The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-28 00:00:00

EY.EXING

iiEfforitniatihat there was a fair and reasonable doubt exist-
in:intihe mind of Mr.-Phipps as to the disposal of these funds
-,TittrtvAought that the manner in which it was intended to
a: ppropriaid these rand; was not a legitimate one, or within the
intent' and mcatilftly of the charity, then he had a right to with-
tett his hand and to y that he would first have the opin:on of
the Court, where the rig :''s of the claimants to these charitable
funds could be fairly urged ant:
d
'Nell a tiOe4._ He would now call tl'se attention of the Court to
:thettneeting of the 10th December, 1,119, when )1r: Phipps
theecriodewderupoofn. b.:Lieftoorienheyege:tiel c to: ededrit
having,been requested to sir
that the trustees might be enabled to pay certain Sims W„:21ei
were due to the several charities, and he having refess
to do so, the trustees, being thus impeded in. Lite dis-
charge of their duty, as they allegesiv -were' comrolled
to apply to their solicitor, Mr. Anstie;_ but he contermCl ,
that where areasonable doubt existed in Mr. Phipps's mind as
to the manner in which the money was to be applied, he was
perfectly justified in not executing the power of attorney. He
was anxious to avoid a public dtscussibn of a matter which,
being connected with a public charity, was not the most sal-
- to be brought before the public. That, however, was
repudiated, and the present petition was presented. The prin-
ciple on which the .Court was called upon to pronounce
judgment was whether or no Mr.Phippshad acted in a di,honest
manner, and whether his impropriety was of such anature as to
amonnt to a breach of trust. The statement of the party on
the other side was, that they had been obliged, from want ai
funds, to refuse the accustomed allowance to the poor wore -,..\•C
at these almshouses, but he doubted whether Mr. Phipps, .A`
would not have been open to more censure if he had, be act-
ceding- at once to the request of his co-trustees, placed in
jeopardy the interests of the charity. He would now
draw his Honour's attention to some statements in the
affidavit of Mr. Phipps, to show the motives by whici:
he had been actuated. He stated that although the ecutrol
of the Town. Council ceased in August, 1836, yet no acconatt
was rendered for a considerable time afterwards, and the money
was vested in the funds. That the money had been antici-
pated for nearly two years in consequence of the expenses of
re-appointment of trustees. They were therefore obliged to
refuse to grant the usual sums from these funds. That he was
instrumental in preparing a statement of the funds, down to
1&38 when there were claims of the Charity remaining unli-
quidated. The Learned Counsel here referred to various
items in the account so rendered, which in April, 1839 was laid.
before a meeting of thetrustees and by them admitted to be cor-
rect. That the parish officers of each of the two parishes claimed
a sum of 41. each annually instead of the interest of 100/.
which they had been preViOusly paid. They then stated that they
were recommended by a vestry to take legal proceedings, and a
resolution was come to by the trustees to postpone the consi-
deration of the question till the next meeting, and that in the
mean time the Rev. Mr. Elliott, one of the trustees, should
confer with the Chamberlain, but no report of the conference
had ever been made.

The VICE CHANCELLOR inquired what was the value of the
stock at present ?
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE said the value of the 2001. was some-
where between 3 and 4 per cent., and it was the difference
between that and 4/. per annum that had induced Mr. Phipps
to resort to the present proceedings and divide the town of

Devizes.
Mr. RICHARDS said Mr. Phipps had merely been actuated
by a desire to discharge his duty conscientiously.
The VICE-CHA2(CELLOR-14Ut while the matter remained
in dispute respecting these two charities all the others remained
Without any benefit whatever._ If he remains in the office of
tru,tee I suppose he will have noobjtction to execute the power
of attorney ?
Mr. RlCHARDS—Certainly not, if your Honour thinks ,be
ought•to do so. The Court would hoe ever recollect that that.
order would be made on the application of two of the trustees ,
—the opinions of the others being divided in the way he had s.,a`
mentioned. Now, with regard to costs he was satisfied that. ;,ion
there was nothing in the conduct of Mr. Phipps that would.
justify the Court in making an order for the payment of the
costs. If his Honour was of opinion that the power of attorney 001 ff
otiT
ought to be executed Counsel would submit that Mr. Phipps e
should not in that case be compelled to pay the costs. What ,vii
he thought the Court could do was to order, if it so thought enc.,
fit, the power of attorney to be executed. but his Honour could , .
not, he conceived, order' Mr. Phipps to pay the costs. '1 , 3'
Mr. J. PARKER said he appeared for the trustees, and his It-
instructions were nut to oppose the prayer of the petition.
Mr. WRAY appeared for Mr. Phipps, and went at consider-
able length into statements to show that that gentleman was
justified in the course which was complained of on the other
side in consequence of the unsettled state of matters, in,dispute
between the Corporation of the borough of Devizes and the trus-
tees. The object of the petitioners was to remove Air. Phipps
from the trust. If the case were to be Minutely examined
into, it would be seen that the affidavit of Mr. Phipps was not ,
contradicted entirely by the statements set forth in, all the pe-
titioners' affidavits. The affidavit .of one petitioner contra-
dieted one statement of that gentleman, and another affidavit con-
tradicted another statement, but all did not unite in showing that
there were satisfactory grounds for removing that gentlemb
from the trust on account of misconduct. He would submit
that the Court ought not, under the circumstances, order Mr.
Phipps's removal from the trust. There was no foundation for
asking such an order, and he was sure the Court. would not
make any order of the kind.
Mr. WIGnAlf appeared for two of the trustees, and did not
consider the affidavits of very great weight, as the Court
should try the case against Mr. Phipps by its merits,
and its merits alone. With respect to any justifica-
tion of the conduct of Mr. Phipps, he would give no
opinion, directly or indirectly. However, he should say that
if the Court was to decide on the removal of that gentleman
from the trust under the present circumstances—if the Court
was to decide that this case furnished materials for such a de-
cision, the result would be, that no respectable persons would.
have anything to do with charities. The Learned Counsel's
clients were most anxious that the Court would not take such
a course, the effect of which, in a small community, and in a ,e, '
community, too, in which Mr. Phipps held the, respectable pa- .
s';ir
sition that he did, would be greatly to be regretted as convey--
ing a great censure on his conduct. In other parts pf the
question he would not - interfere ; his clients wished simply, to
iaH
meat an oppressive attempt to remove Mr. Phipps from the eeni.b
trust. They were desirous of an amicable arrangement bCing,
come to by all partiet, and that his Honour would mot woke
~e,,17r
any order, the effect of which would tend to injure the chaektii, e,dJ 1a
for which alone they were concerned. r bed no of m
Mr. K. Ratans replied. He was astonished to heareltirete,„;sei
vanced by counsel that the Court ought to be influencedepoiese,4
decision by what might or might not be said or thought on the
question out of Court.
Mr. Me eaer—Did not put the argument in that Way.
Mr. K. Reuel: understood it so, and nothing but the ;...earned
Counsel's denial of his intending' o advance what he (Mir )
understood him to sac, would make him believe that such e•-as
not his intention. It was for the Court to decide with justice'
between man and marl, and not to be influenced in its decisions'
by what might or might not be said in the lanes and alleys of
Devizes. 'lee Learned Counsel went on at some length tor
argue that the conduct of Mr. Phipps was such, that his views
on matters of business were so extraordinary and erroneous,
that he was not fit to be continued one of the trustees.
He (Mr. K. Bruce) did not object to Mr. Phipps that a cler-
gyman of the Church of England preferred his own religion
to that of all Dissenters. God forbid that he should do so ;
but why should Mr. Phipps saddle the Dissenters v. Rh with-
holding the money with which they had nothing to do Such
conduct reminded him of the line in the " Rejected Addresses,"
in which, after an obnoxious individual had been accused of
all sorts of crimes it was inquired—
" Who fills the butcher's shops with large blue flies?"
But when Mr. Phipps was informed that the objects of cha-
rity were in distress, that they were obliged to apply to
the Guardians for relief— when he ard and knew
this of those whom it was his duty to protect, it did not in-
duce him to depart one jot from the line of duty which it was
to be supposed he had laid down fur himself, but contented him-
self by saying, " Well, let it:be so—it is the Dissenters have
done it." He (Mr. K. Bruce) said that a gentleman who
~
took such a peculiar view of his duty was not fit to be con-
tinued a trustee. This went on for more than a year, during;
which Mr. Phipps was able 'to resort to legal advice, but
though none of these considerations are able to affect him, no
sooner was some degree of spirit exhibited by those he was op-
posing than he knocked under directly, and offered to pay
the costs. I t really seemed to him (Mr. K. Bruce)
the worst part of the whole case, though his Learned Friend
had insisted upon it as a merit in his client; but it appeared to
him to make the case a thousand times werse. He trusted it
would appear to his Honour that this gentleman ought not to
be continued as one of ;the trustees, and that lie was incapaci-
tated to act. He did not charge him with any corruption or
malversation.- He would say that he had acted under a.sense
of what he believed to be right, but he thought that, becoming
their irritated t a ted
original perhaps
t.f'eel'ing
byli n opposition,wi t
eh tecnoi
agreed
graduallycieeadshhiteoahndahttaodttilheeeym embarked
a rlkoes
dt sightth
this
sequence, which otherwise he would net ha3voeruedgsehonntten.pott‘t
matter, and suitiumed those oblique views and positions in cote-
sequence, which
thea to who
hheadqguiivt
visited, upon the charity ; and he therefore rayed his Hon:
It was absurd in Mr. Phipps to suppose that the!)
Court was wanted with respect to the direction of the
Courtdisposition of the fund.
The only questionyee, should this income be prevented coming to;
the trustees at all for the purpose' of twine dealt with as they
Or the majority-of-them should think°and the ulte-
rior question was whether Mr. Phi proper,unt
eh to be continued
as a trustee of this. stock, and whetherPPso- the charities would
not be better administered if the body of the trustees aid
not,',cemprise that
gentleman. He therefore prayed his
Honour not t
oburden the charity with the costs of he peti-
tion, but to impose it upon the party whose conduct had urea-
skirled it.
The VICE-Creeetaero.ont said he had to decide upon a point
of form, and not, On matters that were iticideetally made the
subject of discussion. In the first place, nothing that he
could say 'with'respeet to the obligation of the Corporation to
pay the 'moneyo tould in point 'of law have the lead effect
on the. Corporation, and nottsipg, that he could say
T )tin n
with respect. respect 'to the propriety o ,ar
that an
p
eedings,- could. have any effek;''*because that question
was not before him. The sole questions before him •-
whether in respect of what Mr. Phipps had done, Me. Plinee...
ought no be removed from the office of trustee, and 'the ques-
tions of costs. Now, when the order was coma-meth by the
Lord Chancellor in December, 184 which appointed, Mr-
Phipps and the other gentlemen trustees, he was bound to
it appeared t
consider that as a perfectly right order, and that Mr. Pespiss
was thereby appointed. And then the question was, ha,eneg
been duly appointed, Whether since that time there had been
diet elegree of improper conduct, which
had
dich would make 'it' right'
4wuld be removed;
Sjet ihai. the truStCes
that 1-I'ldid ande
an
Air' Phipps :'''''rt-linlet-hiinSelfconceerirvoleiehooul: view of the sub-
possibly think it rig.- es ; neatipn, should be made
Of the funds of the true,, e.. although in hand, merely
that ne: a, „e• • Mr: sPhiPtis could
because
ject, and heit commiig.h:t
turn
ought
to have received more than they 'l;stcl received. It seemed to.
him, as he collected it,, ;that,
,Phipfs had his mind biased'
by the supposition, that if an actual'applieticiii 'Of the dividends
was made, it might have the effect cif prejuilidog such a case
as the trustees might be able,thereaftereo make. He could
conceive that, to some extent; in the long 'ciiiirse Of year's such
acceptances might be coneidered as something 'of weight, but ,r•
at the same time he could not think that any thing like a just`
and reasonable view was taken of the'sebject. It appeared ex-
traordinary that Mr. Phipps, as a trustee, did not feel that he • t
Was committing direct and immediate injury on those intended ;
fo be benefited by the charity, on the mere speculation thee._
something might be recovered thereafter, and might be paid to
future objects of charity, which was a very whimsical,:i
view. still he thought Mr. Phipps had all,
along stated his views in which, unfortunately, lie and his
CP-trustees cellist not agree. Now he did not think
there bed been such a degree of misconduct as would make it
right to remove this gentleman from Isis office as trustee. His.
evele point, and he thought it would be too
Was an error on a
,s,- e
thathecause this view was taken, absurd as
harsh a measure/
• • seemed .to him (the Vice-Chancellor), he
conteeSe, ,
should he' •removed. He understood Mr. Phipps was willing
te a power of attorney, and he did not understand
to execute
that there would be any difficulty in acting on that power
whet executed. It seemed to him, therefore, that an order
should be made that Mr. Phipps should execute the power of
attorney, but that he, should not make an order to discharge
him from his trusteeship. With respect to costs, it seemed to
him that the view which Mr. Phipps bad taken individually,
had been the cause of the whole dispute, and by
reason
of an objection which he made it was necessary that an applica-
tion should be'made to the Court, and it turned out that the ob-
jection was one. Which could be sustained as reasonable, he could
not, help thinking ;that 'the costs almost necessarily fell upon
him whO made Alie unreasonable 'objection. These were but
these modes in'whieli he could act. He. could not direct that
the costs sho*coipe,ont of the charities, became they had
him ti
Witht
tuo hrlt te:,