Many years must elapse before professors have been provided; during all this time an enormous work could be accomplished if common sense alone were allowed to direct our operations, and if theory were, for once, to be allowed. to give way to practice. It would be perfectly easy in London, Birmingham, or Sheffield, and other places to provide teachers of the several branches of trades in the precious metals, and all other handicrafts, provided only that funds were forthcoming.

1037. Do you consider that the trade represented by the Goldsmiths' Company is entitled to the benefit of the entire property of the Company ?-I have no means of knowing under what conditions they hold their property, but I entertain a conviction that the greater part of it should be devoted to matters appertaining to the crafts. I can imagine no better application of their funds than that of improving the technical education of workmen, not only by schools such as I have described, but also by museums and libraries specially devoted to their instruction.

1038. Do you think that their work ought to be confined to London ?-Certainly not.

1039. You think it should be extended to the country generally, do you ?-Certainly.

1040. There is at present, I believe, a contribution by the Company to the Trade Charities; do you know the amount of that ?-There are four charities to which they give 200 guineas a year each, making 8407. I do not consider that this is in the least degree adequate. They give many thousands of pounds annually to hospitals and other charitable institutions; I do not approve of that. They give 3,800l., I believe, to Oxford and Cambridge for exhibitions, and I fail altogether to see under what charter they devote such funds to the technical education of lawyers and clergymen. I do not think that, in the least degree, part of their functions. I may add that some little time ago, I believe, they built a church and endowed it; I do not think that that is a branch of their functions.

1041. In short, to put it briefly, you consider that the trade craft is morally entitled to the benefit of their property?—The greater portion of it.

1042. (Sir R. Cross.) Where do you draw the distinction? I can understand your saying they are entitled to the whole of it, but I do not understand your saying the greater part of it?-I should hardly know what to do with their large income without further consideration. I think that a great portion of it might be devoted to the craft, and really, if you press me, I think that we might say the whole of it might be devoted to the crafts if we were to include Birmingham and Sheffield, and other places where there are goldsmiths and silversmiths.

1043. (Chairman.) We shall be glad to hear any further suggestions you wish to make ?-I should like to state, in order to show you how little we, as liverymen, are entitled to, even in the way of information, that to-day I wished to bring your Lordship a copy of the oath of the Goldsmiths; I therefore wrote to the Goldsmiths' Hall this morning for a copy of that oath, and I find that they decline even to give that to a liveryman. In reply to my request, I have this letter from them :-" Goldsmiths' Hall, London, E.C., 3rd "May 1882.-Dear Sir, I am unable to comply with your request without first asking the wardens, "whom I shall see to-morrow. I am, dear Sir, yours "truly, C. R. Williams."

66

1044. (Mr Pell.) It is an oath that you have taken yourself, is it not?-It is an oath I have taken myself, but I have no copy of it, and I, as a liveryman, thinking myself entitled to a copy, sent down to the Hall for it, and on doing so I find that I am not entitled to the smallest possible information, or anything at all.

1045. (Chairman.) Have you heard and considered a proposal which has been frequently made that either the whole, or a part of the property of these companies should be applied to the lightening of the rates? I have heard that, but I have not given much attention to it.

1046. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) Do I understand you that you object to the influence of the Goldsmiths' Company over the craft, only so far as they exercise that influence under existing statutes?-Exactly so.

1047. Could you briefly tell us whether there is any compulsory power exercised by the Company under statute beyond the Hall marking of gold and silver?— None that I am aware of.

1048. So long as the duty is continued I presume you would agree that it is necessary to mark gold and silver in some way or other?-- Most decidedly, such goods as are liable to duty, as a protection to the

revenue.

1049. Then your objection would narrow itself surely to this point, would it not, that you think the Goldsmiths' Company by their officers do not do it so efficiently and so carefully and fairly as might be done possibly by a Government officer, is that so?-Not