The true principles of legislation with regard to property given for charitable or other public uses. (Being an essay which obtained the Yorke prize of the University of Cambridge.)

Front matter

- i

%WX

NDOWED CHARITIES

Preface

Twenty years ago. Lord Campbell urged in Parliament the necessity of a " comprehensive reform of the Law of Mortmain, which is now in a most defective and lamentable condition. If not demolished, it ought to be reconstructed on a very different basis." The period which has since elapsed has brought this subject into the sphere of practical politics ; and questions of Charity reform, whether partial or comprehensive, seem likely to occupy much of the attention of the Legislature for several years to come.

I venture to hope that the following pages will be of service, as well to politicians who may be called upon to take part in those reforms, as also to Charity Trustees who may wish to realise the full importance of the duties they are discharging, and even to benevolent persons who, in planning charitable gifts, may desire to enhance their liberality by a wise prescience. For even the philanthropist cannot escape the operation of those natural laws by which the well-being of society is regulated, but must submit to receive from economical science the lessons which it alone can teach.

My materials have chiefly been derived from the abundant stores of information which are accumulated in the Bluebooks of the last sixty years. With their aid I have

IV PREFACE.

attempted to illastrate the broad theoretical generalities of my subject by the pi'actical details of actual experience. I can claim no credit for novelty in either the data or tlio deductions of my book. In writing it, my utmost ambition has only been to bring into one focus evidence which previously lay scattered throughout a library, and to present in a compact body principles whose mutual bearing had not before been determined with precision.

Charitable Foundations, in the controversies of which they have now for more than a century been the theme, have suffered much from uncompromising opposition, and as much from indiscriminate defence. Both these extremes of opinion I have endeavoured to state accui-ately, but the conclusion to which my inquiries have led me is in hai'mony with neither. Endowed Charities, I believe it will be found, have done more good than harm. They should be protected and encouraged ; but they should also be superintended and controlled.

Doivning College.

May, 1880.

ANALYSIS OP CONTENTS.

Part I.— INTRODUCTION. The peculiarities of Charitable Endowments

1. Indgfinitenesa. p. 1.

Supervision necessary.

2. Apparent meritoriousness. p. 2.

Restriction necessary.

3. Perpetuity, p. 2.

Revision necessary.

Fart II.— SHOULD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BE PROHIBITED ?

Evils of perpetual Charitable Endowments, p. 4. Turgot's argument, p. 7.

1. Difficulty of planning a Foundation. It involves

(a) Detecting au evil ; p. 7.

(6) Discovering the remedy ; p. 8.

(c) Providing for supervision, p. 10.

2. Difficulty of adhering to plan. p. 16.

3. Difficulty of preventing Obsolescence, p. 17. Proves the need of Revision, but not of Prohibition, p. 20. Argument against Endowments created by Wills, p. 22.

Confuses the Foundation's value with the Founder's merit. True province of Endowments.

1. To provide means for social experiments, p. 24.

2. To provide permanent unproductive materials for charitable

use. p. 26.

Adam Smith's argument against Educational Endowments, p. 26.

Chalmers' reply.

Error of confusing Associated Charities with Endowed Charities. p. 27.

Part III.— SHOULD RESTRICTIONS BE IMPOSED ON THE CREA- TION OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ?

Such restrictions depend on local and temporary considerations. Evasions of them by Secret Trusts, p. 32.

I. Restrictions on Purposes op Gift. p. 34. May be effected either by

(1) General rules, p. 38.

(2) Special decision on each Foundation, p, 36.

Would check experiments, p. 38.

VI

Injurious Chavities.

2. Gratuitous Schools, p. 52.

3. Fmindling Hosintals. p. 5:i.

4. Marriage Portions, p. 53.

Useless Charities.

1. Apprentice-fees. p. 54.

2. Loans, p. 55.

Doubtful Charities.

1. Almshouses, p. 66.

II. Eestriotioks on Subject Matter op Gift. p. 66.

Laws restraining charitable gifts of Land. The English Statute of 1736.

Its causes and history, p. 68.

Judicial extensions of its eifect. p.' 69. Arguments against such gifts.

1. Lands so given become inalienable, p. 78.

Derivation of Mortmain,

2. Lands so given remain unimproved, p. 82.

3. Land yields smaller income than personalty, p. 84.

4. The title to land less secure than to personalty, p. 86. Arguments for them.

1. Land tends to increase in value, p. 87.

But (a) that prospect raises its present price ; (i) the increase comes when least desirable.

2. Land is less easily lost. p. 92.

Proposal that charitable gifts of land should be converted into money, p. 94.

III. Restrictions on Extent of Gift. p. 99.

1. Limitations on the absolute amount, p. 100.

2. Limitations on the proportion of donor's wealth, p. 100.

Excessive charitable gifts prompted by (a) Rpligious feeling, p. 102. (6) Vanity, p. 103.

3. Limitations on the quantum of right, p. 108.

Prohibitions in 1736 of (a) any reservation ; (J) a power of revocation.

IV. Rkstmctions on Persons by whom given, p. 110. V. Restrictions on Persons to whom given, p. 111.

1. Not to new Foundations, p. 111.

2. Not to certain classes of Trustees, p. 112.

3. Not to any unincorporated body. p. 112.

Former advantages of corporations, p. 113. Their disadvantages, p. 116.

YI. Restrictions on Time op Creation, p. 117,

To prevent death-bed gifts.

Vll

VII. Rkstkictwxs OS Time of Taking Efi jxt. p. 122.

Prohibition of posthumous and other prospective gifts.

VIII. Bestrictions iMPOsnfo Formalities, p. 124.

1. Number of witnesses, p. 125.

2. Official character of witnesses, p. 125.

IX. Restbiotioxs imposing subsequent Publicity, p. 127.

1. Tempoi-ary Advertisement, p. 128.

History of the Irish Board of Bequests.

2. Permanent Registration, p. 130.

Part IV.— THE SUPERVISION OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS. To counteract the Principle of Cadudty. p. 133. 1. Geneitd periodical Supervision, p. 13i.

Presupupses a Register of Charity Property.

History of Lord Brougham's Inquiry Commissions.

The recent I>igest of Endoxced Charities, p. 137. '2. Individual occasional Supervision, p. liS.

Visitoi-s. p. 146.

Court of Chanceiy. p. 148.

Lord Cranworth's Board of Charity Commissioner.^, p. 15U. Provincial Charity Boards proposed, p. 154.

Part V.— THE REVISION OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS. To counteract the Priiwiple of Ohsoleacence. p. 160. Charities may become obsolete through changes

1. In the evil at which thej are aimed ; p. 161.

2. In their power to remedy it. p. 177. The'Bevision of such Charities is neither

(1) Dishonest, p. 180 ; nor

(2) Inexpedient, p. 186 ; nor

(3) Unprecedented,

(a) In legislation, p. 193. (A) In Chancei-y. p. 199.

Even though it contravene

(1) A Founder's expressed intentions, p. 201.

(2) His presumed intentions, p. 201.

(3) Other persons' intentions, p. 208.

The Revising power of Chancery insufficient, p. 210. Any new Power of Revision must concede

1. A Term of InviolabUiti/ ; p. 214.

2. Limits to the extent of the Revision ; p. 2'Jil. Aud must be exercised by n special Body.

To whom should the Power of Revision be entrusted ? p. 'I'^O.

Evil of leaving it to Parliament, p. 225.

Failure of the compromise of 1853. p. 226.

Unfitness of Courts of Justice to exercise it. p. 229.

Necessity for a special Board of Revision, p. 231. Private Powers of Revision, p. 233.

Purposes to which to convert obsolete Charities, p. 236.

(1) Most suitable forma of Relief, p. 238 ;

(2) Most suitable Evils to relieve, p. 240.

Vlll

Part VI.— SHOULD THE STATE SPECIALLY FAVOUR CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ?

1. By pecuniary assistance, p. 244.

(o) Grants to Charities, p. 245. (6) Grants for supervision of Charities, p. 246. (c) Remissions of taxation upon Charities, p. 249. Mr. Gladstone's argument against them. p. 251.

2. By relaxation of legal rules affecting

(o) Their Constitution ; p. 256.

(6) The Acquisition of their property ; p. 259.

(c) The Protection of their property ; p. 262.

(d) The Administration of their property, p. 265.

Paut VH.— the reforms STILL NEEDED IN ENGLAND. In respect of

1. Supervision ;

2. Restriction ; p. 273.

3. Revision, p. 273.

Introduction

— Claudian.

At the outset of our inquiry, the question naturally arises ■whether there is any reason why property devoted to public uses should be subject to any other rules of law than those which affect all other property.

" Charitable " uses, in the language of English law, are simply a class of public uses. To be public — that is, to benefit indefinite individuals— is essential to the legal idea of charity. A gift of a shilling to a poor neighbour, or of a hundred pounds to set up a grandchild in business, may be beneficent, and beneficent in the fuller sense of exceeding those reasonable expectations of his which it would be an act of mere justice to satisfy. In every ordinary sense it may be an act of ' charity.' But such gifts, or even a gift of money for such ten poor curates as the Bishop of London may select,* would not be called ' charitable ' by English lawyers, since each recipient is an ascertained person, or readily can be rendered such.

Now as it is this characteristic of Tndefiniteness that

* See Thomas v. ffovidl (L. R. 18 Eq. 198).

distinguishes public from private uses, it is upon it that whatever is necessarily peculiar and anomalous in the legal treatment of public gifts must depend. There is no definite person who can claim the due application of the gift. Then the law must supply peculiar and anomalous means for I securing that due application. Some measure of supervision is needed in the case of property devoted to public uses, which is unnecessary for private property.

Gifts to public uses, again, are almost always characterised by a real or apparent Meritoriousness. Some rare instances may indeed be found — ^like gifts for diminishing the national debt, or for setting up a monument to the donor — in which the object is so futile or so personal that the gift will not inspire gratitude or admiration in even the most unreflecting observer. But in almost all cases a public gift has at least the semblance of a public benefit, and its donor is regarded by the majority of mankind with the reverence due to a ' pious founder.' This attribute of Meritoriousness, again, demands the attention of the jurist. The desire of public applause, the hope of divine favour, the impulse of benevolent zeal, may blind the Founder to primary but commonplace obligations. As there is this special hazard of his being generous before he is just, the law may have to supply peculiar and anomalous means for limiting his generosity. Some measure of restriction is needed — at any rate in certain stages of a nation's spiritual development — in the case of property devoted to perpetual public uses, which is unnecessary for private property.

But there is a third and still more remarkable attribute, which, though far from being an essential characteristic of gifts to public uses, is nevertheless attached to the great majority of them, and to all that are of any considerable value. It is that of Perpetuity. A charitable Foundation is usually intended to escape the fate of all other human institutions, and to continue its work of beneficence for ever. As no human being can foresee the results which his beneficent scheme will actually produce when tested by the unknown circumstances of centviries indefinitely remote, the law must supply peculiar and anomalous means for securing the beneficence of those results by readjusting any errors which Time may. disclose. Some measure of revision is needed in the case of property devoted to perpetual public uses which is unnecessary for private property.

Indefiniteness, Meritoriousness, Perpetuity — these, then, are the three peculiarities Avhich make public endowments require a correspondingly peculiar treatment at the hands of the legislator. Supei'vision, Restriction, Revision — these are the precautions which the three respectively render necessary. To dis'cuss in detail the reasons for taking each of these precautions, and the modes in which it may best be taken, must constitute the main purpose of this Essay. But before commencing such an attempt to determine the ideal form for a Jurispi-udence of Mortmain, there is a preliminary question which existing controversies make it impossible to ovei-look. We have to ask whether the law is justified in permitting public gifts to be made at all.

The character of Perpetuity, though neither essential nor peculiar to public gifts, is nevertheless the most salient and the most important of their ordinary attributes. It is the source of the great paradox which lies at the root of the theory of charitable Fovmdations — a paradox so strange that centuries of painful experience have been necessary to enable statesmen and philanthropists to realise its truth. That paradox is this : that whilst charity tends to do good, perpetual Charities tend to do evil. Too often, misdirected by their Founder or misconducted by their administrators, they bless neither him that gives nor him that takes.

All men are agreed in speaking reverently of the Good Samaritan. No one proposes to indict the Founders of Hospital Sunday for a conspiracy. Yet competent observers are agreed in regarding the Founders of some of the most important Charities of Europe as men who have inflicted grave physical and moral evil upon their race ; and some great publicists, eminent for philanthropy, have desired the legal prohibition of all philanthropic Foundations. This apparent contradiction must be explained at the outset of our inquiry. B 2

PAET II.

SHOULD CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BE PROHIBITED ?

He left to meaner minds the simple deed By which the houseless rest, the hungry feed ; His was a public bounty, vast and grand, 'Twas not in him to work with viewless hand.

— Crabhe.

Active benevolence is recognised by all monotheistic religions as the highest attribute of the Deity — ^by all schools I of ethics as the fairest virtue of man. It is the standard by which we gauge the worth of individuals, of nations, of ages, of creeds. Above the fair inhumanities of old religion we rank the charities of Christianity, even when dispensed by the dullest monk or the fiercest sectary. Above the temples of Athens and the palaces of Rome, we set the schools, the almshouses, and the hospitals with which the vulgar burgomasters of Amsterdam and the plain citizens of London have studded their streets. The Monthyon prizes recognise a nobler greatness than the Olympic wreaths. The life of Elizabeth Fry awakens keener interest than that of Catherine or of Hypatia ; and Howard's circumnavigation of charity excites a deeper thrill than Alexander's march for Tuiiversal conquest.

Charity's scope is world-wide. Clarkson in a study at Cambridge pledged himself to the sei-vice of the black men of Africa ; Carey in his cobbler's stall resolved to spend his life for the pagan millions of Hindostan. Howard, as Darwin paints him, wandered

" From realm to realm, with cross or crescent crowned. Where'er mankind and misery were found."

The true lover of his race —

" Driven by strong benevolence of soul, Will fly, like Oglethorpe, from pole to pole.''

Now a perfect philanthropy — " the love which scarce collective Man can fill" — must disregard the limits of time as utterly as those of space. The ardour of that sympathy, which can thus overlook all differences of colour, creed, and climate in its zeal, will assuredly not consent to he balked by intervals of time. The benevolence 'which thinks of the Antipodes will not forget the posterity of its own townsfolk. Moreover, yrhilst the latter duty is at least equally attractive, it has the advantage of being far more facile. To do good in a distant continent is only possible to great wisdom or great wealth ; but so long as land pays rent or capital bears interest, the humblest gift may be so bestowed as to do good in distant centuries.

If, then, the philanthropist who devotes his span of life to human weal thus arouses our veneration and love, many of us will infer that still greater homage must await the still greater benefactor whose good deeds are so framed as to endure beyond his life, and perpetuate his liberality throughout all time. We shall be prepared to find endowed charities ranked by common consent amongst the noblest of human works, the praise of Founders the theme of the historian's most glowing pages, and the preservation and extension of these monuments of far-seeing piety the sedulous object of the jurist and the politician.

Such an expectation, common as it may once have been, forgets that human benevolence is far greater than human wisdom. The Creator of man, in ordaining that his happiness should depend far more on his virtue than on his intelligence, mercifully placed it in his power to rise almost to the verge of his ideal of benevolence, whilst forbidding him even a distant approach to his ideal of wisdom.

In such lives as those of Cakya-mouni, of St. Paul, of St. Francis, of Fenelon, of Ken, of Channing, pf Comte, the love of mankind may seem sublimated to a purity which — in the imperfect records that alone are open to human eyes — is undistinguishable from perfect altruism. But to none of them, nay nor to Aristotle, to Aquinas, to Bacon, to Goethe, nor to Burke, could we turn with confidence for enduring counsels to direct this benevolence, or for an intellectual theory of the methods of philanthropy, which should hold

Q

true through the chances and changes of even a single century.

Hence it has too often come to pass that the scheme of benevolence whose far-reaching views and undying ambition seemed to commend it above all others to the awe and gratitude of mankind, has proved the most futile and most fruitless. " The perennial existence of bodies corporate," said Burke, " is a thing particularly suited to a man who has long views, who meditates designs that require time in fashioning, and propose duration when they are accomplished." Alas ! that immortal existence is too often only the immortality of a Struldbrug — a perennial senility, a deathless dotage.

Such a piece of work is man, so complex in needs and so mutable in circumstance, that the keenest eye cannot foresee for a generation either his surroundings or his wants. Some kindly heart that has throbbed through a lifetime of generous impulses, attempts to prolong its beneficence beyond the tomb, and to continue its charities after itself has ceased to beat. Too often the result will serve only to show that it mistook the problems it was encountering; and that the insight which directed it fairly accurately in dispensing kindness among chosen individuals in a well-known circle, could afibrd no trustworthy guidance for its course amongst the unknown multitudes of _ unknown times. For general benevolence it is as true as for personal enjoyment, that " the present hour alone is man's."

But even if by happy accident the guess proves right, and the permanent supply turns out to have been addressed to a permanent need, there is still another peril to be feared, and this a yet more probable one. The hands that ought to administer the supply may prove weak or treacherous. The Founder's zeal cannot be devised with his lands ; his energy cannot be placed in mortmain along with his Foundation.

From these two causes — the fallible judgment of their creators, and the ill conduct of their administrators — causes so frequent as to seem at times universal, the endowments of all countries have presented such a history of misuse, disuse, and abuse, as has often provoked a revolution in the estimate in which they were held by thoughtful men. Never elsewhere has that history been so tersely and brilliantly summed up as in an essay which Turgot contributed to the EncyclopMie* and which, after the lapse of more than a century, remains still the masterpiece of this great controversy.

The purpose which Turgot had in view was no less than " to create a distaste for new Foimdations, and to destroy any lingering superstitious regard for the old ones." Let us retrace the line of arguments which he elaborated, and see if our modei-n experience does not even add to their weight.

I. He begins by a description of the grave intellectual difficulties, the abstruse social problems, which must be weighed and solved by a man who aspires to be a Founder. Granting him to be a single-minded philanthropist, with no aim in view but the benefit of his fellows, that aim is no easy one to effect in perpetuity, and " un fondateur est un homme qui veut ^temiser I'effet de ses volont^s." At the very outset, simply to set his charitable work afloat, he must determine the best form for his Foundation to assume ; and to determine this involves the consideration of three problems, each of them gi-ave.

(a) Granting that he has already chosen a iield for his benevolence, and fixed upon the particular social evil which he seeks to assuage, he must still set to work to determine the true character of this evil, to diagnose the malady, and penetrate beneath appearances to its real essence. This is a task whose complexity the most profound thinker realises the most vividly. But until it is accomplished, there is every probability that the empirical philanthropist will confuse effects with causes, mistake the symptom for the disease, and end, like an unskilful physician, by removing the sore from the skin, but driving the poisonous juices nearer to the heart. It is better to bequeath money to drain the fens, than to found a hospital for malaria.

* Art, Formation.

(b) When the root of the evil is detected, it still remains to discover the remedy. This task is yet harder than the previous one. The remedy that seems most promising, may in reality be utterly impotent. Many founders have endeavoured to stimulate devotion by providing money or bread to be distributed as rewards for attending church, or participating in the Eucharist; but it may be doubted whether, in congregations gathered by the prospect of loaves and fishes, the glow of piu-e devotion was ever felt. Many founders have endeavoured to extend the bounds of human knowledge by providing collegiate fellowships free from all obligations but that of study; but it may be doubted whether endowment has done anything to stimulate research. Many a kindly man of forty years ago spent in buying bread for his poor neighbours, the guinea that would better have been given to the Anti-Corn Law League.

Recent instances may serve to shew how utterly a Founder may mistake his own capacity, and may defeat an admirable pm-pose by planning an absurd scheme for carrying it out. Admiral B. M. Kelly in 1867 left £90,000 to found a school for sons of officers in the Navy. The lads were to have a first-class education up to the age of eighteen. But the head master's salary was only to amount to " the value of 100 bushels of wheat," which, as the Charity Commissioners say, was "ludicrously inadequate." Many further difficulties arose "from the minuteness with which the testator, who was a sailor, and evidently knew little about schools, had given directions."* Similarly Dr. Swiney left an endowment for a prize essay in Jurisprudence, but ordered that the adjudicators should include all the members of the Society of Arts and their wives, and the members of the College of Physicians, and their wives ; the whole body of adjudicators to meet and to award the prize by show of hands! The will is still in force, but a kind of private arrangement has been made which establishes a different tribunalf So, again, in New York there exists a very

* ParL Papers, 1870, xvii., p. 36.

+ Journal of the Society of Arts, xvii., 693.

wealthy endowment, with a very highly paid governor, for disabled seamen; but it is saddled with regulations so distasteful to disabled seamen, that hardly any will consent to receive its assistance. The wealth goes on increasing, whilst the number of beneficiaries decreases.*

Nor is the risk of impotence the worst peril. The proposed remedy may intensify the evil which it seeks to cure. The hand of Charity has too often worn a poisoned glove. Past centuries have seen a population of paupers created by monasteries that were founded to remove poverty. Our own century has seen philanthropists attempting to eradicate crime by Reformatories that made a criminal conviction the essential qualification for admission ; and attempting to promote female virtue by Refuges which would shelter no one till she had ceased to be virtuous. St. Bartholomew's Hospital-f- enjoys an estate in Essex which was devised to it to discharge the expense of providing dinners of veal for those convalescent patients who have been upon a milk diet; but the Governors of the present day humanely misappropriate their trust, and decline to undo the cures that their surgeons have effected. A Herefordshire man once declared that the greatest benefactor to Herefordshire would be the man who should cut down all its apple trees, and carry away all its endowments ; for the former brutalised the popidation, and the latter pauperised them. J

A third case is possible. The suggested remedy may bring about a new evil worse than the one it cures. Foundling Hospitals, erected to preserve infant life, have demoralised whole cities by removing the first penalty of unchastity; (whilst, at the same time, by separating from maternal care the wretched offspring which themselves have thus called into existence, they produce an involuntaryinfanticide, less guilty but far more extensive than that which they seek to prevent). Lying-in Hospitals, if we

* Transactions of Social Science Association, 1869, p. 147.

+ This fact I owe to information received from one of the Governors.

J Eeport of Popular Education Commission (8vo. edition), I., 461, may trust a recent school of medical statisticians, have diminished the discomforts of maternity only at the cost of multiplying its perils by all the hideous hazards of pueiperal fever.*

(c) But let us suppose that both the bane and the antidote have been discovered. The Founder has succeeded not only in detecting the true character and causes of the evil which he seeks to eradicate, but also in determining the aptest and most potent remedy. It still remains for him to devise means by which he can secui-e the effective and permanent application of this remedy through that long range of time for which his Foundation is to endure. He must foresee the opportunities of fraud and the facilities for neglect, and must provide for each of them. Stimulus, check, safeguard, coiTcctive — all are to be planned. He cannot beG[ueath his zeal along with his wealth.f

Even the benevolence of an individual flags as years roll on. The glow of early enthusiasm may at last grow as cold in the philanthropist as it does in the lover. As the patriot may sink into a placeman, or the saint into a sinecurist, so the philanthropist is apt to find himself lose all the inspiration of his days of charity amidst the personal cares or desires which every year multiplies. But if this is true of each individual, how small is the chance of maintainincr lifelong enthusiasm throughout an entire group? Suppose the extreme instance of a corporation all whose membci-s, or a society all whose servants, commenced their laboiu-s at the outset with single-minded zeal ; it would still be impossible to maintain in permanence this univei-sal glow. What are we to anticipate in a succeeding generation, when, perhaps, not a single one of the successors has felt this zeal even at the commencement of his service ? If the duty is a gra-

* " The risks of contamination of the air, and of the impregnation of the materials of the building mth morbid substances, are so greatly increased that the greatest care is necessary that hospitals should not become pesthouses, and do more harm than good." (Sir James Simpson, Woflcs II. 405.) According to the statistics which Simpson dtes (11. 345) from Lefort, the mortality of women delivered in hospitals exceeds that of women delivered at their homes Intheratioof 212to29.

t Cf. Mr. Herbert Spencer's Study of Socioloyy, pp. 343-^346.

tuitoTis one, it will fall into oblivion — as the duties of almost all the Visitors of charities have done. If it is rewarded by a stipend, the stipend will be a source of corruption — as the stipends of almost all the Masterships of almshouses once became. Turgot suggests — and the rise of the successive monastic orders affords striking illustrations of the suggestion — that the very multiplicity of charitable Foundations is but a proof of their liability to abuse ; new Foundations having often been established simply because the old had grown so degenerate that it was easier to create than to con-ect.

It is not necessary to take instances of inhumanity ; like Turgot's hospitals, where the attendants had grown callous to the sufferings which surrounded them, and " on a vu le meme lit etre h la fois le lit de la mort et le lit de la d^auche." It is not even necessary to rely on instances of dishonesty, or even of indolence. It is sufficient to remember other hospitals, nearer home, where governors, humane, honest, and energetic, have squandered their resources upon palatial buildings and regal banquets; and have proudly pointed to their wastefulness as a proof of their loyalty to the Foundation and their respect for the Founder. "We are taught," says Mr. Hare, "by the universal history of Endowments that their administration has never corresponded with the original design."* No Founder has yet succeeded in devising a scheme which would, from within, secure the purity of its own working ; so fatal and so inevitable is the operation of (to borrow Mr. Lowe's apt phrase) 'the Principle of Caducity.'