school, under Mrs. Peard's gift, for the benefit of Tiverton, actually appointing children of and belonging to a neighbouring parish, to partake of the benefit of this excellent institution. The delicacy which the commissioners have here manifested, certainly different from that line of conduct displayed (but with which there is no fault to be found) towards the poor old Mr. Dunsford, in their investigation of Blagdon's gift, stands conspicuous. In the first case we are not favored with the name of the trustee. I am not able to say, therefore, whether this irregularity was the consequence of a non-resident corporate officer, being a trustee or not. And, secondly, I think it may be fairly urged, the language of these commissioners is not exactly uniform. Of this anonymous trustee, they say, that "it appeared to us, that the benefits of this charity were intended by all the donors, for inhabitants of the town and parish of Tiverton; and upon a suggestion to this effect, we were assured that the nominations should in future be confined to that place."

Let us now see whether the language connected with Blagdon's charity be not somewhat different, and I must be permitted to say, in my opinion, more becoming.

In the first place, the names of all the trustees of Blagdon's charity are given us; and secondly, the opinion of the commissioners, ofan irregularity

m

which they discovered, is expressed in strong and very proper language.

"We cannot but think, that Mr. Dunsford has acted very incorrectly in uniting the characters of trustee and tenant. His duties as a trustee to procure the best rent he could for the charity, and to prevent an improper expenditure of the funds in the repairs, were thus opposed to his individual interest."

It is but due to the memory of Mr. Dunsford, who I understand was a very honest man, to mention, that his anxiety alone, in behalf of the charity, was the occasion of his being led to what must certainly be considered, an irregularity. The trustees held an auction. There were three other bidders, besides Mr. Dunsford who took the biddings, there being no auctioneer present. Mr. Dunsford bid for himself, and he was declared the highest bidder. I might also add, a person who was a bidder at the auction, stated to the commissioners that the premises were not worth more than £15 10s. Mr. Dunsford's bidding was £16. This person also said, that in consequence of the repairs which had since been done, he would take the premises at £17 per annum..

Another, and no less extraordinary omission, on the part of these commissioners, is to be found under "Mrs. Peard's gift to the new church,"

Here we are not favoured with the name of the treasurer, who so cautiously kept in hand so large a balance, without paying interest for the same. The reason given for this detention, (a reason it appears not to have been anticipated by the pious donor) is so singular, and is so ably combated by the framers of the report, that I cannot do better than conclude my notice of it by the following extract. "This practice, which as far as the sum in hand exceeds £50 is contrary to the provisions of the deed, is said to have been adopted to meet any extraordinary expence in case of accidents to the chapel, from high winds or otherwise; but it may be observed, that the funded property is accessible on any such emergency; however, when the balance is considerable, part of it is ordered to be laid out in the stocks. It appears from the last audited account, that £200 stock was purchased in July, 1818, and the balance on hand, on the 5th of August in that year, when the audit took place, was £155 3s. 2 d. this balance had increased in the month of July, 1819, to £267 14s. 5d.!! The trustees do not meet regularly every year! !"-Why was not the treasurer's name given?

In the investigation of Rice's trust, the names of the treasurers are very properly given, although they paid 5 per cent. per annum interest, on the balances in their hands, say, on £160 and

£70. Here we find the commissioners, notwithstanding a chancery suit was the cause of these monies being detained, with propriety observing, "that in all instances of this kind public is preferable to private security." Mr. J. Smith, a much respected inhabitant of our town, and a gentleman, to whom many in Tiverton, and its neightbourhood, have felt themselves greatly indebted for his very able professional assistance as a medical attendant, availed himself of this suggestion, and immediately gave notice of his intention forthwith to pay off the £160 in his hands.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum," is an old and approved maxim; yet while we witness in the report of these commissioners, the omission of names of living trustees, treasurers, &c. we cannot but observe every proper notice of former irregularities, accompanied by the names of the persons who were clearly responsible, unless, could they have been present, they might have removed the obloquy which must result from this investigation. I cannot forbear to notice one instance, which I know has been severely censured.

The commissioners, in speaking of the almsmen in Greenway's almshouse, inform us, "that two of the present almsmen are not fit objects of the charity; one of them (no name) is a weaver, and occupies a house in the town, and uses his separate room in the almshouse only as a work

shop. He has a large family, and received parish relief at the time." (No age mentioned.)

"The other, John Vanstone, a labourer, between 40 and 50 years of age, was at the time of his appointment, able to work as a weekly servant for Mr. Dicken, (who was dead when the report was made,) by whom he was nominated." Now should we not have had the name of the weaver, and the churchwarden who appointed him?

A similar case occurs under "Slee's almshouse," in the appointments of widow Caperne and Sarah Blackmore. The living churchwarden's name is suppressed; at the same time, that of the gentleman who is not here to answer for himself, is given at full length.

M.

This clause introduces to our notice, that which is of more importance than the first reading would perhaps lead us to perceive. It is a grant to the mayor, and burgesses, (the incorporated inhabitants) and their successors, that if any (u) person shall refuse to take upon himself the office, to which he has been appointed, or elected by the mayor, and common council, that

(u) Must be an inhabitant, or would not be within the jurisdiction of the mayor.