BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Greig v. Heriot's Hospital (ante, p. 27) [1866] ScotLR 1_245 (28 March 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0245.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 1_245, [1866] ScotLR 1_245 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 245↓
Held (aff. Lord Jerviswoode) that the Governors of Heriot's Hospital are assessable for the poor in respect of the lands and heritages occupied by them for the purposes of the Hospital.
The question raised in this action is whether the lands and heritages situated in the City Parish of Edinburgh, and belonging to and occupied by the defenders, “the feofees of trust and governors of George Heriot his Hospital,” incorporated by Act of Parliament, are assessable for the support of the poor. The inspector of the City Parish raised this action for the purpose of having it declared that they were, and the Lord Ordinary (Jerviswoode) decerned and declared as concluded for. His Lordship referred to the cases of Adamson v. the Clyde Trustees ( 22 D. 606, and 3 Macp. H. L. 100); Gardner v. Leith Dock Commissioners ( 2 Macp. 1234, and since affirmed by the House of Lords); University of Edinburgh v. Greig ( 3 Macp. 1151); Forbes v. Gibson ( 13 D. 341); and Bakers' Society of Paisley ( 15 S. 200). The defenders reclaimed, and the Court unanimously adhered.
The Lord President said—I think this is scarcely an open question. The argument in favour of exemption has been most forcibly and ingeniously put to us; but I think the principles which regulated the decisions of the House of Lords in the Mersey Docks case and in the cases from this country, as well as the principle of the recent decision of the Second Division in the case of the University of Edinburgh, finding that it was exempt, are conclusive in this case. I am not moved by the argument that there are here no owners. The trustees are in the beneficial occupation of the subjects, not the boys. The mere fact that the boys pay nothing is immaterial. It is said there is exemption because the institution is an educational and charitable one. But if this were a good argument it would lead to the exemption of the whole revenues of the Hospital, which is not contended for. Is the institution, then, a Crown or national one? I don't think it is in any sense. The fact of an Act of Parliament having been passed in regard to it for the purpose of extending, in consequence of exceptional circumstances, the benefits of the charity to objects other than those contemplated by its founder, does not make it a national institution if it was not so before. It is quite a usual thing to obtain an Act of Parliament to innovate upon the objects of a charitable trust such as this. It is not materially different from an estate bill introduced into Parliament for the purpose of getting the better of some difficulty which the law cannot remove without its intervention. This is not in itself a national institution. George Heriot left his means not only for a local purpose, but also for a limited purpose. No doubt it was said the institution was a national ornament, which was explained to mean not that the building but that the foundation was so—as a man may be said to be an ornament to his country without any reference to his physical appearance. I don't think this will do either. The nation contributed nothing to it, had no voice in its management, and has done nothing in regard to it except passing the Act of Parliament. It is said the institution has been hitherto exempt. That means that it has not hitherto been taxed. But it is to be remembered that before the passing of the Poor Law Act
Page: 246↓
The other Judges concurred.
Counsel for Pursuer— The Lord Advocate and Mr Gifford. Agents— Messrs Webster & Sprott, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defender— Mr Patton and Mr Millar, Agents— Messrs MacRitchie, Bayley, & Henderson, W.S.
