dispensations pro hac vice. But then it was contended that the same power which can give a dispensation pro hac vice, can give one not only for the present occasion but also for all times to come. That was a fair question of law, and he stated it as such without then giving any decided opinion on it. But supposing that, in point of law, the crown could not only so dispense pro hac vice, but could confer the attribute of perpetuity on such a dispensation, the question was whether such a case ought not to be then presumed. His lordship did not mean to give any definitive decision; but supposing such a dispensation to be legal, and supposing the subsequent question to be tried by a jury, namely, whether such a general dispensation had or had not been given, he should think himself justified in saying that there were very strong grounds for presuming that it had been given. These grounds would be fortified by a reference to what had taken place in the college, and which otherwise never could have taken place consistently with the statutes (c).

(c) S. C. Jac. 20, 21.

In a recent case, an alteration in the statutes of a college, where the crown had reserved a power of altering them, was granted by letters patent, on the petition of a college, the attorney general having previously certified that the change proposed was likely to be beneficial to the college.

Where it appeared-by the petition of the master, fellows, and scholars of St. John's College, Cambridge, which was founded by Margaret Countess of Richmond, who was authorised by Henry VIII. to make laws for the government of that college-that a code of statutes was drawn up, and afterwards Henry VIII. granted a new body of sta

complete body of statutes was drawn up, by which, with the addition of one ordinance, granted by Charles I. under his sign-manual, the college had been since governed; and that King Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth explicitly reserved to themselves and their successors the power of altering or abrogating any of the statutes, and of granting new ones; and that by the statute de sociorum qualitatibus, the college was restrained from electing more than two fellows from any one county in England, or more than one from any diocese in Wales; and that the petitioners, in their elections, were frequently obliged to pass over the best scholars and most deserving young men; and that the attorney general had certified that it seemed probable that the advancement of piety and

The provost, fellows, and scholars of King's College, Cambridge, appealed to their visitor, the Bishop of Lincoln, against the provost and fellows of Eton College, that they had been in the habit of holding ecclesiastical preferment, contrary to the statutes of their founder, in violation of the oaths taken by them, and to the injury of King's College. The real question was whether, consistently with the statutes of Eton College, it were competent to the fellows of that society to hold preferment, in union with their fellowships, beyond the period of one year.

Queen Elizabeth granted a dispensation, enabling each fellow of Eton to hold with his fellowship one benefice under forty marks per annum. It was contended, by the appellants first, that in the case of a royal foundation, where the crown has given statutes and appointed a visitor, a succeeding king or queen has no more power of dispensing with any of the statutes, than the heir in the case of a private foundation, unless there be some clause especially reserving such a power to the successor. That it did not appear that there was any such reservation in the statutes of Eton College, but, on the contrary, there was an express prohibition against the granting a dispensation; 2nd, that the dispensation procured from Queen Elizabeth did not affect to dispense with the oath which the fellows of Eton College were required to take on their admission, and that they violated their oath by availing

learning, as well as the interests of the college, might be promoted by acceding to the petitioners' request; and that he was of opinion that the crown might make such alteration in the statutes as were prayed by the petition.

The crown granted and directed that in all future elections into the foundress's fellowships in the said college, the candidates most distinguished in morals and learning, and among those who were equally dis

tinguished, the most indigent might

be preferred, in whatever county of England or diocese of Wales they might happen to have been born, notwithstanding the statutes of the said college; and it was declared that such fellows in Lady Margaret's foundation in the said college as might be entitled to fellowships founded by private benefactors, might be elected into them, and might retain their seniority in the society, notwithstanding such election.-Patent Rolls, 4th March, 1820.

themselves of the dispensation; 3rd, by the taking and holding benefices contrary to the statutes, a system was introduced highly injurious to the succession in the two foundations of Henry VI.; 4th, that a beneficed candidate elect ought to resign his benefice before admission; and that an actual fellow taking ecclesiastical preferment could not hold it beyond the term specified in the statutes, without forfeiture of his fellowship.

The visitor decided against the appeal, and declared that the fellows of Eton College were enabled to hold one benefice by virtue of the dispensing statute of Queen Elizabeth; and enjoined all future fellows of Eton College not to exceed the indulgence granted by the dispensing statute, by attempting to hold more than one benefice, whether taken before or after their election, in conjunction with their fellowship (d).

Where the statutes of a school, founded by charter, appeared never to have been observed, Lord Hardwicke said, "that he would presume a repeal of them, as a court of law would do for the rule of law is, that a corporation has power to make bye-laws. A court of common law will direct a jury to find a bye-law, and on account of non-observance will presume a subsequent bye-law to repeal and alter" (e).

In a case where by a decree of Lord Chancellor Bacon, twenty-five of the principal inhabitants of the parish were to present and elect a proper minister for the parish of Leeds; being thereby appointed trustees to meet for that purpose within four months after the death of the incumbent, with directions to keep the trust filled up; and such presentation by them, or the major part of them, was to be approved of by certain assistant preachers.

An objection was taken to an election on the ground, that no approbation of assistant preachers had been obtained as required by the decree; to which it appeared, that no regard

(d) See Williams's Report of the proceedings in the appeal of King's College, Cambridge, against Eton College, to the visitor who was assisted by Sir William Grant and Sir

William Scott, 15th August, 1815. (e) Attorney General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. sen. 330. See Mayor of Hull v. Horner, Cowp. 102.

had been paid since the restoration. Lord Hardwicke said, as this direction was for the benefit of the parish, and arose by consent, it might be laid aside by common consent, and thé general disusage was an evidence of such consent to lay aside that part of the decree as useless. It was to be compared to the case of a presumed bye-law. Where in a corporation the election is vested in a corporation in general, on particular circumstances annexed; and afterwards, that election vested in a select number, and those particular circumstances discontinued; the courts of law presume an ancient bye-law to vary the constitution, the law allowing a presumed bye-law in writing, which does not appear in order to support it; so in that case, he presumed a common consent of the trustees and parishioners, to lay aside that custom; and would not throw the imputation upon all the elections made by the parish since that time, and on the archbishops who had since inducted, as being contrary to the trust, by holding that the election was void for want of the approval of the assistant preachers (ƒ).

Where a testator gave an estate to the dean and canons of Christchurch, Oxford, and their successors, to support a grammar-school, and to appoint a master and usher, and added these words: "And I do hereby order, that the dean and canons shall, from time to time, order and direct the management of the said school;" and in a scheme for regulating the school, it was proposed that upon all occasions of appointing boys to fill up vacancies among the free scholars, the dean and canons or some proper person to be appointed by them, were to be present, and inquire into the state and condition of the school, and into the conduct of the master and usher, and all persons connected with the management thereof; and should enter in a book to be kept for that purpose, the result of such inquiries, in order that if any abuses were found to exist in the management of the school, the same might be rectified, and making provision for their expenses out of the charity estates, the court

(f) Attorney General v. Scott, 1 Ves. sen. 413.

held, that the provisions as to the visitation ought to be omitted; the proper way being, to leave it to the trustees without directing any particular mode of visiting. For they must generally superintend the school and perform the duty bonâ fide; and would then be at liberty, like any other trustees, to charge the expenses fairly incurred in the execution of their trusts. There was no occasion for any limitation as to the amount of the expense to be charged, nor for the visitations to be annual, much less for them to be made whenever a boy was appointed. The appointment of the boys and the visitation of the school were left to the dean and canons generally, and the court declared that the scheme for the management of the school ought not to contain any provision as to visitation (g).

On the settlement of a scheme for regulating a school, founded by letters patent of Queen Elizabeth, by which twelve persons were constituted governors, with the power of choosing a schoolmaster, and it was ordained that the rents of the lands should be applied for the support of the master, it was held that the visitatorial power was properly withheld from the governors, who were tradesmen, on the ground that they were not fit persons to exercise the delicate office of visiting a learned institution.

It was declared by the court that the governors of the school and their successors, with the concurrence of the bishop of the diocese for the time being, might suspend and remove the master of the said school, in case of any manifest neglect or misconduct in the discharge of his duties, and might discontinue the salary or stipend of the said master during such suspension; and that when any cause of complaint against the master should arise, which, in the opinion of the majority of the governors or their successors should call for his suspension or removal, the same, with the evidence in support thereof, should be reduced into writing and submitted to the bishop of the diocese, who should forthwith investigate such complaint in such manner

(g) Attorney General v. Dean and Canons of Christchurch, Jac. 474, 487.