§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had a petition to present from the Mili- 211 tary Knights of Windsor, complaining of the appropriation of the revenues of the charity, and praying for redress, and in so doing he would put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack with respect to the object the petitioners had in view. The petition he was then presenting was, with some verbal alterations, adapted to the forms of the House, and also, with some very slight additions, the identical petition that was presented from the Military Knights of Windsor to George II., in 1735, by the Earl of Albemarle of that day. The petition stated that Queen Elizabeth had granted, by indenture, certain lands and tenements, of the yearly value of 600l., amounting now to 14,000l., and above that sum, to the Deans and Canons of Windsor and their successors, with the intent and purpose that the yearly rents and profits of same should be bestowed for the maintenance of thirteen poor knights; and the petition also stated that the Dean and Chapter had applied those yearly revenues, rents, and profits to and amongst themselves for their own uses and purposes. It was recorded that in another place an humble Address to the Crown was agreed to to petition Her Majesty to institute an inquiry into the claims of those knights; and the consequence was, as he was given to understand, that the Home Secretary laid the case before the Commissioners of the Charitable Trusts Act. If these Commissioners had the same extensive powers as a Committee of their Lordships would have to summon witnesses and compel the production of evidence, then he would say that those Military Knights who claimed redress would have all the redress they were at present entitled to; but there were clauses of the Act to which he wished to called the attention of his noble and learned Friend, and to ask whether they did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Board in this case? By the 15th clause of the Act the Commissioners could not interfere where any person was claiming property adverse to the charity, and he doubted whether that was not in itself a sufficient disqualification in that case; but there was another ground on which to question the jurisdiction of the Board, arising from the supposition that the church of St. George, Windsor, is exempt under the 62nd clause, which says that the Act shall not extend to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or London, or to any cathedral, or cathedral church. He also begged to inquire whe- 212 ther the Court of Chancery would have jurisdiction in that case?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that with regard to the first question put by his noble Friend, namely, whether it was competent for the Charitable Commissioners to decide on the complaints of the Knights of Windsor of an alleged misappropriation of funds on the part of the Dean and Chapter, he had no doubt whatever that it was not within their competence to do so, because their jurisdiction was, by express provision, not to extend to the funds of any collegiate church. He did not think the other section would at all interfere with them, for that section applied to the cases of persons claiming property adverse to the charity; but the claim here was merely adverse to the Dean and Chapter, and that would not prevent the Commissioners from considering it. He wished to say that he might have led the parties into error, for, having come to him, not judicially, but privately, and asked him his opinion, he had suggested that they should go to the Charitable Commissioners, not knowing that there were those objections to their jurisdiction. With regard to the other question, as to whether the Court of Chancery had jurisdiction, he should decline giving any opinion, but he considered it would be a strange thing if, there being a misapplication of charitable funds, the Court of Chancery could not interfere.
§ Petition ordered to lie on the table.