APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 
a decree in favour of the lat- 
ter. 
Sir Arthur Pigot now contend- 
ed, that as the difference between 
Jegacies to charities, and legacies 
to individuals, had been recog- 
nized for centuries, it was quite 
idle to contend that they were to 
be governed by the same rule. 
He claimed, for the Attorney- 
General, all the principles on 
which those cases had been de- 
cided; he claimed the benefit of 
them as part of the law of the 
land. Siderfin’s case had esta- 
blished the rule of construction, 
which the Court was bound to 
adopt. Heknew the Court could 
not make a will for a man; but 
the Court must take it for grant- 
ed, that a testator knew the rules 
oflaw. In this instance, the tes- 
tator had devised to two chari- 
ties, which he named, and others 
which he intended to add; but as 
he neglected to specify the parti- 
cular objects of his bounty, the 
rule was, that he had sufficiently 
demonstrated a charitable pur- 
pose to enable the Court to act 
upon it. But then, it was asked, 
in what proportions should the 
property be distributed? The 
Jearned counsel was of opinion 
that if a testator made a bequest 
to the Foundling-hospital, the 
Lying-in-hospital, and the Blue- 
coat-school, in such proportions 
as he should thereafter name, and 
then die without naming the pro- 
portions, the Court would give 
the property in equal thirds. In 
the present case, the testator did 
not name all the objects of his 
charitable purposes; but as he 
had specified two, the want of 
nominating others could not de- 
stroy his intention. But it had 
been said, that, in consequence of 
275 
this omission, the Court could not 
tell in what manner to act. He 
submitted, however, that as the 
testator named no other charities, 
he meant to confine his bounty 
to the two which he had speci- 
fied ; by naming no others, it 
was evident, that he had changed 
his mind; and the two must 
either take the whole, or the 
Court would appoint another cha- 
rity to have a third. 
Mr. Leach, on the other side, 
contended, that as the testator 
died without perfecting his gift, 
no Court could supply the uncer- 
tainty. In Siderfin’s case, the 
testator had perfected his gift; 
and accordingly the Court dis- 
posed of his property to a charity, 
and excluded his next of kin. 
Upon the whole, if the present 
case were considered on the lan- 
guage of the testator, it must be 
evident that he meant to give to 
certain specific charities, and hav- 
ing neglected to name. them, his 
next of kin were entitled. 
The Lord Chancellor said, that 
when he considered the weight of 
authority by which this case had 
been decided, he felt the most 
anxious wish that he should not 
be wrong in pronouncing his 
judgment. When the first argu 
ment was concluded, his Jord- 
ship had no difficulty in saying, his 
mind was still so assailed by scru- 
ples, that he directed the second 
argument, which he had heard 
that day. He should have been 
glad if the case had been reheard 
before the Master of the Rolls; 
but as he was bound to dis- 
charge his duty, he meant to give 
judgment on Monday next, and 
was not quite satisfied that he 
ought to affirm the decree. In 
executing wills, the Court was 
TZ 
