compofed of regents and non-regents, who meet at the fame time, and in the fame place, under the name of congregation or fenate: but these two claffes form two diftinct branches of the fame affembly, under the names of the House of Regents and the Houfe of Non-Regents, and a majority in each muft concur in every act (a).

In the corporate companies of towns, there are generally two ranks, the common freemen of the company, and fome felect body who form the governing part: there is likewife an intermediate rank, as the livery in feveral of the companies of London: the common freemen have an inchoate right to have the freedom of the city at large; and from them the livery are nominated: the livery are the reprefentatives of the company in matters concerning the city; they elect the members of parliament and compose the common halls; from them, too, the court of affiftants is taken.

In the colleges of the univerfities there are, in general, befide the head of the college, two claffes, the scholars and the fellows, each clafs having fome rights and privileges

Befide the convocation and congregation, there is another affembly, which is held every week, composed of the vice-chancellor or his deputy, the proctors and the heads of houses, and whose business is to deliberate on the protection of the privileges and liberties of the university, and to inquire into the obfervation of its ftatutes.-I confider it, therefore, rather as a ftatutable committee, than a diftin&t rank.

(a) In Cambridge, the regents are all those who have not been masters of arts five years; the non-regents, all thofe who have been masters upwards of five years.-There is likewise another select body called the caput, who must approve of every propofition, there called a grace, before it can be brought before the fenate.-The members do not form a diftinct rank, but are rather a standing committee, formed out of the two other ranks of regents and non-regents.-Their functions are fimilar to thofe of the lords of articles in the ancient Scotch parliament.

diftin&t

diftinct from the other; and where there are either only scholars or only fellows, or where the terms "fcholars" and "fellows" are fynonymous, which is fometimes the cafe, there is generally a diftinction between junior and fenior fellows, or junior and fenior fcholars.-Independent members, ufually called fellow commoners, are mere boarders, and have no corporate rights (a).

SECTION II.

Of the qualifications requifite for members or officers of Corporations.

THE qualifications requifite for members or officers of corporations, depend in general on the conftitution, ufage, or bye laws of each particular corporation: to intitle a man to be admitted to the freedom of a corporate town, the qualifications most commonly required are, that the perfon claiming to be admitted, fhould either be the son of a freeman, or have served an apprenticeship to a freeman; in fome cafes, to have married a freeman's daughter (b) is a fufficient title: and in many the freedom may be obtained by purchase. In the case of a title by apprenticeship, it is in many places exprefsly required, that the master of the apprentice fhould have been refident within the town during the time of the apprenticeship, and the reason of the thing seems to require this refidence, without any exprefs provision; as the privilege granted to the apprentice is in respect of the benefit which the town may receive

(a) Cowp. 319. (b) This I understand is the cafe at Bristol.

from

from his fervice (a). It frequently happens too, that where the party claims by apprenticeship, birth, or marriage, fome conditions are fuperadded by particular bye laws, without which, if they be reasonable, he cannot compel his admiffion.

A QUAKER, who has ferved an apprenticeship of seven years, is intitled to be admitted to the freedom of a corporation as well as any other perfon, and his folemn affirmation, by virtue of 7 and 8 W. 3, c. 34, is equivalent to taking the ufual oaths; and that claufe of the ftatute which provides that no Quaker, by virtue of that act, fhall have any office or place of profit in the government, does not extend to the freedom of the corporation (b).

THE question whether an infant can be admitted to the mere freedom of a corporation, where there is no exprefs provifion on the fubject, does not seem to have been ever agitated; but, as it has been questioned, whether he can be appointed to a corporate office, and as the freedom of the corporation is generally a precedent qualification to fuch appointment, it seems that he may be a freeman.

WE have seen (c), that where an infant is actually mayor, or other chief officer of the corporation, this shall not avoid the acts of the corporation with refpect to ftrangers; because these acts are not the acts of the particular perfons but of the body corporate (d); but this does not affect the queftion with refpect to the members of the corporation.

THE firft cafe we meet with on this fubject, is that of the King and White, in the 7th of George the fecond, which arose on a motion for an information against the defendant, in the nature of quo warranto, to fhew by what

(a) Vid. Rex v. Marshal, 2 Term Rep. 2, 3.

(b) Carth. 448. 1 Ld. Raym. 337. 5 Mod. 402. Rex v. Morris. (c) Ante, page 312. (d) Vid. Cowp, 225.

authority

authority he exercifed the office of burgess of the borough of Calne: and the queftion was, whether, being an infant at the time of his election, though he was not fworn, and never acted before he came of age, he was capable of exercifing the office? Several cafes were mentioned of the capacity of infants to take the grant of an office, either in poffeflion or reverfion, and the cafe of a corporation being bound by a deed, notwithstanding the infancy of the mayor, was relied on as an authority, that an infant was eligible to that office, from whence it was argued, that he might be a burgefs.-The court faid, they thought, "if an infant was not fit to manage for himself, he was improper to be a mayor for the public:" but as it was a matter of law not fettled, the rule was made abfolute to have it folemnly determined (a); but what was the event does not ap

pear.

THE only other cafe we find on this fubject, is that of the King and Carter, in the 15th of George the third, which was an information, in the nature of quo warranto, against the defendant, to fhew by what authority he claimed to exercise the office of burgess of the borough of Portsmouth (b).-The information alleged, and it was admitted in the plea, that this office and franchise of a burgess had been, and still was, a place, office, and franchise, of great truft and pre-eminence within the faid borough, touching the rule and government of the faid borough, and the administration of public justice. The plea then fet forth, that within the faid borough there had been, and then of right ought to be, an indefinite number of burgeffes. That by a charter of Charles the first (c), the mayor, aldermen, and burgeffes, were incorporated under the name of Mayor, Aldermen,

(a) Rex v. White, B. R. H. 8. (b) Rex v. Carter. Cowp. 220.

(c) 3 Car. 1.

and

and Burgeffes of the borough of Portsmouth that the charter nominated the firft mayor, and twelve persons, to be aldermen, and then granted "that it should and might be lawful for the mayor and aldermen, &c. or the major part of them, from time to time, and at all times then after for ever, when and as often as it should appear to them to be fit and necessary, to name fo many and fuch perfons to be burgeffes as they should pleafe, and to the burgeffes fo chosen, to adminifter an oath for their faithfully executing the office of burgefs. The plea further ftated, that this charter was accepted by the then mayor and burgefles of the borough, and that the defendant, on the 18th of May, 1751, was elected by the major part of the mayor and aldermen; and that before he took upon himself to exercife the place, office, and franchise of such burgess, he was duly, and according to the ufage of the faid borough, fworn into the faid office.

THE replication fet forth other parts of the charter, and then stated, that the defendant, at the time of his fuppofed election to be a burgefs, was of the age of five years and ten months, and no more.-The rejoinder ftated, that at the time the defendant was fworn into the place, office, and franchise of one of the burgeffes, &c. he was of the full age of twenty-one years; and to this the plaintift demurred.

AMONG other arguments against the right of the de- Cases of fendant, it was observed, that the inconvenience and miffaut

chief of admitting infants of fuch an age, would be fatal to

almost all the corporations of the kingdom; that every borough would become a monopoly, and the instant an alderman's fon had breath he would be a burgefs, and no others would be admitted; that if one infant might be a burgefs, others might; fo that all, or the greater part of