The “necessary expenditure of each claimant” was calculated by the number of people whom he had to support. For each of the three unmarried brothers it was fixed at the same amount. The two married brothers were each to be allowed between two and three times as much as a bachelor. If in any year there were not profits enough made to supply even the “necessary expenditure,” each claimant, nevertheless, could draw upon the general fund for “the stated sum.” In more years than one it happened that “the total of profits arising from all sources did not equal the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the families.” The profits were then divided “according to the plan provided to meet such a case, namely, that each partner have a share proportioned to his estimated reasonable expenses.” The more children a partner had, the larger share he received. In this arrangement there was, it must be allowed, something not altogether in accordance with the principles laid down by Mr. Malthus. When, some years later, the school partnership was dissolved, a plan for mutual insurance was at once formed by Rowland Hill and the three other surviving partners under the name of _The Family Fund_:— “To afford to each a security, to a certain extent, against future suffering from poverty, and to secure to all such advantages of union as are perfectly consistent with the non-existence of a partnership, it is further agreed to form a fund, to be called the Family Fund, to be applied to the relief of any of the undersigned, or their wives, or their descendants, who, in the opinion of the Managers of the Fund, may require such relief. “The Managers of the Fund to consist of the survivors among the undersigned, or such other persons as the Managers, for the time being, may appoint in writing. “The Managers to have the uncontrolled disposal of the Fund, as regards both principal and interest.” Each brother was to begin by contributing to the fund a considerable sum of money, “and, further, one-half of the surplus of his annual clear earnings (exclusive of the proceeds of investments) over his reasonable expenses.” The surplus earnings were to be taken on a series of years. An estimate, varying in each case, was adopted of the reasonable expenses of each brother. While they considered it expedient, they said, to leave themselves and their successors unfettered in the management of the fund, they, nevertheless, thought that it might be useful to put on record some of their views. From these views I extract the following:— “That anyone possessing an interest in the Fund should be considered as entitled to relief, if in circumstances much depressed as compared with the others, though not in absolute poverty. “That so long, however, as he is able, without great embarrassment, to draw on his own capital, his claim to relief should not be admitted.