§ SIR HENRY TYLER (Great Yarmouth)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to a remarkable contrast in the instances of two cases of recent bequests, the one under his own cognizance, and the other under the cognizance of the Attorney General; whether, in one of these cases, that of Mr. O'Reilly Dease, of St. James's Square, London, no portion of a bequest of about £50,000 to the State for the purpose of reducing the National Debt could, as the Treasury were advised, be diverted to purposes other than that for which it was intended, or to the benefit of his nieces, stated to be in a destitute condition; whilst in the other case, of Mr. Christmas, of Great Yarmouth, who carefully and specially devoted in his will, a few years ago, the interest on the greater portion of the savings of his life to the poor of Great Yarmouth, 94 it was decided that there was power, and it was considered desirable to divert considerable portions of such money from the purpose for which it was so bequeathed, and accordingly the poor of Great Yarmouth are to receive annually less than two-thirds of that which was thus specially bequeathed to them; and, whether he will consider whether some amendment either of the law or of its application can be effected to remedy such an apparent anomaly?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)I have to inform the hon. Member that there does not appear to be any analogy between the Christmas and the O'Reilly Dease Bequests. The former is a Charitable Bequest, and, as such, is dealt with by the Court of Chancery. A scheme to carry it into effect has to be prepared and submitted for the approval of the Court; but I understand that there has been no diversion of the funds from the purpose for which they were intended. The O'Reilly Dease Estate, on the other hand, was bequeathed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as trustee for the public, to be applied, not for charitable purposes, but to reduce the National Debt. I cannot but see that the circumstances of the two cases are so entirely different that any attempt to reason from one to the other could hardly fail to be misleading. I do not think a parallel; but, at the same time, I will ask for a Report with respect to the will of O'Reilly Dease, and it may be possible to make some further statement on the subject.