The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-04-02 00:00:00

MR. GARDNER'S BEQUEST TO THE

BLIND.

The cause of "Gardner v. Beaumont" has been
heard in the High Court of Justice (Chancery Divi-
sion), and was a summons to determine the principle
on which a large bequest given by the late Mr. H. T.
Gardner, formerly M.P. for Windsor, for the benefit
of the blind, wa.s to be administered.
Mr. Gardner, by his will, gave legacies to three
institutions for the benefit of blind persons; also
directed his trustees to set apart a sum of £300,000, free
of legacy duty, and declared that his intention was that
it should be applied for the benefit of blind persons in
England and Wales; and he directed the money to be
invested, and that the securities in which it should be
invested should be vested in a committee; and he de.
dared that "the committee should stand possessed of
the property so to be transferred to them for the pur-
pose of benefitting blind persons in England and
\Vales by instructing poor blind persons in England
and Wales in suitable trades, handicrafts, and profes-
sions, especially in the profession of music by provid-
ing pensions for poor and deserving blind persons re-
siding as aforesaid who may be incapable of earning
their livelihood, and generally in such other manner
as the committee shall from time to time think best."
The committee Mr. Gardner appointed were five
persons—his daughter, Mrs. Richardson-Gardner, the
Bishop of London for the time being, Lord Kinnaird, the
Hon. A. Kinnaird, and Mr. Beaumont—all of whom
acted in the trust. The trust was taken to the court for
administration in an action in which Mrs. Richardson-
Gardner was plaintiff and the other members of the
committee defendants. The matter was referred to
chambers by Vice-Chancellor Malins to have a scheme
settled. Mr. Beaumont brought in a scheme for the
foundation of a musical college at Windsor for the blind,
to bear the testator's name ; some of the other members
brought in a scheme to help existing institutions, an ;I to
provide pensions. Both parties agreed that the most suit-
able of professions to bring the blind up to is that of a
musician; and the second scheme proposed that a
large part of the funds should be applied in that
manner. Evidence was given as to what has been
done in England, on the Continent, and in America
with a view to benefit and educate the blind, so as to
enable them to earn their own living, and by teachers
of the blind, Professor Fawcett, and other persons
interested in the blind. The summons was taken out
by the plaintiff to determine whether the principle
of founding a new institution or of helping old ones
was to prevail in settling the scheme.
Mr. Locock Webb, Q.C., Mr. Tindal Atkinson, and
Mr. Richardson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr.
Everitt, for Mr. Beaumont, in support of the principle
of applying to funds to founding and endowing
a new institution, advocated by the plaintiff; Mr.
J. Pearson, Q.C., Mr. J. Douglas Walker, and
Mr Romer, for the other parties, appeared to
oppose that principle, but were not called upon.
His Lordship stated th 3 nature of the bequest and
formation of the committee, and said—The testgtor
gives certain directions in respect of the continuance
of the committee, and though I do not find in terms
that the voice of a majority must prevail, I have no
doubt the opinion of the majority was to be binding.
It appears that of the members of the committee, two,
the plaintiff herself and Mr. Beaumont, approve the
scheme promoted by her, and the other three thick
the fund would be better applied in promoting existing
institutions. Now, though the voice of the majority
is not binding on the Court when the fund is ad-
ministered under its direction, yet I do receive the ex-
pression of the opinion of the committee with great I
attention ; they are all persons specially competent;
the plaintiff and her husband have made the education
of the blind their special study, and I need not say
that in differing from their opinion I do so with great
regret. On the other hand the Bishop of London
and two others of the committee have taken opposite
. . . . .

views, and I am bound to decide which is the most
careful mode of applying the fund for the benefit of the
blind. I have come to the conclusion that, in the first
place, the fund should be aprlied in helping existing in-
stitutions. There are in London and elsewhere in Eng-
land numerous institutions of an excellent character,
and, further, there is one institution of great merit—
the Royal Normal College and Academy of Music for
the Blind in which the testator took a great interest.
In my opinion, in founding a new separate institu-
tion, and merging the fund in bricks and mortar and
other ways, instead of assisting those established and
shown to be useful, there would be great loss. I think,
therefore, it is desirable that the fund should be
applied in assisting existing institutions rather than in
founding and endowing a new one. Ido not propose
to exclude the application of a part of the funds to
that purpose if it should be found that, after cuff
ciently helping those in existence, there should be
enough left to do so. It has been pressed upon me
that the testator has not mentioned his desire that the
fund should be applied to existing institutions, but
neither has he shown any desire to found a new one.
He has very wisely allowed the greatest liberty to the
committee to do that which, after due inquiry, they
should find to be most beneficial.