"could be more baseless than the imputation made by "Mr. Firth." Now let us see what imputation this is. On page 8 there is this statement. "Mr. Firth

says, It is not without a certain aptitude that one "recognises the motto of the Company, God grant 66 6 grace."" A.s you have put that in I will ask a question upon it. Is not that statement in "Municipal London" made after your letter to the Municipal Commissioners of 1835 ?-I will look and see.

2492. Well it is so, I should like to ask you whether you have a copy of the letter you sent to the Commissioners of 1835, because you see the suggestion is that this was a graceless act. However, you have nothing to say about that?-What act do you refer to ?

2493. I mean your declining to give evidence before the King's Commission in 1835. Now we come to the rest. "It would have been interesting to know "how the Grocers do dispense their vast trust property"?-You say the "graceless Grocers."

2494. You do not suggest that your act of 1837 was other than graceless, do you?-I think under the circumstances it was quite right and proper.

2495. Then let us have the letter. However, we will go on. "It would have been interesting to know "how the graceless Grocers do dispense their vast "trust property. For example, in 1636 one William "Pennefather by his will gave 2331. 6s. 8d. to buy "land of the yearly value of 117. 13s. 4d., such sum "to be divided yearly amongst seven poor almspeople. "How much does the land bring in, and how much "is paid over? So a house given to the same Com

pany to provide 47. a year for an iron and glass "lantern to be fixed in Billingsgate, and 67. 10s. to "the poor. If the house brings in (as it probably "does) 300l. a year, how much is given to the poor?" Are those imputations do you consider ?-Clearly.

2496. Was there any means of ascertaining how they did dispose of that property at that time?—I should think not, but still one does not make imputations because one is ignorant.

2497. Then we come to the fact that Pennefather (according to Herbert) left this money to be divided. amongst the poor, the whole of it. Is a single farthing of it now divided amongst the poor ?—A very much larger amount than he left is divided amongst the poor.

2498. "The income from my property " is the question; is that divided amongst the poor?-It is not possible to ear-mark the actual sovereigns which come from that property.

2499. But just let me point out that in this very statement you say that you have appropriated it to the middle class school scheme, hence my question ?-Of our corporate property we give to the poor at least that amount, and very much more.

2500. That is a different issue.-I beg your pardon, I do not so understand it.

2501. If a question then is asked which you regard as an imputation as to how much of the Company's property is given to the poor you are not prepared to show that any of it is. So with respect to the next, -Wardall. In Wardall's case the surplus was specifically given to the poor, you say that you have put it in a middle class school scheme ?-It is all explained in the statement.

2502. (Mr. Pell.) Will the witness explain what is meant by the poor?-It is the poor of the Company. The trust is for the poor of the Company in each

case.

2503. (Mr. James.) The poorer brethren you mean, do you not?-The poorer brethren, members of the Company.

2504. (Mr. Pell.) Not what you would call the poor generally ?-Not in that case.

2505. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) Are they freemen of the Company?-All freemen of the Company or widows or unmarried daughters of freemen.

2506. (Mr. Firth.) Wardall's gift was to the poor

almsmen or the Company's poor almsmen; do you say members of the Company ?-I should think so. I do not know for certain that they were, but I believe they were members of the Company and lived in the almshouses in Grocers' Hall Court.

2507. With respect to this question of the poor the charter of 7th Henry VI. gives the power to purchase land to sustain poor men of the community; were any such poor men carrying on any business, except that of grocers; were they not all poor grocers?-No, I think not. The Company at that time consisted of other persons besides grocers.

2508. Honorary members ?-Not at all; you find in the original ordinances that other persons could be admitted.

2509. Have you any evidence of any persons being admitted who were not members of the Grocers' Company? Not the actual names in the case of poor members, but I think you must assume that there were poor members who were not members of the trade.

2510. I see you state in your report that there is only one list that you have of the Grocers, which is in 1795. That is in your first report. Are not you aware that there are several lists of Grocers in Herbert? Not lists of the whole Company, freemen as well as liverymen.

2511. Are you aware that the whole of the managing body and the bulk of the members of the Company when all these bequests were given for the poor were grocers ?-They were Grocers as members of the gild but not grocers by trade, I believe.

2512. I mean by trade ?-I believe not; not all of them by any means.

2513. You have a contention here on page 11 that this was not a craft guild. I do not quite understand from your answer to Sir Sydney Waterlow, what you mean by a craft guild?-A craft guild is a gild which, as you state in "Municipal London," consists exclusively of members of the trade. That is one of the leading tests of it.

2514. Did this consist exclusively of members of the trade in 1365?—No.

2515. I am giving you a particular year?-Not in 1365, certainly not, because there were two clergymen who were members of the Company at that time.

2516. You say there were two clerygmen in the year 1348; the Company of Grocers was not in existence in 1348, was it?—I should say the Company of Grocers and the fraternity of St. Anthony were one and the same. It was not in existence by that particular name.

2517. Are you aware that the name of the Company, the Grocers, was not taken at all until the year

1376 ?-1373, or a little earlier.

2518. I am speaking of the Company of Grocers. You say here on page 11 that there could not be a craft of general merchants; therefore there was no craft. That is because of a complaint made in 1363 you say. Are not you aware that that was a petition against the Grocers' Company, or, at least, against a body of men for collecting various goods, and keeping them until they became dear?—Yes, so it was alleged.

2519. Then, are not you aware that in the following year, 1364, an Act of Parliament was passed to deal with that very matter?-So it is stated; but I believe there is some doubt about that.

choose their own mystery ?—Yes. 2520. And by which artizans were compelled to

2521. If they did not do so they might be punished by imprisonment, and the Grocers then became a separate body?-I think more information is wanted about that Act of Parliament. It is a very doubtful question. The Grocers could hardly be included in the term "artizans."

2522. You have not put that in your statement ?—I do not consider it material.

2523. Are you aware that at that time the oath taken by the wardens and members of the Company was that you shall swear to truly oversee the craft, and

so on; perhaps you are not aware of that ?-No, I am not.

2524. I should like to ask you a question or two more about that. Do you admit that your Grocers' Company had a weight and oversight over many articles for a long series of years-Yes, but they have not exercised the power since the great fire.

2525. Over grocery articles, for example, being sold in the street, in 1562?—Yes, at one period.

2526. Then you come down later to 1564. Do you recollect that the Physicians' Company obtained a charter, and that your Company contested it, because they said it would interfere with your rights in your trade?—Yes, that is very likely, as regards contesting the charter.

2527. Then we come down lastly to the question as to this charter to which allusion was made of William the Third. I was hoping that Sir Sydney Waterlow would have read the end of it, but I must read the end of it to you. The end of your quotation is this, that the "confectioners, druggists, tobacconists, to"bacco-cutters, and sugar bakers, or refiners of sugar "in the City, or within three miles round it, are and "shall be part of the body corporate and politick "of the aforesaid wardens and commonalty of the 66 mystery of Grocers (it does not say "art and mystery" in that part of it)" of the City of London, "and that every person now or hereafter exercising or using any of the said arts or mysteries who is now free of any other society or mystery in the City, shall and may be able to be made free of the "society or mystery of Grocers of the City of Lon"don." What do I understand you to say is your construction of those words; do you say they are perfectly innocuous or ultra vires ?-Perfectly ultra

66

66

vires.

2528. When was that contention ever raised on behalf of the Grocers' Company?-It was never contended that the words had any operation.

2529. Then I may take it that in your opinion a mandamus would not go to the Grocers' Company to compel them to admit a grocer under that charter?Yes.

"The

Perhaps you will allow me to read the minute of the Court of Assistants of the 25th of July 1690; that is just contemporaneous with the grant of the charter, and clearly shows the Company's own view about it, and that the view of the court at that time was that the charter was not compulsory. "Court being informed that His Majesty having been "graciously pleased to incorporate the sugar-bakers, "and make them a part of this mystery, and that the "byelaws are again pursuant to the order of the "assistants prepared and approved of so as to include "them in the regulation and government of the mem"bers and mystery, and that several of them seem "willing to comply with the charter and ordnances "of the Company, provided they may be admitted "into the fraternity on easy terms; to the end, there"fore, they may have all due encouragement, and that "the wardens and assistants may omit no opportunity "of advantage to the Company, it is wholly referred "to the wardens to treat with any persons relating to "that affair, and to make their report to the Court of "Assistants of their opinion therein that they may "make such further order as may be for the public good of the fellowship and the members of it." 2530. But do not you hold your lands under this charter?-Under some charters, no doubt.

66

2531. And all the charters under which you hold lands (if there is any exception, I should like to have it) contain conditions that you shall teach the trade, and maintain the poor ? Certainly not. The first charter does not say a word about it.

2532. You mean the charter of 7th Henry VI. ?— Yes; and I doubt whether any of our charters involve any duty of teaching the trade; I do not recollect it. 2533. We shall have them in full, and shall see. Then on page 15 you say, "These charters were abolished, and annulled by the Act of 2 William and "Mary, session 1, cap. 8, which gave a parliamentary

66

"sanction to the status of the Company as it existed "before the judgment on the writ." Do you contend by that paragraph (which is somewhat obscure) that you are in a stronger position now than you were before William the Third ?-I consider that the Act of William the Third places the Company in the same position as if the writ on the quo warranto had never been issued, and that it recognises by a Parliamentary title, I think I may say, the previous status of the Company.

2534. But with all the conditions under which it existed? Subject to any conditions, no doubt, so far as they were legally binding.

2535. The exact words were, that all and every of the companies should stand and be incorporated by such name and names and in such sert and manner as they respectively were at the time of the said judgment given. Therefore you rest your case upon your old charters ?--I do not admit that entirely.

2536. On page 19 you deal with the question of the refractory companies' decision?—Yes.

2537. Is that published anywhere; where is it to be seen? It is to be seen in Baron Heath's History of the Grocers' Company.

2538. You state that that is a work which has been published; has that work ever been published ?—I do not know whether it could be publicly bought. There is a copy in the library of the Reform Club, if you desire to see it. I sent one there myself.

2539. When?- Many years ago the club possessed a copy of the first edition, which I afterwards exchanged with the consent of the library committee for a copy of the third edition, which is more perfect.

2540. Herbert says it is not published. I should like to have a copy?-But Herbert, which you have, tells you that that decision was reversed; that is the decision in Plumbe's case.

2541. The decision about the refractory companies? -Yes.

2542. Perhaps you have not heard that that decision is one that is held to be of doubtful authority?—I should have thought that the Lord Chief Justice and four judges being unanimous it could hardly be of doubtful authority.

2543. That did not give the assistants the elec tion of Common Hall, if I recollect rightly, it is many years ago since I read it in the Guildhall library? -No, but it is important; the words are important.

2544. What are you going to read from ?-This is Baron Heath's History of the Company.

66

66

2545. (Chairman.) Is there a report of this case to be found anywhere but in Heath?-It refers to Payne's "Treatise on Municipal Rights," and also to the London Magazine for July 1775. The Lord Chief Justice de Grey says, "Thus far we know, that the "constitution of the City of London does not contain "these companies, I mean originally and from their charters, and all prescriptive rights; it is by subsequent accident that they came now to bear the "relation they do to their companies as livery. The "livery are not formed out of their corporate body; "for whatever their constituent parts, their obliga"tions, duties, powers, customs, and rights are, either as altogether, or as individuals, they are no part of "the City customs or rights, but a subordinate, de"tached, and independent body, I mean independent "with regard to the original constitution."

66

2546. (Mr. Pell.) That is a sort of obiter dicta, is it not; it does not form part of the judgment ?—I certainly understand it to form part of the judgment.

2547. (Mr. Firth.) Have you before you Herbert on the City Livery Companies in 1635. in which he says, there is no doubt they are a branch of the Corporation ?-Yes, but I think Herbert is full of mistakes.

2548. Still he was the City librarian, and one must get a standard somewhere. The quotation you give in answer to what Mr. Beal read, and in answer to my question, was in connexion with a petition to the Crown?-Yes.

2549. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) And the City in their petitions to the Crown all through last century and through this century have treated the livery companies as being part of the Corporation of the City, has it not? The City has treated the companies so?

I

2550. Has regarded them so and spoken of them so in the petitions?-I think that is very likely. think for ceremonial purposes that may be so.

2551. (Mr. Firth.) There is only one question that I should like to ask you further upon this statement, that is on page 24, you say that you sold your Irish estate. I notice in the Irish Society's accounts for last year there is a 207. quit rent still payable to you; is that in respect of the land? I am informed that the purchaser pays that 201. a year to the Irish Society under covenant with the Company.

2552. And on page 9 you say the price realised was 157,2567. What year was it sold in ?-1874 to 1876, I think.

2553. Does that amount appear in your report, if not, can you tell me what was done with it ?-It is invested in the names of the wardens for the Company.

2554. With respect to the Company's balances, I should like to ask you a question. I find that their very large balances are thus carried forward from year to year. They are on page 39 of your first report, “a return of the balance of monies, 11,9697., 8,2721.," and so on. Are they carried forward or divided amongst the members, or what is done with them? I cannot trace out what is done with them from these accounts. It says, whether they can be considered as unappropriated is at least doubtful, but the balance remains to meet the demands upon the Company? They are simply carried forward to the income of the following year.

2555. Do I understand that where you have given the income you include or exclude the balauces?—I think the balances are excluded; but I would not be sure about that.

2556. You must have done; you give us your income under various heads, and none of them are in that. 66 Rents, dividends, &c., Irish estate, Vintners' Company, interest on Irish mortgages, Forden, "fees, and fines, miscellaneous." That is the reason

of my question ?--Mr. Ruck, the clerk of the Company, explains to me (but I will look into the matter) that the balances are excluded from the gross amount received for rents.†

2557. I should like to ask you some questions on a point that Sir Sydney Waterlow questioned you about; that is, as to the apprenticeships. You have apprenticed about 180 people in 10 years; has any one of those been apprenticed to a grocer?-Do you mean a grocer by trade?

2558. Yes?-I cannot say. There are some mem bers of the Company probably who might come within the term " grocer by trade."

2559. Have you any objection to sending us a form of indenture ?-No.

*2560. Then leaving that question, do I understand that in your company a boy with all the form and solemnity of oath, and so forth, is apprenticed to a member, they do not live together and never have any connexion the one with the other, notwithstanding that the one has undertaken to teach the other the art and mystery of a grocer; is that so?-Mr. Ruck tells me that no oath is taken.†

*2561. Well, a declaration; it used to be an oath? -I should say for myself and other members of the

The Company's Return, Part IV., H., gives the actual income of certain years, excluding the balances either way. If the balance carried forward to any given year had been returned as part of the income of that year, the income of the year would have appeared too large by the amount of the balance carried forward to the following year.-J. H. W.

*As to the question of apprenticeship, see the note to Question 2252.-J. H. W.

Company that we should consider it our duty to look well after our apprentices. If I took an apprentice I should consider myself responsible for him.

*2562. Would it not be competent for your son to be apprenticed to a clergyman in Yorkshire under the arrangement of your company?--If I thought fit, and the clergymen consented, it might possibly be so.

*2563. And he could live in London ?-That might happen if his master allowed it; I should not do it. 2564. I want to ask you what the use of your livery now is. From a statement on page 29 of your report I find that they have three functions, first, a parliamentary vote; secondly, four dinners in the year, with a box of sweatmeats; and third, a municipal vote; is there any other purpose for which they exist? They are the body from whom the court is recruited.

2565. There is no other purpose?-That is the most important purpose.

2566. Are these accounts open to the livery?-Not of right.

2567. Have the livery of the Grocers as a body ever seen the accounts to this day ?-Certainly not as a body, not within my knowledge. I should add that the livery have never asked to see the accounts within my knowledge.

2568. On pages 29 and 30 you say that you give about 4,000l. a year in pensions, are any one of those persons to whom you give pensions grocers by trade? -Not necessarily.

2569. To your knowledge ?--I will find out for you if you wish to know; I cannot say of my own knowledge.

2570. Will you tell me on what principle they are selected, is it a matter of simple patronage ?-Certainly not. The Master and Court of Wardens look very carefully indeed into all the circumstances of each

person.

2571. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) Referring to the question last asked with reference to pensions, are the persons qua grocers by trade or qua grocers as members of the Company?--Qua grocers as members of the Company.

2572. Did I understand you to say in answer to a question that a gentleman may be free and have the livery of your Company without being free of the City ?-I believe we make it a condition precedent to his being a liveryman that he shall take up the freedom of the City.

2573. Is it not a fact that having taken up the freedom of the City he has to go to the Guildhall to get the freedom of the City before you grant him the livery of the Company?—I believe that is the practice of the Grocers Company.

2574. Then as a fact you do not admit a man to your Company until he has become, to a certain extent, a member of the Corporation of the City of London ? -Oh, yes, he is a member of the Company as soon as he is a freeman.

2575. Then you do not admit a man to be a liveryman of your Company until he has first, as a condition precedent to his admission, become a member of the Corporation of London by becoming a freeman ? That is the practice, I believe, of my Company.

2576. Then upon that same question are you aware that in all the processions of the Corporation to the judges at Westminster when they come to claim their rights annually they are always attended by a certain number of the members of the Livery Companies in coaches, such members being appointed by the Companies themselves ?-The Grocers' Company certainly never take any part in that.

2577. You are not aware that other Companies do? -I believe that some other Companies do.

2578. Then passing from that, may I ask you if

* As to the question of apprenticeship, see the note to Question 2252.-J. H. W.

premiums are paid on the apprenticeship of apprentices at your Hall, that is to say, are premiums ever paid to the master who takes the apprentice?-No premium is paid, so I am informed by Mr. Ruck.

2579. Then did I understand you, in answer to a question, to say that, as far as you know the history of your Company, the Corporation have never levied sums of money upon it ?-I am not aware of any compulsory levy.

2580. Did not the Corporation levy the sum 4,2007. between the years 1608 and 1610 for the purpose of paying for the colonisation of the province of Ulster? I think it was rather the Crown that levied it in that case. The Corporation was the hand that

received the contributions from the Companies, but the contribution was called for by the Crown, as I understand

2581. Was it not that the Corporation entered into a contract with the Crown, and not having the money themselves levied it from the Companies, each of the twelve Companies paying their share or finding their share?-I believe it was one transaction, but I have no very accurate knowledge of the circumstances.

2582. Did not your Company receive, in consideration of their contribution towards the expenses of colonisation, a portion of the confiscated lands which formed your Irish estate, but which you sold ultimately? Undoubtedly.

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEDFORD, K.G.

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

SIR NATHANIEL M. DE ROTHSCHILD, BART., M.P.
SIR SIDNEY H. WATERLOW, BART., M.P.

The following gentlemen attended as a deputation from the Goldsmiths' Company :

Sir Frederick Bramwell, F.R.S., and
Mr. Walter Prideaux.

I

2583. (Chairman to Sir Frederick Bramwell.) understand you attend on behalf of the Goldsmiths' Company, and that you desire to offer some observations on their behalf?-I do, in company with Mr. Prideaux. Those observations your lordship has also in print, I believe.

2584. Yes, I have read them.-We desire and trust that they may be taken as having been given here as oral evidence.

2535. Have you anything to add to this statement ? -Nothing has occurred to me since that was drawn up. I do not know whether anything has to Mr. Prideaux.

2586. You will understand me as wishing my ques tions not to take the shape of cross-examining you, because I do not wish to do so; I have no desire to do more than to possess the Commission and myself of exactly what I understand to be your contention; as I understand, you contend that the great bulk of the property of the Goldsmiths' Company is absolutely their private property; is that so ?—Yes.

2587. And that it is subject to no legal restraint whatever?—Yes.

2588. And might, if the Company chose, be divided amongst the members of the Company to-morrow ?— Legally, I presume it might be. I have not in the slightest degree suggested that anything of the kind would be done.

2589. Neither do I suggest it; I only say that it might be so, according to your view.—I hardly like to talk law to your lordship, but certainly that is our view; and I am fortified in that by the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, with whom I had the honour of attending the Commission on a former occasion.

2590. I suppose your legal position, in your view, would be the same if the Companies, or your Company, had 10 times or 20 times the amount of property that they now possess?-That is so.

2591. Or if they owned half England?—Or if they owned half England. It does not appear to me thit the fact that I have got something which is doubly coveted, makes it doubly the property of somebody who would like to get it.

2592. And in your view, the State would be guilty of spoliation, as I understand [" confiscation," I think, is the expression that you make use of], or something approaching to confiscation, if in the general interest it interfered with the holding of property on the part of any one, however exaggerated and large that holding might be?-I should certainly think so. It is the first time I ever heard it suggested that there should be a limit to the property held by an individual

2593. I suggest nothing.-I will not say that your lordship suggests it. It is a new proposition to me that there should be a limit to property held in one person's hands.

2594. Even when those lands are mortmain ?—I believe so; but as these are legal points, I should prefer your lordship would allow Mr. Prideaux to break in and give answers upon these matters.

2595. I only want to know what is the extent to which you push your view.-The extent to which I push my view is that which your lordship has stated, viz., that the property is legally ours, except that part of it on which there are direct trusts.

2596. And that the right of the State to interfere, is neither more nor less in the case of very large properties held in mortmain than it is in the case of very small properties held in the hands of private persons? -Upon that point I should be glad if your lordship would allow Mr. Prideaux to answer. So far as I am competent to express an opinion, I should say "Yes" to that, but if Mr. Prideaux might answer it I should be glad.

2597. (Sir Richard Cross.) As I understand, you consider that it is the origin of the property more than the size of it which you have to look at, that is to say, how you got the property?-How we got the property. It appears to me to be a somewhat dangerous doctrine to say, "I will consider whether this

56

property is large or small, and if it is small you may "keep it; if it is not I will consider whether it shall "not be taken from you."

2598. (Sir Sydney Waterlow.) Do you know what proportion of the property held by the Goldsmiths' Company consists of property formerly held for superstitious uses, and which was purchased by the Goldsmiths' Company from the Crown in the reign of Edward VI., and the holding of which was confirmed by the present Act of 4 James I. ?-I know it by referring to the Returns. But if you will be good enough to allow Mr. Prideaux to speak upon that point, he can do it with more particularity than I can.

2599. May I ask you whether your Company has, since the establishment of the Charity Commission, applied to the Commissioners for any scheme of alteration of the administration of your settled charities?— I know as a matter of fact that they have, but again I would refer to Mr. Prideaux for the detail.

2600. Now I turn to another subject. In your observations you state that at the commencement of this century the income of the Company was very small. Can you inform us what it was at any earlier period, say five or six centuries ago?-I cannot; but again I refer you to Mr. Prideaux.

2601. May I ask you whether you consider that there is, or is not, a very close connexion between the Livery Companies and the Corporation of London ?I should have thought it but a remote connexion.

2602. You are probably aware that as late as the 14th century the Livery Companies appointed the common councilmen, each Company sending so many? -I was not aware of that; I am speaking of the present connexion.

2603. Then as to the present connexion, you are aware that the Livery Companies appoint the Lord