§ Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in regard to the Weir Hospital, and to the misapprehension of their powers which the court found to be entertained by the Charity Commissioners; and whether he is prepared to adopt the suggestion of the court that he should consider whether steps may be taken to recover for the charity a sum of £5,000, which the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Farwell pronounced to have been misappropriated, without any justification, by the authority of the Charity Commissioners?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The attention of the Attorney-General has not yet been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal owing to his absence at The Hague, where he is attending the Newfoundland Fisheries Arbitration. I am informed that there is no reason to apprehend that this sum of £5,000 will not be replaced. In the event of the sum not being replaced, the Attorney-General will doubtless consider whether any, and what, steps may be taken to recover this sum which has been misapplied.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention had been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, setting aside as ultra vires a scheme of the Charity Commissioners in the Weir Hospital case, a charity involving £100,000, and by which judgment, in particular, a certain payment of £5,000 by the Charity Commissioners out of the trust funds in their hands belonging to the charity was declared to be clearly unjustifiable and so hopelessly wrong that the Attorney-General's counsel could suggest no ground of justification, and that if the payment had been made by trustees they would have been personally liable to replace it; whether, in particular, he has considered the statement and suggestion made to him in the judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls that there was not a shadow of excuse for this payment, and it was alarming to find that a Government office is capable of such a misapplication of funds committed to its care, that he could find, however, that the Legislature had given the court no jurisdiction to set this right, and that the court could refuse to sanction a scheme, but no provision was made enabling the court to enforce repayment of money mistakenly applied by the Commissioners, but that he trusted that the Attorney-General would consider whether this sum could in some way be recovered for the Weir Charity; what conclusion, if any, has he arrived at; whether he has noticed the comments of the court upon the evasive and misleading answers given by the Commissioners, Members of this House, to three questions put to them by a Member of this House upon the subject matter; and whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps in relation to the mattar.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI have already answered this question. The observations attributed to the Master of the Rolls 1034 were made by Lord Justice Farwell. The Attorney-General does not advise upon the answers of the Charity Commissioners to Members of this House, and has no power to take any steps in relation to the matter.