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 £5, 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 >> Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Petitioners [1915] ScotLR 532 (20 March 1915) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1915/52SLR0532.html Cite as: [1915] SLR 532, [1915] ScotLR 532 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 532↓
In the settlement of a scheme for the disposal of moneys under a charitable bequest, in which the petitioners craved the Court to divide the legacy between two societies, one of which was Scottish and the other English, the Court preferred the Scottish society, on the ground, inter alia, that the trusts of the scheme must be carried into effect within the jurisdiction of the Court.
In re Mirrlees Charity, [1910] 1 Ch 163, approved and followed.
The Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Robert Latta, Professor of Logic and
Page: 533↓
Rhetoric in the University of Glasgow, Chairman of the Board of Management, Archibald Reid Ormiston, Convener of the Finance Committee, and Lowndes & Renwick, writers, Glasgow, Secretaries of the Society, petitioners, presented a petition to the Court of Session in which they craved the Court to settle and approve of a scheme for the administration of a legacy of £1800 bequeathed to them under the trust-disposition and settlement of Miss Elizabeth Jaffrey, who died at Helensburgh on 10th May 1901, “to be devoted by them specially towards the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection.” The petition stated, inter alia,—“The difficulties which the petitioners have experienced in administering this fund arise from the vital differences in opinion with regard to the anti-vivisection crusade which exist among the members of the Board of Management and also among the subscribers to the Society. So acute are these differences that the only possible policy for the Society has been and still is to stand entirely aside from that crusade, and to devote its whole energies, for which there is ample scope, for the prevention of cruelty to animals in all other directions in which the use of animals by the human race can give rise to instances of cruelty. Since the publication recently of the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection the petitioners feel that the prospect of the removal of the differences of opinion above referred to has become more remote than ever, and that there is no immediate prospect of any change in the policy of the Society. They accordingly feel that they can no longer retain the fund in their own hands in the expectation of devoting it to any anti-vivisectionist crusade to be conducted by themselves.
“They have accordingly had under consideration the best means by which they can carry out the testatrix's instructions to devote the fund ‘towards the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection.’ For that purpose they have made inquiries as to the work done by the various anti-vivisection societies that are at present in existence in this country. Some of these societies, while keeping in view the prohibition of vivisection, have adopted as the only practical policy for the moment the increasing of the safeguards and restrictions imposed upon those conducting experiments on animals. Other societies, again, are opposed to any such temporising methods, and devote their whole efforts towards the total prohibition of vivisection. The petitioners feel that the work done by the latter societies is more completely in accordance with the expressed intention of the testatrix. The result of the inquiries made by the petitioners has been to lead them to the conclusion that they can best devote the sum entrusted to them ‘towards the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection’ by handing over that sum, together with the accrued interest, as to one-half to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, and as to the other half to the Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection, both of which societies devote their whole efforts to the attainment of total abolition of vivisection.”
The National Anti-Vivisection Society,Victoria Street, Westminster, London, and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection, having its offices at Edinburgh and Glasgow, lodged answers to the petition, in which they opposed the scheme and claimed to share in the bequest.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection in its answers stated, inter alia—“The respondent Society claims that it is the largest and most influential Anti-Vivisection Society in Scotland at the present time. It has subscribers to its funds all over Scotland.… Neither of the societies mentioned in the scheme appended to the petition is doing active work in Scotland to any appreciable extent, and the influence of the National Anti-Vivisection Society in Scotland is now comparatively small. The recent annual reports of these societies … show that the funds of the Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection are largely employed in subsidising the British Union Society.”
The Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection lodged minutes in which they opposed the claims of the National Anti-Vivisection Society and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection.
On 17th July 1914 the Court remitted the petition, answers, and whole proceedings to the Right Hon. Lord Kinross to inquire into the circumstances therein contained, and as to the matters at issue between the parties, and to report.
On 2nd February 1915 the reporter issued his report to the effect that in his opinion the two favoured societies were entitled to participate in the bequest in accordance with the scheme, and that The National Anti-Vivisection Society and The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection were not entitled to participate on the ground that their propaganda was not confined to the total prohibition of vivisection, but also promoted restriction only.
On 19th February 1915 The National Anti-Vivisection Society lodged a minute in which they stated that had they been allowed to lead evidence before the reporter they could have proved that the two favoured Societies also approved of restriction.
On 20th February 1915 the Court heard counsel on the petition, answers, minutes, report and minute of 19th February, and allowed the last mentioned minute to be answered by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and by the Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection. The former Society accordingly lodged answers and the latter a minute in which they made averments controverting the statements of the National Anti-Vivisection Society as to their character and aims.
On 9th March 1915 counsel for the various Societies were again heard.
Argued for The Scottish Society for the
Page: 534↓
Prevention of Vivisection—As a Scottish society they should be allowed to participate in the scheme to the exclusion of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which was an English society, and over whose funds the Court could not in consequence exercise proper control—in re Mirrlees Charity, [1910] 1 Ch 163. Argued for the petitioners—Unless the scheme was ultra vires it should be approved— Gerard Trustees v. Magistrates of Monifieth, May 28, 1901, 3 F. 800, 38 S.L.R. 617.
The following authorities were also referred to by the various parties— Charter v. Charter, 1874, 7 H.L. 364; M'Lean, November 4, 1898, 1 F. 48, 36 S.L.R. 46; Liddle v. Kirk-Session of Bathgate, July 14, 1854, 16 D. 1074; Mackay's Manual, 85; Trustees of Falkirk Certified Industrial School v. Ferguson Bequest Fund, July 18, 1899, 1 F. 1175, 36 S.L.R. 924 ( s.v. Shaw Stewart and Others, Petitioners); Aberdeen Servants’ Benevolent Fund, 1914 S.C. 8, 51 S.L.R. 1 ( s.v. Maitland and Others, Petitioners); M'Grouther's Trustees, 1911 S.C. 315, 48 S.L.R. 220 ( s.v. Williamson and Others, Petitioners); Governors of Lady Burnett of Leys School, 1911 S.C. 777, 48 S.L.R. 667; Trustees of the Anderson Female School, 1911 S.C. 1035, 48 S.L.R. 839 ( s.v. Wauchope and Others, Petitioners).
At advising—
Construing the words above quoted of the testatrix's bequest in view of her will as a whole, and in relation to the societies to whom the money now in question (and the similar fund which has fallen to the Crown as ultimus hæres) was bequeathed, I am of opinion that in order to carry out Miss Jaffray's intentions the money ought to go (1) to a Scottish society or societies which will spend the money in Scotland, or on objects relating to the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection connected with Scotland, and (2) to a society or societies whose business it is to work for the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection, as distinguished from restrictive or palliative measures.
There are four claimants for the fund—1. The said British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection; 2. The said Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection; 3. The National Anti-Vivisection Society; and 4. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection.
The reporter, who has made a very careful and exhaustive report, has, after consideration of the respective claims of these four societies, and the documents founded on by them, approved the selection made by the petitioners.
Full weight has been given by the petitioners and by the reporter to the element second above mentioned, namely, that the object of any society selected ought to be total abolition and not restrictive measures. But it does not appear to me, either from the petition or the report, that the manifest preference of the testatrix for expenditure of her money in Scotland and by a Scottish society has received sufficient effect, although it has evidently not been overlooked,
There is another element requiring attention which impresses me more than it seems to have done the petitioners or the reporter. The Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection, founded in 1876, is the only one of the four societies with which it appears clear from the documents that the deceased was connected at the date of the will and at the time of her death, and to which she was a large contributor, and in whose work she took a personal share. Meetings of the Society were held in her house in Helensburgh, and she attended the Society's meetings in Glasgow. She was a patroness of the Society at least as early as 1882, and continned to be so till her death in 1901. She was a member of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Committee of the Society, and she was on the executive of that committee from 1895 till her death. She was a regular subscriber to the funds of the Society, and in 1891, the year of the will, she and her sister gave a donation of £100 to the Society.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society also claims the testatrix as a member, on account of her connection with The Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection, founded about 1875. About 1897 the Victoria Street Society was
Page: 535↓
In these circumstances it seems clear that the petitioners were right in selecting the Scottish Society for Total Suppression (which is an independent society, although affiliated to the British Union) as an object to be favoured, and that the reporter was right in approving their selection—first, because the said Society had been actively supported by the deceased; second, because it is a Scottish society; and third, because it devotes its energies solely to the object which she wished to advance. The objections to its claim, based upon its financial position, do not seem to me relevant.
I am reluctant to interfere with the result arrived at by the petitioners, and approved by the reporter. But we have had documents laid before us, and arguments have been presented to us by counsel, which were not before the petitioners or the reporter. The result of a consideration of all the interests involved in the case is that I am not prepared to sanction the selection of the British Union to participate along with the Scottish Society for Total Suppression. The application by the British Union which, it is right to say, is not opposed by the Scottish Society for Total Suppression, is unsatisfactory in three respects—first, the deceased is not shown to have taken any active interest in this Society, whereas she took an active share in the work of the Scottish Society for Total Suppression; second, if the deceased's money should be spent, as I think it ought to be, in advancing her cherished object in Scotland, this can only be effected, if at all, in connection with the British Union by a complicated arrangement for satisfying the petitioners (who do not desire to undertake the duty) or an official of Court (who would find great difficulty in discharging the duty satisfactorily, and who would need to be paid) that the money is so expended, whereas the Scottish Society for Total Suppression can give a full discharge to the petitioners for the money; and third, the British Union are engaged in other propaganda, including anti-vaccination, anti-inoculation, and opposition to the germ theory of disease, which are only indirectly connected with anti-vivisection, and which there is no evidence to show the testatrix would have approved. It would thus be necessary that the British Union should prove annually, I presume to the same official of Court, that the money proposed to be paid to them was to be spent, or which had been paid to them had been spent, entirely in the cause of the total prohibition of vivisection. Looking to the way in which the work of the society is carried on as a whole, this would evidently be very difficult, if not impossible. I am therefore of opinion, in view of the existence and suitability in all respects of the Scottish Society for Total Suppression to carry out the deceased's intentions, that to order any part of the fund in question to be paid to the British Union would not be to frame the best scheme for giving the fullest effect in the most efficient way to Miss Jaffray's wishes.
I reject the claims of The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection because that Society does not confine its operations to the total abolition of vivisection, but promotes measures, such as the Exclusion of Higher Animals Bill of 1913, which, however thoroughly carried out, would not produce this result; and therefore the complicated system of receipts to which I have referred would be necessary in its case also. And I reject the claim of The National Anti-Vivisection Society on the same ground, and also because that society is not a Scottish society.
In the circumstances I think all the claimants and minuters should be found entitled to their judicial expenses out of the fund. The petitioners will, of course, be entitled to charge their expenses against the fund in their hands.
Page: 536↓
The above ground of decision is by itself sufficient to put the claimants the British Union out of Court. There is, however, an additional and not less weighty reason against their receiving any share of this bequest. While this society no doubt pursues a campaign for the abolition of vivisecsection, it has recently directed its activities to a campaign against vaccination, inoculation, and the germ theory of diseases, and although it admits that the serums used in inoculation are not now associated with experiments on the lower animals, its antagonism is none the less pronounced on the ground that these serums originally resulted from experiments upon animals. Now there may be a subtle connection between a campaign against vivisection and a campaign against inoculation, but it is not one which is obvious to the lay mind, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the testatrix was opposed to inoculation, or had any views on the germ theory of disease. What we do know is that she associated herself with the most extreme form of opposition to vivisection, of which the other society that the petitioners propose to favour was the Scottish exponent. That society has also the merit of having been supported by Miss Jaffray during her lifetime, and although it is at first sight strange she should not have made it her legatee, there may be reasons with which we are not familiar why she should have made the bequest to societies formed for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals, with the express instruction that these societies should devote the bequest towards the suppression of that form of cruelty to animals which was, she believed, involved in vivisection, even for scientific purposes. On the whole, therefore, I think we are most nearly giving effect to her wishes in approving of a scheme whereby the whole bequest will be paid to the Scottish society with which the testatrix was herself connected, and which has for its only object the total suppression of vivisection, in the furtherance of which cause the testatrix desired her bequest to be expended.
The
The Court settled and approved of the following scheme for the administration of the legacy referred to in the petition, viz.—“That the legacy of £1800 bequeathed by Miss Elizabeth Jaffrey to ‘The Glasgow and West of Scotland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,’ along with the accumulated income thereon, be paid over to ‘The Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection,’ to be devoted by that society towards the total and absolute prohibition of vivisection in terms of Miss Jaffrey's bequest, subject to deduction therefrom of the expenses hereafter found due.”
Counsel for the Petitioners— Leadbetter. Agents— Bell, Bannerman, & Finlay, W.S.
Counsel for the National Anti-Vivisection Society—The Solicitor-General ( Morison, K.C.)— Smith Clark. Agents— Henderson & Mackenzie, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection— Carmont. Agents— Webster, Will, & Company, W.S.
Counsel for the Scottish Society for the Total Suppression of Vivisection— Constable, K.C.— Wilton. Agents— Pitcairn & Mathers, W.S.
Counsel for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection— Macphail, K.C.— MacRobert. Agents— H. & H. Tod, W.S.
