the world of private banking

250
THE WORLD OF PRIVAtE BANKING
good, and the not so good but rich, in such profusion.’ 13 It included Lord (N.M.)
Rothschild, the Governor of the Bank of England, Lord Lister and other Presidents
of the Royal Colleges of medicine, the Chief Rabbi, the Bishop of London, Ernest
Cassel, Julius Wernher, Edward Guinness, Everard Hambro and Lord Revelstoke
of Barings. These and other figures from the City and other areas of public life
gave time and money to the Fund. Most of the merchant banks, led by J.S. Morgan
and Co. and N.M. Rothschild and Sons, and the clearing banks, led by Lloyds,
contributed to the initial appeal in 1897. The Bank of England gave the modest
annual subscription of £250. Support came also from the Prudential Assurance
Co., the City of London Corporation and, more reluctantly, City livery companies.
Cassel and Guinness each contributed £60,000, the financier Edgar Speyer gave
£25,000. N.M. Rothschild was the Fund’s treasurer and his banking house gave
£15,000. Revelstoke succeeded him in the role and left the fund £100,000 on his
death in 1929. In 1912 Julius Wernher bequeathed an impressive £390,000 to the
Fund. Finally, another South African millionaire and associate of Edward, Alfred
Beit and his brother Otto, gave £125,000. Henry Bischoffsheim and his wife gave
a more modest, but still substantial £14,000 between 1899 and 1906. 14
By 1910 the Fund had total assets of almost £2 million and was distributing
£150,000 per annum to the grateful and, on the whole, deserving, hospitals of
London, for which it provided ten per cent of their combined income. 15 The money
was not given unconditionally: the fund encouraged efficient administration and
high-quality medical treatment. Probably, never had a charity amassed so much
income so fast. The Fund was carefully managed by a Finance Committee consisting
initially of Lords Rothschild and Revelstoke, Cassel and Robert Fleming. 16
Whilst it may be true that ‘The monarchy and the plutocracy rallied round
philanthropy partly to dish socialism and to defend the Empire’, 17 neither this
nor the desire for social acceptance, status and titles can wholly explain the
amount of time and money (especially money donated after death had removed
any personal social advantage from giving) donated to charity by some, probably
most, City figures. At this time, especially before 1914 when levels of taxation
were light, there were no significant taxation advantages to stimulate charitable
giving in Britain. Nor could possible fiscal gains explain the personal time given
by financiers to philanthropy. An entirely real concern for the sufferings of others
was clearly one motive, as was the influence of a variety of forms of religious
belief. For Jewish financiers, another motive was the problem posed by the influx
of poor Jewish immigrants to Britain from the early 1880s.
13
Prochaska, Royal Bounty, p. 153.
14
Prochaska, Philanthropy and the Hospitals, pp. 27–30.
15
Prochaska, Royal Bounty, p. 167.
16
Prochaska, Philanthropy and the Hospitals, p. 43.
17
Prochaska, Royal Bounty, p. 147.