§ MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner, (1) whether the Charity Commission have considered the questions arising in the year 1895 as to the administration of Peap's Charity, at Raunds, Northamptonshire, and have, in reply to an inquiry by the Parish Council and the present trustees, stated that the proceeds of the charity should be administered and applied by the whole body of the trustees, as constituted at the time of such application; (2) whether it appears that the then vicar of Raunds, the Rev. A. E. Oldroyd, applied to the national school both half-year's rents, paid in April and October 1895, without calling together the trustees; (3) whether he is aware that the new trustees of the parochial charities, nominated by the Parish Council on 22nd April 1895, were not summoned to a meeting by the vicar till October; that this meeting was originally called for 11th October, the date upon which the second half-year's rent was payable, then altered to 17th October, and the matter of Peap's Charity held over till 24th October, while the rents were paid to the vicar on the 19th; that the vicar declined either to attend any subsequent meeting of the trustees or to refund the rents for the trustees to administer and apply in pursuance of their duties; that, without consulting either the Parish Council or the trustees nominated by the council, he sent an application for a new scheme for the charity on behalf of himself and 1248 some of the former trustees of the charity; and that the Parish Council has passed a resolution declaring the draft scheme to be objectionable and unnecessary; and, (4) whether the Charity Commission will represent to Mr. Oldroyd that he has acted improperly in applying the rents of 1895 at his own discretion without the consent of the duly appointed trustees, and that it is his duty to repay those rents to the trustees for them to deal with according to law, and will also withdraw the draft scheme after the expression of opinion of the duly elected local authority of the parish.
MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk)The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is Yes, but, as to the rent of April 1895, it was received by the vicar before the appointment of now trustees was completed, and paid by him in a manner which the old trustees had sanctioned for many years. The Commissioners do not think there was any occasion for a special meeting of trustees in the case of the April rent. In reply to the third, I have to say that Mr. Oldroyd states that the appointment of trustees by the Parish Council was not communicated to him until about the beginning of October, and that the meeting then summoned by him for October 11th was postponed until the 17th, after communication to the trustees individually. It was actually held on October 17th, and the question of the disposal of the October rent of the charity was not raised at it by anybody. No resolution of the new trustees having been passed altering the method of disposal of the money, when the vicar as treasurer received the rent, he paid it into the bank to the same account as usual. Probably it will be sufficient if I answer to the last part of this paragraph and the latter part of the 4th, that the scheme will not be proceeded with in deference to the wishes of the Parish Council. The Commissioners have already informed Mr. Oldroyd that he made a mistake in his application of the rents, but they do not consider that this is a case of misappropriation sufficient to justify a requirement to replace which could only be enforced by an application to the Court.