described in the House of Commons by an eminent equity lawyer as an attempt to galvanize a corpse. We should say that life was not altogether extinct in the supposed corpse, and, at any rate, it is well that the death should be made evident to all, whether they understand the question or not, rather than that such death should be concluded to have resulted by means of a long and most obscure argument.

IV. APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL OPINION, &c.-The 8th section remedies one of the slips of (we presume) printer or copyist, which are growing more and more frequent in our Acts of Parliament; it adds the words, "or mortgagee" to the word "purchaser," in the 24th section of the Act of last year. Formerly, these mistakes occurred merely in the ordinary copies, which could always be corrected by appeal to the engrossment, to which the clerk had subscribed the royal assent; now, however, the assent is given to a printed copy, and those issued to the public are printed off from the same types; no discrepancy therefore, can now exist. Another example of a misprint (happily, in this instance, of no consequence), is to be found in the 4th section of the present Act, in which the word "executors" is printed for

ancestors.

The 9th section illustrates the uncertainty of the line which determines what matters of Chancery practice can be regulated by general orders of the court, and what require the interference of the legislature. The signature of counsel to bills and other pleadings is required by the 8th C. O. r. 1, which follows one of Lord Clarendon's orders; now, however, a section of an act of parliament is required to enforce the employment of counsel in preparing a trustee's statement. It may be said, that in the time of Lord Clarendon an eminent judge might usurp what was even then properly a legislative function. An example of what we allude to, free from the above objection, will be found on comparing 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 37, with the first of the orders of the 20th March, 1860.

V. INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS.-We now come to three sections relating to the investment of trust funds, which form

perhaps the most important part of the Act. It is worth while to review, with some minuteness, the course of legislation and decision upon the subject.

Originally, the Court of Chancery required that all trust funds should be invested in three per cent. stocks, and ordinarily in consols. This strictness was found, in practice, to sacrifice the interests of tenants for life, without any corresponding advantage arising from the greater security of the principal. Hence, in most instruments creating trusts, a power was given to invest on other securities, such as exchequer bills, mortgages of land, or the stock of the Bank of England, or of the East India Company. But the Court of Chancery never assumed any such liberty with regard to cash under its control, the only exception being that money was occasionally invested for a short time in the purchase of exchequer bills. The Commons, however, were desirous of altering this state of things; and a clause was accordingly introduced into last year's bill, allowing trustees, in the absence of express prohibition, to invest on real securities, or on Bank or East India stock. The bill containing this clause was sent back to the House of Lords, and passed into law. A question, with which we are not now concerned, soon arose upon the meaning of the words "East India stock ;" and, in the course of the discussion before the full court of appeal, the Lord Chancellor Campbell stated that he had written to Lord St. Leonards on the subject, who, in reply, stated that he disapproved of the clause, and disclaimed all connection with it. His lordship, at the same time, said it was his intention to propose to parliament the repeal of this section, and a clause to that effect was accordingly inserted in the bill, which passed into an Act, as 23 & 24 Vict. c. 38. This clause passed the House of Lords but found no favour in the Lower House, by which the repeal wat rejected. Moreover, the Master of the Rolls, in the case of In re Miles' Will, decided that the 32nd section of 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, gave no new power to trustees of instruments executed

1

129 L. J. Ch. 47

before the passing of that Act; and the grounds of the decision of Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, in Dodson v. Sammell,1 appear to lead to the same conclusion; (see, however, contra, the case of Rich's Trusts, quoted by Mr. Vaizey, p. 38, from Morgan's "Chancery Statutes and Orders," 2nd ed. p. 329, where ViceChancellor Stuart came to a contrary conclusion :) in order, therefore, to give full efficacy to this their favourite enactment, the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr. Hadfield, inserted the present 12th section, enacting, but not declaring (see Vaizey p. 39), that the section in question shall operate retrospectively.

By the 10th section of the present Act, power is given to the Lord Chancellor and other equity judges, to issue general orders as to the funds, in which cash under the control of the court may be invested, the most unbounded liberty of choice being given to them; and the 11th section authorizes all trustees to invest upon any of the securities comprised in any such general order.

It will be seen, that at present the 10th and 11th sections have no operation, as they merely authorize the making of general orders, and at the time we write none such have been issued; indeed, it is doubtful, as has been pointed out by Mr. Hunter, whether these sections will ever become of much importance. By the combined effect of 22 and 23 Vict. c. 35, s. 32, and 23 and 24 Vict. c. 38, s. 12, all trustees, not expressly forbidden, may invest in government stocks, real securities, bank stock, or the old East India stock; and it is not probable that the Court of Chancery will assume to itself any materially greater liberty. Hence general orders under these sections will, in fact, enlarge the powers only of those trustees who are expressly forbidden to resort to any securities other than what may be mentioned in their trust instrument; and we do not think that the Chancery judges will wish to enable such trustees to set at nought the express directions of the settlor or testator.

A misapprehension, however, which seems to have arisen in the minds of some persons, as to the effect of the investment clauses in these statutes, called forth a letter from Lord St. Leonards to

'29 L, J. Ch. 335.

the editor of the Times. The letter not only dispels the error, but gives some interesting information as to the history of the new clauses, and is altogether worth preserving. Lord St. Leonards writes as follows:

"Boyle Farm, Aug. 29.

"Sir,-In your Money Article of Monday last, it is stated that the 23rd and 24th Victoria, cap. 38, empowers the Court of Chancery to invest trust funds in the securities raised under the authority of parliament, such as those for the West India Islands, Turkish Guaranteed Four per cents., &c., upon petition being presented by any of the parties interested.

"I believe that you will do good service by informing trustees, and the persons for whom they are trustees, how the law really stands under the two Acts of the last two sessions, for which I am responsible. I am not surprised that in this day's paper it is stated that the act of the session just ended was brought forward by the Lord Chancellor, for his name was on the back of it, owing to his having at my request, in my absence, laid it on the table, and moved the first reading-in the House of Lords a matter of form. The act was framed and carried through by me chiefly as a supplement to the act of the previous session.

"Now, the law stands thus:-By the 32nd section of the 22nd and 23rd Victoria, cap. 35, where a trustee is not, by some instrument creating his trust, expressly forbidden to invest any trust fund on real securities in any part of the United Kingdom, or in the stock of the Bank of England or Ireland, or in the East India Stock, it is lawful for him to invest such trust money in such securities or stock, provided that such investment shall in other respects be reasonable and proper; and by the 12th section of the 23rd and 24th Victoria, c. 38, this clause is made to operate retrospectively.

66

'By the last-mentioned act the Lord Chancellor, with the advice of the other equity judges, or any three of them, is empowered to make such general orders as to the investment of cash under the control of the court, either in the Three per Cent. Consols, or Reduced, or New Bank Annuities, or in such other stocks, funds, or securities as he shall with such advice see fit; and power is given to the Lord Chancellor to convert any Three per Cent. Bank Annuities, standing or to stand in the name of the Accountant-General of the Court in trust in any cause or matter, into any such other stocks, funds, or securities upon which, by any such general order as aforesaid, cash under the control of the court may be invested. The orders for conversion are to be made upon the petition of any of the parties interested.

"By the same act, trustees having power to invest their trust funds upon government securities, or upon parliamentary stocks, funds, or securities, may invest them in any of the stocks, funds, or securities in or upon which, by such general order, cash under the control of the court may be invested.

"The result is, that trustees (including executors and administrators) may, unless forbidden by their trust, invest the trust fund in real securities in Great Britain or in Bank Stock of England or Ireland, or in East India Stock, which has been held to mean the old East India Stock. The court itself can invest cash in such stocks, funds, and securities as it shall see fit, and make a general order for the purpose; and, upon the petition of parties interested, three per Cents. may be converted by the court into such securities as cash may be invested upon under any general order; and trustees, with the usual powers to invest, may resort to the same securities. The power to the court is general, and does not enumerate any particular securities, as it was considered that there was no danger of this power being unduly exercised. The principal assuredly will never be placed in danger in order to obtain a large interest.

"The 32nd section of the 22nd and 23rd of Victoria, cap. 35, is not properly framed, but it is not likely to be abused, as trustees will, no doubt, act with great caution under it. By the bill of the late session, as it was sent to the House of Commons, this clause was repealed, but that House not only rejected the repeal clause, but made the original clause retrospective. The new clauses relating to trust funds in the bill of the late session were framed by me, with the approbation of all the equity judges, and inserted in the House of Commons. There was another clause in substitution of the 32nd section of the 22nd and 23rd of Victoria, cap. 35, which that House of course objected to adopt, as they were determined to retain the 32nd section as it stood. "I have the honour to be, Sir, your faithful servant,

"ST. LEONARDS."

VI. INTESTATES' ESTATES, &c.-The rest of the Act need not long detain us. The 13th section is directed against those suits, by alleged next of kin, which have particularly vexed successive solicitors to the treasury. Of course, the common rules governing courts of equity bar the rights of all claimants who have shown any want of due diligence in the prosecution of their claims; and this is altogether irrespective of the existence of any definite statutory law. But practical experience has shown, that rules of this nature are insufficient to answer their purpose; and accordingly two statutes were passed in the year 1833 (3 and 4 Will. IV., cc. 27 and 42), fixing various limits in the case of actions which were not the subject of any previous enactment, and also extending the same principle for the first time to equitable claims. It was provided, amongst other things, that no suit should be brought to recover any legacy but within twenty