three and one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, trustees of the said charity. And these defendants, to the best of their knowledge, remembrance, information, or belief, know not nor can set forth whether the said Robert Steele did not, and when and for how long a time, as such master, reside in the master's house, or whether he did or not, or when, keep a school at Winchester, or for how long a time; or whether James Cookson did or not or when inhabit the house of the master of the said school, or for how long a time and under what authority or permission he did so reside, as in that behalf in the said information stated; but these defendants have lately heard and believe that the said Robert Steele now resides at Alresford, and is the master of a school. And these defendants say, they believe that the said Robert Steele was continued on the books of the said school, from the time of his said appointment till the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six; but they believe that the said Robert Steele did not become master of the said school under any stipulations, conditions, or covenants, or that he did execute, or was ever required to execute, any bond or any undertaking to resign the said school whenever thereunto requested, and that he did not admit persons to lodge in the said premises. And these defendants further answering say, they admit it to be true, that since the year one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, the number of trustees has consisted, and does now consist, of the several persons named and described in the said information, and that many of the same are the immediate relations or connexions of the said defendant Hylton Jolliffe: but these defendants say, that the said Hylton Jolliffe hath not the entire control over and management of the said charity, although they admit that, since the year one thousand eight hundred and three, the said defendant Hylton Jolliffe hath had and now has as treasurer of the said charity, the entire management of the funds belonging to the same, to whom these defendants crave leave to refer his Majesty's Attorney-General or the said relators, for all particulars relating thereto. And this defendant John Twyford Jolliffe admits that he never attended any meeting of the said trustees from the year one thousand eight hundred and seven until the month of December one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, or January one thousand eight hundred and nineteen. And these defendants say, they believe that William Trimmings did succeed the said Robert Steele in the month of January one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and that the said William Trimmings was displaced by the trustees Hylton Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, Charles Edward Twyford, and William John Jolliffe, in the month of January one thousand eight hundred and fifteen; but these defendants say, they have heard and believe it to be true, that many complaints were made in the year one thousand eight hundred and fourteen by the parents of the children of the said school, of the negligence and inattention of the said William Trimmings: and they, the said trustees, finding on investigation that the said William Trimmings had been negligent in his duties as schoolmaster, by giving the boys more holidays than it was fit and proper, and according to the usage of the said school for them to have, and in particular by neglecting their religious education, appointed, in the month of January one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, George Dusautoy, another defendant to the said information, schoolmaster in the room of the said William Trimmings. And these defendants admit that there was not any vacancy publicly declared, as in the said information in that behalf stated; and they say, that a meeting of the said trustees was regularly called for the purpose of electing a master in the stead of the said William Trimmings; also the said meeting was not publicly announced, nor was it necessary it should be so, but they say, that the circumstances of the case were notorious in the borough of Petersfield. And these defendants, to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief say, that the said defendant George Dusautoy was not actually standing at or near the door when the order was made for his appointment, as in the said information in that behalf stated. And these defendants say, they deny that the said appointment of the new and removal of the former master was preconcerted between these defendants, or either of them, and the said George Dusautoy; but they have heard, and believe it to be true, that the said Hylton Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, Charles Edward Twyford, and William John Jolliffe, did

request him, the said George Dusautoy, when he was so appointed to suc ceed the said William Trimmings, as in the said information in that behalf stated, to allow the said William Trimmings twenty pounds per annum; but these defendants believe the said Hylton Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, Charles Edward Twyford, and William John Jolliffe, were induced so to do principally in consequence of the indigent circumstances of the said William Trimmings. And these defendants say, they have been informed and believe it to be true, that the said George Dusautoy kept a school, with great credit to himself and advantage to the public, for many years, in the neighbourhood of Petersfield; and have every reason to believe he is a person most proper, in all respects, to fill the situation and perform the duties of schoolmaster to the said charity. And these defendants say, to their knowledge, belief, or otherwise, the said George Dusautoy does not give or pay to any other person or persons who had, previous to the said Wilham Trimmings, been master or masters of the said school, any sum or sums of money, by way of remuneration or otherwise, in consideration of his, the said George Dusautoy, having been appointed master, or for any other consideration whatsoever. And these defendants further answering say, they deny that the said boys have been deprived of the benefit of boarding and lodging within the said college by the master thereof, or that the funds of the said charity have been, for many years past, and are now more than sufficient to have carried into effect all the intentions of the said testator in regard to the board and lodging of the said boys admitted into the said college; or that the intentions of the said testator Richard Churcher in regard to the board and lodging of the said boys have, by the gross negligence or mismanagement of the trustees for the time being, during the periods in the information mentioned, been in a great degree frustrated; or that the said defendants, the executors of the trustees in whose time such negligence is charged in the said information to have occurred, ought now to be held responsible for the same; or that the present trustees ought to be responsible for any loss which shall appear to have been incurred by any misemployment of the said charity funds, and other acts of neglect that may have taken place during the time they have been such trustees; for these defendsay, they have not, to their knowledge or belief, during the respective times that they and each of them have been trustees of the said charity, acted contrary to the intentions of the said Richard Churcher, the founder of the said charity, or to the spirit, true intent, and meaning of an Act of Parliament passed in the eighteenth year of the reign of his Majesty King George the Second for the better regulation of the said charity, unless they have in any respect acted contrary thereto in the particulars hereinbefore and hereinafter mentioned: but in case they have acted contrary to the same, in any respect, they say they have so acted to the best of their judgement, and have had only in view the well-doing of the said school, and the intentions of the said founder, so far as the same are now practicable. And these defendants further answering say, they believe it to be true, that the annual dividends of the several stocks, funds, or securities, which are now, or very lately were, standing in the name of the Accountant-General, did, in or about the month of April one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, amount to the sum of five hundred and forty-two pounds, three shillings, and sixpence, or thereabouts; and that the annual dividends of the stocks, funds, or securities, of the one thousand Four per centum Bank annuities, standing in the names of the trustees of the said charity, did amount, at the same time, to the sum of fifty-nine pounds eight shillings; and that the whole of the annual dividends belonging to the said charity amounts to the said sum of six hundred and one pounds, eleven shillings, and sixpence, or thereabouts. And these defendants further answering say, they have been informed and believe it to be true, that the said John Jolliffe deceased did, on or about the first day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifty-two, sell out the sum of eight hundred pounds old South Sea Annuities, and that he did repurchase the same again on or about the seventh day of the same month; but whether any and what order was obtained, and when, to sanction such last-mentioned transaction, these defendants know not, and cannot set forth as to their belief or other

wise; but they have heard and believe, that a loss of about forty-eight pounds was incurred to the said charity. And these defendants further answering say, they deny it to be true, particularly as far as regards the appointment of masters during the respective times wherein they have been trustees for the education of the said boys admitted into the said school, that the said appointments, or any of them, have been made in several or any instances for the purpose of serving particular individuals, and that such individuals were permitted, by the trustees for the time being, to abuse their said office of master, and to pervert it to their own private emolument; but these defendants have heard, and believe it to be true, that William Trimmings did, during the time he was master of the said college, take in lodgers, and that was one among other reasons why he was dismissed the said office of master of the said college. And these defendants further answering say, they have heard and believe that the said William Jolliffe and his wife did occasionally, for a very short time, also lodge there in the life-time of the said William Jolliffe. And these defendants the trustees further answering say, they believe that Richard Figg was permitted for his own private emolument, and did in fact take, for a considerable time and with the knowledge of the trustees for the time being, boarders to a considerable extent in point of number; but these defendants deny that boarders were so taken in exclusion of the boys who were the real objects of the said charity, or that a large school-room was erected for such purpose only: but these defendants say, that the salary of the master was so small, that it was impossible to find any person properly qualified to undertake the situation of schoolmaster, unless allowed to take boarders for his own private emolument. And these defendants submit, that by this means the college had and now has a superior schoolmaster, and thereby the objects of the said charity were and now, are much benefited. And these defendants further answering say, they are informed and believe that, from the year one thousand seven hundred and fifty-five up to the said year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, the taxes and poor-rates of the said master were, under an order bearing date December one thousand seven hundred and fifty-five, ordered to be paid by the master for the time being, but they say that such order is not now in force, in consequence of the schoolmaster's salary being inadequate for his maintenance and support, and that the said trustees have been under the necessity of paying the poor-rates and taxes out of the funds of the said charity, and that, subsequent to the said year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four_and down to the present time, such rates, taxes, and assessments have been paid out of the funds of the said charity, and that such payments have in fact amounted to the sum of seven hundred and sixty-eight pounds, thirteen shillings, and nine pence, or thereabouts, as stated in the said information. And these defendants say, they are informed and believe that some increased taxes and rates were charged and paid in consequence of the said house and college having been appropriated by such masters or some of them, for the accommodation of private boarders and scholars, for the benefit of the master for the time being, as hereinbefore stated. And these defendants further answering say, they have heard and believe that Robert Steele was appointed master of the said school in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and that he did receive a salary of forty pounds per annum. And these defendants say, that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, they deny that, from the said twenty-eighth day of October one thousand seven hundred and sixty-one down to the twentieth day of June one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, or during some other length of time, thirty-four boys were, contrary to the regulations of the will of the founder of the said charity, and in gross violation of the said Act of Parliament, actually admitted into and apprenticed out from the said college, and who were not, at the respective times in the said information in that behalf stated, children of persons of or belonging to the said borough of Petersfield. And these defendants say, they are informed and believe that the schedule to the said information annexed, and marked with the letter A., is a true, correct, and accurate statement, as far as it relates to the names of the boys, the dates of their respective admissions, the times of

their continuing in the said school, when discharged therefrom, when apprenticed, the premiums paid on their being so apprenticed, the allowances made for clothing whilst under apprenticeship, and the allowances to go into business after apprenticeship expired; but whether the estimated expense as far as regards the clothing of the said boys is correct these defendants crave leave to refer to such proof as may be produced by his Majesty's Attorney-General or the said relators. And defendants say, that, to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, they deny that the said thirty-four boys or any of them, so named in the said schedule A., were admitted into the said college and apprenticed therefrom, in violation of the will of the said Richard Churcher or of the said Act of Parliament. And these defendants say, they refer his Majesty's Attorney-General or the said relators to the answers of the other defendants as to what allowance in particular, and what clothing have been given to the different boys in the said school after their being apprenticed out therefrom since the passing of the said Act, also as to what number of boys and who by name were admitted into the said school, also the names of the trustees, how elected, and the several masters with the dates of their respective appointments, during the period in the said information in that behalf mentioned; but these defendants to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, deny that any boys were admitted since these defendants have been trustees, who were not sons of persons belonging to the said borough, except in the instance hereinafter mentioned. And these defendants say, they have been informed and believe it to be true, that the said boys have regularly attended divine service at the parish-church of Petersfield, and that they have been accompanied by the master of the said school or his assistant, who, these defendants believe, are most attentive to the religious instruction, and correct demeanor of the said boys. And these defendants say, they believe that the number of trustees has not been at all times kept up to the number of seven, but why or for what reason the number has not been so kept up these defendants, to the best of their knowledge, belief, or otherwise, know not nor can set forth. And these defendants admit, that seven is the number of trustees at present. And these defendants further answering say, they deny that the said relators, or any of them, have made such applications and requests as in the said information in that behalf stated, except that these defendants have been informed and believe it to be true, that the relators Nathaniel Atcheson and Henry Clifton Atkinson did apply to the said defendant George Dusautoy, in or about the month of December one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, for an inspection of the books respecting the said charity, and that the said defendant George Dusautoy refused to comply therewith. And these defendants say, that before any meeting of the said trustees took place, and before any further answer was given to the said Nathaniel Atcheson, the said information was filed; and these defendants submit, that the said relators had no right to inspect the said books and proceedings, unless this Honourable Court should so think fit to order. And these defendants say, that the said books of accounts and writings have always been under the care of the master of the said school for the time being until the present time. And these defendants say, in case it should appear that, during the time these defendants or either of them have been trustees of the said charity, that the number of boys exceeded the number limited by the said will and Act, that they on such occasions acted to the best of their judgment, having only in view the interest of the persons who were entitled to the benefit of the said charity. And they admit that the whole amount of the funds directed by the said will and Act have not been applied for the purposes of the said charity for the reasons hereinbefore stated, and also because these defendants together with the other trustees, have been desirous of raising a fund for the purpose of more effectually carrying into effect the intentions of the founder of the said charity, and say, that if in any one or more instances the number of boys exceeded twelve, or fell short of that number, that in some instances the whole amount of the funds received by the said trustees were applied for the purpose of defraying the expense of maintaining and educating the said boys, and other costs and charges attending the said school; and that the expense of any such additional boy or boys, was and were defrayed out

of the said charity funds. And the said defendants, each speaking with respect to such election of boys in which they have been respectively concerned, say, they were influenced by the particular circumstances of the case, and believe that those who were entitled to the benefit of the said charity were not prejudiced thereby; and they admit that, at the time the number of boys exceeded twelve, there was a surplus of the said charitable funds, but as to the several allowances in money and clothes made to all the boys who were admitted into the said school during the time they continued there respectively, and also after they were apprenticed out therefrom, and the names of all such boys as did not receive such allowances in money and clothes, and also the number of boys by name who did receive such allowance, these defendants crave leave to refer his Majesty's Attorney-General, or the said relators, to the answers of the other defendants to the said information. And these defendants further answering say, as far as regards the elections of boys in which they have been concerned, that they have not at any time, or on any occasion, intentionally admitted any boy or boys into the said school, who were or was not the child or children of persons belonging to the said Borough; but if any such child or children hath or have been so admitted, that it must have been in consequence of misrepresentation made to them with respect to such boy or boys. And these defendants further answering say, they believe that at the time of the election of the defendant, Thomas Samuel Jolliffe, which was in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine, he resided at Petersfield, in the county of Hants, and that for the last twenty years past he has resided at Ammerdown, in the county of Somerset, which is distant about eighty miles from the said Borough; and they believe that the said defendants, Hylton Jolliffe and William John Jolliffe, both resided at Merstham, in the county of Surrey, where they have lived for the last twenty years, which place they believe is distant forty miles from the said Borough. And these defendants say, they believe that the said two last-named defendants frequently go and reside in the said Borough, where the said William Jolliffe lately had a house, and that the said defendant, Hylton Jolliffe, has considerable estates in and near the said Borough, and that his property requires frequently his personal attention. And these defendants further answering say, they are informed, and believe it to be true, that the said defendant Samuel Twyford was appointed a trustee of the said charity in or about the year one thousand eight hundred and three, and that the said Charles Edward Twyford was also appointed a trustee of the said charity in or about the year one thousand eight hundred and fourteen, and that they have resided before and since their appointment as trustees, and do now reside in the said parish of Trotton, in the said county of Sussex, about seven miles distant from the said Borough of Petersfield. And these defendants further answering say, they admit that they have resided before their election, and now usually reside at Ammerdown aforesaid, and say, that part of the trustees reside within a few hours' distance from the said Borough, and they submit to this Honourable Court that, under the aforesaid circumstances, they were not improperly appointed trustees of the said school, and ought not to be removed from the same. And these defendants further answering say, they believe that the said defendant George Dusautoy was duly appointed master of the said school, in the month of June one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, by the defendants Hylton Jolliffe, Samuel Twyford, Charles Edward Twyford, and William John Jolliffe, and that the said appointment was not solicited by the said defendant George Dusautoy, or his friends, to their knowledge; and these defendants also believe that the said George Dusautoy has, since he was so appointed, paid to the said William Trimmings the annual sum of twenty pounds; and these defendants also believe that the same was not by way of remuneration, or otherwise in consideration of his being so appointed, but in consequence of his, William Trimmings's, indigent circumstances and former services, which payment the said defendant George Dusautoy assented to make on that account alone. And these defendants further answering say, they admit it to be true that Henry Goldring was dismissed on the nineteenth day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, by the order and direction of the said defendants, Thomas

S