always given a wide interpretation to the Acts of Toleration and even made them retrospective in their operation 1, would in all probability be favourably inclined to include a Jewish endowment under one of the four heads mentioned in the statute, if that were possible. If it were impossible, it might be argued-whether successfully or not cannot be predicted, as no such case has yet arisen— that the law, having now recognized the Jewish religion and in some ways protected it, has made it legal not merely for some but for all purposes, and therefore that the reasoning on which the old cases are based no longer holds good, and the principle evolved from them is no longer law.

It should also be stated that Jewish are in no better position than other endowments. They are subject to be defeated by reason of non-compliance with the statutes relating to mortmain, or on account of infringing the rules against perpetuity (unless they can be brought within the category of trusts recognized by the law as charitable) or as being contrary to public policy. There are no reported cases relating to the failure of endowments under the first two heads of special interest to Jews, but it will not be out of place to mention here two cases arising under the third. The first is Habershon v. Vardon, which came before Vice-Chancellor Sir P. L. Knight-Bruce in 1851. Nadir Baxter had by his will, dated in 1842, directed as follows: "That other £1000, out of such part of my personal estate as may by law be devoted to charitable purposes, be paid towards the contributions that I do confidently believe and earnestly pray will speedily be begun to be raised under the sanction of our hitherto so highly favoured church and nation, in evidence of Christian faith towards the political restoration of the Jews to

1 See Bradshaw v. Tasker, 221 (1834, before Lord Brougham). The correctness of the decision in this case was doubted by Sir Ed. Sugden (L.C.) in Att.-Gen. v. Drummond, 1 Dr. & War. p. 380 (1842), but was followed by Sir John Romilly (M.R.) in re Michel's Trusts, 28 Beav. 39 (1860).

Jerusalem, and to their own land." The Vice-Chancellor held that the gift of £1000 was void. "If," said he, "it could be understood to mean anything, it was to create a revolution in a friendly country. Jews might at present reside in Jerusalem; and, if the acquisition of political power by them was intended, the promotion of such an object would not be consistent with our amicable relations with the Sublime Porte 1." This case was decided five years after the legal recognition of the Jewish religion in 1846, and is therefore still binding on the courts of first instance. Trusts in favour of the present Zionist propaganda, unless very carefully framed, might on the same principle be declared void.

The other case is in the matter of Michel's Trust. It occurred in 1860, and was a special case seeking the opinion of the court under the following circumstances. The testator, Abraham Michel, a Jew, by his will made the following bequest, which was to take effect on the death of his widow. "I give and bequeath unto my executors so much money as will produce in government securities the sum of 10 sterling per annum, upon this special trust and confidence (that is to say), upon trust to invest the same in government securities, as they shall think best, and to pay the interest thereof or dividends, yearly or half-yearly, so as they my executors shall think proper, unto the parnosim or wardens of the congregation of Ostrovesy, near Opateir, in Little Poland, for the time being; but my will and mind is, that the said parnosim or wardens do pay the said sum of £10 to three qualified persons, chosen by them from and out of my family, to learn, in their Beth Hammadrass or college, two hours daily for ever, and on every anniversary of my death, to say the prayer called in Hebrew Candish2; and in case there should be no one of my family qualified thereto, then or in such case my will and mind is, that the said parnosim or wardens pay the same to three persons qualified."

1
1 4 De G. & Sm. 467.

2 Thus spelt in the report; properly Kaddish.

The testator died in 1821, and his widow in 1822. The executors appropriated the sum of £300, £3 per cent. consolidated annuities, to answer the above trust, and for some years after such investment had taken place the dividends were remitted to the parnosim or wardens of the congregation at Ostrovesy, but, many years since, the remittance was discontinued, in consequence of its being considered that the bequest was invalid.

The stock not having been dealt with, the surviving executor presented a petition seeking the opinion of the court on the following points: first, whether the legacy in question was a valid charitable legacy, and secondly, if valid, how the stock and cash representing the legacy, and in particular how the sums representing arrears of dividend and the accumulations thereof, ought to be paid and applied.

It was stated that the term to "learn in the Beth Hammadrass or college for two hours daily" signified to study either the Bible or the Talmud, and that the "Candish" was a short Hebrew prayer in the praise of God, and expressive of resignation to his will. That both were acts of piety, and that the prayer was generally said by the sons of the deceased, during the year of mourning and on the anniversary of the death, but if there were none, it was either said by the relatives or by some other person.

The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly, had no doubt of the validity of the bequest, and held, on the analogy of the cases decided with regard to Roman Catholic charities, that the Act of Parliament (9 & 10 Vict. c. 59) was retrospective in its operation. Referring to the argument advanced on behalf of the residuary legatees that the gift was void as a superstitious use, as an anniversary or obit, and similar to praying for the testator's soul, the learned judge said, "I see nothing in the bequest which is superstitious. It was attempted to show that it was so, by importing into it the assumption that the prayer offered up on the anniversary of the death of the testator must be

zone the Roman Catholic religion, but

var in was constrained to acquiesce in
SEBATINŲ 4 AS TEMarks in re Michel's Trusts, be said,
* Ecre ny difficulty in the case referred to, as to
winter guts ia religious ceremonies practised by a dis-
wanting cases of religionists might not be permitted, if not
rccused a piór morality; but I think the decided cases
au string, and that the House of Lords alone can alter
the settled law. It is clear that I must act on West v.
Sutienorth, which I cannot overrule!" And in a recent
case Vice-Chancellor Hall held as a matter of course that
a bequest of £10, to be expended in saying masses for the
testator's soul, was void.

I have dealt with this subject at some length because
it is a practice in certain synagogues on the second day
of the festivals, and on the day of Atonement in some
congregations which have adopted a reformed ritual (though
happily it has not been recognized by the West London
congregation of British Jews, the principal body of re-
formers in this country), to hold prayers for the benefit
of the souls of deceased members, who are mentioned by
name-a certain sum as a rule being paid on account
of each name which is read out. It seems to me upon the
decided cases that any legacy left for this purpose is
invalid, nor would the case be different, provided that the
testator was a domiciled Englishman, if the money so
bequeathed is to be paid for a religious service of this kind
to be performed in a country where it is not considered
superstitious3.

Gifts given for this purpose are simply void, but there is no power in the court or in the Crown to apply them "s Trusts (1861), 30 Beav. p. 360.

Sigreaves v. Burder (1880), 15 Ch. D. 594, at p. 609.

or), W. N. p. 9, where Mr. Justice North held that
the Priests of the Society of Jesus at Richmond,
amasses for the souls of the testator (a domiciled
wife, was bad, although by the law of Victoria the

to some other religious or charitable purpose different from that indicated by the donor, as was done in the cases, already cited, relating to endowments for the purpose of promoting the Jewish religion before the benefit of the Toleration Acts had been extended to the Jews. The reason for this is that charity is not the object of such gifts. The intention is not to benefit the place of worship, or priest officiating in it, but to secure some supposed benefit to the donor's soul. This principle is well laid down in the judgment of the Privy Council delivered by Sir Montague Smith in the case of Zap Chea Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, in which a devise of a house for performing religious ceremonies to the testatrix and her late husband was declared void. "The remaining devise to be considered is the dedication by the testatrix of the Soro Chong House for the performance of religious ceremonies to her late husband and to herself." It appears to be the usage in China to erect a monumental tablet to the dead in a house of this kind, and for the family at certain periods to place, with certain ceremonies, food before the tablet, the savour of which is supposed to gratify the spirits of their deceased relatives. This usage, with the accompanying ceremonies, is minutely described by Sir P. Benson Maxwell, in his judgment in the case of Choah Chron Nish v. Spottiswood1:— Although it certainly appears that the performance of these ceremonies is considered by the Chinese to be a pious duty, it is one which does not seem to fall within any definition of a charitable duty or use. The observance of it can lead to no public advantage, and can benefit or solace only the family itself. The dedication of this Soro Chong House bears a close analogy to gifts to priests for masses to the dead. Such a gift by a Roman Catholic widow of property for masses for the repose of her deceased husband's soul and her own was held, in West v. Shuttleworth, not to be a charitable use, and, although not

1 Wood's Oriental Cases.

2 Myl. & K. 684.