AOSA CENTENARY HISTORY 1841 - 1941
Chapter
VIII
THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE: 1865-1895
Contents
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
Chapter VIII
Chapter IX
Chapter X
Chapter XI
Chapter XII
Chapter XIII
Appendix
The Committee seldom came into direct contact with the law but they were involved in some trouble about the appointment of new trustees. In 1879 John Kitching and Isaac Sharp were requested to examine the trust deeds and to consider whether additional trustees might be needed. They reported that the original trustees, Edward Richardson, John R. Procter, Edward Mounsey and Edward Backhouse still remained in office. They further consulted the school solicitor about power to appoint new ones. He replied that there did not appear to be any power to appoint new trustees and that it would no doubt be a very unpalatable truth if it turned out that an application had to be made to the Court of Chancery.
The Committee then proceeded to suggest for submission to the general meeting of 188o, seven Friends as additional trustees: William J. Cudworth, John Kitching, Edward B. Mounsey, Thomas Wright, Thomas James Thomson, Alfred Edward Pease, Thomas E. Pumphrey. General Meeting approved these names and directed that ‘the necessary application be made forthwith to the High Court of justice for the appointment of the same Friends as new trustees, either alone or in conjunction with such one or more of the existing trustees as may be willing to act.’
Two of the original trustees declined to act further. Edward Mounsey wrote from Switzerland that he was glad to hear of the fresh appointment, that he would prefer to be released from serving any longer, and that he appreciated the kindness of the Committee in leaving it to his choice. The second, Edward Richardson, wrote that as he lived in Torquay, he was so far away from Ayton that it would be best for him to resign and that he would thank the Committee to liberate him.
The school solicitor took the next step. Early in 1881 he pointed out that the consent of the Charity Commissioners was necessary for an application to the Court of Chancery and as on such application the Commissioners might consider that they themselves should make the appointment, it would be best to apply direct to the Charity Commissioners in spite of General Meeting’s minute.
The Committee therefore asked the Charity Commissioners for permission to appoint the proposed trustees and to amend the trust deed so that any further trustees could be made directly by General Meeting. But the Commissioners were made of sterner stuff and one of the clauses in the document sent by them to the Committee proposed ' to vest all the real estate in the official trustee of Charity lands’ This was falling into the grip of officialdom with a vengeance, so the Committee forthwith declared that they were ‘of the judgment that the said clause is objectionable' and they directed the solicitor to take such steps as he might see best to get the clause withdrawn. He accordingly took counsel’s opinion. Mr. H. B. Buckley of Lincoln’s Inn considered that the Committee’s objections were grounded on a misapprehension. He quoted various acts of Parliament to the effect that the official trustee was bound to permit the administrators to control and manage the trust estates and to use the income derived therefrom. The trustees also had power to lease, sell, exchange, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the property. But the Commissioners also had power to vest the lands in the official trustee and the Committee could not successfully assert a right to have the estates vested in the new trustees.
Further resistance seemed impracticable and the Charity Commissioners’ draft order was duly submitted to the Committee early in 1883. Still they refused entirely to how the neck, again declared that the order was in some respects unsatisfactory, and left it in charge of Jonathan B. Hodgkin, a valued member of the Committee, ‘with a view of his seeing the Commissioners thereon, in London if practicable, at an early date.’
Now events took a new turn. J. B. Hodgkin reported next month: ‘I arranged for an interview with one of the Charity Commissioners which I was able to effect through the kindness of Sir Jos. W. Pease who accompanied me to their office in Whitehall. We pointed out to them that our sole desire was to have our Trust Deed so amended as to enable us to appoint new Trustees at pleasure and stated our objection to the draft order prepared by them, on the ground that it gave them control over a trust that had hitherto been well managed without their interference.
‘Mr. Langley, the Commissioner, informed us that we were entirely
mistaken and that even under existing arrangements the School Trustees
had no power to buy or sell land without the sanction of the Charity
Commissioners. On telling him that land had been bought and sold without
such sanction he replied: “Then I should advise the purchasers
to look out for themselves because their title is incomplete." We
were somewhat taken aback at this statement and of course unable to
dispute it coming from one who may be supposed to be fully conversant
with all legal enactments and decisions relating to charitable trusts.
We were accordingly favourably disposed to entertain Mr. Langley’s
suggestion that all real and personal property belonging to the school
should be vested in the official Trustees of Charity Lands and of Charity
Funds respectively and that the Committee of the School for the time
being should be considered the Trustees of the Institution.
Return to:
Homepage