ments were to be considered as illegal. In answer to a question from the court, it was admitted that there was no written law which prohibited such establishments. In reference to this argument Mr. Justice Abbott said that since no authority could be produced to the contrary, he should certainly hold that such establishments were lawful, and consequently that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover1. The objection was accordingly overruled; however, a highly technical point referring to a misjoinder of plaintiffs was raised, and this being decided in the defendant's favour, judgment was entered for him. The case being decided upon a different point, Mr. Justice Abbott's ruling is of no great authority upon the matter now under discussion, and though it correctly represents the law as it exists at present, it is at least doubtful whether it could have been upheld at the time when it was given. The point was raised in the midst of a trial at Nisi Prius, and apparently decided at once without due consideration and without reference to the existing authorities, and under the impression that no authority to the contrary could be produced. The cases of Da Costa v. De Paz and Isaac v. Gompertz were, however, valid authorities to the contrary, and there can be little doubt that, if these had been cited to the learned judge, his ruling on this point would have been greatly modified. He might of course have attempted to distinguish the case before him from the earlier ones on the ground that it was a matter of contract and not the case of a trust; but such a distinction it would be difficult to uphold. The case is, however, of interest as showing the tolerant spirit which animated the court at the time; it being assumed that the Jewish religion was legal, unless an authority to the contrary was produced.

III.

THE history of the way in which the courts treat endowments for Jewish religious and communal purposes has been sketched in outline, and it has been shown how, though at one time trusts for the maintenance or propagation of the Jewish religion or religious doctrines, as distinguished from trusts for the benefit of poor adherents of that religion, would not be enforced, such trusts, with very unimportant exceptions, have since the year 1846 been carried out by the courts: it remains to deal with the view the courts have taken of claims by Jews to participate in general endowments and charities not specifically confined to any religious creed or denomination. The right of Jews to establish charities in favour of their co-religionists exclusively has been always asserted, and has been firmly established by the judicial decisions previously enumerated; on the other hand, the right of non-Jews to create endowments from which Jews or the members of any other especially designated class or religion are prohibited from deriving any advantage has never been doubted. It may be laid down that Jews are entitled to the benefit of all institutions and foundations which are not by the instrument creating them restricted either expressly or by necessary implication to members of a particular denomination. If duly authorized regulations are laid down for the distribution of a charity, with which it is impossible for a Jew to comply, it is plain that he cannot participate in the benefits of it, but he will not be excluded by the mere fact that the endowment he wishes to

take advantage of was founded at a time anterior to the readmission of Jews into this country.

The principles upon which the courts will act were laid down in the year 1818 by Lord Eldon, sitting as Lord Chancellor, in the matter of the Masters, Governors, and Trustees of the Bedford Charity. Of this case there is an excellent report by Mr. Swanston1, which contains a whole mine of learning upon the subject in hand, but as it covers seventy pages, it is impossible to set it out in full here. It must therefore suffice to give an abstract of the facts, together with the most important portions of the judgment. The Bedford Charity had been originally established in the reign of King Edward the Sixth by Sir William Harper, Knight, and alderman of the city of London, and Dame Alice, his wife; and two Acts of Parliament had been passed, the last in 1793, for its regulation. The charity consisted of (1) a free school in the town of Bedford for the education, institution, and instruction of children and youth in grammar and good manners, and the Wardens and Fellows of New College, Oxford, were constituted Visitors of the grammar school: (2) a provision of £800 per annum for the marriage portions of forty poor maids of the town of Bedford, of good fame and reputation, in equal shares; all poor maidens resident in the town of Bedford, and being of the age of sixteen years or upwards, and under the age of fifty years, whose fathers had been occupiers of a house in the town for the space of ten years or had been born in the town. and had occupied a house therein for three years, were to be at liberty to send to the Mayor an account in writing of their Christian and surnames, their ages, the places of their birth, and the names of their parents; and, if not of bad fame and reputation, were to be permitted to draw lots for sums of £20 each; and each of those who drew the beneficial lots was to be entitled to receive on the day of her marriage £20 for her portion, provided that she a Swanston, pp. 470-539.

should marry within two calendar months from the time of claiming such beneficial lot, and that she should not marry a vagrant or other person of bad fame or reputation: (3) a house or hospital for the habitation of poor boys and girls, born and resident within the town of Bedford, who were proper objects of charity, where they were to be suitably maintained until they were of a proper age to be put out to trade, agriculture, or other business: (4) a provision of a yearly sum of £700, to be applied, by two half-yearly sums of £350, in placing out twenty poor children apprentices every half-year, viz. fifteen boys, not being under the age of thirteen nor above the age of fifteen years, and five girls, not being under the age of twelve nor above the age of fifteen years, whose respective fathers had been occupiers of a house in the town for the space of ten years or had been born in the town and occupied a house therein for the space of three years. All such poor boys and girls, whose names had been sent in at the proper time, were to be permitted to draw lots; and the sum of £20 was to be paid as the apprentice fee with each of the fifteen boys and

10 as the apprentice fee with each of the five girls who should draw the beneficial lots upon their being respectively placed out apprentices to masters and mistresses of good character and respectability. The boys were to be bound for the space of seven years, and the girls for the space of five years; and every boy and girl so put out to apprentice, who should actually serve the full term of apprenticeship, and in all respects comply with the tenor of the indentures of apprenticeship, should, on producing to the trustees of the charity a certificate signed by their respective masters or mistresses and by the minister and churchwardens of the parish where they should have respectively served their apprenticeship, testifying such actual service and compliance with the tenor of their indentures as well as their good morals and behaviour respectively, be entitled to receive such sum of money, not exceeding £20 nor less than £10 each, as the trustees should judge proper and expedient.

(5) The surplusage of the funds, remaining after the before-mentioned objects had been carried out, was to be distributed in alms to the poor of the town for the time being.

In the year 1816 Sheba Lyon, whose father, Joseph Lyon, had been an occupier of a house in the town of Bedford for more than ten years, being then between twelve and fifteen years of age and duly qualified by the Act of Parliament, and her name having been given in in the usual form one calendar month before the time of drawing lots as directed by the Act, presented herself to the masters, governors, and trustees of the Bedford Charity as a candidate to draw a lot for the apprentice fee to be paid to girls. Permission to draw a lot was refused upon the ground that her father, Joseph Lyon, was of the Jewish persuasion, and afterwards any persons of the Jewish persuasion, whatever in other respects might be their qualifications under the terms of the Act of Parliament, or the children of such persons, to partake of any benefit under the Bedford Charity. In answer to an application by Mr. Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, who interceded on behalf of Sheba Lyon, the Mayor of Bedford wrote to him that the trustees, finding the number of Jews increasing in Bedford, entertained considerable doubts whether such persons were objects of the charity, and that they had been advised to refuse and had refused to admit Jews to participate in the benefit of the charity, leaving it to the persons so refused, if they should think proper, to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor.

Accordingly a petition was presented praying that it might be declared that the poor inhabitants of the town of Bedford in other respects duly qualified were entitled to the benefit of the Bedford Charity for themselves and their children, whether they were Jews or Christians, and that Sheba Lyon should be permitted to draw lots for the apprentice fee to be paid to girls.

The evidence showed that Michael Joseph had twice voted in the annual election of trustees of the charity, that