Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received
The Editor
HTML Transcription
© F.Coakley , 2026
[from the Medical Aid and Poor Relief Commission Report - 1879]
Peruse Trust Deed from Caesar Bacon and others to Chaplain and Wardens of St. Matthew's dated 11th November, 1835 [SSS Oct 1843 30].
1. Suppose the sums of £600 and £165 belonging to the poor of Douglas were advanced by the Chaplain and Wardens of St. Matthew's, in terms of the deed, was the investment thereof, on such conditions as are set forth in the deed, a legal application of the funds?
2. Suppose the almshouses and medical dispensary mentioned in the trust deed have not been erected ; or suppose they, or either of them, have been discontinued for upwards of three years, although the non-erection or discontinuance: has been approved by the Chaplain and Wardens and the Committee of twenty-four, by deed or otherwise, what effect has such non- erection or failure in keeping up the same on the trusts of the deed even supposing the trusts were otherwise legal and regular ?
3. Would the application of any part of the funds towards a medical dispensary not on the premises, and not managed by the Chaplain and Wardens , or the twenty-four Committee, be a legal application in terms of the deed, or a breach of trust, and any such application purge any forfeiture respecting the non-erection thereof on the premises?
4. Would the length of time and the acquiescence of the Chaplain and Wardens of St. Matthew's in the beach of trust have any effect in healing any original illegality ?
5. What proceedings could be instituted to reinstate the Chaplain and Wardens of St. Matthew's in the possession and control of the House of Industry, and if reinstated, could any scheme be legally fixed to allow the charity to be managed by an elected Committee ?
1. We are of opinion that the application of the moneys by the Chaplain and Wardens on the conditions set forth in the deed was a breach of trust and an illegal application of the moneys. They virtually parted with all control of the moneys, and this, as trustees, they had no right to do. They formed but three out of twenty-four managers, and they could at any time be deprived of the control of the funds (which as trustees they were bound to manage) by any four of the Committee of twenty-four mentioned in the deed.
2. Supposing the trust deed to be valid, we consider that there was no power vested in the trustees or committee or both, to dispense with the provisions of the deed as to the erection or continuance of almshouses and medical dispensary, and, therefore, we are of opinion that the non-erection of such premises, or either of them, or the failure to keep up them, or either of them, for a period of three years on the premises, by the terms of the deed, operates as a forfeiture of all right or authority on the part of the Committtee of twenty-four, and that the Chaplain and Wardens of St Matthew's have a right to the exclusive management of the trust property.
3. We think any application of the funds in the manner suggested in Question 3 would not purge any forfeiture; it would in fact, be a further breach of trust. The persons in whom the management of the funds is vested by the trust deed could have no right to part with them and place them under other management.
4. No lapse of time or acquiescence would have any effect in healing a breach of trust or any original illegality in varrying into effect the trusts of the deed.
5. If the Committee agree, the question as to whether or not there is a forfeiture could be easily tried before the Deemster a suit by the Chaplain and Wardens for possession. This mode would be speedy and inexpensive. But if there be no such agreement, the proper course of proceedings is in the Chancery Court, either by Bill at the suit of the Chaplain and Wardens of St. Matthew's, or any of them, or by the Attorney-General at the relation of any inhabitant or inhabitants of the town.
The Court of Chancery has power, when the charity is before it, to settle a scheme for its management; and, considering the breaches of trust hitherto, we think such power of the Court would be exercised. In framing a scheme the Court would take into account the means available for the support of the charity, and if it appeared that for its efficiciency it must be dependent on public subscription, or contribution, of funds not being part of the endowment of the charity, we think that the Court would provide for the appointment of a Committee of Management of such persons and in such manner as would be most likely to inspire public confidence.
But without any proceedings in the Court of Chancery, or if the case should be brought into that Court, and it should be decided that there has been a fortfeiture without proceeding to the settlement of a scheme, the Chaplain aad Warden could, without requiring any authority from the Court, arrange for the management of the funds by any Committee approved of by them (however such Committee might be appointed or elected) provided the Chaplain and Wardens reserve the right of supervision of the proceedings of the Committee, the right of veto on their proceedings, and the right of resuming the personal management of the funds at any time.
(Signed) J. GELL, RICHARD SHERWOOD. Castletown, 26th December, 1868.
The background to this is the mechanism by which the House of Industry was established and funded - the Trust Deed mentioned is that found in South Side Sales [SSS Oct 1843 30] of 1843 which long deed is summarised:
dated 11 Nov 1835; recites that a public meeting on 4th Nov 1834 for considering the more effectual relief of the Poor resolved that in consideration of the minister [Chaplain] + Wardens of St Matthew's engaging to advance £500 to be laid out towards the erecting of a House of Industry, Alms houses + medical dispensary, a committee was established which having raised £350 by subscription - Caesar Bacon + others (see SSS Oct 1843 24 dated 4 Feb 1835) having already engaged to acquire a site called the brick field, for the £850 and erect thereon the said house of Industry, almshouses + dispensary to be regulated by 24 trustees of which the ministers and wardens of the Established Churches in Douglas and the High Bailiff thereof to form 12 of them and the other 12 to be elected out of the annual subscribers of £1 (+ upward); in case of failure in upkeep the management to fall to the minister + wardens of St Matthews - the parties of the February deed + their wives for the said £500 from the Revd John Cannell Chaplain and Samuel Harris + Nicholas Boscow wardens of St Matthews, agree to transfer to a committee comprising the High Bailiff of Douglas, Caesar Bacon, Rev Thomas Howard, Henry Robert Oswald, Henry Bridson, George Crebbin, Rev Wm McLean, James Moore, Capt Robt Muter, Wm Duff, Samuel Harris, Nicholas Boscow and Wm Stephen
The earlier deed by which Caesar Bacon and others entered into an agreement to acquire the land is SSS Oct 1843 24 and summarised:
dated 4 Feb 1835;Calcot Heywood(Glencrutchery, Onchan) sells for 5s(Brit) + £20 annual ground rent to Caesar Bacon and William Stephens, Henry Robert Oswald, James Moore, Revd Wm Carpenter, George Crebbin, William Dufff and Thomas Bridson (all? of Douglas) a certain field known as the Brick Field in Onchan to which I became entitled as heir-at-law of brother Thomas Heywood some time ago decd - together with a right of road 18ft in breadth from west end of Mona terrace to east boundary of sd field adj north of boundary wall of Wm Christian; Caesar Bacon et al have the right to purchase said ground rent within 3 years for £400 + any arrears; Noted that a further rent of £100 would be due if the purchasers build a Cholera Hospital on sd field; Witt Sam Thomson, James Killip
The gap of near 35 years since the signing and the above opinion is probably due to the significant deterioration in relations between the Established church and the non-conformists (mostly Methodists)
|
|
||
|
|
|
House of Industry |
|
|
||
|
Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received
The Editor |
||