A chapter is devoted to the trial of Ney, but as this has been noticed in a former number,1 we shall confine ourselves to the few details which are new to us. Ney's principal defence, so far as his personal honour was concerned, rested on the impossibility of restraining his troops; that he held out for the king as long as he could, and only yielded to necessity. It was alleged that when Louis XVIII. inquired of him what was the best means of strengthening his throne, the answer was, "One word, your majesty; let the Imperial Guard be called the Royal Guard, and your throne is indestructible." It was further stated in the course of the trial that Napoleon said to him at Auxerre, "Marshal, you have acted at Compiegne as my cruellest enemy. If Louis XVIII. had followed your advice, I should not be here." When it was proposed to rely on the fact of his having been born a Prussian, he indignantly repudiated the objection, and he was with difficulty persuaded to suffer his counsel to appeal to the 12th article of the Treaty of Paris, establishing an amnesty. It was in explanation of this article that the Marshal Prince of Eckmulh, who signed the treaty as commander-in-chief, deposed, "I had the honour to be still at the head of 8000 French bayonets; thus supported I would not have suffered the slightest reservation."

It was answered that Louis XVIII. was not a party to a treaty; and M. Berryer was suddenly interrupted by the president, and desired to refrain from pressing the topic. He persevered notwithstanding, till the Marshal exclaimed, “You see that it is a preconceived plan: I had rather not be defended at all than be defended according to the pleasure of my accusers." His friends supplicated him to allow his counsel to renew their efforts to obtain a hearing, but he remained deaf to their intreaties, returned to his prison, and quietly went to dinner; where M. Berryer found him eating with as good an appetite as if nothing had occurred. Four guards or sentinels were posted in the four corners of his room; one of them was advancing to take away a knife with which the Marshal was helping himself, when a frown, and the contemptuous expression "quelle lacheté !" induced him to fall back.

19 L. M. p. 123.

Ney took leave of M. Berryer with these words, "Adieu, my dear defender, we shall meet again above." He was attended to the place of execution by the curate of Saint Sulpice. A coach was in waiting to receive them at the prison gates, and when the curate hesitated to enter first, he insisted, saying, "As for me, I am going farther than you."

In consequence of the part he took in this affair, M. Berryer was for many years under the ban of the authorities, and he complains greatly of being excluded from the Council of Discipline and other professional distinctions through their instrumentality, though repeatedly nominated by an immense. majority of his brethren. In November, 1822, a royal ordinance restored the bar the free choice of their officers, and M. Berryer was then elected a member of the council without delay, which certainly looks as if his suspicions of government interference were well-grounded.

In 1825, M. Berryer paid a visit to London, and gives the following account of his reception there :

"In 1825 I happened to be at London, where matters of importance brought me into communication with Sir Coppley (now Lord Linthurst), Atthorney-General, or advocate of the crown. In this capacity, Sir Coppley was one of the first magistrates of the three kingdoms he decided alone and definitively all questions of patents. This did not prevent him from continuing the practice of his original profession of plain barrister, pleading in the midst of his brethren, confounded with them on the same amphitheatre, without anything to distinguish him.

"Sir Coppley had seen me at Brighton, whither I had repaired from London to obtain an audience from him. To my application he replied that he could only receive an advocate, his confrère, at his table; he had the additional kindness to ask the Solicitor-General of England and other personages to meet me.

"On his return to London soon after me, Sir Coppley had resumed his duties in the Court of King's Bench.

"One morning I repair to this Court, accompanied by a solicitor, with no other intention than that of being present as a looker-on at one of its sittings. The Attorney-General perceives my white head, the only one, in the crowd: he sends an officer of the Court, bearing a wand of ivory, to speak to me. The officer presses through the crowd, reaches the place where I am standing, and in a few words of English translated by my solicitor, invites me to follow

him to the bar of the amphitheatre set apart for the advocates. The bar opens. Two young advocates, in wigs à la Louis XIV., come forward to introduce me. All the advocates, the Broughams and Scarletts being of the number, rise to salute me. I was dressed in a plain black surtout. My two young attendants assign me a seat between them. They keep me, during the sitting, au courant of what is going on. It was a bankruptcy matter under inquiry by a jury. The jury having retired to deliberate, I took a respectful leave of the advocates en masse.

"All the London newspapers of the day following gave a report highly flattering to both countries of this solemn reception of a Parisian advocate. I have since ascertained that it was by way of return for my having twenty years before procured the famous Erskine a reception equally warm from all my brethren at one of the sittings of the Appeal Court of Paris.

"Thus the honours heaped upon me by the bar of England were a just homage rendered to my order in my person."

Soon after his return from London, M. Berryer retired from public practice in the courts. His age now exceeded seventy, and he was annoyed by finding himself not unfrequently opposed to his eldest son, the famous orator, whose brilliant career gives occasion to numerous bursts of parental exultation, in which it is impossible to help sympathizing. Down to a very recent period, however, he has been in the habit of appearing on particular emergencies, and his chamber practice continues to this hour.

The personal narrative ends with the first volume. The second, containing an account of the most interesting causes in which he has been engaged, will form the subject of a future article.

H.

ART. II.-WARDS IN CHANCERY.

(Continued from the last Number.)

OUR readers will recollect that in our last Number we inquired into many of the subjects connected with wards in chancery. The origin of the jurisdiction, the persons who may be wards, the persons who may be guardians, and the mode in which their appointment is effected, were investigated in detail. We now come to the remaining branches of the subject.

When the infant has been provided with a guardian, the next point for consideration is his maintenance. We have before had occasion to observe that maintenance may be ordered not only for wards of Court, but also for infants who are not wards of Court, upon mere petition. Lord Hardwicke stated the existence of doubts upon the subject in Exparte Whitfield.

"When this petition was formerly heard, I had a doubt whether the Court could upon exparte applications allow a maintenance for an infant, where no cause is depending, for it is at the peril of a guardian in socage what he applies for maintenance, and he will be allowed according to the discretion he has used, and therefore I directed it to stand over for precedents."

His lordship having quoted two precedents proceeds as follows: "There may be a great convenience in applications of this kind, because it may be a sort of check upon infants with regard to their behaviour, and it may be an inducement to persons of worth to accept of the guardianship, when they have the sanction of this Court for any thing they do on account of maintenance, which otherwise would be at their own peril;1 and likewise of use in saving the expence of a suit to an infant's estate."

Great care is taken to limit the number of instances in which the maintenance may be had without any bill being filed: where the property is considerable, where it is necessary in the first instance to take accounts in the Master's office, or where the trustees have a discretion in making an allowance, a bill must be filed. Some judges have been more scrupu

2

Exparte Whitfield, 3 Atk. 316.

2 Corbet v. Tottenham, 1 B. & B. 61.

lous in making these orders as to real estate than as to personal estate. Lord Giffard said that the result of a conference between himself and Lord Eldon was that no such order would be made as to real estate, unless the property of the infant was extremely small. On the other hand the present ViceChancellor has disapproved of the distinction between real and personal estate, and has made the order of reference with equal freedom respecting each kind of property. The general result of the cases appears to be that, if the property is very small, or there is a specific fund for maintenance, the order will be made upon petition.3

But whether the order is made with or without suit, the same principles seem to prevail in determining the amount to be allowed. In cases in which infants are left in the custody of their father, the father, if he is of ability, is bound to maintain them out of his own property; but if infants are removed from their father, an allowance out of his estate will be ordered, "as it is proposed that their maintenance and education should be put out of his control, it is therefore, as he may refuse to afford them more than will supply them with their bare maintenance, which the law of the country would require from every person who had the means to maintain his children, it is for that reason that the Court is to take upon itself, out of the property that those children have, instead of accumulating the income of their property for their benefit, till they should be capable of taking possession of it themselves, to apply a part of it for their maintenance and education." On the other hand if they are left to live with their father, who is not of ability to maintain them, an allowance must be provided. Even if he is of ability, an allowance must be provided in any of those cases, in which by a contract underð settlement or by provision in a will, a special sum has been set apart as a fund for children's maintenance.

Exparte Molesworth, 4 Russ. 308.

2

Exparte Starkie, 3 Sim. 339.

Exparte Mountfort, 15 V. 445. See Exparte Salter, 2 Dick. 769. Exparte Kent, 3 Bro. C. C. 88. Exparte Lakin, 4 Russ. 307.

Wellesly v. W. 2 Bla. N. P. 133.

5 Meacher v. Goring, 2 M. & K. 491; Storker v. S. 2 M. & K. 491.

• Andrews v. Partington; Hoste v. Pratt, 3 V. 732; 3 Bro. C. C. 60; Wetherell v. Wilson, 1 Keen, 83.