A HUNDRED years ago, English lawyers, when dining together, used to drink to the health of "The Schoolmaster," for schoolmasters then often drew up wills for people, and by their ignorance of legal technicalities gave the gentleman of the long robe much remunerative business. "To the lawyers' best friend-the man who makes his own will," was also a regular toast at dinners of the Bar. Prosaic as most last wills and testaments are save to fortunate legatees-there are many most amusing instances of eccentric bequests and peculiar disposals of prop

erty.

The admiration of our American cousins for their country is a prominent characteristic of their daily life, and some years ago a Mr. Sanborn desired that in death as in life his body should proclaim the glory of the Republic. He left a thousand pounds to the late Professor Agassiz, in return for which he was, by an extremely scientific process set forth in the will, to tan his-Sanborn's-skin into leather, and from it have a drum made. Two of the most suitable bones of his body were to be made into drumsticks, and with these a Mr. Warren Simpson-to whom Sanborn left the remainder of his property-was "on every seventeenth of June to repair to the foot of Bunker's Hill, and at sunrise beat on the drum, the parchment of which had been made out of the testator's skin, the spirit-stirring strains of 'Yankee Doodle.'"

A somewhat similar bequest was made by a German in 1887. He died in Pittsburg, U. S. A., and by his will directed that his body should be cremated and the ashes forwarded to the German consul at New York, who was to deliver them over to the captain of the steamship Elbe. When in midWhen in midocean the captain was to request a passenger to dress himself in nautical costume, and, ascending with the funeral urn to the topmast, to scatter the ashes to the four winds of heaven. These strange directions were faith

the

fully carried out. Quite as peculiar were the directions for the funeral of a Mr. John Underwood. He willed that he was to be buried in a green coffin with a copy of Horace under his head, and of Milton under his feet, a Greek Testament in his right hand, and a small Horace in his left. Six friends, who were not to wear mourning, were to follow him to the grave, and there to sing a verse of the twentieth ode of the second book of Horace. After this they were to "take a cheerful glass and think no more of John Underwood."

Wills may also be admitted as evidence of the mixed blessings of the matrimonial state. A nobleman wrote: "I give and bequeath to the worst of women, whom I unfortunately married, forty-five brass halfpence, which will buy her a pullet for supper." A Glasgow doctor, dying some ten years ago, left the whole of his estate to his two sisters; and then came this extraordinary clause: "To my wife, as a recompense for deserting me and leaving me in peace, I expect the said sister Elizabeth to make her a gift of ten shillings sterling, to buy her a pocket handkercief to weep in after my decease." A Mr. Sydney Dickenson bequeathed to his wife the sum of sixty thousand pounds, "on condition that she undertakes to pass two hours a day at my graveside, for the ten years following my decease, in company with her sister, whom I have reason to know she loathes worse than she does me." Another husband stated that he would have left his widow ten thonsand pounds, if she had allowed him to read his evening newspaper in peace; but, as she always commenced playing and singing when he started to read, he left her only a thousand pounds. Such instances could be multiplied indefinitely, but one other is worthy of note. A husband left his wife twelve thousand pounds, to be increased to twenty-four thousand pounds provided that she wore a widow's cap after his death. She accepted the larger

amount, wore the cap for six months, and then put it off. A lawsuit followed; but the judge held that the testator should have inserted the word "always," and gave judgment in favor of the widow, who, the day after, reentered the state of matrimony. Thus the husband's little plan for preventing his widow marrying again failed. Husbands, it appears, can prevent their wives marrying again, but wives cannot so hamper their husbands.

The malevolence of some men is manifested in their death, as well as life. What could exceed the cruelty of a father who left his daughter thirty thousand pounds under the following conditions: "Should my daughter marry, and be afflicted with children, the trustees are to pay out of the said legacy two thousand pounds, on the birth of the first child, to the

Hospital; four thousand pounds, on the second; six thousand pounds, on the third; and an additional two thousand pounds on the birth of each fresh child, till the thirty thousand pounds is exhausted. Should any portion of this sum be left at the end of twenty years, the balance is to be paid to her, to use as she thinks fit."

A Mr. Henry Budd died in 1862, leaving considerable property behind. It was to be divided equally among his sons, and held by them as long as they wore no moustaches. Should one of them cease to shave his top lip, his share would be forfeited. This condition is easy indeed compared with that laid down by a Derby gentleman. He left his property to his eldest son on condition that he never used tobacco in any shape or form. If he broke this condition the property was to be divided among his brothers and sisters, and as they numbered six, there was little chance of his ever indulging in the fragrant weed, save at the cost of his legacy. A year or two ago a Russian gentleman living at Odessa bequeathed four million roubles to his four nieces, but they were to receive. the money only after having worked for a year as washer-women, chambermaids or farm-servants. These conditions were carried out, and while oc

cupying such humble positions, it is satisfactory to learn that they received over eight hundred and sixty offers of marriage.

Humaneness to animals is much more common than humanity to man, and scores of people have left large sums to their pets. In 1895 Miss Charlotte Rosa Raine bequeathed her "dear old white puss Titiens and pusses tabby Rolla, tabby Jennifee and black and white Ursula to Ann Elizabeth Matthews," directing her executors to pay her twelve pounds a year for the maintenance of each cat so long as it should live. Her long-haired white puss Louise, and her black and white puss Doctor Clausman, she gave to her handmaid, Elizabeth Willoughby, and her black ebony and white Oscar to Miss Lavina Beck; and her executors were directed to pay them twelve pounds per annum for the maintenance of each cat. The rest of her cats-how many had Miss Raine?-she left "to the aforesaid Ann Elizabeth Matthews, to whom one hundred and fifty pounds per annum shall be paid for their maintainance as long as any do live, but such annuity does not apply to kittens born of them."

Another eccentric old lady left a few trifling amounts to her relatives, but five hundred pounds a year to be held in trust for her parrot, with five hundred pounds for a new cage for Polly. Another old maid left one hundred pounds a year for the keep of her parrot, which was to be produced twice a year," to prove that the person tending it had not wrung its neck."

One lady left seventy pounds a year for the maintenance of three goldfish, which were to be identified as follows:

66

One is bigger than the other two, and these latter are to be easily recognized, as one is fat and the other lean. If the fish, on quarter-day, are found to be of this description, the money is to be paid; if not, it is to be expended on flowers, which are to be placed on the graves of the goldfish after death."

In 1892 a Paris lady left ten thousand francs to her cat. On its death, the money was to be spent on elementary schools. The death of the cat last

year caused the money to revert to the district governing body for this pur

pose.

An old bachelor, on dying, left the whole of his property to three ladies to whom he had proposed marriage, and who had refused him. The reason of this bequest was that by their refusal, "to them I owe all my earthly happiness."

It is not surprising that lawyers grow wealthy over wills when a gentleman bequeaths five hundred pounds "to that amiable young lady, Miss Blank, who smiles so sweetly in the street when we meet." Now, in the Blank family there were six sisters; they all claimed to be "the amiable young lady," but which of them got the legacy, history sayeth not.

To dispose of one's worldly goods in poetry is as incongruous as digging with a jewelled spade. Still, several examples of rhymed wills exist. A solicitor of all people in the world!

wrote:

As to all my worldly goods, now or to be in

store,

I give them to my beloved wife, and hers for

evermore.

I give all freely; I no limit fix;
This is my will, and she's executrix.

But the most curious will which the writer has ever come across is that of M. Zalesky, a Polish landlord, who died in 1889 leaving property valued at a hundred thousand roubles. His will was enclosed in an envelope, bearing the words, "To be opened after my death." Inside this was another envelope, "To be opened six weeks after my death." When this time had

passed, the second envelope was opened and a third uncovered, "To he opened one year after my death." At the end of the year a fourth envelope was discovered, to be opened two years after the testator's death; and so the game went on until 1894, when the actual will was discovered and read. It was quite as eccentric in its dispositions as the directions attached to its opening. The testator bequeathed half his fortune to such of his heirs as had the largest number of children; the rest of the property was to be placed in a bank, and a hundred years after his death to be divided, with the accumulated interest, among the willmaker's descendants. Thus by 1989, at five per cent. compound interest, the fifty thousand roubles will have swelled into over six million roubles; but what will this be among so many descendants?

No more than the layman can the lawyer be trusted to make his own will. Lord St. Leonards, one of the most distinguished lord chancellors of the century, made his own will, and over it a long and costly litigation ensued. Lord Mansfield also made his own will, but it was far from being in regular form, though it proved valid. Sir Joseph Jekyll was noted as a lawyer; but having no heirs, he left the whole of his estate to pay off the national debt. "Sir Joseph Jekyll," said Lord Mansfield, "might as well have attempted to stop the arch of Blackfriars Bridge with his full-bottomed wig," and the will was set aside on the ground of of imbecility. — Household Words.

FROM the earliest period the history of the world is the record of a constant struggle between Liberty and Authority. The progress of this struggle may be broadly followed out in the history of our own country from the 1066. year The early Norman kings were despots.

Their subjects regarded the Crown as the embodiment of all that was antagonistic to their freedom, and set about securing themselves against displays of tyranny. The barons, having secured the assistance of the people, commenced a movement to obtain from the

Crown the recognition of certain rights and immunities which they considered necessary to their welfare. Their success was complete when King John found himself compelled to sign the Magna Charta in 1216. This success prompted them to further endeavors, and in 1265, with the foundation of the House of Commons, the second step was taken-viz., the imposition of a constitutional check upon the actions of the monarch.

It took centuries of struggle to carry this idea to perfection, but by the time of the accession of the Stuarts to the throne of England Parliament had succeeded in forcing the Sovereign to acknowledge the right of the people's voice in the government. Finally, people did not see why the Crown need necessarily be independent, and the opinion gained ground that, if the ruling power were elected by and held place at the will of the nation, the struggle between Authority and Liberty would be ended for good, and tyranny would cease to be; for if the people elected the ruling body or bodies, that meant, in theory, that they ruled themselves, and they would never need protection against their own will. The deposition of James II. and the call of William of Orange were the outcome of this idea, which has been developed. since.

But experience has proved that democratic government may, equally with any other form, spell "tyranny." For what does democratic government mean, but that each individual member of the community is ruled by all the rest -that the majority rules, and the majority may desire to oppress a part of their number? The common expression, "the tyranny of the majority," shows that we appreciate this danger, and that it needs guarding against. When the majority, or society is itself the tyrant, it has means other than political of silencing its opponents. When it issues laws which are wrong, or which oppress the individual, it practises a tyranny much more severely felt than any political oppression, in that this tyranny enters so minutely into the details of private life, and be

cause, though offences against society may not bring such severe punishment as those against the law, there are fewer loopholes of escape.

We need, consequently, protection against prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose its dictates upon those who disagree with it, as well as against the tyranny of the magistrate. Individuality is in danger of being swamped by social laws. Social tyranny at the present day constitutes a positive danger to the individual, for it tends to make him a slave to custom, a mere machine, a creature who is given a reason which he is not to presume to use, except in so far as it finds him at one with society, whose mandates he disobeys at his peril.

The

We see this tendency in almost everything. People do everything in crowds; they like or dislike in crowds; and the fact that "the world" does it is considered sufficient justification for any action or line of conduct. great majority of people dread being deemed as "like nobody," and consider themselves the nearer perfection the nearer they attain to the style of conduct which the world votes properthat is, being like everybody else. If any one is bold enough to break the fetters with which society would bind him, to think, speak, or act in accordance with his own desires, he is pointed out as a being to be hated and shunned by all so-called right-thinking people.

Now this line of conduct can lead but to one goal-the man ceases to have a mind of his own. Granted that we could all be fitted into the same castiron mould, that we could all be made blindly to follow custom, what would be the result? We need only look at the greater part of the world to see. In China we have a good example. There custom is the court of final appeal. Justice is what custom makes it. In fact, China is the perfection of what custom can produce. It was as highly civilized as it is at the present time when our forefathers wandered as savages through the woods of Britain, and the only thing which has prevented its complete decay is the fact

Yet it could not have risen to such a height without individuality. There is a point at which all States cease to progress, and either remain stationary. or commence the downward path; and that point is the time when individuality is stamped out. China will remain in its present position until fresh blood has been infused into it-that is, until it is governed by men superior to the commonplace creatures to which social laws are tending to reduce us.

It may be argued that custom is the accumulated knowledge gathered from the experience of centuries. It does

not follow that all its conclusions are true. It would be idle to contend that any one should live as if nothing had happened in the world before he came into it, or as though the world had nothing in the way of guidance to give him; but when he knows the conclusions at which the world has arrived, surely we must allow him the right as a human being to differ. Probably, having gone through the same experiences, he would arrive at conclusions entirely different.

Then, again, it may be suggested that a person is not expected to follow custom blindly, but intelligently. What room does that leave for the play of his impulses? The human mind cannot be made to order, and the impulses of the individual may be peculiar to himself. Even though they do differ from those of every other being on the face of the earth, are they therefore wrong? Strong desires are the marks of a strong character, which may be capable of much evil, but certainly capable of great good. It is surely not our duty to stifle every desire which we in our weakness are not able to comprehend, and to reduce such natures to the sorry level which so well contents the majority of mankind. We should not reject the stuff from which heroes are made simply because we do not know how to make them. In such natures let us cultivate the strong feelings with which nature has endowed the man, and educate him to a proper direction of them, and we shall

therefore valuable to the community. This strong individualism it is which has made England, and if we wish her to keep her position as foremost in the race of the world, we must encourage it judiciously wherever we find it. Let social tyranny crush individualism to the dust, and what China is England will soon be.

Do we encourage individualism? This is an age of philanthropic movement, the great aim of which is regularity of conduct and the discouragement of excess. The majority of people, having merely moderate tastes and inclinations, apparently back up this philanthropy. The young receive their education pretty much from the same stock; the class distinctions which formerly existed are to a great extent wiped out; improved methods of communication result in personal contact, bringing people of different districts within easy reach of each other. Comparatively speaking, people see the same things, hear the same things, and are led to direct their attention to the same objects. This, and the marks of disapprobation with which any display of eccentricity meets, are liable to bring people to the same platform and to encourage mediocrity. This is levelling down, rather than levelling up; it goes in the direction of making custom supreme.

Greater liberty should be given to the individual. Liberty of thought and speech have, after a prolonged struggle, been conceded, although there may be found people who, on their own pet failings, even yet refuse to allow the right unreservedly. Liberty of speech is justified on three grounds: first, if the opinion be true, the world reaps the benefit to be derived from that truth; secondly, if the opinion be false, truth is the more strengthened by contest with it; and lastly, if it be partly true and partly false, our opinions, if they do not entirely lose their weakness, at any rate gain the corrections which would have greatly improved them. The commencement of the struggle was due to re