The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-21 00:00:00

TRUSTEES OF CHARITIES BILL.

Mr. DTLLIVYN moved the second reading of Th. bill.
He said that this measure had been so often before the
house and so much ventilated, that he would have wished
to have avoided making many observations on the subject
on the present occasion. However, in consequence of the
measure introduced last session it would be necessary to
trespass on the attention of the house at some length.
The state of the law which, up to last session, required al-
teration, related to the trusteeship of unendowed schools,
and to the quality of the education given. By the bill
passed last session the latter subject was only dealt with,
for it merely provided that the trustees should afford in-
creased facilities for the admission of children into
the endowed schools of the country. However,
the question of the administration of the trusts was
not touched, and no provision was made relative to the
question of the trustees. According to the decision
of the Court of Chancery and the House of Lords
in the Leominster case, Dissenters were declared by the
existing law ineligible to act as trustees of endowed schools.
The effect of that decision would be to impede the operation
of the; act of last session. It could not be expected,
when so large and respectable a body as the Dissenters
found themselves excluded from the management of those
schools, that they would have much confidence in the
quality of the education imparted to the children in such
schools. By this bill he merely proposed that no one shall
be ineligible to act as trustees in the endowed schools
merely because they did not profess a certain form of belief,
except in those cases when the founders of such schools
had expressed a wish in their bequest that such trusteeship
should be limited to members of the Church of England.
As this was a modified and moderate measure he hoped it
would receive the adoption of the house.
Mr. SELWYN moved, as an amendment, that the bill
be read a second time upon that day six months. He said
that one of the objects which this bill proposed was to effect
indirectly what the house had refused to grant directly last
session. He objected to the preamble of the bill, as being
calculated to mislead both the members of the Church of
England and Dissenters, for it set forth that some doubt
had arisen as to the eligibility of 'persons not professing
the doctrines of the Established Church to act as trustees
of these endowed schools. The fact was that there was no
doubt whatever on this point, for though no statute law
existed, a practice had been in operation which had been
unchanged and undoubted. The honourable and learned
member then cited various cases which had come
before the equity and law courts to show that the
Principle had invariably been adopted of legalising the
appointment only of trustees to endowed charities who were
of the religion of the sect for which such charities were in-
tended. This was proved by decisions which excluded
members of the Church of England from the trusteeship of
charities which, according to the intention of the founders,
were endowed for the use and benefit of Dissenters. By
this law the contrary was permissible only in the case
where there was an expression of opinion ix the instrument
which conferred the amount given by the donor ; but the
bill went much farther. When the intention of a donor
was clearly expressed, of course no doubt could arise, but
when that was not the case they were to arrive at such from
the opinions of the donor or other surrounding circum-
stances, which, according to the provisions of this bill,
could not be altogether excluded. As a last objection he
contended that the adoption of this bill would lead to dis-
cord in the management of these endowed charities, by
raising a difference of opinion as to the mode of religious
education to be imparted to the' recipients of the charity.
This discord would exhibit itself on each recurring election
of trustees, when each party would endeavour to have an
accession of strength in enabling him to carry out his par-
ticular views. The hon.. and learned member then

referred to recent legal decisions which set this
question at rest as regarded the existing law in
respect Ito Church of England charities and mixed
charities, as well as other trusts. Finally, he contended
that it was ungrateful, after the passing of the endowment
act of last session, to bring forward a measure like the pre-
sent until they had seen the working of the former ;
and he
appealed to all those who had the cause of religious educa-
tion and religious charities at heart to reject this bill.
Mr. MILLER supported the bill on the ground of com-
mon justice and sense. The objects of the bill were to pro-
claim the principle of religious liberty, and to prevent the
waste of the funds of those charities by persons
that litigatcost
ing
questions like the present, well knowing the
would be defrayed out of the funds of the charity.
won
He denied the correctness of the assertion of the hon. and
learned member (Mr. Selwyn) as to there being no doubt
to the ineligibility of Pissenters to act as trustees to
these charities, and he cited the authority of Lord Camp-
bell, who denied that any such disqualification existed. He
confessed that he did not know what a Dissenter was, for
the law had not defined it. He could understand that, in
the days of persecution, a man who went to the stako be-
cause he would not conform was a Dissenter; but in the
present day when Dissenters, as they were called, were
made to pay church rates, were entitled to admission into
the parish church, and burial in the parish churchyard, it
was difficult to know who was a Dissenter.
Sir W. HEAT I-ICOTE:opposed the bill, which he con-
tended would lead to fresh litigation, and throw doubt
on endowments.
Air. LOWE said taat a difference of opinion existed be-
tween learned judges on the subject, for Lord Campbell
t said that the appointment of Dissenters as trustees was

I a matter of discretion, while Lord Chelmsford was clearly
of opinion that their exclusion was a clear and unbending
rule. Under these circumstances he thought it would
be most deirable to have the matter settled by a legislative
enactment, in order to prevent litigation that would waste
the funds of endowed charities and other trusts. Then
as to the question, was it expedient that a Dissenter
should be excluded from the management of
schools to which their children were admitted ? He was of
opinion that it was, and that it was only just that the
children should have representatives on the management of
the institutions to see that their rights were properly at-
tended to, and that *heir religious doctrines were not inter-
fered with. He contended that it was not worth while
continuing a system that benefited only attorneys, who got
up speculative suits, and deprived Dissenters of rights to
which, after the act of last session, he considered they were
fairly entitled. For these reasons he would support the
second reading of the bill.

Sir H. CAIRNS opposed the bill, and said that no judi-
cial authority had proceeded upon the doubt as to the eli-
gibility of Dissenters, which formed the basis of this bill.
He argued that when they admitted the principle that they
were to exclude Dissenters from trusteeship, when the
founder expreised in words his intention to that effect

was most absurd to contend for their admission.

Mr. HENLEY protested against the dogma laid down
by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe), that because by
the act of last session they admitted children to the secular
benefits of these schools, they were necessarily bound
to admit Dissenters to the board of management.
Supposing that that principle was pushed to its
legitimate extent, aid there were children in those
schools belonging to different denominations, each one of
these might claim to be represented en the board, which
would lead to a state of confusion that was impossible to
imagine.

Mr. DILL WYN replied, and the house divided—
For the second reading 164
Against it

Majority —7
The announcement was received with loud cheers.
The bill was then read a second time.
LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved for the appointment of a
standing committee of fifteen members to assist Mr.
Speaker in the direction of the library, and to whom shall
be referred all matters relating thereto :—Colonel Wilson
Patten, Lord John Russell, Mr. Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, Sir James Graham, Mr. Walpole, the Lord Advo-
cate, Lord Naas, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. Monckton Milnes,
Sir Wm. Heathcote, Mr. Massey, Sir G. Lewis, Lord
SLanley, Mr. Stirling, and Mr. Whiteside, five to be the
quorum.