Has the city power to take in trust? *The old doctrine was that a corpora- [*148 tion could not be seized to a use. (Sugden on Uses, 10.) not passed, and is considered as abandoned. | ors forever, or they can alienate it as a natural As to the second, this charity is as precise as person can. any which has ever been established. The trust is to build upon a place specially marked out; the children are to be poor, born in Philadelphia, then in New York, then New Orleans. The description is specific and limited. In England, a charity, however general, always succeeds; there is no case in which it has failed. The only question there is about its administration; whether by the Chancellor in his ordinary jurisdiction, or under the sign-manual of the crown. The statute 32, 34 Henry VIII., which forbade devises to corporations in mortmain, never was in force in Pennsylvania. The settlers agreed in England upon the laws which should govern them. 147*] *White and Brockden's History of Laws, Appendix 1, says that wills, &c., in writing and attested should have the same force as to land that conveyances had. This was on 5th May, 1682. The same rule was estab lished on the 7th December, 1652, if the will were proved in forty days. (Same book, Appendix, 4, chapter 45.) On the 1st January, 1693, this law was in force. The Legislature requested the governor to declare what laws were in force, who complied and declared that this was, amongst others. (Same book, Appendix, 7, 8.) In 1683, a law restrained the testator, if he had a wife and child, from willing away more than one third; but in 1693, the full power was restored. (Same book, Appendix, 9.) After a slight alteration (see Appendix, 12), the statute of wills was passed in 1705, which was in force until Girard's death. It declares that wills in writing, and attested, shall be good as conveyances. The power to make a will is general, and to devise to anyone. If corpora tions, therefore, can take by deed, they can by devise. The corporation has power to take. If the statutes of mortmain are in force, they do not intercept the grant on its way to the corpora tion; there must be an office found to escheat the property to the State. (7 Serg. & Rawle, 313; 14 Peters, 122; Shelford, 8.) The policy of the mortmain statutes of England has not been adopted in Pennsylvania. The Act of 1791 (Purdon, 182, 183) forbids corporations from holding property "exceeding £500 in income," but permits them to hold any quantity of unproductive land. The statutes of mortmain do not extend to Pennsylvania. If they do, it is contrary to the English decisions about their colonies. (2 Merivale, 143; 2 Maddock's Ch. Pr., 61, note 62; 8 Wheat., 476.) If they had been considered as being in force, there would have been escheats under them; but none are found. The rule prescribed by the court in 3 Binney, 597, was that where there was a Pennsylvania statute on the same subject with an English statute, the latter was not in force. But this could not be carried out universally, for the statute 4 Anne and the Pennsylvania law of 1714 were declared both to be in operation. But it has been since settled that a corporation may be a trustee. If it receives a deed, the legal estate will pass, provided the statutes of mortmain do not prohibit it. If the trust is void, equity will decree a reconveyance; but this cannot be necessary, unless the legal estate had passed. And if a corporation is incapable of executing the trust, equity will appoint some person who is not. (1 Saunders on Uses, 346, 349; Willes on Trustees, 31; Levin on Trusts, 10, 11; 2 Thomas's Co. Litt., 706, note; 1 Cruise's Digest, 403, tit. 12, Trust, chap. 1, sec. 89.) Also, that a corporation may be a trustee. (2 Vernon, 411; 2 Bro. Par. Ca., 370; 7 Bro. Par. Ca., 235.) Where a corporation abused a trust and was dismissed. (See 3 Bro. Chan. Cas., 171, 371; 4 Vesey, 453; 2 Vesey, Jun., 46; 1 Vesey. 467; 14 Vesey, 253; 12 Mass. Rep., 547; 17 Serg. & Rawle, 89; 3 Rawle, 170.) The cases in 12 Mass. Rep., 547, and 17 Serg. & Rawle, 89, may not appear at first to sustain the doctrine, but the cases are right. That of 3 Rawle, 170, is very much like the present, and establishes the doctrine, that if the trust is for the welfare of the corporation, it may take it. The Acts of the legislature of Pennsylvania of 24th March and 4th April, 1332, are strong indications of what the law is in that State. That of March (sec. 10, 11) gives the corporation power to carry out the trust; enacts that no road shall pass through the land, and gives power to appoint officers. Both acts acknowledge and assist the trust, and imply that the corporation had power to take it. This is evidence of an existing power. (4 Peters, 503.) The charter of Philadelphia (page 73 of city ordinances), in the 16th section, grants a general power to make laws for the welfare of the people. The case in 1 Vesey, 534, does not warrant the inference drawn from it by the counsel on the opposite side. (See as to this case, Boyle on Charitable Uses, 84.) As to the uncertainty of the beneficiaries. It is an error to suppose that a trustee must take for beneficiaries known and established. Suppose a marriage settlement for life with power to devise. Where is the estate beyond the life until the power is executed? It vests in no one. A charitable use is only a power *of appointment, and the children, in [*149 this case, when named, have a good right to the use. So it is in churches. When a minister is elected, he takes the estate according to the foundation; and so also with shoolmasters, who have sometimes a freehold. (Shelford. 762, 763, 765, 767, 730.) If the trustee will not nominate, chancery will. (3 P. W., 146; 3 Atkyns, 164.) The tenure of the cestui que use is fixed; the boys of merit are to remain in the college until The city of Philadelphia has an unlimited they are from fourteen to eighteen years of power to acquire land. The charters of 1701 age. They are easily ascertainable. It is true and 1789 both give it. (2 Smith's Laws, 462.) that no one has a claim until the appointment The power is to hold to them and their success-is made. But this is the case with many trusts of private property where the estate is uncertain until certain issue are born. Where there is a power to name some one of kin to take, a remote relation may be selected. (1 Atkyns, 469; 4 Russell, 292.) A power to appoint amongst poor relations" may be either a charity in the legal sense of the term, or an ordinary provision of kindness. (7 Vesey, Jun., 436; 2 Atkyns, 328; 17 Vesey, Jun., 371; 1 Sales & Lefroy, 111; Boyle on Charities, 31 6. That whatever the 43 Eliz. imparted to 4) The only difference between the two is the law of Charles, except the mere remedy by that in the first case, it will last longer than in commission from the Lord Chancellor, is thorthe other. A power of appointment is some-oughly adopted in Pennsylvania, together with times vested in particular persons from special the great body of the equity code of that andence, and sometimes it passes to heirs. Charities are kept up forever. Lacertainty is indispensable to all charities. If anyone has a right to claim by law, it ceases to be a charity. 4. That they in fact enjoyed this protection in chancery before the 43 Eliz. by the original jurisdiction of that court, and have had it ever since. 5. That 43 Eliz. is only an ancillary remedy, long disused in England from its inconvenience, and is supplied by chancery, not as an usurper on the statute, but as the rightful original tribunal for such trusts. Where did the favor with which charities are regarded, and the motive by which they are established, spring from? The doctrine is raced up to the civil law. But where did Justinian get these ideas? They came from Constantine, the first Christian emperor, and hey can be traced up to a higher source than -the Bible. The Anglo-Saxons received ail their principles from the same authority. Orphan-houses were exempted from taxation. Originally the injunction of the Bible was to bonor thy father and thy mother;" but the domestic affections are selfish, and it was reserved for Christianity to enjoin the duty of loving thy neighbor as thyself." The Jewsh lawyer asked who his neighbor was, and it was hard to convince him that a Samaritan could be so. There was the same difficulty as how respecting the uncertainty of the beneficiary. The lesson of charity is taught, too, in the case of the woman who, in her humility, laimed only the crumbs that fell from the table, and in the beautiful parable of visiting the sick and the prisoner: "Inasmuch as ye 150*] have *done it to the least of these, ye bave done it unto me." Even in the older Jewish records, we find the same lesson of Philanthropy taught where the sheaf is left for the unknown and unacknowledged stranger. It is the uncertainty of the person upon whom the benefit may fall that gives merit to the aca. A legacy to a friend is no charity. The first trustee for a charity was St. Paul. The ck are always uncertain; and to all hospitals, the objection now made would apply (2 Domat. 169, title 2, sec. 3; 2 Vesey, 273; 1 Vernon, 248; 7 Vesey, 76; 17 Vesey, 371), that it becomes a charity as soon as uncertainty begins. (Ambler, 422; 5 Rawle, 151; manuscript case from Pennsylvania, not yet reported, that beneficial societies are not charities.) Mr. Binney then proceeded with his own argument, and stated the following points: 1. That such uses as those in Mr. Girard's will are good at the common law in England, which is the common law of Pennsylvania. 2. That the city being in possession of the trust, nothing more is necessary for them, as they want no remedy whether there would be one at common law or not. 3. That such trusts are entitled to protection in equity, upon the general principles of equity jurisdiction, which protects all lawful trusts whether there be a trustee or not. kingdom. 7. That the law in Pennsylvania is the same as the law in all the other States except Virginia and Maryland. 1. Such uses were good at common law. They can be traced up to an early period, anterior to Richard II., and the principle upon which they are founded even up to the time of the Conquest. (4 Reeve, 80; Moore, 122.) The principle of these charities is also engrafted upon the old English tenures (Co. Lit., 94 b; *Littleton, sec. 132, 136), where [*151 provision was made that the soul of the donor should be prayed for. (Co. Litt., 96 a.) The tenure was called 'frankalmoign." There was another instance where 100 pence were to be distributed to 100 poor men on a certain day. (Co. Litt., 96 b; 2 Inst., 456, 406.) There were perpetual charities in trust. (6 Co. Rep., 2; Co. Litt., 149 a; Brooke's Abr., part 2, Tenure, 53.) Some of the early statutes recognized them. The stat. 17 Edward II. (ch. 12), passed in 1334, related to the Knights Templars; at the dissolution of the order, the lands were assigned to the Knights of St. John for the same godly uses to which they had been applied, viz. relieving the poor, &c. There arose a contest between religious houses and the king about mortmain, and afterwards about superstitious uses. Monastic houses were the conservators of public records and the sources of instruction. 15 Richard II. (ch. 5) was the last of the statutes of mortmain. Chap. 6 allowed spiritual corporations to hold the property of the church and the glebe, subject to making donations for the poor. Henry IV. (ch. 2) allowed the vicar to be endowed, &c. 2 Henry V. (ch. 5) recited that abuses existed in charities, and ordered a commission of inquiry to reform them. 23 Henry VIII. (ch. 7, see 4 Pickering, 239), called the statute of mortmain, aimed a blow at these charities. It was passed in 1531, and the king was married to Anna Boleyn in 1532. 27 Henry VIII. (ch. 25) was the first poorlaw of England. 1 Edward VI. (ch. 14, 5 Pickering, 267) endeavored to preserve some of the charities from destruction. Boyle (263, note) refers to this statute, which required commissioners to execute charities for the benefit of the poor. See, also, stat. 2 Edward VI. (5 Pickering, 299); stat. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary (ch. 8, 6 Pickering, 234). The monasteries were by this time put down and the charities destroyed. Then came the statute 39 Elizabeth, chap 5, ་ 2. The city is in possession, and wants no remedy. If the use is good, the owner of the legal estate cannot recover. (2 Dowl. & Ryland, 523; 5 Maddock, 529, 429.) But it is said that the use is not good because the proposed college is unchristian. The bill filed in the cause makes no such objection. If zeal for the promotion of religion were the mo tive of the complainants, it would have been better to have joined with us in asking the State to cut off the obnoxious clause than to use the plea in stealing away the bread of from which the Pennsylvania Act of 1791 is taken; this statute was continued in force until repealed by 9 George II. From the circumstance that the charities were put down by the destruction of the monasteries arose the neces sity of the 39 and 43 of Elizabeth, which intended to lessen the evil of pauperism by hunting up charities, but which established no new principle in the laws of England. (4 Inst., 66.) 2 Gibson's Codex (1155), where the statute of 152*] 39 Elizabeth is *found. This last law is a general one, and covers a larger extent of ground than the 43 Elizabeth (ch. 4). Chap-orphans. We are not here to defend Mr. Giters 2 and 3 show the character of chap. 4. Chap. 2 is a poor-law, and so is chap. 3, for mariners. The 43 Elizabeth enumerates twenty-one charities, but the 39th comprehends all lawful ones. Hospitals were included in the latter but not in the former. The stat. 7 Jac., 1 (ch. 3) has for its object to bind out poor boys. In Girard's case the boys must not only be poor, but orphans, a double merit. There is a dictum of Lord Roslyn in 3 Vesey, Jun., 726, in relation to a will being an appointment at common law; but the point decided in that case has nothing to do with the * present. But there is not a single case where the va lidity of a charitable use has been directly questioned at law; wherever the question came up, it was always incidentally. The Year Book of 38 Edward III. forms the basis of Co. Litt. (sec. 383). There was a condition subsequent, which, if violated, gave the heir a right to enter. What was then called a condition is now called a trust. (Sugden on Powers, 121; Perkins, 563; Anderson's Rep., 43, 108; 3 Dyer, 255 d, same in Jenkins, 6.). The last case mentioned occurred in the 8 and 9 Elizabeth, and is The Trinity College case. The question was, whether a devise to the college, which was not a spiritual corporation, was good, and it was ruled to be so. The Skinner's case occurred in 24 and 25 Elizabeth (Moore, 129), where the use was to pray for the soul of the donor. So much of the use as was etseemed superstitious was set aside, and the rest confirmed. See, also, Moore, 594, or same case in Popham, 6, where the heir of the executor who had a trust estate recovered from the heir of the donor. In Porter's case (1 Co. Rep., 22, 92), the question was not raised whether a charitable use was good at common law. We see from these cases what the condition of England was about the time of 34 Elizabeth. The statute 23 Henry VIII. did not go into effect for twenty years. (Duke, 360; 4 Co. Rep., 116; 8 Co. Rep., 130.) All these cases sustained charities for the poor and were anterior to 39 Elizabeth. This court has affirmed the validity of charities at common law. A dedication to pious uses is sustainable only upon that ground. (6 Peters, 498. 431; 12 Wheat., 582: 10 Peters, 712; 2 Peters, 256; 9 Cranch, 212; 4 Peters, 487; 4 Serg. & Rawle, 212.) 153*] *The common law of England is in force in Pennsylvania. In the case of the Bush Hill estate it was ruled that the burden of proof is on him who affirms that any particular part of the common law is not so in force. (9 Serg. & Rawle, 307.) rard's religious belief, whatever it was. During his life he exhibited his philanthropy at a perilous moment. When the yellow fever burst upon Philadelphia in 1794, almost every one fled, regardless of his property. Girard walked the wards of hospitals, not subdued by the groans of the dying or deterred by the fear of death to himself. All that he had was freely given to alleviate the wretched sufferers. More charitable even than the good Samaritan, he had not only poured oil upon their wounds, but stood by them to the last. The difficulties that surrounded his plan of a college were great. His desire was to include the orphan poor of all sects, Jews as well as Christians, and those who had no religion at all. He might have placed it under the protection of some one religious denomination, but then it would have become a religious establishment, and met with opposition from other quarters. If all sects were to be admitted, what could he do other than what he did? If any clergyman was to be admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two sects would agree, Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible. See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible as a school book. Girard did what was in conformity with law, and often done practically. He had to abandon his scheme or prevent discord by adopting the plan which he followed. The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christan man de rives his faith-the Bible. It is therefore affirmitively recommended; *and in such [*154 a way as to preserve the sacred rights of conscience. No one can say that Girard was a deist. He has not said a word against Christian ity. In the Blucher school in Liverpool there are no preachers. There is no Chaplain in the University of Virginia. By excluding preachers, Girard did not mean to reflect upon Chris tianity. It is true they cannot hold office. But the constitution of New York excludes clergymen from offices, civil or military. If the situation of a schoolmaster is an office, then a clergyman cannot be a public teacher. Girard only says that laymen must be instructors, and why cannot they teach religion as well as science? Sunday schools are not prohibited. It is said by the opposite counsel that these poor victims are cast into a prison and shut up for the sake of an experiment. But there is no prohibition against their going out to churchto as many churches as their friends choose to take them to. All that is done by the will is to | plentiful, and the court will not let a trust fail secure the college from controversy. It is op for want of a trustee. (Co. Litt., 290, note 1; tional with the friends of the orphans whether Co. Litt., 113; Wilmot's Notes, 21-24; 2 Eq. to permit them to go there or not. Cannot the Ca. Abr., 198; 1 Vesey, Jun., 475; 2 Story on trustees erect a hospital without the walls where Equity, 320.) the sick can be sent and have the services of Clergymen when necessary? But religion can be taught in the college itself. What, for example, is there to prevent "Paley's Evidences" from being used as a school book? The law of Pennsylvania is not infringed. In the case of Updegraff (11 Serg. & Rawle, 4)), the court said that Christianity was part of the law. But it was Christianity with libertr of conscience to all men. This is exactly what Girard thought. The court did not derive this power from the statute, but from its jurisdiction over trusts. (2 Story, 430; 2 Milne & Keen, 581.) Equity is a part of the law of Pennsylvania, and this is a branch of equity powers. The Supreme Court has the powers of a court of chancery. (1 Dallas, 211, 213, 214; 1 Binney, 217.). In Pennsylvania specific performance is obtained at law by cautionary verdicts. (3 Serg. & Rawle, 484; Anderson, 392) By the 3d sec. of the 3d art. of the Constitution 4. Such trusts in fact enjoyed protection in of Pennsylvania, "all men have a right to wor- chancery before the 43 Elizabeth, by the origi ship according to their conscience. If wornal jurisdiction of that court, and have had it Ship were prohibited in the college (which it is ever since. (Duke, 135, 154, 242, 380, 519, it would not be against law. The Consti- 644; 2 Gibson's Codex, 1158, note 7; 1 Chan. tation says that no man is disqualified who ac- Ca., 157; 2 Levin, 167; 2 P. W., 119; 2 VerKnowledges the existence of God and believes non, 342; 3 Atkyns, 165; 2 Vesey, 327, 425; in a future state of rewards and punishments. Wilmot's Notes, 24; 1 Blythe, 312, 334, 342, Christianity is a part of the law, so that blas- 346, 347, 357, 358, 67, 61.) phemy can be punished, but not for the purof invading the conscience of other perBut, at all events, the college is not yet built nor the regulation enforced. It is too soon how to set it aside. The city is in possession of the property, and so it must remain. The administration of the charity is a matter for the courts of Pennsylvania exclusively. 3. That such trusts are entitled to protection equity upon the general principles of equity jurisdiction, which protects all lawful trusts whether there be a trustee or not. 155*] *In England the power of the king as parens patria is delegated to the Court of Chancery. Where there are no trustees or objects of the charity, it is then administered according to the pleasure of the king. See this investigated in Story's Equity, 404. The ancient rule, says Coke, is good; the authority of chancery is There is a dictum of Lord Rosslyn that it did not appear, that chancery had such jurisdiction before the statute of Elizabeth; but he has been misreported, or if he said so, he is not sustained by the old authorities (Tothill, 58; Choice Cases in Chancery, 155, in 34th of Elizabeth; Duke, 163.) There was a decree made in 24 of Elizabeth before the statute and upon the judicial power of chancery. It related to a deed of bargain and sale, which was not enrolled and did not pass the land. (Duke, 131, 138, 359-361; 1. Milne & Russell, 376.) The book lately published in England by the Record Commissioners, furnishes numerous instances of the exercise of this chancery jurisdistion anterior to the statute of Elizabeth. *If this part of the common law be [*156 not in force in Pennsylvania, the complainants L-SCHEDULE OF CASES FROM CHANCERY PRO- | right of conscience to be had and done at the rev CEEDINGS IN TIME OF ELIZABETH. Babington v. Gull, clerk. Bill complaining that Wakering v. Bayle (Henry VI.) Bill to compel defendant, who is feoffee in trust to make an estate in certain lands in Tottenham and Hornsey, to the pital of St. Bartholomew, in West Smithfield, for the endowment of a chapel there; because at multitudes of Christian people of all parts of Egland and other nations for sickness, poverty, and misery, continually of custom resort to the sa hospital, and there relieved; and finally have their Christian sepulture round about the said chapel." Praying a subpoena, and as in the preceding case, as shall be thought unto your good lordship best, erence of God, and in way of charity. ROB. PALMER, Of London, WELLS BALLE, gentlemen. Parker et al., in behalf of themselves et al., the Inhabitants of the Town of Brentwood, Essex, v. Wistan Browne. (Eliz., B., 6, 12, 13.) Bill to establish donations. A chapel of ease to the parish church of Southwilde, in which parish the town of Brentwood is situated, and a free school and almshouse, there the said chapel being within the manor of Corbedhall, granted to Sir Anthony Browne, knight, deceased, by letters patent from Edw. VI. Town of Bury St. Edmunds, by Robert Goldeny et al., Governors of Free Grammar School of King Edward VI., in Bury St. Edmunds, v. Goodney et al. (Eliz.) Bill to quiet possession of lands held by complainants in right of grammar school. Buggs et al., foeffees in trust for the Parish of Harlon, v. Sompner et al. (Eliz., B., 6, 17, 18.) Bill to establish charitable uses, in a tenement called the Old Pole, and lands thereto belonging, in Harlon, conveyed and settled tempore Henry VIII. by John Swerder, to feoffees in trust for poor of the said parish of Harlon. Bullatt and Purcas, Church-wardens, v. Fitche. (Eliz., B., 6, 18.) Bill for performance of charitable institutions. Land called Church Pightle, held from time immemorial for repairing the parish church of Lyndsell. Blenkinsopper v. Awnderson. (Eliz., B., 6, 19.) Bill to establish a charitable donation. An annuity of £8 for certain paupers and a schoolmaster, in the parish of Burgh under Stainsmore, devised by Sir Cuthbert Buckle, knight, late Lord Mayor of London, to be charged on his messuage called the must prove it. If they think so, why do they The Act of 1730 authorizes persons to hold 159*] land for charitable *uses. This is said to be an enabling act: but it is upon a different principle from the English statutes which are intended to aid, in some measure, a religion not fully tolerated by law. But in Pennsylvania there is universal toleration, and all sects stand 160*] upon equal *ground. In England, the mass is held to be superstitious. (Boyle, 242.) The statute 23 Henry VIII., a mortmain act, avoided deeds "for superstitious uses." But what were deemed to be so in England, are not 161*] *held to be so in Pennsylvania. So a statute of Henry VIII., prohibited gifts to Catholics. I In 1548, 2 and 3 Edward VI. (c. 1), the act of uniformity establishing the church, directed 162*] all ministers to observe the mode *therein pointed out. The Book of Common Prayer was thus legalized. 1 Mary (session 2, ch. 2) repealed the above. 1 Elizabeth (ch. 2) re-established the Act of Edward, and extended to the people the mandate to use the Book of Common Prayer. This was again repealed in the time of the Commonwealth. The 13 and 14 Charles II. (ch. 14) was another Spittle or Stainsmore, and lands thereto belonging. Fytch and Goodwin, Church-wardens, and Wyndell et al., Overseers of the Parish of Borking, v. Robinson et al. (Eliz., B., 6, 29.) Bill to recover a legacy to charitable uses. The sum of £400 bequeathed by Joan Smyth, widow, to be invested for producing a yearly fund for the relief of the poor of Bocking. Thomas Tychmer et al., Church-wardens of the Parish Church of Barrington, and Shevyn Reynolds, the elder, and several others, co-feoffers of lands in trust, v. Lancaster. (Eliz., B., 6, 31.) Bill for injunction in support of a charity. A tenement and lands in Barrington, lately held of the master and fellows of Michael House in Cambridge, as of their manor of Barrington, devised by the will of Thomas Lames to charitable uses for the poor of Barrington. George Carlton on behalf of himself et al., Inhabitants of Elm, v. John Blyth et al. (Eliz., C., c. 6.) Bill to recover charitable donations. A legacy of £13 13s. 4d. bequeathed by the will of John Allen, deceased, to be invested at interest for the benefit of the poor of the parish of Elm. Robert Perot et al., Inhabitants and Parishioners of the Parish of Cornworthy v. Stephen Cruse. (Eliz., C., c. 6.) Bill to appoint new trustees for a charity. A tenement called the church-house in the parish of Cornworthy, conveyed by Sir Pearce Edgecombe, knight, or some of his ancestors, to feoffees in trust for the benefit of the parish of Cornworthy. John Irish et al., Tenants of the Manor of Congresbury, v. Thomas Ashe et al. (Eliz., C., c. 22.) Bill for performance of will for charitable uses. The manor or lordship of Congresbury and lands in Congresbury and Lawrence Wille, devised by the will of John Carr to the defendants upon sundry trusts. uniformity act; and this was the state of the laws relating to religion when the charter of Pennsylvania was granted in March, 1681. Gifts to Catholic congregations were void. (Moore, 784, cited in Boyle, 265; 1 Salk., 162; 1 Eq. Ca. Abr., 96.) When the statutes of conformity were in force all gifts contrary to them were void; and this is the origin of the doctrine of cy pres. (2 Vernon, 266.) In 1688 (1 William and Mary, ch., 18), toleration was extended to all who would sign_the thirty-nine articles with some exceptions. This act is all that now supports a use in favor of dissenters. (2 Vesey, 273, 275; 2 Eq. Ca. Abr., 193; 3 P. W., 144, 344; 1 Vesey, 225; 3 Merivale, 409.) See also 11 William and Mary, ch. 4, sec. 3, in which the toleration act is extended to the colonies. There is not a word in the charter respecting toleration of any religion. Sec. 22 protects the Church of England by saying that preachers sent by the Bishop of London may reside in the province. The stat. 5 Anne (ch. 5, sec. 8), in 1706, secured the rights of the Church of England, as established in that country and the territories thereunto belonging. From the commencement of the reign of Anne to 1712 various disputes occurred between the colonists and the crown and governor respecting recognition of affirmation; the right was asserted by the Legislature for the third time in 1710. (Wise & Brockden, app. 2, p. 43, 46, 50; 1 Votes of Assembly, part 2, p. 130; Proceedings of Council, 517.) In 1712, the Act of Assembly was passed permitting religious societies to purchase ground, &c., and declaring that gifts should go according to the intentions of the donors. The Assembly remembered Baxter's case, and intended to prohibit the doctrine of cy pres. Whether The Mayor and Citizens of Chester v. Brooke and Offley. (Eliz., C., c. 23.) Bill to establish a charity. Legacies left by the will of Robert Offley, of London, haberdasher, for the benefit of apprentices and other inhabitants of the city of Chester. The Vicar and Church-wardens of the Parish of Christ Church within Newgate v. The Vicar and Church-wardens of the Parish of All Saints, Barking. (Eliz., C., c. 24.) Claim of donation to charitable uses. A legacy of £4 per annum bequeathed by the will of Jane Watson, and claimed by both these parishes. The Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of Dartmouth v. Nicholas Ball. (Eliz., D., d. 2.) Bill for appointing new trustees for charitable uses. Lands in Clifton Dartmouth Hardness, and in Stoketlemyer, &c., conveyed by Nicholas James to feoffees in trust for the benefit of the poor of said borough, and for repairing the church and harbor. The Church-wardens. Parishioners, and Inhabitants of the Town and Parish of Danburye v. Thomas Emery et al. (Eliz., D., d. 7.) Bill to regulate charitable donations of land-lands in Burleigh purchased by certain well-disposed persons in trust for the poor of Danburye. The Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of Clifton Dartmouth Hardness v. Furseman et al. (Eliz., D., d. 11.) Bill for performance of charitable trustslands in Clifton Dartmouth Hardness, conveyed by William James to feoffees in trust for the poor of Dartmouth and other charitable purposes. Blacknall et al., on behalf of the Inhabitants of Elkesley, v. Spiry et al. (Eliz., E., e. 4.) To establish a charitable donation. A parcel of ground in the parish of Elkesley, called Normanton Field, containing 500 acres, which was of ancient time given and conveyed to certain feoffees in trust for the said parish. George Carleton, Esq., for himself and the rest of the Inhabitants of the Parish of Elm, v. John |