Royal College of Surgeons of England v National Provincial Bank Ltd and Ors
[1952] A.C. 631(Judgment by: Lord Reid)
Between: Royal College of Surgeons of England - Appellant
And: National Provincial Bank Ltd and Ors - Respondents
Judges:
Lord Normand
Lord Morton of Henryton
Lord ReidLord Tucker
Lord Cohen
Subject References:
CHARITY
Royal College of Surgeons
Incorporation by Royal Charter
Objects
Charitable institution
Will
Construction Gift to hospital for department of medical school
Defeasance to operate if hospital nationalized
Nationalization of hospital but not of medical school
Legislative References:
National Health Service Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6, c. 81) - ss. 6, 7, 8 (2), 11 (8), 151
Judgment date: 3 April 1952
Judgment by:
Lord Reid
My Lords, I agree, and I shall only add a few observations on the question whether the college is a charity. I do not think that great precision can be expected in the definition in old charters of the objects of an institution. In the absence of any contemporanea expositio I think that it is enough that all the indications in the charters point to the object of the college being the advancement of the knowledge and skill necessary for successful surgery and not the advancement of the professional position of its individual members. I do not think that the intention of the charter of 1800 was to make the new college like the old city corporation which had already been dissolved. It is true that the court of assistants was given power to transact and ordain such matters and things as the old corporation might lawfully have done, but this appears to me to have been intended to confer powers of administration and not to have been intended to expand the object set out in the recitals, "the due promotion and encouragement of the study and practice of the said art and science," i.e., the art and science of surgery.
If there were anything to show that the affairs of the college had been so conducted that the advancement of the interests of its members had become one of its main purposes, it may be that this would disentitle the college from pleading that it is a charity, but I do not find anything of that kind. The by-laws give disciplinary powers and provide for the protection of fellows and members in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights and privileges as fellows and members, but I do not think that this means that they are to be disciplined, protected or aided as practising surgeons. As I read it, it refers only to their position as fellows and members of the college, and the powers are powers which any college might have for its own protection. And I can find nothing in the affidavit of Lord Webb-Johnson which indicates a departure from the original object of the college.
It is true that in In re Royal College of Surgeons of England [F64] the Court of Appeal took a somewhat different view. There the case for the college was that its property was legally appropriated and applied for the promotion of science, and the court held, I think rightly, that this was not the only purpose for which the property was held and used. The promotion of science is one way of promoting the study and practice of the art and science of surgery, but it is not the only way. It appears that the college has for long made the examination of students one of its main purposes. I would not regard that as the promotion of science, but I would regard it as the promotion of education and within the general object of the college.
For some reason which cannot now be discovered the college did not maintain in 1899 that, in so far as its property was not applied to the promotion of science, it was applied to the promotion of education; had it done so I think that it ought to have succeeded. I do not think that it could have relied on the words "or for any charitable purpose" in section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, because it had been decided in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Scott [F65] that in that particular statute those words are used in a narrow sense. The difficulty created by the 1899 case arises from the way in which Romer L.J. described the second, non-scientific, object of the college. He referred to it [F66] as including not only the examination of students and others but also "the promotion and encouragement of the practice of surgery, including the promotion of the interests of those practising, or about to practise, surgery as a profession." It is the last part of the passage which I have quoted which I venture to think is going too far. I think that promoting the practice of surgery is a different thing from promoting the interests of those who practise surgery. Surgery obviously has a practical as well as a scientific side; it is an art as well as a science. When the charter speaks of promoting the practice of the art of surgery I think that it refers to promoting the practical side of surgery and not to promoting the interests of those practising surgery, and I think that the evidence in this case shows that the college has carried out the intention of its charter.