20 or 30 years, it is never paid by lands held in mortmain. Such lands are not sold, and there is no exchange or distribution of ownership, so that at the present moment in this great commercial capital the land upon which the City stands is the least commercial part of it. The disadvantages of this are self-evident. The attacks of the Companies against myself have been mainly directed to the nine propositions enumerated above. Most of these propositions find the amplest justification in the admirable Report which has been signed by the majority of the Commission, but in order that no point of the charge should remain unanswered, I have appended these memoranda. There are in the statements of some of the Companies other allegations of less importance with which it is unnecessary to deal, inasmuch as their refutation may be found either in the Report itself or in other available sources of information. I will give two illustrations of these allegations in order to indicate my meaning. They are taken from the additional statement supplied by Sir Frederick Bramwell and Mr. Prideaux on behalf of the Goldsmiths' Company. The Goldsmiths' Company contest the truth of a statement in "Municipal London to the effect that it is a considerable pecuniary advantage to be a member of the Court of Assistants of a City Company, and say that this is not the case in the Goldsmiths' Company. On reference to the Goldsmiths' Return to our inquiries, it will be seen that 1,5761. was paid to those who attended courts and committees in 1881. But the proportion which the payment to members bears to income is in some Companies very large, as may be seen from the Returns. The largest absolute payment to a Court of Assistants is in the Mercers' Company, and from their Return it appears that there was paid in 1880: 66 Total payment - £8,765 12 0 The Returns abundantly prove the truth of my statement. The other illustration is also from the Goldsmiths' Company's statement, where they contest an incidental observation in "Municipal London to the effect that "in " addition to their salaries they sometimes find a bank note delicately secreted under "their plates." They say, "So far as regards the Goldsmiths' Company this is untrue. "and we do not believe there is any foundation whatever for it as regards any other Company." The matter is of trivial importance, but as it is made matter of special attack, I may say that the existence of such a custom in some of the Companies is well known, and, so far as I know, has never been previously denied until denied in the Goldsmiths' statement, and also by Sir Frederick Bramwell in his evidence before the Commission. In addition, however, to its truth being a matter of general knowledge, it is also a matter of record. An illustration of this may be found in the evidence given by Mr. Hickson, a responsible witness before the last Commission on the Corporation of London, a Commission with which Lord Coleridge was connected. Questioned as to the propriety of placing the property of the Livery Companies in public trust, this witness detailed some of their methods of expenditure, and amongst other things said, "The rich Companies get rid of some of their wealth by giving the "most expensive dinners, and it is still customary to place a five or ten pound note under "the plate of a liveryman invited, if a member of the Court of Assistants. Two guineas is a common fee for attendance at a dinner, even in some of the poorer Companies' (Q. 2970). It is to be observed that wherever possible, the evidence given to the Commission which affected the City was afterwards explained or answered by City witnesses subsequently called, but so far as I know this evidence as to the practice of the Companies was never impeached or contradicted. In matters of this kind, it appears to be supposed that evidence cannot be procured from living members of the Court of Assistants, because, however anxious they may be for reform, they are expected to hesitate, as they do hesitate, to face the ostracism and obloquy of giving evidence against their fellows. 66 This matter is intrinsically one of small importance. When the livery Companies claim, as the Goldsmiths' Company claims, the right to divide their property amongst themselves, it would seem that the method of division is comparatively unimportant. But it has been made of importance by being taken as a test case whereon to rest allegations that a book which I wrote in 1875 is unreliable in its character. It is, therefore, necessary to answer it, and perhaps the Companies may now be convinced that so unusual a course of procedure has proved to be as unsuccessful as it was unwise. JOSEPH F. B. FIRTH. OBSERVATIONS BY MR. FIRTH. I have signed the preceding report subject to the following observations:With the main scope and proposals of the Report I entirely agree, but I think one or two of the recommendations of the Commission fall somewhat short of the necessities and justice of the case. I agree with the propriety of State intervention and the grounds on which such intervention is justified, as set out on page 42. I agree that the funds of these Companies are rightly available for public purposes. It is admitted that any satisfactory scheme of Municipal Reform must abolish the Municipal franchise of liverymen, and the report recommends the removal of the parliamentary franchise of liverymen. Further, the report conclusively shows that with a very few exceptions the Companies discharge no useful functions in connexion with trade. I therefore fail to see what useful purpose can be served by the continued preservation of such Companies as are disassociated from trade, and I think that the best course to pursue will be to dissolve them and to vest their property in an Official Trustee unless or until a Representative Municipal Authority be established in London. Until the establishment of such an Authority the property might be managed by a Special Commission, but after the establishment of such Authority it would be transferred to such a body representing all the people of London, and subject always to such uses as Parliament might prescribe. I think that the Municipality of London is a much more desirable body to settle the re-appropriation of these funds than a Special Commission, which must of necessity have a more restricted knowledge of the requirements and the wishes of the London people. I think that the suggestion as to schemes being framed by the Companies is not a desirable one, inasmuch as there would be no guarantee for the equitable appropriation amongst the "objects of acknowledged public utility set out in recommendation 5. The funds being admittedly available for all or any of these objects, it seems to me most desirable that they should be appropriated amongst them in such manner as is most satisfactory to the people of London for whom they exist. Even if the Companies were not formally dissolved, it would be needful to devise some new method of admission. Patrimony and colourable servitude are already condemned, and as for admission by redemption (or purchase) it is, as shown in the accompanying Memorandum, the least defensible of all. There would remain admission by bona fide apprenticeship, but this only exists to an extremely limited extent. Moreover, as the new members would be merely Trustees of public funds the pecuniary advantages which now exist in connexion with membership could scarcely be continued. On the whole, therefore, I think that the most logical and practical course is to dissolve such Companies as are disassociated from trade. In case of such dissolution it would be necessary to deal with the question of Compensation to persons injuriously affected. In this category would be: (a.) Paid Officers.-Where such office is a freehold and is abolished, and where no analogous duties in connexion with the property of the Companies is found, they would probably be compensated on the actuarial value of the lives of the holders. Where not a freehold but an annual office, say five years' payment in gross. (b.) Members of Courts of Assistants. If the Companies were abolished these would have no compensation if the precedent of the suggestion of the Parochial Charities Commission as to City Parish Trustees were followed. They would then cease to manage the property, and fees given on the basis of such management for attendance at Court, &c., could scarcely form a proper basis of compensation. As to compensation for loss of dinners, if this were entertained as an equitable right, then the present value per head might be calculated and paid to them yearly during life or the actuarial value paid in gross. A tontine system would be indefensible. (c.) Liverymen. The only compensation payable to Liverymen would be in respect of Livery dinners. These could be compensated in the same way if this were considered a proper subject for compensation. (d.) Freemen and Pensioners, &c.-Pensions now paid to these might continue during life, or be compounded for on fair terms. As to the Irish Estates.-I think some recommendation should be made as to these. The costs of management of these estates is extravagantly high. They were bought with money levied by the Lord Mayor on the Companies of London, in reality a municipal tax. I think that they should be disposed of upon equitable terms, and to the tenants, if possible, and the money made available for the new Municipality of London, subject to any equitable claims on the part of the districts. JOSEPH F. B. FIRTH. MEMORANDUM BY MR. BURT. I agree with Mr. Firth in so far as relates to the Irish estates of the Companies of London. THOS. BURT. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF DERBY, CHAIRMAN. HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEDFORD, K.G. SIR SYDNEY H. WATERLOW, Bart., M.P. MR. ALDERMAN COTTON, M.P. MR. WALTER H. JAMES, M.P. MR. JOSEPH FIRTH, M.P. MR. THOMAS BURT, M.P. Mr. THOMAS HARE examined. 1. (The Chairman.) I think you are the Senior Inspector of Charities under the Charity Commission, and I need not ask you whether you have taken considerable interest in and paid much attention to questions of municipal government and of charity adminis tration -I have. 2. You have been occupied, as I understand, with the charities administered by the city companies at various times?—At various times, many years ago. I have not done much in that way since 1865. 3. Between 1860 and 1865 I think you were employed in that way?—I was. 4. Will you kindly explain to the Commission what are the functions of the Charity Commission; under what Act of Parliament it obtains its powers, and what is its position as regards the City Livery Companies. Probably you would prefer to give your explanation in your own way?-I suppose that the Commission knows that the Charitable Trusts Act was passed in the year 1853. It was the first jurisdiction then established applicable to charities exclusively, and it was intended to prevent the vast waste of money which was constantly incurred in charities, by the institution of suits by relators whenever they thought they had an opportunity of having them inquired into in the Court of Chancery. The powers, which were general, are set forth at considerable length in the Act of 1853; it gave power of inquiry; it gave power of authorizing leases and for the alienation of estates; it gave also for the first time, an officer who should be the conduit pipe of the real estate, so that the real estate should be vested in one person MR. H. D. WARR, Secretary. continually, while the trustees should have the management as before for the purpose of administration. It gave also the power of taking proceedings for setting new schemes where the charities were under 30l. a year, the amount was afterwards increased to 50l. upon the application of one or more inhabitants or persons interested, but no power beyond an income of 50l. a year, except upon the application of the trustees or the persons administering. That is the present restriction. It full gave power of inquiry into all charities, and it also gave the power which was exercised for a few years, of laying before Parliament at the commencement of the session, what Bills they proposed to pass for such amendment of charities as the Courts of Law were not competent to make, and then that being laid before Parliament, at a certain time after its meeting, a Bill was to be brought before the House for effecting the alteration. That went on for some years, but as in many cases the alteration would affect very much the condition of populous towns and boroughs, the Government was sometimes unwilling to take it up, and it was met with frequent opposition. In some cases the Bills were thrown out, and the Commissioners instead of laying those Bills before Parliament thought their function was rather uselessly exercised unless the Bills could be passed, and they abandoned that course of proceeding. I do not know whether there is any other matter connected with the jurisdiction and power of the Commissioners which I have omitted, or which the Commissioners would like to be informed upon; if so I shall be glad to answer any further question. It is a Commission to Mr. T. Hare. 1 March 1882 you 7. Have had to examine those reports, and as a matter of fact, have you done so ?-In all cases when I went to the city companies, I took the printed report of the former Commission, and began by inquiring whether that was accurate, and whether there was any addition or amendment to be made to it. I adopted that as the basis of my inquiry, taking up, of course, the subject of any variations in the property, and subsequent gifts, if any. 8. Had the framers of those earlier reports which you consulted, full access to the documents of the companies?—The power given by the Act of Parliament enabled them to inquire into trusts only, and, therefore, if an independent title was asserted they would have had no power to go beyond the trust. 9. The Commissoners had power to call for any documents relating to the charities of the Companies, had they not?-Yes, they had. 10. But I presume in a doubtful case the Company itself would be the judge whether the property was held in trust or otherwise?-They must necessarily be the judge. 11. You have drawn up reports of your own between the dates you mention, 1860 and 1865?— Yes, for a great number of companies-all that appeared by the former reports to have had charities. 12. Did you base your reports upon those of the earlier Commissioners ?—I began with those in my inquiry; I took them as the basis of my inquiry, and then I referred, where the documents were the same, to the former report. 13. Are you aware of any cases in which informations have been filed by the Attorney-General against the Companies for breaches of trust ?—I am not aware of many cases of that kind. I might accidentally have heard of them, but I never had an official knowledge of the cases. I may mention one case, by the way, of which I was cognizant, that of the Wax Chandlers' Company, in which I found that there were some houses in the Old Change charged with the payment of about 81. a year to poor persons with the direction that the remainder of the rent of the houses was to be carried to the chest of the Company and applied to the repair of the houses. I told the Company that it appeared to me that that was not a gift to them, but still continued to be a charity. They applied all the surplus over 81. a year to their own funds. I found the same to be the case in the Merchant Taylors; they had a very large charity, about 2,000l. a year, and they had taken the opinion of their counsel, the present Vice-Chancellor Hall, and Lord Selborne, who advised them that the surplus was devoted charity. They accordingly founded with it the Convalescent Hospital at Bognor, instead of applying it to their own funds; and I recommended the Wax Chandlers Company to do the same, but they thought it would take away so large a portion of their funds that they declined to do it. An information was filed. It was heard first before Lord Romilly and then before Lord Hatherley, who decided in favour of he Company. It then went before the House of Lords, who decided that I had been right in holding it to be a charity, and the whole surplus was then handed over as a charitable trust. I do not remember at this moment any other case. 14. (Mr. Firth.) The case which related to the hospital at Bognor was that of the Attorney-General v. Donkin, was it not?-That was first established under the voluntary act of the Merchant Taylors' Company after my suggestion, but when the Wax Chandlers' Company had been proceeded against and had succeeded in obtaining judgment in their favour from Lord Romilly, and a second judgment in their favour from Lord Hatherley, the Merchant Taylors' Company thought they had made a mistake, and filed an information for the purpose of getting a more satisfactory construction in their interest; but when the House of Lords decided the other way they dropped their proceedings. 15. The payments were different, were they not? -One was, I think, to be applied to the repair of the houses and the other was to go into the chest of the Company. They were substantially the same. 16. But that difference made the difference in the decisions, did it not?-The first decision was that of Lord Romilly; he thought it was not a charity, and Lord Hatherley was not satisfied about it sufficiently, he said, to overrule Lord Romilly. Then the matter went before the House of Lords, and they determined that it was a charity. 17. (The Chairman.) Has there been any inquiry into the charities of the Companies since 1865 ?--I think there has upon a few occasions where some questions have arisen. I do not think I have had any myself. There has been no inquiry of any considerable importance, I believe. 18. I do not know whether I am right in assuming that your reports are unpublished and have not been printed? They have not been printed; the reports of the City Parochial Charities have all been printed, but not of the Companies. 19. Was that done by the Parochial Charities Com. mission?--Yes. 20. Have you any idea what would be the bulk of your reports if it were found desirable to publish them?--I fear that it would be found to be a very voluminous document of a great many hundred folio pages. 21. Now with regard to these charities, there are a considerable number of almshouses, are there not, belonging to the companies ?-A great many, I believe, as far as I remember. 22. There are also, I believe, doles to poor freemen? -There are a great many pensions and things of that kind which are given to them. 23. Are there also payments for the benefit of the poor?-There are many. 24. I should like to put it to you generally whether in regard of the administration of those charities you have any general idea of such reform as might be proper to be adopted, whether you have formed in your own mind any general plan of dealing with them?About three or four years ago there was a poor law conference, at which Lord Hampton was in the chair, which requested me to give my views as to the administration of endowments. I am looking at the printed copy of what I then said, and I find that the best answer to your question which I might give you now is set forth in this printed paper (handing in the same). I recommended that the employment of endowments should be of an elevating tendency. One passage I will read,— Twenty years ago, or more, when a new scheme was first about to be devised for the college of Dul"wich, I thought that, with regard to its eleemosynary branch, an experiment might deserve to be tried for "encouraging and promoting a systematic habit of "providence and foresight among the poorer inhabi"tants of the populous districts interested in that great "endowment. As one mode of doing this I suggested the appropriation of some sites on the vast Dulwich 66 66 66 |