cial trustee would receive the dividends; and there must either be a power of attorney from him to the acting trustees to receive the money, or else, when the official trustee had received the money, he must in some way or other remit it to the actual trustees. It was absolutely certain that this operation must occasion a great deal of expense, annoyance, and personal trouble, and no more violent shock could be given to that very numerous and competent body of gentlemen who acted as trustees of charities than to suddenly, by an Act of Parliament, | strip them of the legal holding of all the real and personal property which they had hitherto held, and which they had hitherto administered to the general satisfaction of the public. He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree that it was desirable to leave the property as it stood at present, and he would ask them not to pass the clause, on the ground that it was a needless interference with charity trusts, with no corresponding advantages. Moved, "To leave out the Clause as amended."-(The Earl Cairns.) THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) had spoken in forgetfulness that incorporated charities were now exempted from the operation of the clause; and he had also proceeded upon the assumption that because this power was given to the Charity Commissioners, they would immediately proceed to put it in operation with regard to all the charity estates in the Kingdom. Practically, however, their Lordships knew that general powers of this sort were not so exercised; and it would only be when particular circumstances brought particular estates and funds to the knowledge of the Commissioners that they would exercise their judgment as to whether it was expedient to take advantage of this power. He entirely demurred to the proposition that the object of the clause was to vest in the Charity Commissioners, through the official trustees, ipso facto, all the estates and funds of all the charities in the country. Its object was the removal of restrictions in the way of doing that which, in certain circumstances, was done already. His noble and learned Friend had asked what was the necessity for the clause, and had said that no loss had been shown under the present VOL. CCLXI. [THIRD SERIES.] system. Did not his noble and learned Friend know that the records of the Court of Chancery were full of cases of applications to the Court, and litigation. arising out of, he would not say the fraud, but the misappropriation of the capital of trust funds by trustees of charities- misappropriations due, in most cases, to misconceptions of their duty? Beyond all question, if these funds were vested in an official trustee, that practice would be effectually stopped. He referred his noble and learned Friend to the 12th section of the Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, as showing that the vesting of the dry legal estate in the official trustees did not deprive the trustees of the charity of the power of making leases and other agreements. There would be no difficulty in having dividends paid to the trustees of the charity; and he denied that there was anything in the arguments of his noble and learned Friend founded on expense and sentiment. It appeared to him, that transferring the legal estate in charity funds and lands to a central authority, instead of increasing, would very much lessen the expenses, except when the trustees were incorporated. The real power would still remain with the trustees. He could not see any argument against the clause in the fact that it had been recommended by the Charity Commissioners, a public Body who had the interests of the charities at heart. All that was proposed to be done was to render more available for the security of charity property, and for the reduction of the cost of managing it, machinery devised for the very purpose and already in extensive operation. LORD CLINTON said, that, as one who had been a Charity Commissioner, he heartily supported the clause. The sole desire of the Charity Commissioners in promoting it was to prevent abuses and the waste of charity property. In reality, no new power was conferred by the clause, the object of which was to remove certain restrictions in the exercise of powers already conferred upon the Commissioners. £10,000,000 were already vested in the official trustees, and the system was found to work beneficially, and interfered in no respect with the administration of the income by trustees of charities. As a proof of the necessity that existed for such a provision, he would refer their Lordships 2 Q to the numerous cases in which loss had occurred in consequence of the misappropriation by trustees of the funds of charities under their control; and he earnestly hoped their Lordships would take that opportunity of preventing a recurrence of those abuses which in the past had constituted a sad chapter in the history of the charitable institutions of the country. EARL CAIRNS said, that if there existed the danger which his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), and his noble Friend (Lord Clinton), had pointed to, it would be the duty of the Charity Commissioners to make the clause one of universal application, and they would be bound in every case to transfer the property to the official trustee, lest by any chance there might be misappropriation. Incorporated bodies were to be exempted by his noble and learned Friend's Amendment; but why? Might not misappropriation be made by one of those Corporations, or by their officer? At that moment there were a great many charity properties vested in the official trustees by desire of the trustees of the charities. He had no objection where charity properties were so invested at the desire of the trustees of the charity, or by order of a Court of Equity; but, without some further reason, he was unable to see why Parliament, by a universal clause like this, should take property from a great number of persons who did not wish to part with it, and to place it in the hands of officials. He conceived that in doing so Parliament would be acting in a manner of extreme violence to the trustees of the country, who had not asked for the intervention of official trustees. LORD ABERDARE, in supporting the clause, said, that, so far as could be ascertained, the amount of trust money in charitable funds was about £17,000,000, of which £10,000,000 was in the hands of the Commissioners. He would ask their Lordships to consider whether the funds in the hands of the Commissioners were not in the highest degree carefully and conscientiously managed, while the funds that required to be looked after most zealously were those which the Commissioners had been unable to reachnamely, those in the heads of corporate bodies. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, with reference to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) they applied entirely to personalty; but the realty would equally, under the clause, be swept into the net of the official trustees. It was the experience of many of their Lordships that no clause of the Bill excited so much aversion among the trustees of charities throughout the country as that which was before the House. [Ministerial cheers.] He could understand those cheers. They meant, no doubt, that it was the intention of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), by the clause, to frustrate any guilty intention on the part of trustees; but it was precisely those trustees who had taken the greatest interest in their charities who considered the proposed clause would be specially prejudicial and most obnoxious. He thought it very undesirable to drive away from the management of charitable trusts the men whose co-operation was most valuable, as the clause most assuredly would do. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, the reason of their aversion was that the clause had been totally misunderstood, it having been thought that it was intended to take the whole management of trust property out of the hands of trustees, which was an entire mistake. On question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?" Their Lordships divided :-Contents 75; Not-Contents 106: Majority 31. CONTENTS. Selborne, L. (L. Chan- Minto, E. cellor.) Morley, E. Northbrook, E. Onslow, E. The Lord Chancellor Meldrum, L. (M. Thurlow, L. Huntly.) Truro, L. Methuen, L. [Teller.] Waveney, L. NOT-CONTENTS. Canterbury, L. Archp. Sondes, E. Verulam, E. Beaufort, D. Wilton, E. [Teller.] Winchester, M. Melville, V. Amherst, E. Annesley, E. Abergavenny, M. carty.) Strathallan, V. Resolved in the negative. Clause 3 (Extension of jurisdiction under 23 & 24 Vict., c. 136, s. 2). THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 20, to insert after "Act," the words "other than orders for the Clancarty, V. (E. Clan- establishment of a scheme for the ad- Bangor, L. Bp. Arundell of Wardour, Aveland, L. Brabourne, L. Brodrick, L. (V.Midle ton.) charities were exceptional in thisthat they were open not so much to malversation and abuse as to neglect, and because they were mostly established for purposes the utility of which had disappeared. It was now proposed by the clause under consideration, as it stood at present, to extend the power of making new schemes, now limited to the case of small charities vested in the Charity Commissioners, to the case of all charities throughout the country, De L'Isle and Dudley, without any regard to the amount of the charity funds, or whether the trustees were consenting parties to the proposed L. Clifford of Chudleigh, Pembroke and Mont- Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.) Colville of Culross, L. Congleton, L. gomery, E. Ravensworth, E. Redesdale, E. Romney, E. Rsslyn, E. Selkirk, E. Shaftesbury, E. Cottesloe, L. L. De Saumarez, L. Digby, L. Moved, In page 1, line 20, after "Act"), to insert ("other than orders for the establishment of a scheme for the administration of the charity.")— (The Marquess of Salisbury.) change or not. The "making of new | end, might lead to great abuses. He, schemes" was the largest possible therefore, moved the Amendment of phrase that could be applied to the which he had given Notice. manipulation of charities. The power which it was now proposed to confer upon the Charity Commissioners to make new schemes would place them, as regarded all charities, in precisely the position occupied by the original founders, whose wills and deeds of gift they would be able to re-write. They would be able to divert the funds of the charities, not only from the immediate objects which it was the desire of the founders to carry out, but to apply them to objects of a totally different character. It was perfectly true that, through the lapse of time, the object which a founder might originally have had in view might become obsolete, and that a change in the direction in which the fund should be applied might become necessary. But sufficient provision in that respect was already made by the existing law. As the law now stood, the necessary change could be brought about by a majority of the trustees making application to the Charity Commissioners to draw up a new scheme. The present clause, if agreed to without Amendment, would practically put aside the trustees altogether, and would hand over the whole control of the charitable funds of the country to the Charity Commissioners. His Amendment did not propose to maintain unalterably the application of the funds of either the old or the new charities of the country; while the clause, as it stood, proposed to set aside the trustees altogether, and to put the Charity Commissioners in their place. In fact, it was an attempt to set up a gigantic scheme of centralization. Now, although he had confidence in the present Charity Commissioners, he was not prepared to place unbounded confidence in all those who came after them. While he did not for a moment doubt the bona fides of those who had made this proposal, he desired to point out that the Charity Commissioners were appointed by the Government of the day, that their composition varied from time to time, and as they might be selected to carry out the ideas of the Government, it would be impossible to forecast what policy would direct them in framing new schemes for all the charities of the Kingdom, which, in the The Marquess of Salisbury THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was fully justified in expressing confidence, not only in the present Charity Commissioners, but in those who had preceded them; for they had hitherto discharged their duties in a manner that entitled them to general confidence. He (the Lord Chancellor) would call attention to the fact that since they had been established the Charity Commissioners had before them 7,100 appealable cases. Out of that large number, there had been only six appeals, and only two of their orders had been discharged on appeal. With such an example of what these Commissioners had done in the past, he thought it was unfair to suppose that they would act differently in the future. Upon grounds of public policy he protested against the view being put forward in either House of Parliament that a Body of this character was to be distrusted, merely because some of its members were, from time to time, appointed by the Government of the day. If that argument were once seriously entertained, it was difficult to see where its application would end, as it might be used against giving power to a Court or to a Judge, and many other great officials of State. The effect of the Amendment would be to give a veto to the trustees of every charity above £50 a-year, whatever scheme of administration might be devised by the Charity Commissioners. Now, it was not when the trustees were zealous and enlightened, but when they were the reverse, that a scheme might be most wanted; and, in that case, the trustees would be the last persons to apply for it. The clause, if adopted, would not, as was supposed, give the Charity Commissioners power to reconstruct charities. It would simply enable them, upon the motion of the Attorney General, or of two persons interested in the charity, to settle a scheme which any persons who were dissatisfied with it, and especially the trustees, might make the subject of appeal to the Chancery Division. The want of the proposed power was constantly a source of embarrassment, obliging the Commissioners to do their work by halves. EARL CAIRNS said, he did not deny that the Charity Commissioners had done very good service in past times and in relation to many things; but it did not, therefore, follow that they would act with equal efficiency if a totally different work was assigned to them, as was proposed in the present Bill; and he therefore, while approving generally the clause, thought it ought not to be passed unless it was modified in the form suggested by his noble Friend. What the present clause did was to give power to any two discontented parishioners to appeal to the Charity Commissioners; and he doubted whether there was a parish in England in which two persons could not be found to complain, and he thought that when there was any dispute it ought to be settled face to face in the way in which any disputed question could best be settled-namely, before a responsible tribunal. Nothing would lead to more heart-burning and more unpleasantness to those who had charge of the duty of administering charities than that statements should be made behind their backs, and that the Charity Commissioners should proceed to settle a scheme which would change the administration without both sides being openly represented in Court. LORD CLINTON supported the clause. THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE said, it had been stated that under the clause the Charity Commissioners could rewrite the will of a founder. He did not for a moment think they would do so; but he desired to know whether such a power was conferred upon them? THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply to the right rev. Prelate, said, that under the Bill a new scheme might be settled in cases contemplated by the section under consideration by the trustees, or by the Court of Chancery; but it was only in the event of there being surplus funds to dispose of that the will of the founder could be departed from. When there were no such surplus funds, the Commissioners would have regard to the intentions of the founder, and simply put the mode of executing them on a proper footing. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said, it had been intimated that the question raised by the clause was not one of great importance. If that were so, it was hardly worth while to alarm and distress all the trustees of charities in the country by this provision. But Parliament, in 1860, did not consider it of small importance, otherwise they would not have given the trustees the power which they did at that time. As the law stood, the trustees were able to express their views; but when the law was altered the charities would be entirely handed over to the Charity Commissioners. rided:Contents 96; Not-Contents 55: On question? Their Lordships diMajority 41. CONTENTS. Canterbury, L. Archp. Bradford, E. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had no intention of proposing that the Charity Commissioners should go behind the backs of trustees; but that they should act after communication with them, and in such a manner as to provide for the best result being obtained at the smallest cost. In the case of complaint, the Charity Commissioners would communicate with the trustees, who would be fully heard. If the two per-Richmond, D. sons were merely impertinent intruders, their complaints would not be taken any notice of. The objection to forcing all cases of dispute into Court was the enormous expense involved. What was done before the Commissioners, in their private room, was done at vastly less expense than in open Court, and in the great majority of cases there was no appeal from the decision of the Commis Bioners. Abergavenny, M. Amherst, E. Ashburnham, E. Beauchamp, E. Denbigh, E. Gainsborough, E. Haddington, E. Harewood, E. |