In this connexion, it is worth noticing that in Trustees of Royal Masonic Institution for Boys v. Parkes [4] it was held that a masonic school for the sons of freemasons was a public institution for the purposes of the Factory and Workshop Act 1907, and Darling J., à propos of the fact that the school was almost entirely maintained by the subscriptions of freemasons, said: - "To be a Freemason does not appear to me to be an entirely private matter; it is a very large body from which subscriptions are collected even if nothing is taken from people who are not Freemasons. I cannot think that, so far as this is an appeal to Freemasons, it is anything but a public appeal to a limited class." [5] . The Divisional Court, in reaching the conclusion that the school was a public institution, followed an earlier decision upon the same Act, viz. Seal v. Trustees of the British Orphan Asylum [6] where Hamilton J. quoted with approval from A. L. Smith J. in Hall v. Derby Sanitary Authority [1] a passage to the effect that a public charity means a charity for public purposes as distinguished from private. In the case last cited, as was pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Shaw v. Halifax Corporation [2] great stress was laid upon extensiveness as the mark of a public, as distinct from a private, charity. When in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [3] the Privy Council had to decide whether a school called the Ulster Institute was a "public" institution, attention was directed not to the scholar to be educated but the terms in which and the circumstances in which education is given, but, adverting to the scholars, Lord Watson said: - "All schools, whether public or private in the strictest sense of the words, which have a reasonably large attendance of scholars have one feature in common. They give instruction to the public, or, in other words, to the children of different sections of the public" [4] . Dilworth's Case [3] was distinguished by Rowlatt J. in Ackworth School v. Betts [5] where it was decided that a school established by the Society of Friends for the education of children who were members of the Society and were not in affluence was not a "public school" within the Income Tax Act for exemption purposes. His Lordship, after examining the constitution of the school, said: - " nor do I think it is meant to follow the lines of an ordinary public school." [6] . In 1920 Rowlatt J. in Trustees of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School v. Ryall [7] decided upon the same Act that notwithstanding that the school there in question was denominational, it was nevertheless a public school and said: - "I think if you have got a school for the benefit of a denomination, providing it was not something absolutely, I was going to say, ridiculous, I do not speak offensively, but some very small denomination which did not really number any large number of adherents among the human race, any denomination which appealed to mankind, I should have thought that that would be a public school." [1] . In explanation of the Quaker Case, his Lordship said: - " I did not intend to decide that Case because it was denominational in the sense that it was for Quakers, but what I did think was present there was - and the whole point was - that these people did not want this school to be identified with even the Quakers throughout the community; they wanted to keep it, I thought - I may have been wrong in my judgment on the fact, but that is the reason I came to the conclusion - essentially private, essentially domestic - "peculiar" I said; "particular" the Solicitor-General says, but essentially private, essentially apart from the current national life, that is why I decided as I did in that Case" [1] .