This is a bill for instruction brought by the complainant as executor and trustee under the will of the late Stephen T. Olney. The bill shows that the provi *451 sions of the will have been fully carried out except the provision for the distribution of the final residue under the trust created by the will. This residue is divided by the will into quarters, two of which go to the testator’s nephews, and the other two as follows, to wit: “ One quarter of my trust property to be given to educational institutions similar to those mentioned in article thirteen, and the remaining quarter of my property to be given to charitable institutions similar to those mentioned in article thirteen.” By article thirteen certain accumulations of income were given as follows, to wit: Four thousand dollars to the Ehode Island Hospital, for the endowment of a free bed ; twenty five thousand dollars to the Plome for Aged Men ; ten thousand dollars to the Children’s Friend Society; ten thousand dollars to Brown University, as a fund, the income of which is to be spent for tbe increase of plants and botanical books; and twenty five thousand dollars to Brown University, for the endowment of a professorship of natural history. The questions on which the complainant asks for instruction are: first, whether the two quarters remaining for educational and charitable institutions must be given to similar institutions other than those named in article thirteen, or may be given to them as well; second, if they are to be given to other institutions, what is or are to be the classes of such other institutions, and where are they to be located ; and, third, how are the institutions to be selected from the several classes, and must the distribution be in equal shares among those which are selected.

The next of kin of the testator, having been made defendants, answer the bill, and in their answer claim that the bequest of one quarter of the residuum to educational institutions similar to those mentioned in article thirteen, and of another quarter to charitable institutions similar to those mentioned in article thirteen, is so indefinitely expressed that it cannot be carried into effect, and, therefore, that the two quarters belong to them as intestate estate. It has been agreed that the question thus presented shall be decided as a preliminary question, before the questions propounded by the bill are discussed.

The question is substantially the same as one of the questions involved in the case of Pell v. Mercer et als., ante, p. 412.

In that case we decided that a bequest of personal estate in trust *452 for such works of religion or benevolence as tbe executors of tbe will should select is a good gift to charitable uses. In tbe course of our opinion in that case we considered bow far tbe English law of charitable uses, not including, of course, any modifying English statute, was a part of the law of this State, and we came to the conclusion that the law of charitable uses, as administered in the English chancery courts, in the exercise of their regular jurisdiction, is a part of the law of the State. We also came to the conclusion that this court, by virtue of the plenary jurisdiction in equity conferred upon it by statute, Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 192, § 8, has so much of the oy pres power as the chancery courts of England exercise without having recourse to the prerogative branch of the power which is delegated in particular cases under the sign manual of the crown. It follows, of course, that the bequest here of the two quarters of the residuum aforesaid, being a bequest to charitable uses, is not invalid simply on account of its indefiniteness.

The case will, therefore, stand for further hearing on the other questions involved in it.