320 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



express disposition of the land to 

 certain uses ; and to find what 

 thcoe uses are, we have only to 

 read through the deed. For the 

 first ten years the city of Bristol 

 is to have the exclusive benefit 

 of the revenue. This shows that 

 the corporation of that city did 

 not undertake the management 

 of the charity, without an 

 adequate reward. Lands at that 

 time were selling at 20 years' 

 purchase, and thus the city of 

 Bristol had, in fact, half the 

 value of the land for the trouble 

 of the trustees. The terms of the 

 deed require inspectors or visiters 

 to be appointed. It was argued 

 formerly by Mr. Bell, that this 

 provision was incompatible with 

 a trust. But if it be considered 

 that deeds of trust were not then 

 so common, nor so well under- 

 stood, as at present, this provi- 

 sion will be satisfactorily ac- 

 counted for. The learned counsel 

 here adverted to the case of the 

 Attorney-general v. the Corpora- 

 tion of Coventry, which had been 

 decided in favour of the charity. 

 In many points the present case 

 was stronger in favour of the 

 charity than the one he had cited. 

 There, there was only a covenant, 

 while here there is a trust. The 

 only point of difference which 

 might be thought to operate 

 against this charity was the un- 

 provided surplus. This appeared 

 the only difference between the 

 two cases that could be unfavour- 

 able to the present application. 

 But this was at once done away, 

 by the case of Attorney-general 

 V. Arnold. There the whole pro- 

 perty particularly appropriated 

 did not amount to one half of the 

 surplus, aad yet the whole was 



declared to belong to the charity- 

 The principle on which the claim 

 of the corporation was founded 

 appeared to him absurd in the 

 extreme. They say to the charity, 

 " If the rents fall, the charity is 

 to be reduced, because we are 

 not to be losers ; but if they in- 

 crease, the donor intended that 

 we should be the gainers by the 

 rise, not you." Here was no 

 reciprocity — no risk of loss to 

 counterbalance the probability 

 of gain. This amounted almost 

 to a demonstration that the in- 

 tention of the donor was, that if 

 any surplus remained with the 

 trustees, it could only be left in 

 their hands to defray any inci- 

 dental expenses that might attend 

 the execution of the trust, and 

 not for their own benefit. 



Mr. Filliraore followed on the 

 same side. 



Mr. Bell replied for the corpo- 

 ration. The gentlemen on the 

 other side had travelled over a 

 wide field of argument, while, in 

 his opinion, the question might 

 be reduced within a very narrow 

 compass. The case rested en- 

 tirely on what was the intent of 

 the parties in the deed. It is said, 

 that the corporation are deriving 

 great profits from the manage- 

 ment of this charity. If that 

 question were entered into, the 

 gentlemen would find themselves 

 egregiously mistaken. He would 

 say a few words as to covenants. 

 Mr. Wetherell had stated, as a 

 broad assertion, that where persons 

 are appointed trustees, they are 

 bound by every law of trust. If 

 he meant that trustees were 

 trustees, he (Mr. Bell) did not 

 dispute it [a laugh.^ He would 

 not deny that a trust might be 



declaied 





