Scottish Court of Session Decisions

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↓