The Sun.
London, England, 1869-09-30 00:00:00

THE COLONIES,

I am glad to see that the relations between England and
her colonies are likely to be well discussed. There is no
part of the national duty upon which men seem to be so
little clear as upon this. One school among us, animated
by much the same narrow spirit as that which dictated the
old colonial restrictive system, consider that in the interests
of the mother country we ought now to cast off our colonies
as useless, costly, and embarrassing to keep. Another
school consider that, although the colonies ought not to be
retained against their will, and ought, if they desire to re-
main connected with us, to contribute a fair share of the
expense of their own defence, it is yet for the general ad-
vantage of the whole empire that it should,remain entire ;
and that, so far as we are concerned, we ought to use our
utmost endeavours to place and maintain our colonial rela-
tions upon a reasonable and stable footing. It is in this
latter spirit that we have now to approach the subject.
For my own part I must frankly say that I could not have
taken the chair as your President, except upon the clear
understanding that the object of the Council in inviting
this discussion was, not -0 loosen, but to strengthen the
bond which unites the different portions of the Empire,
by considering in what manner the various difficulties
which exist in the _ relations between .the mother
country and her colonies may be surmounted, and
how the connection may be made to bear the best
fruits for us all. The Colonies possess by inheritance
and by virtue of their connection with us many
advantages which it would bo impossible to create afresh,
and of which, therefore, we ought to he very slow to
deprive them either by cutting them adrift, or by driving
them by mismanagement and neglect to the conclusion that
they would do well to detach themselves frcm us. If it
were only that their allegiance to the British Crown
preserves them from the evils of disputed successions,
and furnishes them with a natural arbiter, to whose
decisions they can bow upon questions which
might otherwise lead to endless bickerings, these are
1711;0 thould not lightly he thrown away.
STATE

The question of the limits which the law should place on
char' able endowments is cne cf rather tressing impor-
tance, connecltig itself as it does with the practical
problem raised by the Endowed Schools Act. It is obviously
monstrous-to canto' that every line of a founder's will is
to be literally obeyed, two, three, cr four centuries after
his death, however complete the change of circumstances
may have been, and however foolish, or even mischievous,
may now be the working of an originally wise (7ispesition
of his property. On the ether hand, it is equally prepos-
terous to say that a man ought to have an absolute right
to leave his property to an individual—to one cf his family
to the exclusion of the rest—or to a stranger' to the exclu-
sion of every relative that he has—and that, though it may
not have been of his own acquirinc, but may have descended
to him from a remote ancestor ; but that he ought not to be
at liberty to leave it for the benefit of his native place, or
for the promotion of some good and
-laudable object in which
he takes a special interest, and for which, perhaps, he has
sacrificed his time, his money, it may be his life itself ; even
though he may have accumulated his wealth by his own
industry, and may have no near relative with the slightest
claim upon him. I suppose I may assume that most per-
sons will admit that there are material advantages in the
permanance which an endowment gives to an institution,
and that in the majority of cases—though certainly not
in all—the institution gains more •by being endowed than
it can be supposed to lose in the way of voluntarysubscriptions
which would be given to it if it were not endowed, provided
that the terms of the endowment are sufficiently reasen-
able and elastic to allow of the institution being so
managed as to attract general confidence and approbation.
On the other hand, an institution richly endowed, but sad-
dled with conditions which deprive it of such confidence,
may not only be itself injured by the endowment, but
may become a cause of *public inconvenience by hindering
voluntary action in the same field. The State, as it seems
to me, would act unwisely in discouraging private endow-
ments altogether. Yet in encouraging them it would do
well to provide against their being so used as to thwart
and impede public policy. It is difficult to lay down rules
which should secure both these objects ; but I would
draw attention to some suggestions, originating, I
think with Earl Fortescue, though I am not quite
sure that he would cast them precisely in the form in
which I invite your consideration of them. It is suggested,
first, that there should be a recognised public authority to
which all proposed endowments should be referred for accept-
ance ; and that this authority should have power to cancel
the endowment if its acceptance should appear likely to be
inconvenient to the public interests. In any case of disallow-
ance in the lifetime of the intending founder he would simply
retain the absolute command of his property. In the case of
the disallowance of the terms of a will, the property would
follow the testator's disposition of the remainder of his estate.
If the public declined to accept it on his terms, they would
have no right to claim it on any other. Secondly, when an
endowment had once been accepted, the terms should be
strictly observed for a limited, but adequate, time after its
creation, subject only to the supreme sight of Parliament
to interfere in eases of great necessity, and to a general
power an the part of the trustees to obtain authority
to adapt it from time to time to the varying
circumstances of the day, but always in strict
conformity with the spirit of the foundation.
Thirdly, after the lapse a fixed period, say a century
from the time of the foundation, some public authority
should be charged with the duty of reporting fully upon
the working of the endowment, and of recommending any
revision which might appear to be desirable. Such re-
ports might thenceforward take place periodically, say
once in every fifty years, and Parliament be invited to
act upon them as a matter of course. Such a system as
this would undoubtedly present many advantages if
the details could be satisfactorily arranged. At all events
it seems to present a fair basis for discussion.