variation; but during the whole of that time and down to the year 1865 the rents were invariably paid and applied for the purposes of that school. The real objection raised to that school is literally this, and nothing else—because it is in connexion with a chapel, its minister was not now appointed by the Countess of Huntingdon's Trustees. That is literally the whole objection. No objection is taken to the school, no objection is taken to the master of the school or to the mistress of the school-if there is one-to the mode in which the school is conducted, or to the doctrines taught in the chapel. In point of fact, the Fifteen Articles are as much adhered to in Spafields Chapel as in any chapel of the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion. That being so, I ask this school having been in substance the school mentioned in the Deed-for what was done was quite equivalent to that-what valid reason do the Defendants give for withholding these payments? None whatever. Then I say unquestionably that on that ground I think the Vice-Chancellor is perfectly right in declaring this to be a school entitled to the benefit of this one-sixth part of the trust estate of James Oldham Oldham. Then we have to deal with the question of costs. I cannot look on this as a fair suit by Trustees-as caused by Trustees having any reasonable doubt as to whether they would be safe or unsafe in making these payments, or in continuing them-but it is a suit caused by Trustees who have chosen to raise an adverse question-who have chosen to raise a question directly adverse to the interests of their cestui que trusts. These cestui que trusts having a right to these payments, in point of fact, it follows that the Information ought to be dismissed with costs. That being so, I can only look on these as adverse questions raised as between adverse parties. I think that the question is a very clear one. The Trustees were in no ways justified in raising the contest; and therefore, in my opinion, they are very properly made to pay the costs of this suit, for this reason, that there was no reasonable ground for withholding payment. They had a perfect right, if they chose, at their own risk to raise this question, and I do not complain of them for meddling; but I think there would have been just cause of complaint of this Court if it allowed one farthing of these costs to be paid out of the funds of the charity. Therefore the decree must be confirmed with costs against the Defendants. As the judgment of His Honour Vice-Chancellor Stuart is most important, confirmed as is by two other Judges, the additional reports of that judgment are placed on record in our pages for future reference:— VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 21. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.) ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. STROUD. Mr. Green, Q.C., Mr. Eddis, and Mr. Bagshawe appeared on behalf of the Spa-fields Chapel School in support of this information, the facts of which were reported in yesterday's Times; Mr. Druce, Q.C., Mr. Henry Matthews, Q.C., of the Common Law Bar, and Mr. Fry appeared for the Trustees of Lady Hunting. don's Connexion. At the conclusion of their arguments, The Vice-Chancellor, without calling for a reply, gave judgment, and said that the contest in this case was whether the rents of one-sixth of the property, the trusts of which were declared by the deed of 1816, ought to continue to be paid to the Spa.fields Chapel School, and whether the treasurer of the now existing school was entitled to receive them, and his opinion was that, beyond all reasonable doubt, this school and the managers of this school were entitled to them. It was said on behalf of the Trustees of Lady Huntingdon's Connexion that this was not a school indicated by the deed of 1807, and that any school in the Connexion, and in particular two other schools which they indicated, were equally entitled. That contest had been raised on no reasonable ground. This school, and no other, had been recognized by them up to 1865 as the school to receive these rents; and what there was to justify them in 1865 in holding their hand he could not understand. The explanation they attempted was based on disputes and controversies between the Trustees of the Connexion and its Conference, and for the history of these disputes they went back to the years 1829 and 1830, and even further back. But they specially relied on what occurred in 1842, when the Trustees refused to renew the lease for their refusal to pay the onesixth of the rents. But why had they waited until 1865; they might as well have refused in 1842 as now? The statements by which they supported their case were deplorable. They said that since 1842 the Trustees had taken no part in the management of the school or chapel, and it had then ceased to belong to Lady Huntingdon's Connexion; and yet from 1842 to 1865-for upwards of 20 yearsthey had continued to pay them these rents. But the real ground on which the refusal was based was to be found in the disputes which had arisen between the Trustees of the Connexion and the members of the school. Mr. Oldham's trust did not require them to take any part in the management of the school, and even as trustees of the deed of 1816 they were not intended to interfere. He was of opinion that the deed contained a clear indication that this school was the object of Mr. Oldham's bounty, and no attempt ought to have been made to misinterpret its provisions. And what was the character of the disputes? One of the allegations of the Trustees was that Mr. Thoresby, the present minister, was a Congregationalist minister. He had denied it on his oath, and the foundation seems to have been that he had once preached in a Congregationalist chapel; but he had been a minister of Lady Huntingdon's Connexion for many years, and had attended the meetings of the Conference, with which the Trustees had picked a quarrel; and because he, with charity extending beyond mere sectarianism, when the school was in want of funds, had appealed to the Congregationalist Society for funds, and had received funds from them, and because he had once preached in a Congregationalist church, they attempted to deprive this school of the benefit of property which had been left to them for the clothing and education of the children of the poor. Nothing was to be gained by such quarrels as these, but he supposed it was in the nature of Dissenters, who began by dissenting from the Church of England, to dissent among themselves. It was from this spirit of dissent that these quarrels and disputes had arisen, and this spirit had animated the Trustees throughout their defence. He could not see why the funds of the charity should pay the costs which had been occasioned by these discussions, and he should order that, with the exception of Mr. Challis and Mr. Taylor, two of the Trustees who signalized themselves by holding aloof, the cost of the suit up to the hearing should be paid personally by the Trustees.— (From the Times.) The Vice-Chancellor : The contest in this case is whether as to one-sixth of the funds given by the deed of 1816, the treasurer of the Spa-fields Chapel School is to receive the one-sixth as heretofore. He clearly is. This is an unfortunate dispute. It is said that two other schools are as much or more entitled than the Spa-fields Chapel School. The treasurer of this school was recognized and was paid till 1865. What are the grounds on which the payments were withheld? The Trustees go back to disputes dating in 1829, and especially in 1842, and they say it even it was then, it has now ceased to be a school in Lady Huntingdon's Connexion. They might have said so in 1842. The conduct of the defendants for twenty years contradicts the very case they now make, because they paid it till 1865. The ques tion gone into on this occasion has nothing to do with the real question the Court has to deal with. The trustees appointed by Mr. Oldham were not required to take part in the management. The deed clearly indicated the school as an object of the charity. Then, what is the dispute? It is said that the minister of the chapel is a Congregationalist, and not in connexion with the old body; but he himself denies this on oath; and what is the reason assigned for that statement? Because he appealed to a body of Congregationalists having funds in their hands for funds, which he got, and therefore he and the chapel and the poor children are described as Congregationalist. His honour said he regretted to see such a spirit of controversy, and he could see no other way of disposing of the costs than to direct those Trustees who raised this unhappy dispute to pay them. The order would be-Declare that the trusts of the deed of 1816 be performed by the Court, and that Spa-fields Chapel School is the school entitled to one-sixth part of the funds, and the Trustees, other than those who separated from the others, to pay the costs of the suit.-(From the Standard.) Vice-Chancellor Stuart: The contest in this case is as to whether one-sixth part of the property of the trust which was declared under the deed of 1816, belongs to the existing school called in the information the Spa-fields Chapel School, as it now exists with a treasurer and managing body-whether the treasurer for that now existing body is entitled to receive one-sixth of the rents and profits of the property included in the trust-deed. My opinion is that, clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt, this school and the managers of this school is now entitled to one-sixth. The contest is an unfortunate one. The Trustees come before the Court and now say that this is not the school mentioned in the trust-deed, and that any school in connexion with Lady Huntingdon's body of Dissenters-that any schools, and particularly two schools indicatedare as much recipients under this deed, and more than the existing school. The contest seems to be supported upon no reasonable ground. The conduct of those who raise this question contradicts their argument. This school and the treasurer of this school-and no other-up to the year 1865 was recognized by these Trustees as the person entitled to receive the one-sixth of the rents of the property. And upon what justifiable ground did these Trustees in 1865 hold their hand and intercept the payment of these funds, which up to that time had been so long continued? Why, look at their ground. They go into disputes between themselves and the body of the Conference of long duration; they go back to 1829 and 1830-nay, even further back than that. They go particularly to 1842, and they say: "This is not the school; this school is not entitled to receive this one-sixth of the profits, for if it ever was entitled to, it's ceased to be a school established in Lady Huntingdon's Connexion.'" Why they might as well have said that in 1842 as now. In their very answer they say that from the year 1842 the Trustees of the Connexion have taken no part in the management of the said chapel and schools, and that thenceforth-from 1842-from the time they ceased to take part in the management, the chapel has been managed by the congregation as an independent body. In other words, they ceased to be in Lady Huntingdon's Connexion. Why, their own conduct for twenty years contradicts that from 1842 to 1865-from the time the Trustees had ceased, as they say, to interfere in the management, and I don't know why they ever did; but from the time they never interfered in the management, they say the school ceased to be a school in connexion with Lady Huntingdon. If so, why down to 1865 did they continue to pay and recognise the treasurer of this school? The statement by which they support their case is deplorable. They go into dissensions and differences of opinion between themselves, those who are called Trustees of the Connexion and members of the Conference, of which, in this question, the Court can take no heed. The Trustees of the Connexion were not required by Mr. Oldham, who created this grant, to take any part whatever in the management of this school, and the trusts benefitted-by his own deed-the deed of 1816, are not required to take any part in the management. There is indicated in this trust-deed -and indicated so plainly that it ought not to have been misunderstood, and no attempt to misinterpret it-there is a clear indication of that particular school which was the object of bounty in Mr. Oldham's own will. And, beyond all shade of doubt, no doubt existed in the minds of the Trustees as to its being the school intended, until 1865; and only then in consequence of disputes. And what is the character of these disputes? Why one is that the present clergyman, the authorised minister of Spa-fields Chapel, is said to be what is called a 46 Congregationalist minister "-not a minister in connexion. He is set up in his office, he is recognised as a minister "in connexion," he attends the Conference of ministers-with which the Trustees have thought fit to pick a quarrel-he attends that, and because he does an act of charity extending beyond mere sectarianism, because he appeals to the body who are called Congre gationalists, and who had funds at their disposal, and because he himself once preached in a Congregationalist church, because he appealed to them for fuuds, and got funds for the support of the school, he is called a Congregationalist minister, this chapel is called a Congregational chapel, and not only the minister himself, and not only the school, but also the poor children who attend it and attend the chapel are denounced as Congregationalists! Although what formid able thing would it be if they were? Why they are Christians. That it should have entered into the mind of any man with ordinary justice and Christian charity to raise the questions that these Trustees have raised excites in my mind very great regret. Nothing is gained by controversy of this kind in public courts. It is in the nature of Dissenting bodies-dissenting themselves from the general opinion and profession of members of the Church of England-not only to dissent from the Church, but also to be torn by dissent amongst themselves; and the spread of dissent goes on till it creates unfortunate quarrels and disputes, which are deeply to be deplored. This spirit has characterised, I am sorry to say, the entire defence and evidence given in the present case; and I cannot see why the Court should not bear that in mind when called upon to decide whether the funds of this charity or the Trustees individually should pay the costs. All the discussion was contained in the history of what was done as between the Trustees of what is called the Connexion and the Trustees of this deed, and in the minutes of the Conference. It ought not to be. As I am bound to decide who shall pay the costs of this litigation, I think the costs ought to be paid by all the Trustees, except Mr. Challis and Mr. Taylor, who signalized themselves by standing aloof. I cannot reconcile it with my conscience to say it in any other way than that these Trustees should pay the costs of this suit. His Lordship here addressed some words to Mr. Mathews, that were inaudible where I was sitting. They were to the effect that with the recent legislation on the subject of charities, it was a matter of very easy arrangement in chambers. If any party chooses they shall be at liberty to lay before me at chambers a scheme for the administration of the whole trust of 1816. In the meantime, the decree of the Court will be that the trusts contained in the deed of 1816 shall be performed under the direction of the Court. I declare that the Spa-fields School, of which the treasurer is Mr. Willcocks, who is before the Court, that that is the school entitled to receive the one-sixth of the rents and profits of the trust-property. An account will be taken of what is due in respect of that sixth, and an order made for payment to the Treasurer. As to the costs of the other gentlemen, I think they must be content to bear their own costs. I make no other order as regards Mr. Challis and Mr. Taylor."-From W. P. Kent, 72, Penton-place, Kenningtonpark-road, S. E. A Thanksgiving Meeting is announced for Wednesday evening, February 24th, in the Spafields Chapel Schoolroom-Mr. Willcocks in the chair, the Rev. R. Maguire, Vicar of Clerkenwell, to offer the congratulations of the Parish, and the Rev. T. E. Thoresby to give a summary of the Chancery proceedings. This will form an appropriate conclusion; but we must defer the report of the meeting. ALSTON COLLEGE. The deputation to Manchester visited Alston College, and was pleased to find the property enlarged by an addition of about sixteen acres of freehold ground. This will greatly increase the resources of the College for its important purposes. Collections for the Free Church of England Extension Fund 77. 14s. 2d. |