Part 2

The trustees are bound, in administering the funds, to have regard to the wants of the poor of every part of the parish of Kensington, and to satisfy themselves that in each case the beneficiaries are, in respect of poverty and character, deserving of help. And no part of the income is ever to be applied, directly or indirectly, in aid of the poor rate of the parish.

I hope you notice the anxious and thoughtful care which has been taken to secure that the funds shall be properly administered in accordance with the true intention of the original donors, and with the needs and circumstances of the parish at the present time.

The gross annual income of the Campden Charity is now the magnificent sum of £4,382 19_s._, all derived from the original investment of £465 in land in the middle of the 17th century.

I have pursued the interesting subject of the Campden Charities as long as the time at our disposal will permit, and your patience can endure. I only wish further to impress upon you that the charity has an office at the Vestry Hall, Kensington, and a clerk, Mr. R. C. Green, to whom all applications can be made, and who is ready at all times to give information to anyone properly applying to him for the same.

Those of you who care to go further into the subject, I recommend to obtain the last annual report of the trustees, and to carefully peruse the same.

Some of the most interesting work done under the auspices of the trustees is that of the handicraft classes, both for boys and girls, in which practical instruction and carpentering for the one, and cookery and dressmaking and mending for the other, has for some time been given at S. Clement’s Mission Room and All Saints’ School Room.

And I think that the powers lately given to the trustees to provide a building and equipment for technical education have already been exercised, and active steps are being taken for its establishment amongst us.

Before finally leaving the subject, I may mention that in the year 1889 there were paid £570 in old pensions; £1,566 on the first head of pensions and charitable aid; and £1,566 on the second head for education and apprenticeship.

II.—METHWOLD’S AND OTHER CHARITIES.

In 1652 Mr. William Methwold by will gave six cottages or almshouses, in the will called “an hospital,” to form residences for six poor women.

These almshouses were situated in what is now called Cromwell Lane, and adjoined a house and grounds called Hale House, which had been owned and occupied by Mr. Methwold; and this house was charged with the payment of £24 a year to give a pension or subsistence money of £4 a year each to six alms-women by quarterly payments of £1, at Hale House.

The will provided that the parish in Vestry were to appoint three alms women to the three western houses, and the owner or inhabitant of Hale House for the time being to appoint to the three eastern houses.

The alms women were to be single, aged 50, free from vice and of good report, were not to be allowed to receive lodgers, and were to visit and assist one another in sickness.

Difficulties occurred in executing the provisions of the will, necessitating an application to the Court of Chancery, and by a decree of the Court dated 17th July, 1758, the charity was established according to the will, except that the rent charge upon Hale House of £26 a year for pensions was reduced to £18. The charity continued in this condition for a great number of years, and the rent charge duly paid by the proprietors of the Hale House Estate, who in 1810 were the Countess of Harrington and Lady Fleming, both descended from John Fleming, the purchaser of Hale House from the Methwold family.

The committee of 1810, in their report of which I have made so much use in preparing this paper, point out the necessity for a very careful and vigilant attention in the selection for the benefits of this charity, from that class of respectable poor “who may justly be entitled to accommodation of this kind,” and the report quaintly proceeds:—

“The committee do this the rather as the charity has been for many years past shamefully abused by a woman in one of the _eastern_ houses, who has suffered a man to reside with her in direct violation of one of the express rules of the original foundation, and in defiance of repeated remonstrances to the contrary.”

Thomas Goodfellow, by his will dated 1597, gave a rent charge of 20_s._ a year out of the same property as that charged by Methwold to be paid annually to the Vicar and Churchwardens of Kensington, and this bequest was duly established of the same decree of the Court as established Methwold’s gift.

The Methwold’s almshouses continued to exist until about 1871, when both the almshouses and the Hale House Estate, out of which the rent charges were paid, were compulsorily acquired by the Metropolitan Railway Company, who paid a large sum to the vestry for the purchase thereof. This put an end to the almshouses. The money received from the purchase was invested in Government stock, and now consists of the sum of £4,922 11_s._ 10_d._ 2¾ per cent. consolidated stock, purchased for £4,563 4_s._ 9_d._ in cash. Application was then made to the Charity Commissioners for an order establishing a scheme for the future regulation of the charity, which was accordingly adopted, viz.:—That the net income of the charity be applied in pensioning poor widows or single women of good character and reputation, and not less than 60 years of age, whose income from all sources does not exceed £30 a year, who have resided in the parish for not less than ten years, and have never received parochial relief.

These pensioners are appointed by the Vestry. It appears from the Vestry report of 1888–9 that there were then seven women, whose ages varied from 78 to 84, in receipt of pensions from this fund, amounting in the aggregate to £118 6_s._

I now come to various other gifts of small amounts, most of them of very great antiquity, to the poor of the parish of Kensington, to all except one of which the following remark applies:—These were gifts to secure which the donors charged specific sums annually upon certain properties, or left specific amounts of Government stock.

They were not gifts of land or of money which could be or was, except in one case, applied in the purchase of real property. Consequently the parish has not derived the benefit from the marvellous increase of value in lands due to the modern development of the parish which has happened in the case of the Campden bequests.

In 1560 Thomas Young gave for the use of the poor of the parish a rent charge of 20_s._ a year, and of two houses in High Street, Kensington, occupied in 1810 by Mr. Gunton, a plumber, and Mr. Cock, a shoemaker. I have not been able to trace all the vicissitudes of this gift, but I now find it converted into £37 18_s._ 2_d._ consuls, from which a yearly dividend of 11_s._ 2_d._ only is derived, so that this gift, instead of increasing in value to the poor of the parish since 1560, has actually decreased.

In 1617 Lady Berkeley charged a house at Kensington Gravel Pits with a rent charge of £10 a year, payable half-yearly, to be disposed of by the Vicar, Churchwardens, and Overseers of the poor within ten days after being received, “to, and amongst, and for the benefit of the most _aged_ and _impotent_ poor of the parish as they should see convenient.”

In 1658 Thomas Sams left a rent charge of £5 a year charged upon property in Church Lane and Holland Street, to be distributed among the poor of Kensington by the Vicar, Churchwardens, and Overseers, and this has ever since been regularly paid and distributed. I see that in March in the year 1890 it produced the sum of £4 16_s._ 10_d._, so this is another instance of a standstill property.

In 1805 Mary Carnaby left £40 for the use of the poor, and in 1707 the parish officers with £80, £30 of which was out of Mary Carnaby’s £40, and the remaining £50 was a gift by Catherine Dickens in 1702, for the specific purpose of education (as to which I shall have something to say presently) purchased the freehold of the “Goat” public house in the High Street in trust as to three-eighths of the rent to be distributed among the poor. The “Goat” public house still remains, and three-eighths of the rent now amounts to £54 12_s._ 1_d._, which is another instance of how profitable early investments of land in the parish have proved.

In 1794 James Mackintosh, by will, directed his wife to transfer £100 4 per cent. annuities to the Vicar and Churchwardens of the parish, for them “to apply the dividends thereof every Christmas in the purchase of coals, or bread, or both, for the relief of ten poor families of the parish who did not receive alms, as they from time to time may think most deserving.” This stock was duly transferred, and now consists of £105 consols, the dividend on which is £3 18_s._ 8_d._

In 1798 Thomas Reeves, by will, gave to the Vicar, Churchwardens and Overseers £100 5 per cent. bank annuities, to apply the dividends thereof “unto and for the use of, and benefit of, the poor and indigent people, parishioners of Kensington, yearly for ever.”

This bequest now consists of £110 7_s._ 6_d._ consols, the annual dividend upon which amounts to £4 2_s._

In 1832 Elizabeth Ramsden left £500 reduced 3 per cent. stock, the dividend on which was to be applied in keeping in order a tomb and tablets in the parish churchyard and church, and the balance to be applied for the benefit of the poor of the parish.

In 1837 Mary Barnard made a gift on similar conditions, which is now represented by £110 7_s._ consols producing an annual dividend of £2 14_s._ 8_d._

The application of all the above gifts is regulated by the order of the Court of Chancery, dated 23rd December, 1853, to which I referred just now when dealing with the Campden bequests, and which as regards those was (as it appears to me) fortunately abrogated by the decree of the Court of Appeal on the 27th May, 1881, putting those charities upon their present admirable basis.

According to this decree of 1853, the income from the gifts I have just been detailing has to be divided into eighty-eight parts as follows:—

25 88ths to S. Mary Abbot’s district, 9 88ths to S. Barnabas, 21 88ths to Holy Trinity, Brompton, 6½ 88ths to S. Mary Boltons, 17 88ths to S. John’s, Notting Hill, 9½ 88ths to S. James’, Norland,

and their respective proportions are distributed to the poor of these districts by the Incumbents and Churchwardens of each district.

The income from these gifts during the year ending Easter, 1890, was £93 8_s._ 5_d._

I for one venture to doubt whether this method of distribution is the best possible.

In the first place it is altogether disproportionate to the present population and to the localities now inhabited by the poor residents in the parish. As we all know, a larger proportion both of population and poor now reside in that part of the parish north of the Uxbridge Road, yet the districts of S. John’s, Notting Hill, and S. James’, Norland, which according to the order in question occupy the whole of the northern part I am alluding to, receive only 26½ 88ths, which for the year ending Easter, 1890, amounted to £28 1_s._ 8_d._, far less than their due proportion.

Then there is needless complication in dividing the income into eighty-eight parts, splitting it up into small proportions, so that it reaches the hands of those who have to distribute it in driblets, giving an amount of trouble and anxiety out of all proportion to the importance of the sums, or the benefit to those receiving them.

I for one venture to think it would be much better to hand over all the property now representing these gifts to the Charity Commissioners and the Campden Trustees, to be dealt with by the latter in the same manner as that portion of their fund allocated to charitable purposes as distinguished from educational ones are applied.

There are also some other gifts more recently bequeathed, which are distributed to special purposes as directed by the donors. These are:—

In 1840 Mr. Searle bequeathed £300 consols the dividends on which are distributed by the Vicar and Churchwardens among poor women, sixty years and upwards of age in single £1’s (pounds sterling) or as near thereto as possible.

In 1851 Mr. Shore bequeathed £120 9_s._ 8_d._, new £3 per cents. the dividends on which are distributed by the Churchwardens and Overseers in bread and coals, or both, but not in money.

In 1867 Mr. Haine bequeathed £300 consols, the dividends on which after defraying the costs of cleaning and restoring the donor’s tomb every second year, are distributed by the Vicar and Churchwardens in the same manner as Mr. Shore’s gift.

In 1885 Mr. Thomas Blewitt bequeathed £1,000 to the Vicar and Churchwardens, which was invested in the purchase of £997 10_s._ 2¾_d._ consols, the dividends in which are first applied to the maintenance of the testator’s grave in the Kensington Cemetery at Hanwell, and the gravestones of his ancestors in Kensington Churchyard; and the balance applied for the benefit of six of the oldest and most deserving poor widows in the parish. It is gratifying to know that from this bequest the sum of £26 6_s._ 11_d._ was so applied during the year ending Easter, 1890.

I have attached to this paper the account showing the application of the income of these charities during the year ending Easter, 1890. But the unsuitableness to modern times of the prescribed method of distribution of these charities clearly appears from these accounts. When I tell you that five separate gentlemen distributed, one the sum of 14_s._, and the four others 13_s._ each in that year I think you will agree with me that it will be better to place these charities upon a more sensible footing.

KENSINGTON PAROCHIAL CHARITIES.

_Year ended Easter_, 1890.

The undermentioned charities are apportioned among the several ecclesiastical districts of the parish, pursuant to an order of the Court of Chancery, dated 22nd December, 1852, viz.:—

£ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ Lady Berkeley’s Gift 10 0 0 Thomas Young’s „ 1 3 4 Thomas Sam’s „ 4 17 6 Elizabeth Ramsden’s Gift 13 15 0 Mary Barnard’s „ 3 0 8 Mary Carnaby’s „ 54 16 11 Thomas McIntosh’s „ 3 7 4 Thomas Reeve’s „ 3 17 0 94 17 9 _Less_ Cheque Book (stamps) 0 8 4 Clerical Assistants, _re_ 1 3 0 Accounts 1 9 4 93 8 5

_The Apportionment_.

£ _s._ _d._ S. Mary Abbots District 25-88ths 26 10 9 S. Barnabas ,, 9-88ths 9 11 0 Holy Trinity „ 21-88ths 22 6 0 S. Mary, Boltons „ 6½-88ths 6 18 0 S. John’s ,, 17-88ths 18 1 0 S. James, Norlands „ 9½-88ths 10 1 9 93 8 5

The undermentioned charities, having specific trusts, are distributed by the donors, viz.:—

Mr. SEARLE’S Gift, by the Vicar and Churchwardens, in single pounds, among women 60 years of age and upwards.

Mr. HAINES’ Gift, by the Vicar and Churchwardens, in bread or coals, or both, but not in money.

Mr. SHORE’S Gift, by the Churchwardens and Overseers, in bread or coals, or both, but not in money.

Charity. The Vicar of S. Capt. James, R.E., Mr. F. C. Frye, Mr. A. White, (Town) Mr. C. G. Lt.-Gen. R. M. Total. Mary Abbots. Churchwarden. Churchwarden. Overseer. Kemball, Macdonald (Nottg. (Brompton) Hill) Overseer. Overseer. £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._ General 6 12 9 6 12 8 6 12 8 6 12 8 26 10 9 Charities applicable to St. Mary Abbots’ District Mr. Searle’s 2 15 0 2 15 2 15 0 8 5 0 Gift Mr. Haines’ ,, 2 15 0 2 15 0 2 15 0 8 5 0 Mr. Shore’s „ 0 14 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 3 6 0 12 2 9 12 16 8 12 15 8 7 5 8 0 13 0 0 13 0 46 6 9 Unpaid Balances:— General Charities Mr. Searle’s 0 10 4 0 10 4 Gift Mr. Haines’ „ 0 15 4 0 15 4 13 8 5 12 16 8 12 15 8 7 5 8 0 13 0 0 13 0 47 12 5

I must now hurry on to the three remaining endowed charities of Kensington.

The first is the Charity known as Leech and Aisley’s Trusts.

Margaret Leech, a lady residing in Kensington Square, by her will dated in the year 1799, gave £1000 6 per cent. bank annuities to five trustees, of whom the then Vicar was one, in trust to apply the interest thereof “in the maintenance, clothing, and instruction of so many female children as it would be sufficient to so provide for; such children being parishioners of Kensington whose fathers and mothers, and grandfathers and grandmothers should have been seven years successively housekeepers, or employed as servants in the parish, and have been three years in the same service.” The children to be appointed by the trustees, and not to be less than seven years of age when admitted, nor to be continued after attaining fifteen years. The interest always to remain a separate stock, and not to be applied to any other purpose, and the charity always to remain a distinct foundation, but the children might be placed in any other charitable institution, but so as always to be distinguished as children of this foundation.

This charity, as you have perceived, is for the benefit of girls.

Stephen Aisley, by his will dated 1805, gave so much money arising from the realisation on his personal estate as would, when invested in accordance with the directions in the will, produce an annual income of £30 a year, to five trustees, of whom the Vicar was one, “in trust for the apprenticing of boys from the Charity School of Kensington, of the boarding establishment only, to be selected by the trustees of his will. The £30 a year to be considered a separate fund, and not to be applied to any other purpose.”

You will notice the resemblance of these two bequests. It would seem as though the respective testators had been acquaintances, and had talked the matter over between themselves; and that Mrs. Leech had resolved to benefit some of the poor girls of the parish, while Mr. Aisley, on the other hand, determined in a similar manner to benefit some poor boys. You will also notice how strongly both testators insisted that these funds should for ever remain separate foundations, and should never be mixed with any other. If their intention was to keep up the memory of their names it has succeeded, for the Leech and Aisley Charity, established so long ago, remains to this day under the same name, and the funds are still applied as the testators directed.

These bequests were the subject of an order of the Charity Commissioners of the 13th July, 1880, by which the funds of both were vested in the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds, and which regulates their present application. It appears from this order that the property of Leech’s Charity then consisted of £1,477 19_s._ 10_d._ new 3 per cents. and that of Aisley’s Charity of £1,352 12_s._ 11_d._ consols.

The order provided that both charities were in future to be administered by seven trustees—three official, namely, the Vicar and Churchwardens of Kensington for the time being; and four more non-official, who were to be appointed from competent persons resident in Kensington, whose credentials should be satisfactory to the Charity Commissioners.

The order directs that the dividends arising from the £1,477 19_s._ 10_d._ new three per cents, representing Margaret Leech’s bequest, shall be applied in the “maintenance, clothing, and support of girls, daughters of deserving persons resident in Kensington, who are inmates of the Girls’ Industrial School established in the parish, and in providing such girls with suitable outfits upon their leaving school and entering domestic service, or otherwise for their benefit or advancement in life; provided that in case the trustees shall at any time consider that a girl not in the said school, but being the child of a poor inhabitant of the parish, is a more suitable object for the charity, such girl may be selected.” You will notice with what tenderness the directions of Mrs. Leech are treated and how closely they are followed in the order.

The Industrial School for Girls mentioned in the order does not come within the scope of my paper, since, as far as I am able to learn, it has never become an endowed charity. It is an excellent institution, established in 1858, with the object of providing education and a home for girls, who “either from evil example, extreme poverty, or the death of their parents, are exposed to temptation,” and supported entirely by voluntary contributions. The institution was formerly carried on at 2, Bullingham Place, Church Street, and is now merged into the Kensington Training School for Girls, at 3, Church Street.

It still subsists almost entirely on voluntary contribution, its only settled income amounting to £13 9_s._ 1_d._ a-year, and is an institution which deserves support. I trust that some charitable person may hear of or see this paper, and thus be induced to place the Kensington Training School for Girls among the endowed charities of Kensington by bestowing, preferably in his lifetime, but at all events by will, a handsome endowment upon it.

It appears from the accounts of Leech’s Charity for the year 1890, which I have seen, that its income for that year was £40 13_s._, and with that, and a balance from the preceding year, it paid the sum of £44 5_s._ 6_d._ to the Kensington Training School for Girls for the support of girls within that institution, in strict accordance with the directions of the donor, and the order of the Charity Commissioners.