1200. They will attempt to exercise it over the new market in Shadwell, you think?-I feel sure they

will.

1201. With respect to their action in Hungerford Market, have you any memory or knowledge of that? -I was not in the trade at the time.

1202. (Mr. James.) May I ask you about Columbia Market; do you know whether they did anything there?-I believe they did in Columbia Market.

1203. (Mr. Firth.) Has there been in recent times, to your knowledge, any control over the trade other than this?—Not to my knowledge.

1204. Are you acquainted with the apprenticeship system as it obtains in the Fishmongers' Company? I was an apprentice myself.

1205. I see something like an average of three apprentices are bound every year; are those genuine apprenticeships?-They should be, according to the oaths that are taken.

1206. So far as you know they are ?-As far as I know they are.

1207. But during the term of servitude do the Court of Assistants exercise any control or guard over the apprentices ?-None whatever. I would refer to my own case. The nature of my father's business, to whom I was apprenticed, was such that the business was at an end shortly after 9 o'clock, and while I was his apprentice and working with him very early in the morning from 5 o'clock till 9 it came within my knowledge that it was possible for me to get a situation in the city. I carried on the situation in a ship broker's office for four years while carrying on the trade. I left there and I held a situation in Messrs. Glyn's bauk for nine years, and five years out of that I was engaged in the Clearing House as their representative

in Lombard Street.

1208. During seven years, which included part of those periods you are speaking of, you were nominally a fishinonger's apprentice ?-I was an apprentice, and carried out my duties faithfully to my senior, and it was with his permission that I sought situations in which to occupy the remainder of my time.

1209. Do you know whether any claim has ever been made by a fishmonger for admission to the Fishmongers' Company which has not been entertained? -That I am not aware of. I have no instance within my knowledge

1210. Are you aware of any attempt having been made by fishmongers to bring themselves into communication with those people, to protect the trade over London and the suburbs ?-No. My opinion is that they studiously avoid it.

1211. What is your explanation of what I understand to be with you an admitted fact-that no complaint or representation has ever been made with respect to the administration of those funds of 60,000l. a year?-With regard to any of the funds of the Company, the whole of the livery are kept in a perfect state of ignorance.

1212. I want to know how it was that they calmly consent to so remain in ignorance?-It is mere apathy on their part.

claim

1213. Have none of the livery ever made any or expressed any wish to take part in the control of the Company?-I believe there is a general feeling throughout the whole of the livery that a reform of some description should take place, and I believe also that if we were to appeal to the livery they would express a hearty desire that the guild should co-operate and affiliate itself with our trade, while at present there exists a breach more than anything else between

deceased liveryman would occupy if she applied for help to the Company at his decease would be this: I have been given to understand that they would immediately return to her the cost of his livery. She is then in virtually the same position as the widow of an ordinary freeman and has to take her turn either for an almshouse or for other relief in succession.

1216. What is the number of freemen?—That I am not cognizant of.

1217. Can you tell me whether you know of any principle of selection that obtains when a vacancy exists at the Court of Assistants by death or resignation; on what principle is the appointment made of successor ?--I assure you that that is a perfect mystery.

a

1218. That is a matter closely affecting the livery, is it not? There happened to be at the time when we made the application that I have read to the Commission a vacancy, and the appointment was made of William Graham, Esq., Trigg Wharf, Upper Thames Street. The prior appointment to that upon the court was his Excellency Major-General Sir Evelyn Wood.(1)

1219. How they came to be chosen you do not know?-We know in no way.

1220. Then the practice of selecting the senior liverymen does not obtain in the Fishmongers' Company?--It is not in any way carried out.

1221. I see you suggest that patrimony should be abolished; are you willing to retain redemption?-No, I think that redemption should also be abolished, to any outside of our trade, and that we should be placed upon a fair scale.

1222. If you abolish patrimony and redemption you would only have servitude remaining?—That would be better for our trade in the existing scheme.

1223. I see that only an average of three have been received?-We do not advocate the total abolition of patrimony. We advocate patrimony as regards those not engaged in our trade.

1224. Your proposal is that there should remain in connexion with the Company only those who through patrimony are connected with the trade, and by servitude? We should have no objection to redemption in the case of a few others under special circumstances.

1225. Suppose a person following your trade had three sons, of whom only one followed it, would you allow the system of patrimony to obtain as to all three or only the one?-Only the one.

1226. Leaving those questions, just tell me in what manner you consider in connexion with your trade these funds or any part of them may be usefully and properly applied by such a reconstituted company as you are speaking of?-We, as a trade, are of opinion that had we been closely affiliated to the guild that a very large amount of those funds could have been well appropriated by the company establishing themselves (by Act of Parliament if necessary) as the market authority of the metropolis; on the one hand you would have had the company, if the trade were properly represented in the court of direction by those engaged in the trade, and who understand the practical management of our trade, doing all that was possible to satisfy the public wish, with regard to the important market question,-with regard to the all desirable legislation to prevent the destruction of immature fish, and it would have been within their province to approach Government with regard to the most important question of the prohibitory railway rates that are put upon our goods, and any other matters connected with the trade. That is what we contend should have been the position of the Fishmongers' Company at the present day, but they simply exist, exercising their authority to condemn fish, while on the other hand we have the Corporation of London, our market authority, making a large and huge profit, or I will say a large profit out of the market, which they do. They will not give us proper accommodation, and wil' no provide us with proper approaches to our

(1) See Fishmongers' Statement, p. 324.

market, which is so absolutely imperative in the interest of our trade and in the interest of the public.

1227. Setting aside the market authority question, which will probaby not be solved in that way, what control or functions would you give to a new company of the kind you have suggested over the trade?-Do you mean to say the new guild?

1228. Yes; or a company formed, as you have said, with patrimony abolished ?-Do you mean particularly over their funds?

1229. Yes, over the funds and over the administration of them; do you think it could usefully continue to exist at all?-Only as the market authority of our trade; we do not see any other way.

1230. I should like to ask you why you became a liveryman?-I became a liveryman at the express wish of my senior. At the time I knew but little as to what benefit I might derive from it other than that if at some future period I married and had a family, in case of necessity, I might obtain an exhibition for them. I believed at the time that it was important that I should be enrolled in the franchise, but I certainly had no idea that the relative position of our trade with its guild was so bad as it is at the present moment. I thought that the Fishmongers' Company was literally the parent of the trade.

1231. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) Are you a fishmonger by trade? -I am a shell-fish and salmon merchant.

1232. Are you still in the banking house?-I left the bank two and a half years ago, when my father retired from business.

1233. You took to his business as a fishmonger ?— Solely.

1234. As to the age of this Association, this is the second annual report, I see, of the fish trade; how long was the other in existence ?-Rather better than two years. They tried to get an association of this description up for ten years previously. It was not until I left the bank and volunteered to take the office of honorary secretary that we really inaugurated the

concern.

1235. Then you, as a young institution of two years old, take upon yourselves to advocate re-union with the Fishmongers' Company, which had been established for some hundreds of years, and thought that they ought to take you entirely into their confidence and assist you as if you were an institution of some standing and of worth ?-Our opinion, when this Association was inaugurated, was that the very work we were going to set about and do, or endeavour to carry out, was the duty of the Company. We asked early for the hearty co-operation of the Company in the work which we had before us.

1236. The first response to that was a douation of 50 guineas, was it not?-After receiving the deputation from the trade upon the subject.

1237. That was at your starting almost, was it not? -That was at our starting.

1238. Did they give any reason why they did not make you a second donation when you applied to them ?-None whatever.

1239. You yourself, I suppose, are almost this Association, are you not?—Not in any way; Mr. Alderman and Sheriff Hanson is our President, Deputy

James Bell is our Chairman, Mr. Edward Jex, Common Councillor, is our Vice-President, and we have another Common Councillor on the committee.

1240. I have a list of your names, but lists are nought. It is really those who are most active who govern the Association. How many of you would meet in committee when you summon your Association together?—I should like to inform the Commission that this subject has been very seriously discussed in committee. At the first meeting out of 19 members, I think we had 16; to-day owing to the sudden notice I had to give them to consider the evidence prior to my submitting it we only had 12. Others who were absent expressed their desire to heartily co-operate with the members of the committee in advocating this case,

1241. You have spoken of the fees of the Fishmongers' Company as being prohibitive of the entrance of the trade into the Company, and then you said that your own Association could have a much larger number of members if it were not in consequence of Rule 18. Rule 18, of course, alludes to insolvency, but at the same time it also says that an entrar ce fee of three guineas shall be paid, and in another rule it says that an annual fee of one guinea shall be paid?—Yes.

1242. Is that fee in any way prohibitory to a larger introduction of the trade into your Association ?-Not in any way. Every individual member of our Association looks upon it as the best investment they have made for a long time.

1243. You are small in numbers compared with the largeness of your trade, the same as the Fishmongers' Company may be ?-We are small in numbers, but we are important in work.

1244. Have the Fishmongers' Company ever found fault with the way in which you approached them? Did they think you were acting with an inimical feeling towards them ?—No, we always endeavoured to approach thein legitimately, and in every way friendly. We expressed ourselves as very desirous of being affiliated with the Company.

1245. You yourself, I suppose, are a young liveryman of the Company and a long way down in the list?--I am a liveryman of eight years' standing.

1246. Of course there would be many much higher up who would be entitled to take their seats upon the court by seniority long before you?-My claim is a mere nothing. I stand simply advocating the claims of my trade.

1247. I thought you did express some little disappointment that you were not put on the court of the Company, and that some fishmongers were not upon it? Not myself. I expressed my disappointment that we have no livery man of the Company engaged in the trade upon the court.

1248. You know that seniority, as a rule, gives entrance to the court of the Company, do you not?Not in our Company.

1249. Not in the Fishmongers' Company?—No; there are instances which I can point to.

1250. It would not always be the case, would it ?— I was not aware that it was a rule that was ever in any way followed.

1251. You say that Major-General Sir Evelyn Wood was put upon the court; was it not the honorary freedom that he received?-Here is a list of the court. He was put upon the court on the 9th of October 1879, and, as our trade remarked, he may be a very excellent soldier, but a very bad fishmonger.

1252. You thought that you ought to have had a voice in the appointment of the superintendent, Mr. Johnson, and that Mr. Johnson was an incompetent man at the time of his appointment?-We thought so at the time. In our opinion he was an incompetent man, hence we approached the Company upon the subject.

1253. Is he an incompetent man ?-In my opinion he is undoubtedly a most incompetent man. 1254. Up to this date?-Up to this date.

1255. Is there no improvement?-I think it is impossible for him to improve. He may be a very impossible for him to improve. nice gentleman; I do not wish to say anything against him as an individual, but his capabilities as a fish inspector in our trade are not such as should recommend him to the notice of the guild or such as to give satisfaction to the public.

1256. How many years has he been superintendent? --He was appointed just about the time we sent the letter that I have read upon the subject.

1257. Two years ago ?—No, a few months ago. 1258. There you speak of meters; a meter is a kind of inspector, I suppose ?--That is their title; they are called meters.

1259. There are meters appointed independently of Mr. Johnson, are there not ?-They call Mr. Johnson a superintendent fish inspector; they call the other

two condemners, who really do the actual work I suppose, the inspectors.

1260. How many, meters are there ?-Two. 1261. And they take the control of Billingsgate and any other market than Billingsgate ?-There is no other market, of course, as a fish market. They walk about the market during the whole of market hours, and they inspect the whole of the fish that is being sold, and if they have any reason to believe that any fish is being exposed for sale that should not be, they immediately walk to the place and demand an inspection, and if necessary remove it, for which they give note with the crest of the Company upon it, with directions for filling in, stating that the fish has been seized, which they sign and give to the salesman, for the purpose of his sending it to the consignor.

1262. (Sir Richard Cross.) Have you any notion of how much a year is condemned ?-The statistics can be found. They are furnished weekly to the Commissioners of Sewers by the Company.

1263. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) The quantity is very large, is it not?-In the summer months it is very large. If I might respectfully refer to the report of Mr. Spencer Walpole upon the subject, he states that there is an immense quantity of shell fish that we get which is in a bad state when we receive it in the summer time, but he points out the important fact that it is not actually fish that is condemned, but a very very large per-centage of shells.

1264. With respect to the market, you said in reply to a question of Mr. Firth's that the Fishmongers' Company might have been the market authority and by that means they would have been the market authority of the whole metropolis. You are aware that the corporation of the city of London is the market authority for Billingsgate?-I am aware that at present they have a seven mile radius clause, but when we take into consideration that a limited liability company can approach the House of Commons and overthrow to some extent their rights (of course it is not yet actually settled), we believe the corporation of London would in all probability have waived that right in favour of the company, precisely in the same way that they did in favour of the Columbia Market.

1265. That limited liability company approached the House of Commons on account of the fault that was found with the fish-market of Billingsgate and the high prices there charged for the fish and the way in which it was supplied; was not that the cause of the agitation? The limited liability company is seeking powers to establish the market at Shadwell for no other reason than the ill-treatment they have received at the hands of the corporation.

1266. Was it not in consequence of the bad odour that the salesmen were in with the public generally, and a correspondence which took place in the press, that the fish question arose; and is it not the fact that a deputation went to the Home Secretary, that representations were made to him, and that upon those representations the limited liability company was founded?-No, the whole sum and substance of the matter is as I have stated it; and the promoters of that limited liability company are none other than Messrs. Hewitt & Co., who are members of this Association.

1267. Do you think it is the business of the Fishmongers' Company to defend the trade?-Most decidedly. They should, I think, have defended the trade

from the imputations which have been most unjustly cast upon it.

1268. How could they do it? -They were not affiliated with our trade, but had we been represented as we ought to have been upon the court of the Company the whole thing would have been properly carried out.

1269. (Lord Coleridge.) Just let me see if I apprehend your evidence, put shortly. This Company has, roughly speaking, 60,000l. a year, has it not? I am not aware of their receipts.

1270. Someone said so; call it roughly 60,000l. a year; and it is called the "Fishmongers' Company"? -Exactly.

1271. Are you aware of anything, great or small, which it does for the benefit of the trade ?-Nothing whatever.

1272. Either for the trade or for the public, except appointing fish meters ?-No; in fact I am compelled to admit that where poor people, widows of fishmongers, have in some cases applied for relief to the Company they have positively refused to listen to them in any shape or form, let their circumstances be ever so bad, unless they were freemen or unless their relatives were freemen or liverymen of the Company. We had a serious instance of that not long ago in the case of a woman named Mrs. Palmer. Her husband had been engaged in the trade for something like 45 years.

1273. My question did not point to particular grievances as to particular people, but to the trade as a trade, and the public as a public. Has the Fishmongers' Company, so far as you know, done anything for the good of the trade or for the good of the public, excepting the appointment of the fish inspectors?The first step they have taken in that direction is the support they are about to give to the fish exhibition; and that is the only thing that I know of.

1274. (Sir Richard Cross.) The Company have been asked what reforms could be made in their Company. At page 117 you will see the words beginning "In respect, however," just read that through (handing the document to the witness)?— "In respect, however, to the powers which the "Company exercises in connexion with the trade "which is associated with its name, the Company,

66

without at present submitting any specific sugges ❝tions, would be glad to see its powers extended so as to enable it, without undue interference with "trade, to give material aid to any measures adapted "to secure for the inhabitants of the metropolis a more abundant supply of fish, and to render this "important article of food more accessible to the people."

66

1275. I only want to know whether you have any suggestion to make which would carry out such reforms as are referred to there ?-We have this suggestion to make, viz., that members of the trade should be elected on the Court of Assistants. Had we persons engaged in our trade upon the court of the Company, the Company would soon become closely affiliated with the trade, and they, acting as it were as a portion of the trade, could then approach the Government (and any other authority) in such a way that whatever they brought before them would receive attention, and that would be of immense importance to the interests of the public with regard to the fish supply of the metropolis.

have in the "British Quarterly," "New Quarterly,” Fraser's," and in other reviews and magazines.

1279. I think, among other things, you have come to the conclusion that the estimate which has been made by the Companies themselves as to the value of their property is considerably below the mark?If they have represented 700,000l. a year as the value of their property and not the actual income that

they receive, from an inquiry that I have made I think that they have under-estimated it. The value of their property must be considerably more than 700,000l. a year.

1280. How have you arrived at that conclusion ?— I very carefully went through the rate books of the city, and in the rate books I found that the gross estimated rental of the property that they had in the city alone was worth about 516,000l. a year. Then I examined the Domesday Book (that is the new return of landed proprietors), and so far as the Companies are concerned. I find that they there own a very large amount of property in various counties to the extent of about 100,000l. a year. I estimate that their property in the metropolis outside the city (that is in the parishes which are not included in the Domesday Book), although I have not been able to go through all the parish assessment books, comes to at least 200,0007. a year, and their estate in Ireland amounts to 77,000l. a year, and their personal property I estimate at something like 150,000l. a year, making altogether 1,020,0007.

1281. Then I think you consider that there is some question as to whether we have full information as to the amount of trust property in the hands of the companies?—I think so, and for this reason. Charity Commissioners, so far as I understand from their return, have adopted and accepted as almost conclusive the reports made to Lord Brougham's Commission in 1819-21. The title deeds of those trust properties were exhibited to the Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners have adopted those as showing the whole of the trust properties the Companies have. Lord Robert Montagu's return, which was published I think in 1868, shows that the Companies themselves have since disclosed some trust property which was not included in the first reports to the Charity Commissioners, that is Lord Brougham's Charity Commissioners. That in itself, I think, clearly shows that further inquiries ought to be made, and that they ought to exhibit their title deeds as to all their property in order to enable the Charity Commissioners to see whether the trust is impressed upon such property. The Charity Commissioners have hitherto accepted the admissions of the companies as a complete disclosure.

1282. Then I understand you to contend that much of what is not acknowledged by the Companies as being trust property is so in reality?—(1)I think so.

1283. Do you mean that it is legally trust property as the law stands, or that there is a moral claim upon it ?--I mean that the property is itself impressed with the trust. There is an extraordinary case to which I may call the attention of the Commission. Some time ago a book was published by the Clothworkers' Company called a 66 Register for 1838 of the Charities and "Properties of the Clothworkers' Company," from which it appears that some suspicion of the integrity of a former clerk of the Clothworkers' Company occasioned the appointment by the court of that Company of a committee of investigation. The president of this committee was the Master of the Company, Mr. Alsager, who seems to have been indefatigable in his endeavours to discover the truth of matters. And a very extraordinary state of things was discovered. The clerk appears to have had everything his own way; charities were kept back, and the deeds and wills creating them were alleged by him to have been burnt in the great fire of London. No entries were made in the accounts of the proceeds of some trust properties, and it was actually discovered than an important suit in Chancery respecting one of the trusts had been instituted against the Company and had been carried on through all its stages by the clerk without the knowledge of the Court of Assistants, who were never informed of any such proceedings whatever. In one of the answers in the Chancery suit the clerk stated that all the records of the Company and their muniments had been destroyed in the

(1) See Goldsmiths' Memorial, p. 305.

great fire, which was simply untrue. It is beyond doubt that similar statements kept from the Commissioners of 1818 much information which they were entitled to, and that in this way many deeds and wills of vital importance in an investigation of the kind they were making were withheld.

66

66

1284. In the case of such property as is not invested with the legal character of a trust, do you consider that nevertheless it is property applicable to public uses only?-Certainly. I think it is perfectly clear that those companies are in no sense private companies, and that in no sense can their property be deemed private property, and in support of that view I think I may quote from a speech made by Lord Selborne in a debate in the House of Lords in 1877 on the Inns of Court and General School of Law Bill. There on the second reading Lord Selborne said this, " He" (that "is Earl Cairns) had spoken of what he called the private character of the Inns of Court, but he (Lord "Selborne) confessed that he knew no single circumstance which gave them the character of private so"cieties unless it was that they were not incorporated. "He declined to look upon incorporation as a test for "that purpose; some private societies, such as clubs "and trading companies might be incorporated," (trading companies, as such, do not include these trade guilds, and there is a great distinction between trading companies and trade guilds)" and institutions "not incorporated might be of a public character. Looking back to the history of the four Inus he "could not find a single fact which went to establish "that they were private societies. Not one of them, " he believed, had ever applied one shilling of their "funds to private uses. As to two of these Inns, the "properties which they possessed were held under "charter of James I., as the Royal Commissioners "had pointed out, expressly for the purpose of legal "education. There was a well-constituted trust for "the purposes of education. As to the other two "Inns he was not aware that there was the same kind "of proof of any express trust, but their endowments "had been acquired in times when a trust for public

66

purposes might be constituted without writing, and they were so alike in other respects that there was "no single fact to justify the conclusion that they were institutions of a private character, and there"fore their property could not be treated as private." And again, speaking of the fees paid on admission to the Inns of Court (the fees are paid on admission to the city Companies in almost a similar manner), Lord Selborne said this, "These fees were not voluntary. "subscriptions but compulsory payments." (So were the fees of the city Companies.) He then says this, "It therefore seemed to him that as the position and "functions of the Inns were recognised by law, and "as every shilling they possessed was legally the result. "of ancient endowments, or of fees so received, no "element of a private character could be recognized in "them." If it is thus with regard to the Inns of Court, which are not incorporated, much more so, I contend, is it with regard to the property of the city Companies, which are incorporated companies enabled to hold property for certain specific purposes.

1285. Then that being so, you consider that they ought to be dealt with by legislation rather than by any attempt at legal action?-There is not sufficient power. The principles of the Court of Chancery as they exist do not enable the Charity Commissioners to move in the matter, therefore I suggest that Parliament should come in and deal with the property of these Companies, that is the corporate property, which they claim to be private property, as Parliament has before this dealt with property of a similar character.

1286. In the event of Parliament dealing with those bodies as having an exclusively public character, do you consider that there are any functions which may be usefully performed in the present ordinary condition of society? We know what the functions of the Companies were in the middle ages; we know that the performance of those functions at the present day is impossible?—It would be almost absurd to apply the

property in the way the Companies applied their property 300 years ago at this day; but I think inasmuch as it is now admittedly a perfectly sound principle for Parliament to interfere with property and dispose of property of which no proper use can be made according to the original intention of those who gave the property, that Parliament should set forth some other public use for that property.

1287. Do you conceive it to be practicable to bring these Companies into closer connexion with the trades which they ostensibly represent ?-I can hardly think so, unless it is in the way of the extension of technical education. I think that is about the only proper use that can be made of their trade functions at this day.

1288. Then have you formed any idea as to what is 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 ?-Yes; my idea is this, that the whole charitable educational endowments of the metropolis, including all property which Parliament should take cognisance over, such as the corporate property of these city guilds, should be brought into hotch-potch or into one mass, selling all the real estate and converting it into funds, and that when so brought together into a mass Parliament 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 subsidised, so as to decrease the school board rates, and intermediate and university education provided for the metropolis.

1289. Can you show any special reason why the rates of the city of London or of the metropolis generally should be relieved from a charge which falls upon the rates everywhere else for educational purposes?London stands in this way; there is this vast amount of wealth which requires to be properly utilised, and inasmuch as the wealth was given by Londoners to Londoners, Londoners should reap some benefit from the value of the property so taken.

1290. Have you considered what, under any such plan as yours, you would do with the halls, the buildings, of the Companies?—I would sell the halls, every one of them. I do not think they are wanted at all; the Guildhall is quite enough for any municipal functions that the city Companies might wish to give effect to. I think the halls are not wanted and they would realise a large amount of money which could be much more usefully applied.

1291. (Sir Richard Cross.) Do you say that all this property that they possess is clothed with a trust ?—In the sense that Lord Selborne stated I think it is, except in this way. I may say in regard to a gift which the Commissioners no doubt know of, a member of the Clothworkers' Company gave some 20,000l. to the Clothworkers' Company simply for the purpose of making themselves comfortable with.

1292. What do you say to that?-In that case the gift is quite a recent one, long after the Company had ceased to perform any of its trade functions, so that it cannot be considered as clothed with a trust for trade purposes, but I further say, inasmuch as we prevent lunatics from disposing of their property, I think Parliament should in the same way prevent a lunatic bequest of money. It is perfectly absurd to give 20,000l. to a city Company with which to make themselves comfortable.

1293. It was not necessary in early times that all the members of a Company should be craftsmen, was it? It was necessary that all craftsmen should be members of a Company.

1294. That is not the question I put. Was it necessary that all the members of the Company should be craftsmen ?-Patrimony in itself would do away with that to a certain extent.

1295. Then it never was so really?—I do not say so. 1296. At all events so far as the patrimony goes it clearly could not be?-In course of time it would

become so.

1297. Do you not think that a great deal of this property was left to them quite irrespective of their having any trade at all?-Then we must go to the origin of the Companies, and what were they intended for and what were they incorporated for, and what they were doing with their wealth when property was so left to them.

1298. I mean to say in the case of many Companies long after they had ceased to have anything to do with the trade after which they are named they had received many gifts of property, bequests, and otherwise, from members of their body?-1 do not think the gifts are numerous, and if they are they should probably be dealt with in the way the Irish Church property was dealt with. All grants to the Irish Church for the Irish Church antecedent to 1660 were, I think, dealt with by Parliament as absolutely public property and disposed of so by them; as to gifts subsequent to 1660 (I do not know exactly why the line was drawn at 1660) the donor's intention was a little more respected.

1299. I see you draw a distinction in some of your writings between the case of some of the Companies and the case of Serjeants' Inn ?-Yes, there is a very great distinction, I think, between them. Serjeants' Inn in the first place was not an incorporated body. Serjeants' Inn in the second place had no functions to perform. The appointment of serjeant did not vest in them, but in the Lord Chancellor, who could submit any barrister's name to the Queen, the Queen would appoint him, and Serjeants' Inn could not say nay to him.

1300. You think Serjeants' Inn was not such a body? -To a certain extent. The order of serjeants has never been extinguished even to this day. Although the Judicature Act of 1875 stipulates that it shall not be necessary for the judges to be members of Serjeants' Inn, Lord Cairns stated, in a debate in the House of Lords-I think he was actually the promoter of that Act-that it was never contemplated that the order of serjeants should be extinguished.

1301. I do not want to go into the whole story, but I want to know whether you approve of the action of Serjeants' Inn ?--I do not.

1302. You think they had a right to do what they did? I doubt it; morally they had no right.

1303. (Mr. Firth.) Have you any ground upon which to support that contention that they had no right? No, without involving an argument.

1304. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) I think you told the Commission just now that the Companies' property was worth a great deal more than they returned, and I think you based that on the statement that you had examined the rate books?—Yes.

1305. Are you not aware that in many cases or in all cases the amount in the rate book is the value of the property as rated to the poor, and that in a very large number of cases the city Companies are only the owners of the ground rents, which are perhaps a twentieth part of the property?-I guarded myself against that. I said if you return 700,000l. a year as your income that is really larger than ever I thought the income was, but the value of the property from which the income is derivable is a great deal more as shown by the rate books. The value is shown by the rate books.

1306. I want to know how you can get any correct information from the rate books, when such a very large quantity of property on the rate books is assessed at the full value, whereas only the ground rent belongs to the Company ?-I do not know whether it is proper or right for me to put a question to you; but can you show me any land owned in the city of London by a Company of which they own simply the ground rent and not the freehold? Of course it may be that they have leased the property out, and that a