an appeal to Chancery, by way of petition in a summary way (x). The Acts under consideration also authorize the appointment of corporate bodies, called "The Official Trustees of Charity Lands," and "The Official Trustees of Charitable Funds," in whom respectively the land, stock, securities and money of charities may, under such circumstances as pointed out therein, from time to time become vested by order of any court having jurisdiction (y); and the Charity Commissioners may order these corporations, respectively, to convey the land, or to assign and pay over the stock, securities and money, as they shall think expedient (z). A great number of cases, however, are exempted from the operation of the Acts (a); and among others it is provided that they shall not extend to the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London or Durham; or to any college or hall in those universities; or to any cathedral or collegiate church (b); or to the colleges of Eton and Winchester (c);-though any excepted charities may petition (x) See 23 & 24 Vict. c. 136, s. 8, and 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, ss. 10, 11. (y) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, ss. 48, 53; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124, s. 15, &c. (z) Sect. 37. (a) Charities or institutions exclusively for the benefit of Roman Catholics, were originally altogether exempted from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners for a temporary period; and this was continued, by successive enactments, till 1st July, 1860 (see 22 & 23 Vict. c. 50). The law, however, regarding these charities now depends on 23 & 24 Vict. c. 134; which-in cases where an estate is given on trust for the exclusive benefit of Roman Catholics, but is invalidated by reason of certain of the trusts being superstitious or otherwise illegal-enables such estate or its income to be apportioned in chancery, or by the Charity Commissioners, and a declaration to be made that a fixed proportion thereof shall be subject to such of the trusts as are lawful, and the residue to such trusts for the benefit of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, as the court or board may, under the circumstances, consider to be most just; and to establish any scheme for giving effect to such apportionment. (b) See 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 62. (c) 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124, s. 47-49. the Board to have the benefit of the above enactments allowed to them; and any charities whatever may refer any question or dispute arising among their members, in relation to the management, to the arbitration of the Board (d). Some account having now been given of the legislative enactments relating to charities, we will next advert to certain general principles which may be collected from the judicial decisions in regard to donations, trusts or endowments of this character. By proceedings then, taken in chancery, all trustees of charities, on having committed to them trusts of a public description, may be called to account for the funds committed to their charge, or new trustees, (where circumstances so require,) may be appointed,-improvident alienations of charitable estates may be rescinded,schemes for carrying properly into effect the intention of the donor, (where the case calls for such interference,) may be judicially projected and established,-and every species of relief afforded which it is in the nature of such institutions to require. This equitable jurisdiction, however, as exercised by the court, is not allowed to usurp upon the proper province of those to whom the administration of the charity may have been confided by the founders. In the case of corporations endowed for charitable purposes, the management is usually vested in governors, subject to a controlling or visitatorial power in the founder and his heirs, or in such persons as the founder shall appoint (e); and with the proceedings of such functionaries the law does not interfere, unless they have also the management of the revenues, and are found to be abusing (d) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, ss. 63, 64; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 124, s. 46. (e) See Eden v. Forster, 2 P. Wms. 326; 3 Salk. 379; 1 Bl. Com. 480; Philips v. Bury, Ld. Raym. 8; R. v. Governors of Darlington Free School, 6 Q. B. 682. their trust (g). It is to be observed, however, that when the king is the founder of an eleemosynary lay corporation, the visitatorial power is vested in the crown, and committed by royal authority to the Lord Chancellor; who may thus be called upon to redress abuses properly falling within the province of a visitor: but this jurisdiction belongs to him in his personal character only as representative of the crown, and not as judge in chancery (h). With respect to the nature of those charitable trusts, to which the jurisdiction of the court attaches, we may remark that the word charitable is to be here understood in a very large sense. For not only gifts for the benefit of the poor are included, but also all endowments for the advancement of learning (i), as well as institutions for the advancement of science and art, and for any other useful and public purpose (k). The term comprises also donations for pious or religious objects; as to which we may remark, that all objects are considered as religious, which tend to the benefit either of the Established Church of England, or of any body of dissenters sanctioned by law (1); and that trusts for the maintenance of Roman Catholic worship are now placed on a similar footing (m). And though a trust for the ad (g) See the case of Kirkby Ravensworth Hospital, 15 Ves. jun. 314; 2 Ves. jun. 42; Case of Berkhampstead Free School, 2 V. & B. 138; Attorney-General v. Talbot, 3 Atk. 673; Same v. Lock, ibid. 165; Same v. Price, ibid. 108. (h) See 1 Bl. Com. 480; Co. Litt. 96 a; Ex parte Dann, 9 Ves. 547; R. v. St. Catherine's Hall, 4 T. R. 233. Accordingly, this jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor is not transferred by the Judicature Act, 1873, to the High Court of Justice estab lished by that act. (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 17, subs. 5.) (i) Attorney-General v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. sen. 537. (k) See Attorney-General v. Heelis, 3 Sim. & Stu. 67; Trustees of British Museum v. White, ibid. 594; Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 551. (1) Attorney-General v. Pearson, 3 Meriv. 409; Attorney-General v. Cock, 2 Ves. sen. 273. See 18 & 19 Vict. c. 81, s. 9. (m) See 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 115; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 86, s. 2; 23 & 24 Vict. c. 134; sup. vol. II. p. 709. vancement of the Jewish religion, as well as of any other faith hostile to Christianity, was once held illegal, and as such excluded from the protection of chancery (n); yet as regards the Jews it is now provided by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59, s. 2, and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 86, s. 2, that her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall be liable, in respect to their schools, places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, and the property held therewith, to the same laws as those to which her Majesty's protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England are liable, and to no other (o). Though the definition of charitable trusts is thus wide, we are, nevertheless, to remark that it does not extend to gifts of a strictly private character; for if a sum of money be bequeathed with direction to apply it "to such purposes of benevolence and liberality as the executor shall approve," or even "in private charity," no charitable trust will be created such as will be taken cognizance of in chancery, but the property will belong to the next of kin free from any condition (p). On the other hand, where a gift is for a purpose clearly falling within the description of public charity, though expressed in the most general and indefinite terms, the trust will never be allowed to fail on account of the uncertain limitation of the objects, but the law will provide for it some particular mode of application. In some cases of this description, the right of disposition belongs to the sovereign, who makes it under the sign manual; in others, it is made in chancery (7). It is a rule with respect to all charities, that the intention of the donor, so far as it is practicable and legal, shall be strictly observed; the law not permitting it to be varied without necessity, even by consent of his heirs (r). (n) See In re Masters, &c. of the Bedford Charity, 2 Swanst. 487; 1 Dickens, 258. () Vide sup. vol. II. p. 710. (p) Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 10 Ves. 522. (4) Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 1 Turn. & Russ. 260; 10 Ves. 522; Bac. Ab. Ch. Uses. (r) Attorney-General v. The Margaret and Regius Professors in Cambridge, 1 Vern, 55, But where it is incapable of being literally acted upon, or its literal performance would be unreasonable, a decree will be made for its execution, cyprès; that is, in some method conformable to the general object, and adhering as closely as possible to the specific design of the donor (s). For example, where a sum of money was bequeathed to trustees, to be distributed among the inhabitants of several specified parishes, in money, provision, physic, or clothes, as the trustees should think fit, and the fund ultimately became too large to be suitably confined to those objects,the court directed it to be applied to the further objects of instructing and apprenticing the children of those parishes to benefit which the charity was designed (1). On a somewhat similar principle it was provided by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 45 (known as "Lord Lyndhurst's Act"), as to meeting-houses founded for dissenters, that, where no particular religious doctrines or mode of worship shall have been prescribed by the deed or instrument of trust, the usage of the congregation for twenty-five years shall be taken as conclusive evidence of the doctrines and worship which may be properly observed in such meeting-houses (u). Lastly, we may remark, that, though among the civilians, a legacy to pious or charitable uses was entitled to a preference over other bequests in a will, it is not so by our law, which directs that in the case of a deficiency of assets, the charitable legacies shall abate in proportion with the others (x). II. BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.-Besides charities (properly so called), there are various institutions in this (s) See Att.-Gen. v. Boultbee, 2 Ves. jun. 380; Att.-Gen. v. The Ironmongers' Company, 2 Mylne & Keen, 576; New v. Bonaker, Law Rep., 4 Eq. Ca. 655. (t) Att.-Gen. v. Whitchurch, 3 Ves. 141. See also the Bishop of Hereford v. Adams, 7 Ves. 324; Att.-Gen. v. Bovill, 1 Phill. 762; (a) Bac. Ab. Ch. Uses, E. As to abatement of legacies, vide sup. vol. II. p. 206. |