CHURCH TRUSTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1900, 7 November 1913, Page 4

CHURCH TRUSTS.

wAnganui COLEGIATE ' S SCHOOLL; • tj -V*. _ % MISAPPLIED GRANT? v England Trusts Bill .(tho gon;. J.; It, Sinclair) was read a ihirdsimo Vo . v -.,' ' ' eaid that before the Bill passed He thought -.the .Council oughfto have informatiou about ®ul, School GrautyVvK^wai^:^ of laild/ ajwu't' a quarter'of / t'he' sizo* of the !iiow very largely'; ;bui%. upon.-;; The; 'grdnt !nad bono ;of oohtention an thc.'v -X- IF' > had never';bcon^d^pH(^ v for''tho -purposes ,'de-, Xpre>'thrift it , enouldvbe :• fidministorjedv for' tlio 'education, -poor' tind destitute-. pfcoplo ' of/'.'.ally races .-throughout tho vPacitic.v.'Tho - trust had ( never, been ajjjjlied .in this' direction, since it was constituted, und somo forty years ago a secondary Schoolhad' been built on .the,-land, Petitions litul been-, pro-' eented to ■ Parliament, in' bygoiio 1 years,' 'but the petitions had not brought about the -result of enforcing tho terms of tho grant. So, during all this long period .since; 1852 advances had been made 'by stages''such as .that in the present Bill, points had boon gained hero and- 1 there, ■ until the title had so far passed to the Church of England that tho lands no longer an endowjnent for tho benefit of all classes. ' It was used for •" a Church of England school, and the title had been so far „ s ' Lr ® n S^ l!enc d until at last the trustees had been-able to mortgage the estato to the amount, of £45,000. With tho •mortgage' presumably went the ■ right of sale, and it seemed to him a very immoral thing that a trust granted for suc/h specific purposes should never he so applied, but should bo worked round until it" gradually became tho property, of the Church-of England. It was. an outrage that';a grant should be so misapplied. Ho did, not say that the land had not been used to perhaps greater r public advantage. The Church of England; had hitherto conducted the echcfbl' as' a'imuroh school/but. no doubt it had been open to all denominations. It jhad been a well conducted school, and for,this 1 the administrators deserved all honour; but was it right for tho Council to legalise what was really a robbery; find; put'thepr'esont holders of the land in'a stronger position than they had held hitherto? The land was referredl to .originally as a. trust; now it . was referred to as a Crown, grant. He doubted whether a Crown grant had been issued,' but if so it would no doubt be given subject to the same conditions as , the original trust.- He would not deny that the school had been a benefit to the district,, but it had not. been a benefit to .the- class for wlu'ch the trust was granted. The £45,000 obtain-, ed under the mortgage had been used for,,tho building of.'.a new.: collegiate school. . The title was slipping away. It •had now got into the hands of these mortgagees, who would have the of sale,; and it was not 1 to the credit of the ooimtry. that an endowment of this kind' should be allowed to pass over to ■the Church of England. Tho strengthen-' •mg' of the title of the Church, to the property by tlie Bill was, he. thought, an immoral transaction. TAn Amendment Moved. Tlw„Hon,:,.J,„E. JENKINSON said' !he ilwught^tho, i qn.esHon i .was. of such importance "that' the Council should have more information before allowing the Bill to pass. It might he that the Bill was'a proper one to refer back to the Private' Bills Committee. He would move .accordingly to refer tho Bill back. - The Hon. C. M. LUKE seconded the amendment pro-forma; He- said ■ the Council wero indehted 'to -'Mi I '' ButHio * or tho_history. ho' had'''given of tho' ; trust. It was-surely , a'grave thing if tho terms of tho • trust were to Lo departed from arid ho thought the Council ? might well refer tho Bill back to the committee. Tho Hon. J. RIGG said that as tho Bill wtis apparently' unopposed, tfresiirtiably tho parties interested were all satisfied, ■ and-there would be ho need to refer the-Bill back. e 3 on i J- ANSTEY discussed generally, the terms on which church trust lands wore leased; saying that the terms'were always unfavourable to the tenant." ■ ... . : ■•, .■ , The.Hon. J. . D. ORMOND said there was another reason 1 why this matter should he inquired into; it was ' that other very valuable lands in the"North Island "which were in exactly the ■ same position as' tho' Wangantii Trust. If the .precedent was established that this land could be sold, there wojtld ,ba n.othing.to prevent the-sale of all, ; the..other ti;ust lands. ... ■ . .Trust Unaltered. ' Tho. Hon. ■ J.. R, SINCLAIR, in reply;" said the wh'olo question had heeii thoroughly ; investigated' by. the committee already. Everything that could be 'said-had then' been, said about the •trust. Otherwise, ho would gladly accept the amendment. Tho Bill,, more- °^® r i did not alter the trusts under: which the lands were held.

H. D. Bell pointed out that tho Bill gave a power of mortgago. Mr. Sinclair admitted that this appeared to be so, but he stated that the' mortgage ot £45,000 referred to had been given under an order of the Supreme Court. The present Bill would rather hamper the trustees in the disposal of the trust, and no rights ex- / jsting when the Crown grant. was given wero interfered with under ■ the Bill He "did not see how, after the full in'vestigation made by the committee, the matter could bo any furthor illuminated by more inquiry by the committee if the Bill were referred back. So far as lie know there was.no opposition to tho Bill-- ' ™ ' ' The Hon. J. DTJTHIE said that all that ho had stated to the Council did not differ from the statement made to the committee by connsol for tho Church of England, Mr T. P. Martin. The Hon. H. D. BELL pointed out, referring to his own interjection, that a power ;of sale was not given where it was expressly forbiddon . by the trust. The power of mortgage was certainly general, but. perhaps it was.just as well that it should bo so. If the Bill had.

I'been thoroughly examined, as he understood it had, he would not oppose it. The 'Hon. G. JONES said ho supported the amendment.

The Hon. C. A. C HARDY said lie did not seo -what good could come of referring the Bill back." The Bill did not alter the trust, ami if tho Council were not satisfied with tho trust they should attack the trust and not tho Bill. The effect of tho Bill was to give the General Synod power to prevent trust lands from being dealt with hastily. . Tho Hon.' J. B. CALLAN. said that in view of the fact that tho committee had already made full inquiry, in his opinion it would be futilo to refer tho Bill back.

The Hon. Ji DUTHIE said he had 1 no further evidence to offer to tho committee if tho Bill wero referred back. ■He had. stated : to the committee all that lie had told the Council, which 'he bo•Kevod to be the simple truth, of. the • matter. v '; Those statements , had not been contradicted in committee.. ; Tho amendment was defeated by 10 votes' to B,'and the Bill was read a third • time.' ■MUNICIPAL' CORPORATIONS. ~' The Municipal Corporations * Amendment Bill (the. Hon: H. D.r Bell) was read a second time without debate, and to the Statutes Revision Com*, mittee. • INDEMNITY BILL. ' ' The Local Authorities. Indemnity Bill (the Hon. H. D. Bell) was reqd a second time. The Bill was committed forthwith, reported without amendments, and Tead a third time. SCIENCE AND ART. The Science and Art Bill (tho Hon. H. D. Boll) was committed and reported with amendments. BEER DUTY. The Beer Duty Amendment Bill (tho Hon. H. D. Bell) was further considered iij Committee. A new clause dealing with the sale of beer in jars and demijohns in quantities* of less than five gallons' by publicans or wholesale liquor sellers was added to the Bill. The effeot. of the clause is to permit publicans to sell beor.on which duty has already been paid in jars and demijohns without affixing to tho jaT duty stamps, provided tho receptacles aro clearly branded with the name and address of the vendor.

The Bill .was reported with amendments, and. read a third-.time..,- I:!f . <> ,> Tho Council rose at 3.55 p.m.