*It has been decided, that devisees may be compelled to disclose whether they take subject to a secret trust of this nature. (e) Secret trusts. A most extraordinary decision was made on these statutes shortly before the Revolution. It was held by Lord Keeper North, that a bequest to Mr. Baxter, of £600 to be distributed among sixty pious ejected ministers, [(given, "because I know many of them to be pious and good men, and in great want,")] and legacies also to Mr. Baxter, one of them to be laid out in his book entitled "A Call to the Unconverted," were void, as superstitious; (f) but the decree was reversed by the Lords Commissioners. Protestant Dissenters. It is clear, that not only is a bequest to the poor ministers of Protestant Dissenters good, but one having for its object the propagation of their religious opinions is also valid; provided that such opinions, although at variance with the doctrines of the established church, are not contrary to law; (g) [thus bequests 30 Beav. 360, better reported 31 L. J., Ch. 52; Heath v. Chapman, 2 Drew. 417; Att.-Gen. v. Fishmongers' Company, 2 Beav. 151, 5 M. & Cr. 11. See also an analogous Chinese superstition, Yeap v. Ong, L. R., 6 P. C. 396. Including the souls of others with his own in the supposed benefit will not save the bequest, see s. cc.] In West v. Shuttleworth there was a residuary bequest, and yet the void pecuniary legacies were held to belong to the next of kin. On this point, see Shanley v. Baker, 4 Ves. 732; [and observe that in West v. Shuttleworth, the residuary legatees made no claim to the void legacies, and in fact supported the bequest of them. If the superstitious use had charity for its object, it would be executed cy pres, see Cary v. Abbot, 7 Ves. 495, and per Lord Eldon, 19 Ves. 487. But it is not clear that any use (except of the kind mentioned in the stat. 1 Edw. VI.) would now be held void solely as being superstitious. In Thornton v. Howe, 31 Beav. 14, Lord Romilly held that even a trust for propagating the sacred writings of Joanna Southcote would be enforced by the court. Those writings aver that Joanna Southcote was with child by the Holy Ghost, &c., &c., delusions almost identical with those which in Smith v. Tebbitt, L. R., 1 P. & D. 398, were held to render a woman possessed by them incapable of making a will.] (e) King v. Lady Portington, 1 Salk. 162, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 96, pl. 6; see further as to superstitious uses, Duke Char. Uses 106, 4 Rep. 104, Cro. Jac. 51, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 95, pl. 1, et seq., and Shelf. Ch. Us. 89, where the cases, early and modern, are collected. [In Read v. Hodgens, 7 Ir. Eq. Rep. 17, it was decided that a bequest in Ireland for masses for the testator's soul was valid: sed qu.] (f) Att.-Gen. v. Baxter, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 96, pl. 9, 1 Vern. 248, 2 Id. 105, [1 Ves. 537,] 7 Ves. 76. (g) Att.-Gen. v. Hickman, 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 193; West v. Shuttleworth, 2 My. & K. 684; [and see statutes 18 and 19 Vict., c. 81, 2, 3, and c. 86, 2.] In Doe v. Hawthorn, 2 B. & Ald. 96, Abbott, J., afterwards Lord Tenterden, said, that the trust there in question of a chapel for the use of a congregation of Protestants “assembling under the patronage of the trustees of the late Countess of Huntingdon's College," was either a superstitious use Will. IV., *to an Unitarian chapel, (h) or for the benefit of poor Irvingite ministers, (i) or to the minister of a specified Baptist chapel, (j) are valid.] Before the statute 2 and 3 Will. IV., c. 115, bequests for the propagation of the Roman Catholic religion were unlaw- Stat. 2 and 3 ful; (k) but section 1 of that act, after noticing the acts in 115. favor of Protestant Dissenters, and a Scotch act imposing penalties on Roman Catholics; and reciting, that notwithstanding the provisions of various acts passed for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, doubts had been entertained whether it were lawful for his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion in Scotland to acquire and hold as real estate the property necessary for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, and that it was expedient to remove all doubts respecting the right of his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion in England and Wales to acquire and hold property necessary for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, enacts, "That his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion, in respect of their schools, places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes in Great Britain, and the property held therewith, and the persons employed in or about the same, shall, in respect thereof, be subject to the same laws as the Protestant dissenters are subject to in England in respect to their schools and places for religious worship, education and charitable purposes, and not further or otherwise." By section 3, the act is not to extend to any suit actually pending, or commenced, or any property then in litigation, in any court in Great Britain. (1) within 23 Hen. VIII., c. 10, or a charitable use within 9 Geo. II., c. 36. But as to the former alternative it is notorious that the Court of Chancery unhesitatingly entertains suits for carrying into effect trusts of places of worship belonging to Protestant Dissenters. The principles on which it deals with such trusts are stated with great fullness and perspicuity by Lord Eldon, in Att.-Gen. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353, which bears more immediately on the position of [Unitarians, as to whom see now 7 and 8 Vict., c. 45, and of whom lics placed on Roman Cathosame footing Dissenters in schools, &c. as Protestant respect of their Lord Campbell said, 2 H. L. Cas. 863, that he had no doubt they would now on most occasions be considered as Protestant Dissenters. (h) Shrewsbury v. Hornbury, 5 Hare 406; In re Barnett, 29 L. J., Ch. 871. (i) Att.-Gen. v. Lawes, 8 Hare 32. (j) Att.-Gen. v. Cock, 2 Ves. 273.] (k) Cary v. Abbot, 7 Ves. 490; see also 4 Ves. 433, 6 Ves. 566, 1 Ba. & Be. 145; [Gates v. Jones, cit. 2 Vern. 266. (1) See also 23 and 24 Vict., c. 134.] [*207] Bequest for propagation of Roman Catholic religion. It has been held, that the act is retrospective, i. e. that it applies to the will of a testator who died before its passing; (m) and also, that it authorizes a bequest for the promotion of the Roman Catholic religion, as it places persons of this persuasion on the same footing as Protestant Dissenters, the diffusion of whose religious tenets (as already observed) may be the subject of a valid trust. It is settled, however, that the Roman Catholic relief act has no effect in rendering valid gifts to superstitious uses, as legacies to priests for offering masses for the repose of the testator's *soul, &c. ; (n) [nor, it is presumed, would it render valid such a trust as that which was the subject of discussion in De Themines v. De Bonneval, (0) namely, for printing and publishing a book which taught that the Pope had in all ecclesiastical matters a supremacy which was paramount even to the authority of the temporal sovereign. The case arose before the statute referred to, but Sir J. Leach rested his decision entirely on the ground that to allow such a publication was against public policy. Public policy. Jews. Jews also are now by statute 9 and 10 Vict., c. 59, placed on the same footing as Protestant Dissenters.] (p) Charity has been defined to be a general public use. (g) In order What are char- to ascertain what are charitable purposes, recourse is usually had to the preamble of the statute 43 Eliz., c. 4,1 which enumerates various kinds of charity: viz. the relief itable uses. Stat. 43 Eliz., c. 4. (m) Bradshaw v. Tasker, 2 My. & K. 221; [and see In re Michel's Trusts, 28 Beav. 32; but Sir E. Sugden questioned this decision, 1 D. & War. 380.] (n) West v. Shuttleworth, 2 My. & K. 684. [In re Blundell's Trusts, 30 Beav. 360; Heath v. Chapman, 2 Drew. 417. (0) 5 Russ. 288. (p) The cases relating to Jews before this act were, Da Costa v. De Pas, Amb. 228, 1 Dick. 258, 2 Ves. 274, 276, 7 Ves. 76, 2 Sw. 487, 2 J. & W. 308; and Straus v. Goldsmid, 8 Sim. 614. The only difference between 2 and 3 Will. IV., c. 115, 1, and 9 and 10 Vict., c. 59, 2, is the omission from the latter enactment of the words, "and the persons employed in or about the same:" which appears immaterial to the purposes of this treatise. This enactment also has been held to be retrospective, In re Michel's Trusts, 28 Beav. 32.] (q) Amb. 651. 1. As to the force of English statutes enacted prior to the settlement of the states of the Union, some of the states have provided, by statutes expressly declaring the acts of parliament as well as the common law, prior to the settlement, to be part or to be no part of the law of the state. Thus, in Illinois, all acts of the British parliament prior to 4 James I., except 43 Eliz., c. 6, § 2, 13 Eliz., c. 8, and 37 Hen. VIII., c. 9, are declared to be in force in the State of Illinois, (Rev. Stat., 1845, ch. 62, % 1,) and remained so until this act was repealed by the general repealer. (Rev. Stat., 1874, p. 1013.) In Indiana there is the same act (Rev. Stat., 1838, ch. 60, p. 398) as above referred to in of aged, impotent, and poor people, (») maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, (8) free schools and scholars in universities; repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, revised statutes of Illinois, 1845, which act was re-enacted in Indiana in 1852 (1 Ind. Stat., 1870, p. 415). In Kentucky (Rev. Stat., 1851, p. 177,) all statutes of a general nature, whether of this state, of Virginia, or of England, adopted prior to November 1st, 1851, are repealed. In New Jersey the constitution of 1776, % 22, kept in force, till altered by law, such English statutes as had been theretofore practised in the colony, but in 1799 (Pat. Rev. 436, 4,) it was provided that "no statute or act of parliament of England or Great Britain should have force or authority within the state." This act was repealed in 1821, (Rev. Stat. 727, 3,) but at the same time substantially re-enacted by section 2 of the same act, and so remained until the repeal of that act by the revised statute of 1846. In New York, by act of 1828, (3 Rev. Stat. 1119, 3,) it is provided that, since May 1st, 1788, English statutes are not the law of New York. In South Carolina (2 Stat. at Large, 1712, p. 401,) the English statutes in force in the state are enumerated, not including either the statutes of mortmain or of charitable uses. In Virginia, it was early provided by the ordinance organizing the state government, that all English statutes prior to 4 James I., which were in aid of the common law and not local in their character, should be preserved as part of the common law of Virginia. This act was repealed December 27th, 1792, (Rev. Code, ch. 147, p. 291,) in these words: "So much of the ordinance as relates to any statute or act of parliament shall be and is hereby repealed and no such statute or act of parliament shall have any force or authority in this commonwealth." The ordinance thus repealed appears again in the form [(r) Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177. of a statute in the code, 1873 (tit. 9, ch. 15, 2). In West Virginia (Code, 1868, p. 91, ch. 13, 6,) such English statutes are preserved as were in force in Virginia June 20th, 1863. In the absence of express legislation on this subject, the principle has been generally accepted that, upon the settlement of the colonies, such statute law of England as was applicable to their situation, together with the common law, became the law of the new colony, notwithstanding Blackstone's theory (1 Com. 107) that they were conquered or ceded territory and without the common law. Story on Const., 151; 1 Kent Com. 472. We beg leave to refer the reader, further, to a valuable note of Judge Stewart, the New Jersey equity reporter, in De Camp v. Dobbins, 2 Stew. 37, 40, et seq., as to the effect and force given to British statutes in the United States, in which he says: “The following rules seem to have been generally followed in this country: (1.) The statute must have been adopted before the settlement of the colony. State v. Mairs, Coxe 328, note, Kinsey, C. J.; Dalgleisch v. Grundy, Cam. & Nor. (N. C.) 22; McKee v. Straub, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 1; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233, 241, Story, J.; Carter v. Balfour, 19 Ala. 814, 829; Commonwealth v. Lodge, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 579; Swift v. Tousey, 5 Ind. 196; see Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 362; Coburn v. Harvey, 18 Wis. 156; Paul v. Ball, 31 Tex. 10. (2.) It must be applicable to our situation—e. g., the following acts do not extend: Bankruptcy acts of England. Vanuxem v. Hazelhurst, 1 South. 192, 195; see Bunny v. Hart, 11 Moore P. C. C. 189. Collateral warranties, 4 and 5 Ann, c. 16 (A. D. 1706). Eshelman v. Hoke, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 509; see Den v. Crawford, 3 Hal. 90. (8) Att.-Gen. v. Nash, 3 B. C. C. 587. churches, sea-banks, and highways; education and preferment of orphans; the relief, stock, or maintenance for houses of correction; marriages of poor maids; supportation and help of young tradesmen, Benefit of clergy, Fuller v. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 63. Copyright laws, 8 Ann, c. 19 (A. D. 1710). Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 660. Quia emptores, 18 Edw. I., c. 1 (A. D. 1290). Ingersoll v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. 337; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. 492. 'The Black Act,' 9 Geo. I. (A. D. 1722). State v. Campbell, Charlt. (Geo.) 166. Maintenance and champerty, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 9 (A. D. 1541). Den, Bickham, v. Pissant, Coxe 220, 223; Morris v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 67; Harring v. Barwick, 24 Geo. 59; Sessions v. Reynolds, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 131; Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565; Cresinger v. Welsh, 15 Ohio 156; Fetrow v. Merriwether, 53 Ill. 275; Cassedy v. Jackson, 45 Miss. 397; Duke v. Harper, 3 Cent. L. J. 288, where many cases are reviewed; 14 Am. Law Reg. 78, and note; see Gregerson v. Imlay, 4 Blatch. 503; Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 347; Earle v. Hopwood, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 566, 574, note. Mortmain, 9 Geo. II., c. 36 (A. D. 1736). Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 189; Beall v. Fox, 4 Geo. 404; Potter v. Thornton, 7 R. I. 252; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465; Wright v. Trustees, etc., 1 Hoff. Ch. 202; McCarter v. Asylum, 9 Cow. 437, 451; see Schmucker v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 Serg. & Raule 321. Usury laws, 37 Hen. VIII., c. 9 (A. D. 1546). Houghton v. Page, 2 N. H. 42; see Rensselaer Glass Co. v. Reid, 5 Cow. 587, 609, 635. Pauper laws, Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 111. Conspiracy, 33 Edw. I. (A. D. 1305). State v. Buchanan, 5 H. & J. (Md.) 317; Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 111. Bearing arms, 2 Edw. III. (A. D. 1329). Simpson v. State, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 356. Enrolment act, 27 Hen. VIII., c. 16 (A. D. 1536). Welsh v. Foster, 12 Mass. 93, 96; Jackson v. Dunsbogh, 1 Johns. Cas. 91, 97; see Patterson ". Winn, Statute of 5 Pet. 233, 241. The following have been construed as operative: Lex mercatoria, Ferris v. Saxton, 1 South. 1, 18; Pratt v. Eads, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 81; Cook v. Renick, 19 Ill. 598; Nash v. Harrington, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 9; Hudson v. Mathews, Mor. (Ia.) 94; Commonwealth v. Leach, 1 Mass. 59, 61. Statute of uses, 27 Hen. VIII. (A. D. 1536). 1 Greenl. Cruise 340, note; see Croxall v. Sherrerd, 5 Wall. 268, 282; Society v. Hartford, 2 Paine C. C. 536; Matthews v. Ward, 10 G. & J. (Md.) 443, 454; Thompson v. Gibson, 1 Ohio 439. Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I., c. 5 (A. D. 1278). Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. 309, 312; see Moore ads. Townsend, 4 Vr. 284; Dawson v. Coffman, 28 Ind. 220. Statute of Merton, 20 Hen. III. (A. D. 1236). O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381; Hopper v. Hopper, 1 Zab. 543, 2 Zab. 715. frauds, 27 Eliz. (A. D. 1585). Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264; Brown v. Burke, 22 Geo. 574; Den v. De Hart, 1 Hal. 450, 457; Mayberry v. Johnson, 3 Gr. (N. J.) 116, 118; Lindsley v. Coats, 1 Ohio 118. Contra, Cleveland v. Williams, 29 Tex. 204; see Murphy v. Hubert, 7 Barr (Pa.) 420; Blackwell v. Ovenby, 6 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 38. Fines and common recoveries, Lyle v. Richards, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 322. Richman v. Lippincott, 5 Dutch. 44, 50; Croxall v. Sherrerd, 5 Wall. 268, 283. Distresses, 8 Ann, c. 14 (a. d. 1710). Hamilton v. Reedy, 2 McCord (S. C.) 38; Coburn v. Harvey, 18 Wis. 156; Dalgleish v. Grundy, Cam. & Nor. (N. C.) 22; Lambert v. Dessaussure, 4 Rich. (S. C.) Law 248; In re Trim, 2 Hughes (W. S. C. C.) 355; Damages from accidental fire, 6 Ann, c. 31, (A. D. 1708). Kellogg ". C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 26 Wis. 223, 272; as modified by 14 Geo. III., c. 78, (A. D. 1774). Lansing v. Stone, 37 Barb. 15. Discontinuance by husband of wife's in |