ral.-Royal Marines, Lieut.-Col. H. J. Murton, and Lieut.-Col. Joseph Walker, to be Colonels in the Army.

19. Royal Marines, Colonel Second Commandant D. J. Ballingall to be Colonel Commandant; Lieut.-Col. J. Whylock to be Colonel Second Commandant; brevet Major J. Tothill to be Lieut.-Colonel.

21. 82nd Foot, Capt. E. B. Hale to be Major; brevet Lieut.-Colonel John Austen, unattached, to be Colonel in the Army. To be Majors in the Army, Captains J. W. Dalgety and R. Daly (Captains of Companies of Gentlemen Cadets at the Royal Military College); brevet Major T. Donnelly, E. I. C. service, temporary rank while employed at Addiscombe.

25. Colonel Charles Menzies R.M., and Lieut.-Col. Thomas Wearing, R.M., to be Aides-de-Camp to Her Majesty.

26. Royal Marines, Lieut.-Col. T. Wearing to be Colonel Second Commandant; brevet Major F. Graham to be Lieut.-Colonel.-Royal Engineers, brevet Major W. C. Forbes to be Lieut.Colonel.

28. Brevet Lieut.-Col. J. A. Butler to be Colonel in the Army.

ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS.

Rev. W. W. Champneys, Canonry in St. Paul's Cathedral.

Ven. T. Hill, Canonry of Offley and Flixton, Lichfield Cathedral.

Rev. C. D'Ewes Granville, Hon. Canonry, Durham.

COLLEGIATE AND SCHOLASTIC APPOINT

MENTS.

Duke of Argyll, Chancellor of St. Andrew's University.

A. Alison, esq., Lord Rector of Glasgow University, 1851-2.

Rev. J. M'Cosh, LL.D., Professorship of Logic and Metaphysics, Queen's College, Belfast.

J. A. Ogle, M.D., Regius Professorship of Medicine, Tomlin's Prælectorship of Anatomy, and Aldrichian Professorship of Anatomy in the University of Oxford.

Rev. R. Okes, D.D. (Provost of King's College), to be Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, 1851-2.

Rev. J. Thompson, B.D., Rectorship of Lincoln College, Oxford.

11. R. D. Wilmot, esq., to be SurveyorGeneral for the Province of New Brunswick.

22. Major Edward Frome, R.E., to be Surveyor-General of Mauritius.Francis Lewis Shaw Merewether, esq., to be Postmaster-General of New South Wales; Michael Fitzpatrick, esq., to be Clerk of the Executive Council of that colony; Hutchinson Hothersell Browne, esq., to be Agent for Immigration, and John O'Neil Brenan, esq., to be Water Police Magistrate, at Sydney.

24. Percy William Doyle, esq. (now Secretary of Legation in Mexico), to be Minister Plenipotentiary to that Republic.-Edward Thornton, esq. (now paid Attaché to Her Majesty's Legation in Mexico), to be Secretary of Legation to that Republic.

26. Earl Granville to be one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State (for the Foreign Department).

Henry Revell Reynolds, esq., to be Solicitor to the Treasury; and John Greenwood, esq., Q.C., Assistant Solicitor.

Barnes Peacock, esq., Q.C., to be Fourth Ordinary Member of Council in India.

Joseph Pollock, esq., to be Judge of the County Court at Liverpool.

ARMY APPOINTMENTS.

5. 89th Foot, brevet Major C. R. Egerton to be Major.

11. Royal Artillery, brevet Major G. H. Hyde to be Lieut.-Colonel.-Royal Engineers, brevet Major R. J. Stotherd to be Lieut.-Colonel.

12. 17th Foot, brevet Major L. C. Bourchier to be Major.-27th Foot, brevet Major G. A. Durnford to be Major.

METAIRIE v. WISEMAN

AND OTHERS.

VICE-CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH'S COURT.

March, 1851.

The circumstances of the times, the recent great excitement arising from the Papal Bull dividing England into Roman Catholic sees, the protracted discussions on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and the position of one of the defendants, gave to this case a remarkable degree of prominence. As, however, the case did not arrive to a decision on its merits, it must be understood that the following outline of the facts is derived from the statements of counsel.

The case came before the ViceChancellor in the form of a motion for an injunction prayed by Julie Metairie, the plaintiff, to restrain the defendants, John Athanasius Cooke, the Very Rev. Mr. Norris, and Mr. Cox, from dealing with or transferring a sum of 7000l. 3 per cent. annuities, from receiving any future dividends, and from applying any dividends already received, until the further order of the Court. These defendants were executors of the will of the testator in the cause. The other defendants were the Very Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and Cardinal, with the Rev. Mr. Holdstock, a priest, Mr. Norris and Mr. Cox as trustees of the gifts, one Hamilton a legatee, and others, relatives and next of kin

of the testator. The case was argued before the Vice-Chancellor for many days, and an immense number of lengthy affidavits were read.

During the French Revolution, in 1797, Mathurin Carrée, a native of France, emigrated from that country, and came to live in England, where he supported himself by teaching languages in London. For nearly twenty years he had lived in meanly-furnished lodgings in Charlton Street, Somers Town, his landlady being the mother of Hamilton, one of the defendants in this suit. Carrée was a man of great industry, and popular in his calling, by means of which, and by the exercise of the most extreme parsimony, he had contrived to amass more than 10,000l.; which he invested in the English funds in two sums of 70001. and 3000l. In 1847 he attained the age of 77, and, notwithstanding his rigid economy and sparing habits, was still in the possession of health and vigour. One of his ruling peculiarities-which had some bearing upon this case, for the alleged disposition of his property was chiefly in a gift to a female school-was that he entertained a rooted aversion to women; and another, not less bearing upon the whole circumstances of the case, was his utter detestation of priests in every shape, and a total absence of any regard for religion. Early in 1847 the old man fell into a weak state of health; and on the 26th of February, at the suggestion of the Hamiltons where he lodged, a

French medical practitioner named Gasquet, who was of the Roman Catholic persuasion, was called in, and attended him in his lodgings on the 27th of February. M. Gasquet said that M. Carrée was suffering from age and weakness, and that he would be most benefited by nutritious food; but that he feared "the poor creature" had not the means of supplying himself with the comforts his state required. Whereon Mr. Hamilton informed M. Gasquet, that the poor creature, notwithstanding his apparent penury, was very rich, and could very well afford to indulge himself with any comforts he could be prevailed upon to allow himself. M. Gasquet appeared to be surprised, and inquired whether he had any relations in this country; when Mr. Hamilton informed him that he had no relations in England, but that in France he had sisters and other relatives living. M. Gasquet appears to have lost no time in conveying to a Roman Catholic priest, named Holdstock, one of the defendants, and a priest of a chapel in Clarendon Square, Somers Town, the interesting information that in the house of Mr. Hamilton there was an aged French Roman Catholic gentleman in a dying state. Whether the anxiety arose from an interest as to the state of the old man's soul or his property, certainly no time was lost; for Holdstock called at Mr. Hamilton's on the very next day, required to see M. Carrée, and to see him alone. What passed between the dying man and the priest is unknown; but it was announced that M. Carrée had of himself proposed to give the larger part of his property to charity; it was also stated that this intention had been reduced to writing, but VOL. XCIII.

if so, the paper was never produced. The priest, Holdstock, then sent one of his congregation, the defendant Cooke, who had been converted to the Roman Catholic religion in 1837. This gentleman was a barrister of the equity bar, well conversant with our law. He went to M. Carrée's lodgings, and carried away the paper with him; and then, and probably from its tenor, and without the intervention of a solicitor, drew up a will, and returned on Monday the 1st of March, and with the priest Holdstock called on M. Carrée, bringing with them the will already engrossed and properly stamped. While the priest and Cooke were with M. Carrée, two women, who lived in the same house with the priest, were called by his direction in order that they might witness the will; but they were sent away, and it was proposed that instead of a will a deed of gift should be prepared, in order thereby to save the legacy duty, which would amount, on the sum proposed to be given to the Church (70001.), to 700l. On Thursday, the 4th of March, both the will and the deed were ready for signature, and a Miss Clarke and a Mr. Hay came to the door. Carrée was then worse, and he desired that they should not be admitted. An altercation took place; but eventually, by the intervention of the priest, the sinking man was induced to consent to their admittance. With them came in a Mr. Brown. As to what then took place, there was some conflict in the affidavits; it was stated, however, for the plaintiff, that the old man was unwilling to proceed with the business, and desired to be left alone; the priest, however, interfered, speaking to him in French. Cooke then read сс

the will through, and was then about to leave the room, but the priest commanded him to stay. The priest then propped up the old man, and held his fingers, and, thus supported, he signed the deeds laid before him. This was between 5 and 7 o'clock in the evening. The chief of the instruments which were thus executed was a deed of gift by which he conveyed the one sum of 70001. stock standing in his name, towards the enlargement of the Roman Catholic Chapel and the school of St. Aloysius, at Somers Town; the next was a will in which, without any mention of the 70001. or the deed of gift, he bequeathed his other sum of 3000l. stock to his relatives in France; nor did it make disposition of any residue. A third document was a power of attorney which would enable the defendant Cooke to get the fund into his own power. M. Carrée desired to keep the document in his own possession, but this was refused. Mrs. Clark then witnessed the signature, and the attestation of Mr. Brown was also obtained; and Cooke then took away the deeds. The power of attorney was immediately taken to the Bank; on the Saturday following the funds were transferred, and on that very day poor old Carrée died. It was asserted that, after the signature to the documents had been thus obtained, the priest never again visited the poor old man; and he died unabsolved, unconfessed, and without any of those consolations of his religion which are administered by the Roman Catholic Church to those who die penitent-which certainly the Church and her priesthood were called upon to presume was the case of M. Carrée, since they had obtained from him so strong a pledge of his

sincerity. The French relatives became by some means aware that, before his death, M. Carrée had been possessed of 10,000l. consols, and set inquiries on foot; and they were then, for the first time, informed of the deed of gift to the charity of St. Aloysius. The relatives were not satisfied with this explanation, and, by the assistance of an English nobleman, they were enabled to file a Bill in Chancery to impeach the deed.

It was contended that, under the circumstances now discovered, the deed of gift, and all the other deeds executed by the deceased, were void. Formerly, indeed, a gift to a Roman Catholic charity would have been void in law; but more recently an Act has been passed, putting gifts and legacies to Roman Catholic charities on the same footing as those to Protestant Dissenters. Although the motion was for an injunction only, when the making out a strong prima facie case would have entitled the plaintiff to the protection of the Court, yet, probably owing to the strong feeling that existed as to the acts of the Roman Catholic Church, the cause was argued as though the whole case was about to be decided on its merits; on behalf of the plaintiff probably because the circumstances were well suited to the feeling of the times; and on behalf of the defendants, because they were certainly defending very much more than the temporary security of a sum of money. It was alleged by the counsel for the former, that the deeds executed by M. Carrée were void, because his execution of them had been obtained under circumstances which would have made void any such deeds, no matter what religion the parties professed.