ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.

HC Deb 23 May 1876 vol 229 cc1117-53

MR. JAMES,

in rising to call attention to the present position of the Eighty-nine Companies mentioned in the Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Municipal Corporations in England and Wales 1837; and to move an Address for a Return setting forth in detail a Statement of the real and personal property vested in such Companies respectively; also a detailed Statement of the charities payable by such Companies and of the income derived from all sources; and a Statement of expenditure and receipts during the last three years preceding the 1st day of January 1875, said: Mr. Speaker—I am not unaware of the magnitude of this subject, and of the many interests affected by it. Since this Notice of Motion of mine has been placed on the Paper representations have been made to me from sources of various sorts that the influence, power, and wealth of the opposing bodies would be so great that for any private Member to attempt to deal with it would be a Quixotic attempt. Of the power and influence of those forces there is no reason whatever to doubt; but I believe that as the information for which I am about to ask is founded on what is reasonable, equitable, and just, it is what, if not the present, at least some future Government, at no very distant date, will consider it their duty to grant. I regret that very little Parliamentary evidence exists upon which it is possible for me to establish this case, and while I shall have to avail myself, to a certain extent, of such information as is within any private Member's reach, I hope I shall not state anything inaccurate, misleading, or contrary to the fact. These Companies form an integral part of the Corporation of the City of London itself, and that they are themselves municipal Corporations in the strictest sense, I hope to be able to show from high authority stated in this House. For many years, as everyone is aware, the condition of the Corporation of the City of London has remained unaltered and unchanged, and it has always appeared to me that it is not a little singular and strange that this great Corporation which has taken an honourable part in many various and different reforms which we have witnessed during the last 25 or 30 years, as far as itself is concerned, has shown such disinclination to depart from ancient usages and forms, and has hence become more narrow and exclusive as the metropolitan area has spread. It is sometimes alleged that the reason why the City has always brought such fierce resistance to bear against the various proposals made at different times to bring into one central area the different jurisdictions and local authorities which London at present contains, is that the trustees of the ancient Guilds, to which I am about to call attention, are perfectly well aware that by such a change they will be brought much more closely under the scrutiny of the public eye, and that their funds would be devoted to purposes of a much more catholic and useful kind than they at present profess to have. Although, sooner or later, this question of the municipal reform of London must receive the attention which the subject deserves, I see no reason why the citizens of London, and I may add the people outside—because I do not think this is a parochial question in any sense of the word—should await that change in asking for full information on the subject of the property which these bodies have under their charge. I have been told that this attempt of mine is one of an inquisitorial and unnecessary kind—that it is an attack on private funds—that if the Government granted my demand deprivation and confiscation of property might ensue. An unreasonable comparison has been drawn between these bodies and joint stock companies, private firms, and clubs. I must ask, do clubs elect municipal officers? Do joint stock companies hold land in mortmain, and exercise large trading privileges under Royal and other charters? Do private firms in that capacity exercise Parliamentary franchises? I must enter my humble protest against the idea that these Companies are private bodies, and I think the idea deserves a protest, and has every right to be condemned, that when during the last 25 or 30 years we have instituted inquiries into municipal and ecclesiastical corporations of all kinds, into our Universities and endowed schools, that when not two Sessions ago an inquiry was instituted in this House even in regard to monastic and conventual institutions, so far as their tenure of property inland is concerned, these Companies should remain isolated in their position, should remain entirely uncontrolled, while their duties are so imperfectly discharged, and that a complete ignorance with reference to their property should be obstinately and persistently maintained. It is no exaggeration to say that in consequence of the fierce resistance, I might almost say resistance to the death, on the part of the Civic authorities to disclose in the very smallest degree any information with respect to their property and funds, an idea prevails generally out-of-doors, and is increasing by degrees, that their revenues are applied to purposes very different from those to which they were originally intended to be used, that the charities are very often frittered away and given to those by whom they are least deserved, and that nothing is done to promote the special industries and trades upon which their success and reputation ought in a great measure to depend. There may be those who think this is a question undesirable to stir tip, and the maxim Quieta non movere may be very well in many respects; but I, however, maintain that a strong public opinion on this subject already exists. There have been speeches made on many occasions, and frequent articles on the subject have appeared in the daily and weekly metropolitan Press. Perhaps in some of these words and denunciations have been expressed in terms with which I have no sympathy, and which I do not fail to deprecate. But, at all events, they show there is a strong opinion on this subject. Speaking two or three years ago at the Birkbeck Literary and Scientific Institution, Sir John Bennett, who is a Citizen and ex-Sheriff of the City of London, and also a Spectacle Maker, said— That while they were strong in the City in respect to technical education, because of the Guilds founded for that purpose, yet in many essential respects these Guilds had not fulfilled their duties; a little gentle persuasion would remedy this, because the Guilds had loads of money, and, like the fly in the treacle pot, could not move for wealth. I read the other day an article by Mr. Philips—well qualified to speak with authority on these matters—which appeared in The Gentleman's Magazine. He said they were so glutted with money that they did not know what to do with it. It was true that they feasted and feasted and built gorgeous halls. It was difficult, however, to say that they did much more. True it was that many of them feasted under powers conferred in them by having charters, and it was true also that in dealing out their charities they were narrowly watched by the Charity Commissioners. It was also true, however, from the results of recent litigation, that some of them were not above pocketing as their own private property money which was intrusted to them for the relief of the poor and the infirm. Charity exhausted very little of their revenues; and what was done with the surplus the members of the respective Courts only knew. A book has been lately written on Municipal London, by Mr. Firth, which contains a series of important charges which I think it is right the several authorities should have the earliest opportunity of being able publicly to refute, because while uncontradicted they must raise in the public mind an impression of the existence of a great deal of unpleasant truth.

In the absence of information on this subject, it is difficult to know in the first instance where to turn, so little is known, and so much has been concealed. The Report of the Commission was made in 1837, and a Return in 1868 was moved for by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) with reference to the Charities, but no Parliamentary evidence has been brought to light to show that the corporate property is rightly administered or the funds well spent. Before I proceed further, I should like to point out what connection between the Companies and the City precisely exists. I have said they are municipal corporations in the strictest sense. The Parliamentary and municipal franchise in the City is vested in the Livery, in which no person can have a right to vote except by being a member of a Company. By them are elected the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, the City Chamberlain, the Sheriffs, the City Auditors, the Bridge House Estate Trustees. They also possess the unique political right of electing the Members of Parliament who represent the City in this House, so long as they have the residential qualification. This is a power which is liable to very great abuse, and from the Return which I moved for a few days since, I hope when it is brought up we shall see how many persons have by purchase obtained their political rights. As far as the status of these municipal corporations is concerned, I will quote from what took place here 40 years since, when this question was last brought before the House. It was at a time when the Companies were under the investigation of the Municipal Commissioners, and Mr. Attwood, who was himself Master of the Merchant Taylor's Company, rose in the House to move that the Petition which had been presented to the Committee on Municipal Corporations should be discharged in consequence of the grave charges which it contained against the Merchant Taylor's Company. Speaking on that occasion Lord Althorp, the Minister of the day, said— With respect to the view the hon. Member took of the Order to refer the Petition under debate to the Committee on Municipal Corporations, he thought that the hon. Member was not exactly correct. The Committee was to inquire into the defects of the Corporations of England and Wales, and to report thereon. It was to look into and to ascertain those defects, and in order to do so, every Company, and (to use the expression) every subordinate Company connected, as they must be, with Municipal Corporations, should come under the cognizance of the Committee. With respect to the question whether a trading Company was to be considered as connected with the constitution of a Corporation, he thought that it certainly was."—[3 Hansard, xv. 1119.] Summing up the debate the Attorney General of that day said— One benefit of the present discussion was, they were all at length agreed that, if not now, some distinct inquiry must speedily be made into the state of these trading Corporations, seeing that some of the functions exercised by them were clearly Municipal functions, and therefore make them Municipal Corporations."—[Ibid, 1124.] As far, however, as they and the City have been concerned in recent years, their connection has been kept as much, as possible in the background, as the best means of resisting projected reforms.

I should like to say a few words on the origin of these ancient Guilds and the terms which their charters contain. They must be considered the legitimate representatives of the early Anglo Saxon and Plantagenet Guilds. The Guild in the first instance seems to have been a sort of territorial division somewhat analogous to our modern ward. Gradually they assumed positions connected with special trades. In the days of the Plantagenets, the power and influence possessed by them was so great that it was a question whether they should not be entirely suppressed. It may be said that municipal government and these mercantile communities and privileges grew up side by side, their object chiefly being the preservation of existing trade monopolies and the crea- tion of new ones, the promotion, as far as possible, of what I may call good and sound commercial morality amongst all persons with whom the trade was identified, and so far as the City of London was concerned the wealth, power, and influence of that City and its surrounding areas. Gradually a large number of these Guilds became incorporated, and about the time of Edward III. and Richard II. in greatest numbers. Nothing could be more simple than the way in which they originated. Take the instance of "the Grocers." They were not then called "grocers" but "pepperers," because pepper was one of the chief commodities they dealt with. It is related that 22 persons carrying on the trade of pepperers met at St. Mary Axe, and they determined to form a Guild. They assembled, dined together—each of them paid 1d. as a contribution for a priest to pray for the brotherhood and of all Christian people, and thus the Guild was established by feasting and praying. Formerly many of the Grocers were very great and distinguished persons. Sir John Philpot was one of the earliest members of the Grocer's Company, and he is described by Fuller as— the brave merchant who in 1378 fitted out a fleet at his own expense to put down piracy amongst the Scotch, and who for that and among other services was described as— the scourge of the Scots, the fright of the French, the delight of the Commons, the darling of the Merchants, and the hatred of some noble Lords. He may be taken as a good illustration of the character and influence of a London Grocer in Plantagenet times. In the days of the Stuarts Sir Thomas Middleton, one of the principal founders of the East India Company, was a leading Grocer, and a typical instance of a member of that body. These persons had all the interests of their trade thoroughly at heart, and when they died there was a priest to pray for the repose of their souls. Gradually they adopted a distinctive dress to show their power, influence, and wealth; it is supposed that thus the term "Livery" first originated, and although in the present day the wearing of particular dresses to denote a particular profession or business would be resented, yet there is endless information in books and volumes written on the pageant and processions on different occasions in which these gorgeous dresses were made use of, and more particularly on the occasions when the Companies with the Lord Mayor went in procession from Westminster to Guildhall, the abandonment of which custom is perhaps to be regretted. No change whatever has ever taken place in the manner in which the members of these different Companies have been admitted. There were three modes of admission—by patrimony, by purchase, and by servitude. I think I am correct in saying that servitude has fallen almost wholly into disuse, so far at least as it has any practical effect. I am unable to cite any particular case in which parents or guardians have apprenticed a child to a particular trade in any one of these Companies, in order that he might have the particular education it would be natural they should wish him to have:—admission by patrimony is by right of birth, and it is stated that sometimes children are admitted as early as five or six, in order that they may derive substantial benefit in their early youth. Purchase is a privilege obtainable on the payment of certain fees, varying from two to three guineas, to as much, in some cases, as £300 or £400. I am told that no Ironmonger, bonâ fide—unless he applied for a mandamus, which possibly might succeed—could join the Ironmongers' Company, without paying a sum that would amount to £200. However this may be, it is seldom any of the persons belonging to these Companies are often connected with the trade with which they were originally identified. Many of the members have no City residences, they live in the provinces, and the work of making craftsmen, for promoting which some of them were originated, seems almost wholly to have been neglected. In addition to this, purchase is a violation of municipal rights. It has been decided repeatedly that a person obtaining the freedom of a Corporation, not otherwise entitled to it, by the payment of a sum of money renders such purchase void as being an essential violation of the bye-laws of such Corporation. Much more might it be affirmed—that the system may be held bad practised by many of these bodies established for so important a purpose as the protection of trade, by which the freedom is sold to persons wholly unconnected with the trade they profess to represent. It may be also well to remark that in the Plantagenet and early times no person was admitted to any Company except that Company whose trade he intended to practise; but now the fact, as the Commissioners of 1837 reported, that admission may be obtained to any Company seems conclusive against the supposition that anything in the preliminary proceedings of a Company tends to secure that the person admitted will obtain a knowledge of the trade which the Company professes to represent. As the forms of admission still remain the same, so it is also with the system of government. It appears to have undergone no change whatever, or, at all events, a very slight change. There have been Masters, a Court of Assistants, and Wardens, the chief of whose duties appears to be the management of their gigantic properties. The larger the Company, the greater is the mystery with which it is managed. It is sometimes said that if a person is troublesome in connection with the Livery the way in which he is kept quiet may be well imagined. There are no properly appointed auditors; no balance sheets are presented to the Company's members; few of them have any properly constituted Courts. They are nearly all self-elected. If admission is by seniority, there is always the ballot box by which the electors are protected. There is no guarantee that leases may not be given at nominal rent to the various members or Court officials, or that instead of the funds benefiting the Company they are chiefly utilized in the interests of the relations of those by whom the business of the Court is managed. After members are entered, they have certain privileges. Sometimes, according to the Report of the Commissioners, they have the right of enjoying pensions—a system, as the Commissioners reported, open to the greatest possible objections—by which pecuniary advantages are attached to those who discharge the duties of Trustees, which should never be annexed to such obligations. There is little doubt that the members of these Courts receive frequent opportunities of attending and inviting their friends to sumptuous dinners; they receive almost sinecure salaries for discharging not very onerous duties; they may be paid for attending sub-committee meetings. They are able to confer gratuitous education on their children and relations, and for their poorer connections they have alms, doles, and charities. Notwithstanding all these privileges, few maintain their duties: they in no way keep up the purposes for which they were originally organized.

At first they appear to have acted as a sort of constant inspectors of adulterated articles. I have spoken of the Grocers, whose object was to render good and sound every article which the members, of the trade dealt with. In 1456 one John Ashfield was fined 6s. 8d. by the Grocers because he had mixed "untrue cinnamon, pepper, and ginger;" but now, in 1876, a grocer may mix iron filings with his tea and sand his sugar, supply any amount of adulterated food, perfectly free from the danger of any proceedings being taken against him by the Grocers or any other Company. Similar provisions for the protection of their trades existed in many of the Companies—the Skinners, the Dyers, the Pewterers, the Merchant Taylors, and many others. Very peculiar rights appear to have been exercised by the Company of Stationers. They were not so much censors of the Press, for in those days the Press did not exist, but they were the custodians of the national mind. In the reign of Queen Mary, in order to protect the Church and State, a charter was granted to the Stationers, by which they had power to search in the shops of the different booksellers and destroy works which might tend to promote sedition or heresies. For discharging this duty they seem to have been allowed the right of publishing almanacks, and in these they exercised the functions of soothsayers and astrologers. They were not particularly successful in their vaticinations. Success to Charles I., Charles II., and to Commonwealth was alike predicted, and many of the expeditions proved disastrous which their prophets favoured with propitious omens. Old Moore and poor Richard's almanack are still published under their auspices: issued with the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Canterbury they were long considered the best publications produced in England. It has been difficult to find, it is said by some authorities, in so small a compass such a quantity of ignorance, profligacy, and imposture as is still condensed in these publications. They preserved this exclusive right to issue almanacks until a very recent period. At the end of the last century a printer named Carnan brought an action on the subject against the Stationer's Company; but through their wealth and influence—notwithstanding the legal decision theoretically abolished the monopoly in 1775—they were able to buy up all rival publications, and it was not until 1828, when the Society for the diffusion of Useful Knowledge was first started, that the power of issuing almanacks opened the channels of free trade, and distributed this monopoly among other bodies. There are still certain Companies which exercise their trade privileges. The Goldsmiths have the right of assaying metals, and the Gunsmiths of proving gun barrels. The Fishmongers have the right of destroying putrid fish, and the Apothecaries of destroying unsaleable drugs, and in this respect no doubt they render valuable services. Generally speaking, however, the Companies do very little, indeed nothing, to promote that technical education and instruction which is so much needed, and instead of these mysteries being lawfully trained, regulated, and governed in order, as the ancient Charters express it, that no bad or false workmanship may be admitted, everything in regard to the education and improvement of taste in technical or scientific knowledge is left to Sir Henry Cole, Mr. Buckmaster, and the teachers of the large Establishment of the Government at the South Kensington Museum, and the inadequate efforts of a few philanthropic and benevolent persons who may initiate some privateenterprize. I should be sorry, however, were I not to recognize the few services which some of the Companies have, to a certain extent, rendered. I am aware that something has lately been done by the Clockmakers and Coachmakers providing a small technical library and exhibitions of models and of drawings. Others are well and honourably known in connection with the schools in aid of which they may have given generous contributions. Something has been done by the Grocers and Cloth workers to promote the delegacy of unattached students at Oxford. We have heard something, too, of what has been done by the Turners; but their efforts only serve to show how they should be imitated and emulated by the larger Companies. Nothing, it appears to me, could be more judicious than the scheme of examination and the character of prizes awarded by the Company of Turners—it is well known they are of small and comparatively limited resources. Why are not commensurate efforts made by the others?

It is not long since that the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in an address to his constituents in the autumn, at Greenwich, supplemented by a paper in Evening Hours, pointed out how much might be done in the interests of the working classes by efforts to improve education in the interests of art and science, were their efforts properly directed. In the course of his remarks he said that it was much to be regretted that such great attempts had to be made by Government instead of agencies less centralized. The only power strong enough in that direction, he said, appeared to be in the London Companies, they were great institutions—probably unparalleled. It was sometimes remarked, however, he continued, by the timid that in this country there were few fortifications; there was one, however, far away without a rival, and that was the City of London. If the foundations of that great deep were ever to be broken up, it was to be hoped that the leading adjuncts of its high functions would be re-adjusted in accordance with the spirit of the age, if it was to maintain its position as the centre of the commerce of the world.

It is sometimes alleged that the City has a monopoly of these privileges: I will quote from various charters to prove that these benefits were bestowed not merely on the City but on the surrounding areas. A Charter given by William and Mary to the Grocers provided that all persons carrying on the business of confectioners or refiners within the City, or within three miles thereof, should be of the Commonalty of Grocers. The Charter of the Draper provides that no man shall be admitted to the Drapers' Company unless he has duly practised the trade of a draper. The Goldsmiths' Charter includes all those instructed in the trade within the City and three miles. The Merchant Taylors' Charter requires that members shall be engaged in the making of apparel in the City or suburbs. It is the same with the Cloth workers, and similar conditions are contained in the Charters of the Dyers, Brewers, Leather-sellers, Carpenters, Cordwainers, Cutlers, and Carriers, and many others. It may be now asked, what right have suburban trades people to participate in their rights and privileges? It was said by Lord Macaulay that London was to the Londoner what Athens was to the Athenians in the days of Pericles, and Florence to the Florentine in the 16th century: the Citizen was proud of the grandeur of his City, punctilious of her claims to respect, conscious of her privileges, and jealous of her franchises. Unfortunately, however, instead of extending its advantages for the good of the many, it has confined them, in the present day, for the advantage of a very few. Instead of opening its arms and embracing the surrounding areas, it has confined itself to its own immediate precincts and narrowed its borders.

I have shown clearly and distinctly from the documents I have quoted that those Companies cannot be looked upon as voluntary societies, but that they are public bodies, of which not only Courts of Assistants but all the members have full right to be beneficiaries. It has been frequently decided that they are not, as in the case of other corporations, members by prescriptive usage, but that membership ought to be confined to persons possessing certain qualifications—namely, those who are really working members and have a complete knowledge of their respective trades, well acquainted with the working of the said mysteries, and having the power to compel other persons to become members. Their original object appears to have been to connect themselves with those by whom the interests of their trade might be promoted. They were inspectors of adulterated articles, and were to interest themselves in all such proceedings by which their fellow-workers might become benefited. I would ask, are they now fulfilling those duties? or are their funds being devoted to other objects and different purposes? A Charter was given to the Drapers' Company as far back as the reign of Edward III., continued by Richard II., wherein it was stated, that because strangers had entered London and interfered and meddled with the trade in such a manner so that the price of drapery enhanced and its quality deteriorated, in future no person should carry on the trade of a draper in the City of London, or the suburbs, unless he had been initiated and admitted as a member of the Drapers. The Government have urged, as a reason for not giving any particulars with reference even to the government of these bodies, that some of them have disappeared or been obliterated in consequence of the decay of the trade with which they were originally identified: there is nothing, however, to prevent those which are moribund from being resuscitated. Comparing the Report of the Commissioners with the City Directory, which professes to give a complete list of the various Companies, I find that the latter takes no notice of the Paviours, the Comb makers, the Silk-throwers, the Silk men, the Pin makers, the Gardeners, the Soap makers, the Ribband-makers, the Tobacco Pipe makers, the Long Bowstring-makers, the Wood mongers, the Fishermen, &c.; though they were not large or important bodies, it may be fairly asked what has become of them and of their funds and properties, if such ever existed. From the fact that many of these Charters are still unrepealed, it is quite competent for these bodies to reassert their trade privileges if they dared. It is not likely they would venture to do so with the present popular views on the subject of Free Trade; but, to a certain extent, it must be regarded as a perversion of public funds that these vast sums should be given to wealthy, and from the fact of being wealthy, often obscure, City men, and that nothing should be done for the working classes of Clerkenwell, Hackney, and Bethnal Green. While I have pointed out that under their charters the City and suburban trade have to discharge certain grave and important responsibilities, the advantages conferred upon them by holding these charters can with difficulty be estimated. Under them the right of holding land in perpetual succession, contrary to the Statute of Mortmain, has been granted. The whole question of revenues in mortmain may be variously debated. Everyone is aware that large estates are held by this tenure both by the Universities and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and, as was shown by the Commission which re- cently reported on University Revenues, nothing could be more satisfactory than the management of their property by the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges. Why, I ask, should not the same amount of information be given about these City Companies? It may be asked why it is, if the metropolitan trades people are really interested in these matters, that their rights have not been re-asserted? Well, I believe that, to a large extent, they are ignorant of their privileges, and that that ignorance has been studiously and carefully fostered by the darkness and mystery by which the Courts of Assistants have been determined that their management should be surrounded.

In order that the dignity and grandeur of the City might be promoted, power is given to the Guilds under these charters to purchase lands for the benefit of the aged, the weak, and decayed persons. I might well ask, for reasons which shall presently be stated, if the property so obtained by the Merchant Taylors and the Wax Chandlers has been always so devoted. The Goldsmiths, by a charter given to them in the reign of Edward III., confirmed by Richard II., were entitled to purchase land to the value of £20 a-year for the sustentation of weak and aged decayed Goldsmiths; because it was found in the practice of their trade that the smoke of the quicksilver injured their eyes, and tended to make these persons prematurely weak, decayed, and infirm. In process of time, by mechanical improvements, these dangers have been removed, but how is that money now disposed of? What is the present value of the land? Is it given to the interests of the poor? It is greatly to be regretted that in regard to the tenure of property in land by these Companies so much ignorance prevails. No reliance can be placed on the Domesday Return Book, and, as far as the City is concerned, there is no Return. These bodies pay no succession duty, and they never sell, and yet many of them are those who scarcely lift a finger of their hands to do anything for the promotion of that technical instruction for the want of which our public buildings are monuments of want of taste, and our shops are filled with cheap and nasty stuff, instead of anything which is of real and substantial worth. It should be remembered that of all the places in this country in which land is chiefly covetable it is so in the City of London. The evil to which I have alluded has increased, and is increasing, with our vast growth of population, and, if continued unchecked, it will soon be said that there will be scarcely an inch of land to stand upon. There is another wide question in reference to these bodies which I will briefly touch upon—I mean their ecclesiastical preferments. I possess particulars with reference to the manner of distribution and patronage of livings in the hands of some of the accredited representatives of the Companies, and without entering into particulars, I will merely remark that it is, in my judgment, a question how far they are proper bodies to whom such grave functions should be intrusted. Having now spoken of their different duties and privileges, we may form some estimate of what is the magnitude of their revenues. The property possessed by them is variously estimated. I have heard it said that they possess an annual income of £300,000 or £500,000. This is sometimes thought exaggerated. However, I have lately examined the City Rate Books, and I find that in the City of London alone, as appears by the Valuation Books in the 80 City parishes, the gross estimated rental possessed by these Bodies amounts to £500,416. That is exclusive of their property in other parts of the metropolis as well as in different parts of the country, their Irish estates, and their personal property. Mr. Gilbert, author of Contrasts, some two years ago published in that work some interesting particulars in reference to these revenues. The facts given by Mr. Gilbert have never been contradicted. He stated that from the City Rate Book he had abstracted the estimated rental of seven of the large Halls, and to the amount of rental he added an equal sum for rates, insurances, and household expenses. This is the result of the estimate of these various "household management" expenses. The Cloth workers, £10,000; the Drapers, £16,000; the Fishmongers, £7,000; the Goldsmiths, £11,000; the Merchant Taylors, £6,000; the Salters, £6,000; the Grocers, £8,000. In the Report of the Commissioners full information is given in reference to the revenues possessed by the Drapers. They are put down at £24,000. Since then, their large Hall in Throgmorton Street has been erected, at a cost of £7,000–£5,000 is spent on payments to salaried officers, £4,000 on entertainments, and £4,000 on alms and charities. From information I have received from private sources the property of the Drapers has of late considerably increased from the falling in of leases. The ground rent of a recent garden in the City is now annually worth £16,000.

I spoke, in the earlier part of my remarks, of the privileges accorded to the Drapers. I might ask, how far have the Drapers of London now any participation in the distribution of those large revenues? I have already said that they present no balance sheet; that they have no properly constituted system of audit; and that they give no information in reference to the administration of their properties; that any attempt at reformation and improvement is resisted; that it is always looked on with deep-rooted objection is not astonishing. All reform within the City is intolerable; it is illustrated by a mere recapitulation of what took place in 1856 in the Court of Aldermen, when Sir George Grey brought forward a Bill for improved municipal government in London—described as a very mild measure—and when it was then stated by these gentlemen, that they were surprised to find a great statesman applying the idea of meum and tuum to a great Corporation in a way different from what he would apply it to a private individual.

It is sometimes alleged, that as regards their trust property, the Companies are under the Charity Commissioners. This is perfectly true as regards this trust property; but in respect to the corporate property they are wholly unrestricted. Jobbery has not been unfrequent in municipal bodies. The best guarantee for good management is a system of public accounts, with properly appointed and responsible auditors: but close self-elected Courts, are open to the gravest possible abuses. To my mind a very narrow line divides the two classes of property in all reformed, and in all unreformed corporations, those used for external objects—not affecting the inner life of the municipality—such as doles, alms, and charities, and of those affecting the management for internal purposes, such as the support of town clerks, halls, and offices. It was decided, at the time of the passing of the Act of 1835, that in the case of all corporations scheduled in that Act, both were to be applied for public interests and public uses; and I should like to know whether any distinction can be drawn between the two classes of property which are possessed by reformed bodies mentioned in the Act, and those which were omitted. I think the charge might be made against the London Companies that, perhaps through their apathy, the education of the metropolis has been neglected. The expenditure of the London School Board has made quite a flutter amongst the metropolitan Vestries. I have by me a list of all the resolutions which have been passed by the different Vestries on this subject: on all sides there has been what I may call a howl of indignation from the London ratepayers; but this would never have been put forward had there been a greater desire on the part of the City Companies to educate independent traders, instead of squandering their own revenues for private purposes. It is not an expression to which I am particularly devoted—but what Mr. Mill called the unearned increment of these bodies has been disproportionately given to private objects, whilst public objects have lain by and been neglected. It would be waste of time to show how enormously their property has increased in particular instances. I will illustrate it, however, from two cases, in respect of property belonging to the Mercers, and ex uno disce omnes. They hold property under trust from Sir Thomas Gresham, and from Lady Joan Bradbury. Both these estates are mentioned in the Return obtained by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu). I find that property was left by Lady Joan Bradbury, according to the Return, amounting to £1 10s. a-year, to be given to educational purposes. I have obtained particulars from the Charity Commissioners, and find that 10 years ago the value of that property was estimated at £8,709 by the assistant of the Commissioners. Sir Thomas Gresham left £340 for educational purposes, and the moiety of the value of that estate in the neighbourhood of the Royal Exchange now amounts to £12,240. I think that, in any inquiry into these Companies, it would be well to ascertain how the Courts interpret decayed members—whether they are decayed in business, failed by their own rash and foolish speculations, or whether they are honest tradesmen, whose health may have broken down and families become ruined in the attempts to earn an honest livelihood. There is no doubt that large sums of money were left to the Companies distinctly for what may be called "jollification purposes;" and in any inquiry into their revenues there is no reason to suppose that these would be interfered with. £20,000 was given to the Clothworkers "for making themselves comfortable." There can be no doubt that the money is industriously employed; but is that always the case where property has been bequeathed for the interests of the poor? Two cases I might mention, well known to lawyers—ignored, perhaps, by other persons—where money given for charitable objects was for many years diverted for private uses. I allude to the cases of Donkyn's bequest to the Merchant Taylors, and Kendall's to the Wax Chandlers—in both these cases it was held by the Master of the Rolls, and afterwards by the Court of Appeal, on the clearest possible issues that property given for the specific objects had been devoted to corporate purposes. When they sometimes accomplish charitable objects they do soat enormous expense. In 1812 a set of almshouses was built by the Goldsmiths at a cost of £600 for each inmate accommodated, and in one case lately, when an apprentice fee of £10 was to be charged, the Court made it an excuse for a dinner which cost £100. Once a person was asked if he could account for the longevity of some of the members of the Company: he replied—"The dinners have done it;" and though there may be ample evidence to show record of copious feasting in the early days of these bodies, there is nothing to show how much was given for the corporate funds of the society, and how much by the individual entertainers. I must now point out that in no respect can these bodies be regarded as independent autonomies, but that they are responsible both to the City and to the Crown for the discharge of their different duties. Time fails me to recount the different cases in which members of different Courts applied to the Court of Aldermen for incorporating charters; and fines were imposed on refractory members. I will not take the earlier cases, but quote only later instances. In 1752 five liverymen of the Merchant Taylors applied to the Court for a copy of the Company's bye-laws; it was only granted apprehensively, when an application was threatened to the Court of Aldermen, calling on them to produce the withheld information. Subsequently the Lord Mayor and Aldermen passed a resolution to the effect that the several Companies were under the government of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. In 1853 the Court of Common Council had before them three ordinances of the Clothworkers, when two were accepted and one rejected. In 1774 the Common Council enacted that no person should be allowed to be a butcher in a particular district unless he was free of the Butchers Company; and by a second enactment of 1770, no person was allowed to carry on the trade of a poulterer unless he was free of the Poulterers. The Court of Aldermen refused to grant a livery to the Clockmakers until 1766; and only last year we had before us in this House the case of the Needlemakers, upon which the Court of Aldermen gave them permission to increase their livery by 100 members. The power of the Crown over these bodies has been from time to time vigorously questioned. In the reign of Richard II., under pain of forfeiture, the Companies were required to deliver to the Sovereign copies of their origin, foundations, statutes, liberties, privileges, rules, and ordinances, together with a statement of their property, and the income derived from it—ever since that time, up to the reign of William III., that right was continuously asserted. In aid of the various sovereigns they gave enormous subventions—Henry VIII., Charles I., and Charles II. all extorted from them vast contributions. In the reign of Charles II., in 1684, that Monarch declared all their charters forfeited, and granted them new ones, by which the right of perpetual succession was secured, but the officers of the Companies were made responsible to the Crown; and the whole body of the free men and livery to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. I have, perhaps, dwelt too much on this subject, and on what may be called its historical and legal bearings; but it is really necessary, in order to show the House the position of these bodies. In the reign of William III., to gain the good-will of the companies, that monarch repealed all the new charters, and granted in their full validity the old ones, on the plea that they had been tyrannically extorted, instead, as was actually the case, that they had been voluntarily ceded. In 1837 they fiercely resisted the inquiries of the Municipal Commissioners; but Parliament having then declared them to be municipal corporations, any information now refused as to their status by Parliament would be distinctly retrogressive. Ever since then they have slept and slumbered, and have remained practically unmolested. It is not true wisdom, on the part of any public body possessed of large powers and endowed with large revenues, to resist Parliamentary control and inquiry. It is 40 years since this question was first brought forward in this House, and then Parliamentary government may be said to have been upon its trial, while now it is in the fulness of its power. On the Continent, as well as in this country, public bodies are under the control of various Departments of the State. When I have shown to the satisfaction of the House that these Companies, who possess large properties, do little else than spend large sums in conventional almsgiving and gorgeous entertainments, it will not be long before there arises an ardent desire for reform. We have a strong love in this country for ancient institutions—a wholesome dread of centralization; and there may be a wish sometimes to see public duties performed by bodies of irresponsible and unofficial men; but if there exists a feeling that something is kept back from the public eye, it will not be long before there arises a strong feeling of misgiving, and the members of these bodies will perceive that there is a limit to the indulgence and forbearance of their fellow-countrymen.

Sir, I am aware that this Motion will be opposed—it will be with anxiety that I listen to the grounds. The strength of the opposition I very well know. In former days the Companies have supported the Corporation—and I suppose the Corporation will now support the Companies. I hope that, in anything I have said, no one will assume that I wish that they should be obliterated and swept away: I only wish that they should be more fully alive to the altered circumstances and necessities of the present day. No doubt they have at times been the means of doing good. I dare say whoever answers me will reveal some long catalogue of the public benefits they have conferred. Still, at the same time, I say that such arguments are worthless, unless they also reveal the opportunities they have. No doubt they have done great things; but I cannot conceal the fact that sometimes great things have been done even by profligate and worthless men. I have no doubt that my Motion will be opposed on both sides: the opposition on the other I can easily understand; but I hope on this, at least, that before voting hon. Members will pause and ask themselves whether they are acting consistently with the principles which they have on previous occasions steadfastly and religiously upheld. I am aware of the difficulties in which many are involved. If there were no other considerations than great dinners it is unpleasant, for many of them, that they should be brought, I will not say into collision, but opposition with those with whom they have long been connected. I ask them, however, not to let their gratitude for past kindnesses blind them to the existence of present abuses. If their management is so excellent, why should it be concealed? It can only lead to the supposition of the existence of abuses in which the members of the different Companies can hardly be supposed anxious that it should be believed that they should abound. As far as confiscation is concerned, they need scarcely be afraid; and I therefore ask them, in a spirit consistent with the age, to give the information which has been so long and so studiously withheld. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Address.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,

in seconding the Motion, said, he regretted that he was physically unable to make a speech in its favour. His hon. Friend had shown that the City Companies were public bodies, and, moreover, that they were public bodies possessed of great endowments. Now, such bodies could not in those days exist except in the light. He hoped that the Representatives of the City and of the City Companies would show that they did not prefer darkness to light, but would support the Motion, and that it would also receive the support of the Government. Hon. Members on this side of the House would be only acting consistently with the principles the Liberal Party had advocated during past Parliaments in joining in the demand for inquiry made by his hon. Friend.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Return setting forth in detail a Statement of the real and personal property vested in the City of London Companies respectively; also a detailed Statement of the charities payable by such Companies and of the income derived from all sources; and Statement of expenditure and receipts during the last three years preceding the 1st day of January 1875."—(Mr. James.)

THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman COTTON)

said, he could have wished that the defence of the Guilds of the City of London would have been undertaken by a more competent man; but knowing, as he did, the important work which those Guilds had done from time immemorial, he should earnestly raise his voice to enlist the sympathies of the House against the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, and which he considered to be entirely unnecessary and inexpedient. The City Guilds had been established by a time-honoured class, who associated themselves together for the purpose of protecting their trades and interests against the all-powerful influence of the Barons and the King. As time went on their wealth increased, and as it did the cupidity of the ruling powers for the time being was aroused, and it was in consideration of the wealth they handed over to the Monarch that they obtained sundry charters to protect their rights. Now, if a man bought an article it was only a thoroughly English feeling that he should possess, and, if he wished, retain it. Well, the City Companies and Guilds bought all the rights which they possessed. They never received a penny of the public money or of the money of the ratepayers. The whole of the money they possessed was their own. They did what every public body had a right to do. They did what they thought was wise and proper and right to strengthen their own position; and with that view they had obtained the charters from the Monarchs who were willing to sell them. The hon. Member for Gateshead had given very scanty praise to the works of the City Companies and the Guilds. He would ask the House to separate the case of the Corporation of London, which had its own battles to fight, from that of the Guilds, which stood on their own grounds. If hon. Members made themselves acquainted with the history of the City Guilds, they would know what was due to them for the education, the liberties, and the privileges which the country now enjoyed. He knew of no body of men, no body of trustees, who through a long course of four or five centuries had so honestly, so honourably, or so carefully cultivated the various trusts which different persons had committed to their care. It was important to know that when the Charity Commission was created about 25 years ago, and when they went to the City Halls and examined the deeds which were submitted to them no serious charge was brought against the 89 Companies. At that time accounts were rendered to the Charity Commissioners, and every trust which they possessed was now in the hands of those Commissioners, entirely out of their own supervision. No new scheme could be promoted without their consent, and their annual accounts were most faithfully reported to the body. The City Companies submitted cheerfully to the demands made upon them, and rendered a faithful account of their stewardship. Notwithstanding the way in which the Companies had managed their affairs various mixed trusts had been created which had been accepted and acted upon with perfect unanimity. By this means some expense had been put upon the Companies in the shape of payments for clerks and other officers for the duties which they had to perform. They looked to the other part of their property as private property; but before entering upon that point he would mention the amount which had been placed under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners. Their total gross income was, in 1865–6, £99,000 a-year. The Government were in a position to lay the subsequent accounts upon the Table of the House. Of that sum, they expended upon education £19,000; on apprenticeship, £5,600; for endowment of clergymen, £900; for almshouses, £53,900; in sundries, £1,660; and under the head of parishes, schools, &c., £17,900 per annum. Now, that was a very large sum to have been brought down through the dark ages and placed in the hands of Commissioners appointed by Parliament, and they felt that any interference with the property of the Guilds would be a direct attack upon private property. Their property was as much private property as that of any individual in that House. Why did that attack arise? What could be its object? They had no knowledge of what was the object, what alterations were proposed, or who had urged on the hon. Member to bring forward this Motion. He would remind the House that it was the easiest thing in the world, and one of the most pleasurable, to endeavour to become great by putting one's hand in other people's pockets, and if one could by any accident obtain a notoriety which under no other circumstances could be got, there was nothing like attacking bodies where there was supposed to be a very large amount of money. There was one remark of the hon. Member for Gateshead which showed that he did not understand the question with which he was dealing—namely, when he spoke of City Guilds pocketing the funds over which they had control. [Mr. James said, the remark in question was a quotation and referred to a particular case.] Then all he could say was that the quotation was a very unfortunate one, for the City Guilds never did that. They were, he could assure him and the House, composed of men of men of honour, integrity, and respectability who had not the slightest desire to take anything to which they were not fairly entitled, and the whole of the property under their control was watched over most carefully and sedulously and appropriated to some good work or another in the way of technical education, charities, or any other object which might happen to come before them. It was only the other day, for instance, that the Grocer's Company had built at its own cost a very noble wing to the London Hospital, providing it with beds and all other necessary appliances. He could assure the House that the Guilds were all anxious to promote acts of charity, and that they were actuated by no selfish or avaricious motives. He should like, with the permission of the House, to read the opinion which had been formed of them by a man who lived nearly 100 years ago, and who in terse, old-fashioned, and truthful language, spoke of their charters as "the great bonds of the City, conferring liberty and security." They had been the cause, he added, of "the wonderful extension of the commerce of Britain which stood unrivalled," while "they did not militate against the general good or favour monopoly." Further on the same writer said— However great the privileges of the citizens of London may be, those rights have been the effects of purchase on their parts rather than of the munificence of Monarchs. At elections he described them as possessing "integrity and honour," and as being free from all sordid motives, adding, that if they did not always send Members to the House of Commons from their own body who were equal in point of oratory to some other Members of the British Senate, they, at all events, returned as their Representatives men who were actuated by an honest desire to serve their country. The writer further observed that the citizens of London were industrious, persevering, honest, and the first traders in the world. ["Name!"] He was quoting from the work of the compiler of the charters of the Corporation of the City, and was it right, he would now ask, that these citizens should be attacked because they had grown wealthy, like the whole country around them? Had not these Guilds concentrated around them the commerce and the wealth that had made the City so great? Had they not always been the pioneers of education? Had they not increased the value of their own property? And was this not an attack on the rights of property which that House would reject by a triumphant majority? If the House did so, as he believed it would, it would only be doing an act of justice to the long past career of these institutions, and would be affirming their corporate rights, and in that way help to advance the cause of charity, the well-being of their fellow-citizens, and the general good of the country.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

must say that he had never heard a weaker case than that which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) in support of a Motion which was, he believed, unprecedented in the annals of the House. He gave an interesting, antiquarian, and historical account of those Guilds, but what had he made out? Did he show that there was any gross abuse requiring the interference of Parliament, or anything wrong in the management of the property which the ordinary Courts were not in a position to reach? Did he mean to say that the Guilds were not as able now as in former times to perform their functions? Of course, the Grocers did not exercise their jurisdiction over peppers and sugars, or the Stationers over the character of the books on sale; but to charge them with not doing such things was simply to say that what was useful in the days of the Plantagenets was not useful now. The property of these Companies was in no respect different from private property. If a private person held property subject to certain duties, then he was amenable to the law for the performance of those duties; but if he possessed property without any specific duties attached to it, that property could be dealt with as he pleased. It was just the same in point of law with corporations. The hon. Member had moved for an Address to the Crown calling for a Return of the property of the charities forming the subject-matter of his Motion. This was not only proposing an inquisitorial proceeding, but it was calling upon the Crown to do an unconstitutional act. There had been quo warranto Commissions to inquire into the affairs of public bodies; but they were always considered a great invasion of the liberties of the subject, and of the rights of property. But suppose such a Commission was issued, what power was there to enforce it? The Companies would refuse any information, and they would be right in their refusal; for if they did not stand on their legitimate rights and resist an unconstitutional excess of the Prerogative of the Crown, whether advised by this House or not, they would be false to their duty as Englishmen, they would betray the rights of the people, and would be establishing a precedent which might be most injurious to the public liberty. In the second part of the Motion the hon. Gentleman asked for a Return of the charities payable by the Companies. This, again, was an illegal demand, as put in the Motion, because all the charities were under the control of the Charity Commissioners, who alone had the right to make any inquiries on the subject. On the whole, therefore, he hoped the Motion would be rejected by a large majority.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not propose to detain the House for any length upon this occasion. It appears to me that my hon. Friend has made a Motion by which he has sown a seed of which I hope he will live to reap the harvest at a future day. The hon. Baronet who has just sat down says he never heard a weaker case. I have sat a good deal longer in Parliament than he has, and I doubt if I ever heard a stronger one. But, however that may be, I think my hon. Friend has himself recognized the fact that the circumstances under which he makes his Motion are not altogether propitious for its obtaining a favourable judgment. There is, I must say, another point which occurs to me, which renders it difficult for the House to adopt a Motion in this form. My hon. Friend prays for an Address to the Crown to obtain certain information from the London Companies. Now, the Crown, I apprehend, has no power to obtain that information, and I own that I for one agree on that point with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, for I have been myself a party to the issue of Royal Commissions where the Crown had no power to enforce the rendering of the information sought to be obtained. But that has always been in cases where the bodies to whom Commissions were addressed—namely, the governing bodies of public schools and Universities—were known from previous inquiries to be willing that that method of procedure should be adopted. I think there would be great inconvenience in asking the Crown, even if the Crown were willing, to issue a Commission in invitos, which, according to my idea, it has no power to enforce, either by the use of the Prerogative, which has nothing to do with the matter, or by any other means. As regards the substance of the Motion of my hon. Friend, I confess it is to me a matter of very great regret that there should be the reluctance declared by the Lord Mayor on the part of the Companies to deal with this subject. I believe with the Lord Mayor that these Companies are composed of men, as he has assured us eight or ten times over—and really it appeared to me to indicate a doubt on the part of the Lord Mayor that he thought it necessary to reiterate that so many times, and from so many sources of assurance—are composed of honest, honourable, and respectable men. Now, he seems to think that that is a matter of so much dispute that it requires a great number of assertions on his part to make good his ground. For my part, on a single assertion on the part of the Lord Mayor, or without a single assertion, I should fully accede to that proposition. I fully believe in their honesty and honour, and in their doing many things which are useful. On the other hand, the doctrine that these corporations hold property which is to be regarded as private property in respect to its rights and immunities, is a doctrine which I thought pretty well disposed of by Parliament and by the judgments of statesmen and Representatives of the people for not less than the last 30 or 40 years. That doctrine has been revived upon the present occasion, and I must own in a form—and we must distinguish the form from the substance—which I think it would be very difficult to press. We must distinguish what I conceive to be the true as against the untrue. It is not necessary, I think, to hold that the gentlemen composing these Companies are in any way disentitled to the character of honourable men; nor is it necessary to hold that all their actions are bad, and that all their property is wasted. What my hon. Friend has shown is, that these are bodies possessing a public character, holding vast masses of property, and not only so, but that in the particular case of the London Companies they are not able to set up those very shadowy claims to exemption from Parliamentary jurisdiction which might perhaps be set up in the case of other corporations, because these London Companies exercise a most direct and commanding influence over the whole constitution of the municipality of London, and these principles and powers, public in the highest sense, are exercised by these bodies for whom the right hon. Gentleman asks us to recognize the rights to private property. Now I believe, in principle, that they are open to the exercise of Parliamentary jurisdiction and authority. I likewise believe that, although many things are done by them that are good and desirable, although sometimes the world is delighted, and perhaps a little astonished, by a splendid example of judicious mu- nificence, something like that of the building of the new wing of the London Hospital by the Grocers' Company—which the Lord Mayor appropriately and wisely quoted—yet I, for one, am under a very strong impression that much of the revenue of these Companies is positively and utterly wasted, and very imperfectly and doubtfully bestowed. I put it boldly to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters—not in support of this Motion, because I do not think the Crown ought to be invited to undertake a function which it is not constitutionally empowered to carry through—that I do think it a matter for the deepest regret that this reserve should be maintained. The public character of these Companies it is altogether too late to dispute. The right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Mayor) was compelled to begin by asking us to do that which no person, I think, in endeavouring to argue this case could dream of doing—namely, to separate completely between the character of the Companies as holders of vast masses of property, and the characters of the Companies as invested with the most important powers and powerful privileges in regard to the government of the City of London. The right hon. Gentleman found it essential to his case that he should entirely put out of view that the Companies command in a great degree the government, and even the representation in Parliament, of the City of London. In the very highest sense these are public bodies. Depend upon it, it is for their interests that they should not wait to be forced, that they should not wait to be pressed. It is all very well in the present state of things, in the present state of public sentiment, and in the present balance of parties in this House, for the right hon. Gentleman to hold the language that he has held to-day. It is perfectly possible there may be a majority, and perhaps a large majority, ready to back him in the use of that language; but can he guarantee the permanence of that balance of parties? Can he guarantee that that state of public opinion will endure? Because, unless he can, depend upon it will be dangerous if, when that balance is changed, and when that state of public opinion is changed, it is recollected that an obstinate, an unflinching, and what may then be called, pro- bably, an unreasonable resistance was offered—not to unjust or violent legislation, not even to proposals of a questionable character, but to the simple publication of the facts of the case with regard to the disposal of this vast mass of property. Now, Sir, I agree with my hon. Friend, I think, in almost everything that fell from him, but especially in the broad declaration he made that he had no desire to get rid of these Companies. On the contrary, my desire, and my anxious desire, is, that these Companies should be brought to the highest state of efficiency, and that their vast property should be disposed in the manner most likely to produce the greatest public advantage—but to produce that greatest public advantage through their machinery and by their hands. That is what, I think, my hon. Friend desires, and that is what I believe the House almost unanimously desires. If this policy of unequivocal and uncompromising resistance, even to the disclosure of information, be pursued too far, the time may come when possibly reforms may advance, not only with a bolder front, but with very different objects, and when the very great inconvenience of applying these large funds for the benefit of the City of London otherwise than through the machinery of the Companies—instead of being as it now is, an idle and remote speculation—may become a real danger. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who think with him and act with him, will do nothing to provoke that danger. I cannot expect that any address that I may make to him or to others will at all tend to produce a more communicative disposition on the part of the Guilds; but, notwithstanding, I think it is a public duty on our part to lay down the doctrine that a declaration of their affairs—they being, as we believe, perfectly honest and honourable in the administration of these funds—can be nothing but beneficial to them, while the refusal of the information can be nothing but injurious. I know not what Her Majesty's Government may intend or propose to do in respect to the Motion that is now before the House; but I shall certainly be very much disappointed even if Her Majesty's Government—little as I agree with them in the views they take in many points upon public affairs—do not go so far at least in the same path as my hon. Friend as to express a disposition favourable to the free and voluntary production of this information. The information sooner or later must be had. Now is the time when, if it is given, it will be given as an act of grace. I entreat those who are concerned to consider whether to pursue the course that is now recommended, and to grant that information by their own voluntary concession will not be the wisest and most politic course for themselves with reference to the interests of which they are stewards and guardians.

MR. GOLDNEY

altogether differed from the notion of the right hon. Gentleman that these Companies were public bodies. The Corporations Commission of 1837 had showed that the City Companies had no control either as regarded municipal institutions or Parliamentary representation. Their duty was merely ministerial—that of admitting to their body freemen who were entitled to claim admission. The gentlemen by whom their affairs were administered were of the highest possible character, and there was a feeling of strong anxiety that they should be left alone.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

was struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had pronounced a glowing eulogy upon the gentlemen who had managed and directed those Guilds. As for the Lord Mayor's speech, that brought to his recollection the character which was given to George Barnwell, who was modest, tender, regular, pious, and devout. The character of the gentlemen belonging to the Guilds had never been called in question. It simply confused the issue to represent for a moment that the supporters of the Motion threw any doubt whatever upon their characters. He himself knew many of these gentlemen, and he could testify that they were men against whose character not one word could be uttered. Nay more, he was willing to admit that in many cases they had made a good use of their funds. The Lord Mayor contended that one reason why they should be exempt from inquiry by the House was that £90,000 or £100,000 a-year was brought by them under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. But the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) had shown that their property in the City alone amounted to £500,000 a-year, and there would therefore be £400,000 a-year, even if they had no other property, which they devoted to some use not explained. The Lord Mayor in his statement with regard to these Companies did not once allude to the item of hospitality. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had urged the hon. Member not to press his Motion, because the House had no power to compel these Companies to give the information asked for, and had said that during all the time he was in office he had never been a party to issuing a Commission in invitos—

MR. GLADSTONE

I distinctly said I had been a party to issuing certain Commissions; but no Commission of the Crown had been issued in invitos, and that is a very wide distinction.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, in 1835 a large number of municipal corporations refused to give information to the Commissioners of Inquiry, but that fact did not prevent the House from proceeding to deal with those corporations after an inquiry had been held. It should be borne in mind that the Motion did not propose legislation, but merely asked for information. The Lord Mayor stated that the City Companies had bought their privileges from the Crown; but it was clear to all who read the charters which they had obtained that they had reference to the performance of public duties by those to whom they were granted. The performance of those duties had confessedly fallen into disuse, and what they now contended was that the House ought to know the growth of the vast revenues which were held for public uses. There was now a great outcry for technical education, and it was most desirable that a portion of the income of these Companies, which amounted to between £500,000 and £1,000,000, should be applied to the promotion of technical and general education. It had always been held on that side of the House, and was now held by many Members on the Conservative side, that public bodies could not hold land except for public purposes, and on several occasions the present Home Secretary had used language which went far to support that view. For his own part, he should be prepared to go further, and contend that even as regarded property held for general corporate purposes, and not as regarded charitable purposes, these properties were charities within the very wide definition of the Act of Elizabeth. That Act, he believed, intended to include property of this kind, although he believed the Charity Commissioners took a narrower view.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was not his intention to trouble the House at any length, especially after the turn which the debate had taken. No one had a higher respect than he had for the great Corporation of the City of London, and for all the great advantages which the country had derived from it through past generations in respect to liberty and freedom. No one had a higher idea than he had of the important position which the City would, he hoped, long fill in this country, going on in the same path as it had hitherto done, flourishing and to flourish for the benefit of the community. He was bound to say, in considering any matter relating to the City of London, and the Guilds connected with that City, that he did not think sufficient attention was always paid to the magnitude of the body with which they had to deal. Since he had held his present office he had had schemes and plans laid before him by the handful for the reform of the Corporation of the City, not only as to its property, but as to the Corporation itself, for the total remodelling of it from one end to the other, and also for what was called enlarging it; and he was sure that a great many of the persons who had brought forward those schemes had not given the subject the amount of attention which it deserved. He was not now referring to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), on whose proposals he presumed they would have a discussion this Session, and who had devoted much consideration to the matter, but many of the plans that had been placed before him clearly showed that their authors had not carefully weighed their proposals in the balance. In the first place, if anything was to be done in a matter of this magnitude, it ought, he thought, to be brought forward by the Government of the day. Again, if bodies, whether they had property or not, were fairly carrying out their duties—he did not say so fully as might be wished, but without any very grievous default—they ought not to be disturbed, unless it was intended not only to disturb them, but to go on and do something more. The Government had no such intention at that moment, and he certainly did not think the House ought to grant a fishing inquiry as to the property of bodies of that kind. That subject had been inquired into long ago. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1837 there was a great mass of information relating to all those bodies, though he did not mean to say that information was full; and before the Commission a great number of those bodies tendered not only their charters and their history, but also their accounts. He had listened carefully to the hon. Member who had made the present Motion to learn whether, as regarded the Companies which then produced their accounts, there were any grave charges to be alleged as to the way in which they had administered their property; and he thought before any steps could be taken in such a serious matter it would be necessary to adduce much more elaborate statements than those which fell from the hon. Member, and also to make out a much stronger case than he had submitted to them for the interference of the House. But the main reason why he rose to object to that Motion had been anticipated by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). If the House would look carefully at the Motion, they would see that it was for an Address to the Crown, asking it to do that which it was absolutely impossible for the Crown to do. It might be said that he had taken part in regard to the issue of a Commission for an inquiry into certain other Corporations; but it would be recollected that that other inquiry had reference to bodies with licensing duties, though some other matters were also thrown in. He was sure, then, that it would be the feeling of the vast majority of the House that the hon. Member ought not to press his Motion to a division. He really did not see that any practical good would come from it, neither did he think the matter was one that should be stirred in that way. If, therefore, he might presume to tender advice to the hon. Member for Gateshead, he would recommend him to allow his Motion to be withdrawn.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Sir, I am most anxious, since I have proposed inquiries, to state why I cannot think of supporting this Motion. I cannot, be- cause I have seen from the outset of the hon. Member for Gates head's statement that his Motion is deficient of foundation on any valid public grounds. It has not been shown that the existence of these Companies, holding their property under charter, is contrary to the public welfare or to the public policy of the nation. It has not been shown that there is anything in their position otherwise than consistent with public freedom. It has not been shown that their existence is in any sense illegal. On the contrary, whenever their charters have been in question they have been maintained in the Courts of Law. I wish for one moment to advert to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed upon the assumption that no property ought to be held sacred, the details of the administration of which are not brought under the direct purview of Parliament. Why, Sir, that is a most oppressive doctrine. Are we about to tell the Peers that, because they derive their qualifications from their properties, therefore they are bound to disclose their private administration of those properties, because the possession of these properties constitutes their qualification? And are we about to say, with regard to these public Companies, who have held their properties under charter for centuries—properties which are essentially their own—that they shall be necessarily subject to a rule which you will not apply to Peers? This is a most oppressive doctrine, and it goes to a most dangerous extent. The possession of the property by these Companies constitutes the qualification of their members to vote for the City of London, and I say that Parliament has no right to inquire into the administration of the property which constitutes that qualification unless abuse, and gross abuse, has been proved. I say that a qualification by property is in itself no abuse, and that these qualifications lie at the very foundation of the greatness of the Corporation of the City of London. It appears to me that if this system of universal inquiry and publicity is necessitated, it comes to this—that no property shall be held safe except such as may be administered under the direct supervision of Parliament. This would constitute a most egregious invasion of private rights; and in this particular case it would be a direct invasion of the foundation of self-government. These grave considerations appear to me to have been totally overlooked in this debate; but they ought to be overcome before this, as one of the two Houses of Parliament is asked to proceed by an Address, with which, as now proposed, the Crown could only comply by threatening the revocation of all these charters, and thus at once to invade the rights of private property, which the Crown itself has created. I hope the House will excuse my having in these few words expressed my opinion that this Motion, as well as some others which have recently been made in this House, lacks those public grounds—proofs of necessity for the public good—without which inquiry, as it is called, becomes an invasion of property and an act of tyranny.

MR. PEASE

recommended the withdrawal of the Motion, but intimated that if the Government refused to deal with the question, private Members who were interested in it would have no alternative but to bring it forward again and press it at some future time.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.