circumstances, the allowance for maintenance has been increased, or a reasonable compensation for trouble allowed.

The committee of the person and estate of a lunatic, being also his younger son, preferred a petition, to be allowed, in addition to 400l. a-year, a sum of money reported by the Master as proper to be allowed for his trouble in taking care of the lunatic's estates, which were large, and dispersed in England and Ireland. The next of kin consented to such allowance, as far as by law they could give such consent. Lord Chancellor Hardwicke observed, that trustees or committees of lunatics never have any allowance made to them for their trouble; committees were generally the relations, or at least friends, of the lunatic, and were supposed to have a regard for his welfare, and to undertake the care of him from charitable motives; and as an allowance had never been made, his Lordship refused to make a precedent for himself and his successors. The present case had less favourable circumstances than where a stranger was committee; for a son was in duty bound to undertake such a trust: nor was the consent of the next of kin (so far as they were by law capable of consenting), a sufficient ground for obtaining the allowance; for, it is the interest of the lunatic which the Court regards, and the lunatic might outlive the present next of kin, and his personal estate go into other hands after his death. The management of the property, however, in that case being attended with great trouble, his Lordship directed the committee to prefer a petition for an increase of maintenance, taking no notice of the Master's report; and he would then order an additional allowance of 2001. a-year (b).

On a petition, presented in lunacy, for an allowance to the committee of the estate, for his care and trouble, Lord Chancellor Eldon is reported to have said, that he did not recollect an instance of allowing a committee of the estate any thing for his care and trouble; and refused to make an order for that purpose (c).

But, under peculiar circumstances, a salary is sometimes (c) Anon. 10 Ves. 104.

(b) In re Annesley, Ambl. 78.

allowed to the committee of the estate of a lunatic. Thus, where a gentleman, unconnected with the family of the lunatic, had been induced at their request to suffer himself to be proposed as committee, in order to carry into effect the Lord Chancellor's recommendation; and the inspecting the estate, and receiving and remitting the rents, would be attended with considerable trouble; and the Master had approved the appointment. On a petition being presented by some of the next of kin, praying that the committee of the estate might have an allowance, in the same manner as a receiver-Lord Chancellor Eldon directed the Master to inquire and certify what reasonable allowance under the peculiar circumstances of the case it would be proper to make to the committee, for his care and pains in the management of the lunatic's estate, and in collecting and receiving the rents thereof, with liberty to state any special circumstances (d).

In another case, where a person had been appointed committee of the estate of a lunatic, but, in consequence of the large amount of the security required, and of the trouble which he must necessarily be put to in collecting the rents of the lunatic's houses, and the interest due upon bonds and mortgage securities, refused to act, unless he was also appointed receiver, with some remuneration for his trouble in attending to the affairs of the lunatic-Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, on the petition of the sisters and coheiresses of the lunatic, made a reference to the Master to settle a reasonable and proper salary, to be allowed to the committee of the estate, for his care in the management of the lunatic's estate, on his giving security, to be approved by the Master, to account annually for what he should receive and pay (e).

So likewise where the estate of the lunatic consisted of lands in different parts of a county, which were divided into upwards of twenty farms, let on leases, which contained very special covenants, an order was made, without a reference to 453; ante, p. 146.

(d) Ex parte Fermor, In re Errington, Jac. Rep. 404. See Marshall v. Holloway, 2 Swanst. 432,

(e) In re Palmer, 15 March, 1828.

the Master, that the committee of the lunatic's estate should be at liberty to employ a particular person for inspecting the lunatic's property, at a fixed salary, to be paid out of the rents of the estate(ƒ).

But in a case where the committee of the person of the lunatic petitioned for payment of an annual sum directed to be allowed to him for expenses incurred by him in visiting the lunatic; and it appeared that such committee had resided in Scotland from 1813 to 1821-Lord Chancellor Eldon said, if a sum was allowed the committee for the expenses of visiting the lunatic, and he retired out of the jurisdiction, where the Court could not compel him to do his duty, the Court would not order it to be paid to him. It must be paid to some one over whom the Court had control. If an application had been made, stating that he was gone to reside permanently in Scotland, the Court would have discontinued the allowance. The order made on the last petition declared that the committee was not entitled to the allowance of 40l. per annum claimed by him, and directed the Master to inquire, regard being had to any visits which he should find to have been actually made by the petitioner to the lunatic, at his place of residence, whether any, and what sum ought to be allowed him for such visits (g).

Where a person, who had been appointed committee of the estate, stated in his petition that he had never consented to the appointment, that he declined to act as committee, and that no other person could be found to undertake the office; but that he was willing to accept the situation of receiver of the estate of the lunatic, on being allowed a proper salary-It was referred to the Master to approve of some other proper persons as committees; and if no proper person could be found to act as such committee, then the Master was to appoint a proper person to be the receiver of the lunatic's estate, with a reasonable salary for his care and pains, on his giving the same security as is re

(f) In re Errington, 2 Russ. 567. (g) Ex parte Ord, Jac. Rep. 94.

quired from the committees of lunatic's estates to account annually; and a further order was added, that the tenants of the lunatic's estates should attorn and pay their rents to such receiver, who was to be at liberty to let the estates from time to time, with the approbation of the Master, as there should be occasion (h).

SECTION VIII.

Of the Removal of Committees.

AS the King is bound to execute the trust reposed in him by the statute de prærogativá regis (i), and cannot do it otherwise than by persons appointed for that purpose, the Lord Chancellor is the proper person to direct and control the authority of the person so appointed; and it is the duty of the person holding the Great Seal to see that the committees do not use their trust to the prejudice of the lunatic in his life-time, or of those entitled to his property after his death.

The committee of the estate is considered as a mere bailiff, appointed by the Crown, and under its control, to take care of the property, and to act according to the duty imposed on the Crown; and is liable to account, to censure, to punishment, and to removal, if he shall misconduct himself (k).

It has been stated, that the superintendence of the conduct of committees of lunatics in the management of their property and persons belongs to the Court of Chancery (1); but such jurisdiction is always exercised by the Keeper of

(h) In re Smith, 23 Feb. 1828. (i) See ante, p. 11.

(k) 2 Sch. & Lef. 436.

(1) In re Fitzgerald, 2 Sch. & Lef. 438; ante, pp. 17, 18.

the Great Seal, and not by the other branches of the Court.

In case committees abuse the powers with which they are intrusted in that character, or in case their circumstances become so embarrassed as to render it unsafe or inexpedient to intrust them any longer with the management of the lunatic or his concerns, they will either be removed or suspended from the office, as occasion may require, and orders will be made for the appointment of others in their place.

In a case in which a committee of the estate of a lunatic had neglected to carry in his accounts, and afterwards rendered very deficient ones, and had called in and received several sums of money belonging to the lunatic, keeping part of it in his own hands, and making a profit of it, and had lent other part of the lunatic's money on mortgage, and expended some in repairs, without the authority of the Court, besides retaining a balance in his own hands; such committee was ordered in the first instance to render an account of his receipts; and the Master, having found by his report that the committee had been guilty of such irregularities with respect to the management of the lunatic's funds; on a further petition being presented, an order was made for removing the committee from his office, and for directing another to be appointed in his place (n).

Where a lunatic was defendant in a cause, and his committee, who was also a defendant in the same cause, refused to put in an answer for him; on a motion by the plaintiff, for the committee to put in an answer by a limited time, or for one of the Six Clerks to be appointed guardian ad litem— The Court thought the proper course would be to proceed against the lunatic; and, if the committee declined putting in an answer, to apply to the Great Seal for the appointment of another committee (o).

The committee of a lunatic, who had been guilty of a contempt by publishing a pamphlet, which reflected on persons acting in the management of the lunatic under the Chancellor's orders, and who had moreover intruded into

(n) In re Pearson, 15 Aug. 1826.

(0) Lloyd v. Mar, 2 Dick. 460.