The Sun. — London, England, 1821-04-09 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCE Y, LINCOLN'e-INN HALL, TUESDAY, MARCH 27,1821. 13 THE MATTER OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. LORD CHANCELLOR—in this matter of Queen's College, Carnbeidge, I had proceeded so far the other day as to state the opinion that I had formed with respect to the claim of Mr. Mandell to be Master of the College, founded upon this alle ge Con, that if Deetor Godfrey was not to be considered as a Fellow of the College then, that upon the first scru tiny, by reason of the nutriber of Fellows who - had voted far him, Mr. Mandell ought to be considered as duly elected ; and that depended, as you will remember, upon the question, whether Mr. Barnes, being a Middlesex Fellow at the nine. Doctor Godfrey was elected Fellow, the Statutes per- DOcter Doctor, to be a second Middlesex Fellow ; or whether, is other eyrds, there could or could not be more than one Middlesex Fellow upon the Foundation ? It appears to inc that, according to the true intent and - meaning of the Sta tutes when they were originally made, there could be only one ..‘liddleeex Fellow ; but upon looking through the affidavits which were filed in support of the fact, that there had been for a long series of. years two Middlesex Fellows, and that there wss al fer known to the College of praying for a Royal Dis nsation :Or a third Middlesex Fellow, that form suggesting that the College could only have two Middlesex Fellows, it did aopear to ale, that that long usage must, if possible, (provided mean the Law would allow of : it) bajeferred to lawful origin, and as the Crown could dispense with a Statute that prohibited there being more than one Middlesex Fellow, so apprt.tenti the Crown could, by a general dispensation, sanc tion the fact, that there should be always two Middlesex Fel -La es. and that usage having obtained for so long a period of years, through-more than a century, and during' the whole of :oat time every Fellow and every President of the College hav ia.e. ris it is supposed, forgotten the obligation of his oath, to tie Statures duly observed, if he permitted it, -it did appear to nie to be incumbent upon me, if possible, to refer it to a lawful - orierin. I was, therefore, of opinion. that Mr. Godfrey must be considered as lawhilly a Fellow in that view. That only disposes of the question whether Mr. Mandell was duly elected, and it remains now to be considered whether, sup posing Mr. Mandell not to be duly elected, Doctor Godfrey has been duly elected, and. if duly elected, whether he continues to be Master of the College under that election, or whether by the operatihn of any Statute of the College or of Land, he is.no hanger to be considered for any and for what reason Master of the College ? It becomes necessary, in discussing that question, again to direct one's attention to the Statute which is styled "De Elec tione I'nesidentis." The form of election, with the qualifica tions of the Master, and what is to be done after he is elected is set forth in the Statute in the following form of expression : " Injungo vobis in virtuta Jests Christi et sub periculo, anim artun vestrarum ut viruni magis idoneum vestro judicio par tialitate remota in priesidentem hujus Collegii eligatis secun dum Deune qui sit yin providens discretus competenter litera tes is Universitate aliqua liujus regni Doctoratus titulo insig aitus vel ad minus in Bachalaureorum Theologim ordine co optatus in spiritualibus et temporalibus circumspectus honestate morum preeclarus conversations laudabilis atque fainm redo lentis-qui et indium sciverit atque poterit negotia Collegii pro moyere dum tamen saceidos fuerit et expendere poterit anuatim ad minus vigente libras." You see all the particulars of the erealifications here required, except those which are last men tioned, namely, " dum tarnen sarerdos fuerit et expendere po tent anuatim adminus viginti libras, " are qualifications with respect to tht existence - of which the Founder charges the Fel- Jews, by every obligation which he can impose on their con sciences, to judge for themselves, and I take notice now, that no suggestion has been made to me in the course of communica tions upon this snbject, that there is any objection in matter of liteeary qualification or in matter of moral or religious qualifi cation to any of the Gentlemen who have been candidates. It is an admitted fact that each of them answers the description of Sacerdos, though, at the time of the-election, none of them pro duced, or were called upon to produce their Letters of Ordina tion, and I mention that as a circumstance connected with an observation that must be stated with respect to the last qua bilzation here mentioned, "et expendere poterit anuatim ad minus viginti libras." There were four Candidates.— With respect to Mr. Barnes, his qualification was shewn : by Mr. Duherjois to the College. With respect to Mr. Mandell, what he represented as his qualification was inscribed upon a paper which he had in his pocket, And which tie was ready to produce ; with respect to Doc tor Godfrey's qualification, there seems to have been some misunderstanding, as I collect it from the matters contained in the different affidavits whether that was called for, whether it was refused to be produced, or whether on the one hand it was not so called for, as to constitute every right on the part of any person to say that he refused to produce it, or to state what it was. One objection that was taken to the election was, that the oualiticatioa of Mr. Mandell and the qualification of Doc tor Godfrey, were not shewn. Now, I have no difficulty in saying, first, it would have been extremely convenient at these elections, if the qualification was shewn, but I cannot go the length of saying, that the election is a void election, merely be cause the quelification was not shear, if the qualification actually ekisteel. Wilt respect to the ottastion, whether Mr. Mandell or Doc tor Godfrey wen T..lalified under the true intent and meaning as it must betaken at this day and this hour " et expenders poterit anuatim ad minus viginti libras," it was contended upon Mr. King's Petition, that neither Mr. Mandell nor Doc tor Ckidfrey had a qualification to be elected ; that the only qualification which would be a sufficient qualification, must in the first place, be a qualification of this nature, that it must par take of the nature a rail estate ; that if it were personal pro perty it would not do ; and then it was further contended, that this viginti libras must at this day, whatever the meaning of it was in Queen Elizabeth's time, be looked at as meaning this day, a sum equal to such au extent above the sum of viginti libras,-as the sum which-at this day is represented as forming a lualification to hild a Fellowship, exceeds the novem libras, which was the original qualification ; and, if that doctrine can be maintained witaout entering into particulars, I do not get forward into any uncomfortable disclosure of circumstance, when I say that neither Doctor Godfrey nor Mr. Mandell had a qualification. If a qualification cannot consist but of per sonal property, then Ido not think I - get into an uncomfortable disclosure with reference to MO ;Mandell, with reference to whom, I desire to be understood to speak with great respect, and the rather, because i find, by a letter I have had from him, that he feels a little uneasy lest 1 should suppose he had been a Rarty to the writing of that letter to which I referred on a former day. I realiy have raasuch idea. I believe him to be a man far toorespectable to have any concern in such a matter, and I wish, if that could be communicated to him, it should be distinctly understood by him, that I never had an apprehension of the land. It will not, I say, be an uncomfortable disclosure to observe, that there can be no doilbt, that his qualification is wholly of a personal nature ; it is a larger qualification than Doctor Godfrey's, -but it is purely and entirely of a personal nature.. With respect to Doctor Godfrey's qualification, it is of a special nature, and I shall state to you what it is, but the first question to be disposed of here is, wnether it is inade out with ieference• to this la‘st election, that the person tVlici • was to be elected must have A qualification at this day as much beyond the viginti libras, is the sum which now disqualifies a Fellow is to c::ceed the novern libras„ beyond which - , -- witiv-the exception of some particular Fellows, mentioned in the oath, a Fellow cannot hold his Fellowship ? There are in this boOk various • interpretations of the statutes, as they are called, many in num ber, made at successive periods, the last of them being . in the • year 1809, in which the Master and Fellows interpreting the . statehs, and interpreting them, as I have no doubt they honestly conceived, under the authority of that statute, which is entitled " De Electione Prxsidentis" have stated, that by reason of the increase of the value of money, the disqualifica tion of a FelTow shall not take place now, unless that which is to disqualify amounts to. 1201. a year, thereby meaning to mate, that the decem libras of Queeh Elizabeth's time is the • 1201. a year of this. time ;or at least, that it is not acting without a due regard to principle, and a fair interpretation of the sta tutes, to look at the novem libras, arid see what is 'to be the qualification so as to keep up a proportipn between the novcrn Libras and what was the qualification ok that day, and to say that as the . qualification of that day was decem, that as the ex ' pcnditure under certain statutes shews what was to be the value of a Fellowship at that 'day, that as much as the value of a . Fellowship at that day exceeded the novern libras, in the same proportion there ought to be at this day a calculation of the • amount to disqualify, and without entering now into the question whether there has or not been due authority for these interpretations of the statutes, which have so augmented the 'disqualifying sum, and recollecting always that it is a very dif • erent question what a visitor is to do in the reasonable and fair construction of statutes, and what he can permit under the rea sonable and fair 'construction of Statutes; that that is a very different question from what a visitor can do where a statute part of the law of the land attaches, as the 13th and 14th Charles 11. does. Ido not believe, from all the information I can get from either University, that what the Fellows have done with respect to this matter ofq - Jalifihation would be disapproved by any visitor, and it is but fair to say, that I do observe in that book, that the Members of this College have been attentive in what they were doing to point out why they thought a visitor would approve what they had done in this respect. No one, however, of these interpretations of the statutes touches the va . lification of the person who is to be elected Master—it raises • the sum which is to disqualify a Fellow, but no one of them seeks to raise the sum which is to form the codification of the individual who is to be elected Master, and though I think no one can read these statutes without feeling, at least I cannot think that it was the intention of the Foundress of the College, to keep up the proportion between the funds, if I may so ex press myself, of a Master and of a Fellow, so that that Master might have more ample ineans e and in stick a way be entitled to somewhat more of the world's respect than a Fellow, yet, in point of fact, there has been no interpretation of the statutes ; there his been nothing done that has altered the •qualification which is to exist in the person of au individual who is capable of heieig elected the Master of the College froth that day to this, neither by the authority of the College itself, nor by the autho rity of any visitor; and I therefore come to. this ,conclusion, that whatever it may be fit to do in order to keep up that ratio of proportion, if I may so express myself, which originally ex iseel between the Master of the College and the Fellow, as to his disqualification, I cannot apply that to destroy an election that has been made before any such interpretation, or any such authority has interposed, whatever it may be fit to do, with a view (if you please to express it) to prevent any other election ever being made under the same circumstances. The next question is one of a very important nature to the Universities in general, and that is whether Doctor God frey's qualification admitted to be below £219 a year, which it must necessarily be, if the same ratio was preserved, the Fellows having 1120 a year, if it be a personal qualification, is within the meaning of these statutes, viginti libras ; and I am misinform ed, as well as have myself erroneously collected, from the long life, in which I have been in some measure connected with one of the Universities ; I am misinformed,l say, if the hebit and practice and consuetudo of almost every College in both Universities, is not to consider the property being personal as not disqualifying a man to hold a Fellowship. If the property being personal, would not disqualify a man to hold a Fellowship, the conse quence of that should seem to be, that you would censtrue the statute as meaning in each place, the same thing (except as to the amount) where they speak of viginti librae and of novem fi bres; and accordingly, I think there is a great deal of evidence in these statutes, which I have now in my hand, to chew that it has been the understanding of this College, that the qualifica tion and disqualification should be of a real nature; but I do not think it is necessary in this case, and it has always been my practice, if possible, to avoid determining general questions, be cause the determination of such questions would involve(if I am right in the observation of fact I have already made,) the in terests of all. the - Colleges in both the Universities, and un doubtedly, it would be a hazerdous measure to undertaketo de cide from this place, what shall, or what shall not, be a qualifi cation or a disqualification upon such a general understanding as that would be, more especially if it is not necessary in the nature of the case. • Now in this case, if the question be whether Doctor C.lod frey's qualification, is personal ur real, I think it is for the purposes of this day's controversy, a real qualification , and if it be a real qualification it is not necessary for me to determine what• would be the effect it' it were not a real qualification but a personal qualification; and if it is not necessary for me to decide what would be the effect of this being not a real but a personal qualification; I do not think I should be acting rightly if I were to declare from this place, an opinion that may affect such a multitude of other cases beyond what is necessary in tee de termination of this case. Doctor Godfrey'e qualification is of this nature, a Testatrix leaves real estate to Trustees to be sold, and the produce to be diVided in certain shares among a certain number of persons, of whom Doctor Godfrey is one, 1 think the whole number of them is six or eight. DOCTOR UODPREY 7 four my Lord. LORD CHANCELLOR-It is the same thing. Four of the Trustees had proceeded to execute that will, and we were discussing in a Colin. of Equity, what was to become of the property ; it would be very difficult, according to our no tions at this day, to say that that was not to he considered personal estate, and I mention that, that it will be seen that I am aware of the analogy from which it may be contended, that my opinion, that it is for this purpose to be considered real es tate, is wrong; but I have no conception that the modern doc trines of a Court of Equity are to be applied, in questions of this nature, to determine what, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when this College was founded, was to be considered real estate or personal estate. If more had been done than the execution of that will, and the taking possession of the property under that will, this Court would have said in a suit, that the Trustees shall sell, and the cestui que trust shall take, as personal property ; the latter of which propositions the Court must have held, be cause each of them having an interest in the produce of the sale, each of them had a right to say, the whole shall be sold to gether, accorling to our doctrines. Though it would have been so in a suit, yet we are to consider what has been done here with respect to one of the persons, according to the statement made to me ; he has accepted land as land, a particular portion of the estate, which he has taken to himself as land, and we know that where there is a property that is to be converted into personal property for the sake of those who are to enjoyit, the slightest act in the world, on their part, will reconvert it from personal ty into reality in a suit in this Court. The other tenants in common, if I may so call them; of this money, have agreed to this, that is, they do not interpose so as to prevent a sale, but if there were a sale, it would not be a sale precisely in the execu tion of the will, but they agree that there may be a sale of the residue of the land provided they can find any body who will give a certain specific sum of money for it, and unless somebody will give a specific sum of money for it, then, as I understand die matter, it is not to be sold, and it remains at this moment, in shape and substance, realty never to be converted into per sonalty, except on an occasion which I do not know may ever arise, and enjoyed as realty in the hands of tenants, having been enjoyed as realty for years, and therefore the property is at this moment a real property; it is uncertain whether it shall ever be converted into personalty, and it is in the power of those indi viduals to say that no such thing shall be done. That being the actual state of it, and particularly in a case where, though I think it would be what a Master of a College should not think of, yet it did think of it, it does not appear to me that there is any thing in these statutes that would prevent a Master qua lified at the time he was elected from selling the property that qualified him die very next morning (I can find nothing in the statutes to prevent that) ; I am upon the whole of opinion, that, in this case, there is a qualification v e st e d in Doctor Godfrey. The next question is; was Doctor Godfrey duly elected, sup posing him to be qualified ? He is elected by the Fellows, or the major part of them, therefore there is no question upon his election, but then there have been several questions raised of very considerable importance, undoubtedly. After the election is made, the statute says this " Quam electioneer dictus senior , antequam recedat sub hac forma pronunciare teneatur. I nomine Petris, et filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Ego," such a one ; " senior socins hujus Collegri nomine meo et nomine minium soeiorunr Mcorum sive majoris partis eorundem eligo et elec turn pronuncio" such a one, "in prEesidentem hujus Collegii. Quam electionem prxfatus senior sub pane incurrendi maui fcstum perjurium et sub periculo perpetuaa expulsionis a Collegto teneatur pronunciare et personam sic electam admittere" and the first important question remaining to be considered in this case is, what this word admittere, used in Statutes of Colleges in the time of Queen Elizabeth meant; that it meant, something more than to elect, is beyond all doubt; it is beyond all doubt, not only be cause the senior Fellow is bound to pronounce him elected, but that he is bound also to admit him, and when you come to consider what that means, you must consider all die statutes as being in a sense in pan materia, and then you come to the oath of the Fellows, the statute prescribing which oath, is thus entituled, "Juramentum sociorum quo pnestito admit tantur, ad totum jus et ernolumenturn societatis ; this is not ju atnentum sociorum quo prnstito admittuntur ad totum jus et etnolunanturn soctetatis ; but 1 should find it diffictilt to lay much stress upon tile difference between admittuntur and ad mittantur, if I did not find in the evidence contained in the affi— davits now before me, that the distinction between the one and the other is perfectly substantial, because it is now a fact be yond all controversy, that after the Fellow has taken this oath, which he is directed to take, he is admitted in a sense which cannot possibly mean that the taking the oath is his admission, for it now appears, from all the affidavits with reference to the election of the present Fellows and past FellOws, that after this oath is taken, they do, upon their knees, pre sent themselves before the President of the College and that the President says to the party so elected, and who has so taken this oath, " Ego nomine Domini, et Filii, et Spiritus, Sancti, admitto te," amongst the other Fellows, and so on ; and. that that form of admission constantly follows upon a Felow's taking the oath. There is another Statute which is likewise a material Statute in this respect, and that . is the Statute with respect to the Election of certain Scholars upon the foundation' of a illagister Joannes Stokes, where the Statute is, " Jus jurandurn electo rum Scholarurhantequam admittantur," before they shall be admitted. The Statute then, with respect to-the Master, pro ceeds, " faciatque electum prxeidentem inquiri," which word's, I apprehend, apply to tvcase which must necessarily re quire enquiry—that is, where the person who is elected appears not to be present—" faciat que electum prnsidentern inquiri et coram Communitate Concerti, in Capella ejusdeni ad menstun Dornini ex Gollegii sumptn personaliter presentari quo prxsente salreunt, 'l'e Deem lauda.mus omnes Se iiprxsentessblernnitur cantent, et posted electuspraesidens prix stabit hoc.quoti seqUitur juramenturn seniore •socio ipsem exigente Jnrabis ac Deo tests , promittes to ',Teem Christi relierioncin ormii animo complexi orum scripturm authoritatern horninutri prnjudiciis prrepoeitt rum regulam vine et summarn fidei ex verbo petituru'n enters Tete ex verbo Dei non probantur pro humanis habituruni authantatern regiam hominibui stinueam et exterrioram epis coporuni jterisdictioni minima subjection nstirnaterum et con trarius verbo Dei opiniones onna volentate e reftitatutann yeti consuetis Scripta non seriptis in religionis.causa antihabitarum secundo jurains quod officium priesidentis pro ternpore tuo 'lid e liter fires Statute ordinatiories et laudabiles consuetudines he- jut Collogii quantum in to est illasa obterrahls, etidem que Sta tuta fideliter exequeris vel exequi proeurabis sicut to Deus ad juvet et sancta ejus Evangelia gum facto senior socius librum statutorum clavesque cistarum • gum ad oflicium Presidentis pertinere noscuntur illico tradere non.pottponat." And it has been contended, that if the Book of the Statutes (there being, however, great controversy on what is meant by the term Book of the Statutes), arid the keys ofthethest are delivered to the person who takes this oath—he' thereby is the admitted President. In order to sustain that argument, it was necessary 'to lay the foundation of it in the fact, that the Book of the Sta tutes here meant, that is the proper book of the Statutes, and the keys of the chest were delivered to Doctor Godfrey, the words I have already read, and ' librum Statutorum (laves que cistarum qute ad officium Praesidentis pertinere noscuntur." The words " praesidentis pertinere noseuntur" have been con tended on the one band to relate only to the clavisque eistaruen. They were contended; on the other hand, by Mr. Shadwell, quoting his Classics, to relate to the Libruni Statutorum, as well as the clavesque cistarum, though the word . was que; and I take it to be clear from the Statutes, that there is a Book of the Statutes, and there are keys of the chests, both of which, in a peculiar and strict sense, belong to the Master of the College; and I take it to be equally clear, that that Book, which, in the strict and peculiar sense, belongs to the Master of the College, was not delivered at that time to DOetor Godfrey. There is no blame upon any body—the . phrase undoubtedly for the Sta tute, as to the manner of keeping the books, does not appear to have been very diligently and very accurately observed in this College, and very little blame is, I think, to be applied to this College in that respect; for lam afraid that observation might be extended to many others, if one wished to express it,—but it appears to me there is one Statute Book to be kept in the Com bination-room, as you call it, at Cambridge, the substitution for our Oxford Common Room. I should be very sorry, however, to put this case upon a circumstance of that kind—l do not think it ought to be put upon a circumstance of that kind; Doc tor Godfrey being present at the Election, took this oath at the time. I should now mention that the Election was made upon a Saturday ; the Fellows are bound by tile Statute to elect within eight days, or upon the Oth day. Sunday being the tith day the Election was made on tli Saturday. In the affidavits which I have very carefully looked at, Mere is a great deal of difference of representation as to what actually passed about Doctor Godfrey's taking the oath then, and not taking the oath then,— whether it was on his part a voluntary act, cr whether it was an act that some of the Fellows insisted upon,—whether it was an act dist some of them insisted upon, arid some of them did not like at that time. Ukonshe whole, however, it rather seems to me upon the effect of the affidavits, taken together that Doctor Godfrey completed the taking the oath at the time which was, he thought, the general wish of those in whose presence he was at that time. Mr. Hubbersty appears to have pointed out a way of proceeding which I E thinie it would have been infinitbly more 'prudent to have atioptdd, but the fact is, the oath was taken at that time,and if the oath was taken at that time, then the next question arises,was the taking of that oath within the meaning of these Statutes, the admission of Doctor Godfrey ? If it was the admission of Doctor Godfrey, then arises this question. Did Doctor Godfrey, or did he not, within the meaning of the statute of Charles IL make the declaration, which, as a Master of a College, he was bound to make in the words of that Statute before or at his admission, for that Statute has the word admission, I think, before or at his admission to be in cumbent, or to have possession of his Fellowship ? the words of the Statute being with respect to future cases, that he shall, at, or before his admission to be incumbent, or have posses sion, subscribe the declaration, or acknowledgement following. Before he took the oath, and received the book and keys, it is clear he has not subscribed the declaration. A good deal of argument in this case has been employed to'prove and to dis prove the assertion, that he subscribed this at his admission, within the intent and meaning of the Statute, if you take his taking the oath, and receiving the book and keyS. to be his ad mission and it is further-to be remarked, that Doctor God frey did not only take the oath,. but that lie had also gone to. the Master's Lodge, and done acts there which have been con tended to be acts possessory, if I may. so express myself, of the office of Master, but that he likewise was introduced into the arm chair in the hall, where he presided as Master, and that in the course of the Sunday, if he was not compl e te Master, h e was acting as complete Master; and it has been argued, th a t therefore - he is to be considered to be complete Master, in consequence of having taken this oath, and done all these acts. Then the question arises, what is.the meaning of the words, " at or before his or their respective admission to be incum bent, or have possession aforesaid ?"- That it can -be made be fore, is quite clear; that it can be made after, in certain senses of the word after, is likewise quite clear ; andyet,lliat it can not mean in any cases which may be put what is contempora neous or simultaneous, appears to me likewise to be quite - clear ; but although I have been put in possession of a fact,which, in deed, I had no doubt, that a Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge mast always have some person who answers the character of his deputy; whether it is what we call Pro Vice-Chancellor, or under whatever other name, but some person who sustains his ~character within the true intent of these Statutes; vet it is quite clear, that if a person has not subscribed this declara tion before his admission, if he is admitted," - and neither - the Vice-Chancellor nor his Deputy is present, he cannot possibly subscribe at his election in the sense I mean of simultaneous or contemporaneous and then the question would be, if he was admitted adeo instanter,' went to the Vice-Chancellor of his Deputy and subscribed die declaration, whether that would be within the fair meaning of the word as a subscribing at his admission; the word sometimes being to be interpreted up on tile occasion of. But then it has been contended, that if the word admits of that construction, it was the - bounden duty of Doctor Godfrey to have acted upon the advice he received, and so to have acted whether he received' that advice or not, because he must be taken to be cognizant of a Statute of the land; and here we are bound in the character of Visitor, as much by the Statute of the land as a Judge would be, that it was his duty to have re sorted to the Vice-Chancellor, on the Sunday, to have found him or his Deputy on that day to have subscribed that decla ration ; .and here, unless my information misleads me much; I understand, that there are an infinite number of acts done in the University of Cambridge on a Sunday ; that this is one of such Acts as has been frequently, and repeatedly, and con stantly done on the Sunday. I have not been able to learn that they so proceed in the other University. The question, however, if it were to turn upon this, would be, not what may be done upon a Sunday, but what must be done upon a Sunday; not what is permissive, but what is obligatory ; and undoubtedly, if the question is not to be considered as pre judiced, by what one might call a very general usage, I should think it would be a more wholesome thing to say that this act ought not to be done on a Sunday, than that it was necessarily to be done on a Sunday. But that is not the view I take fin ally of this question ; and therefore, I desire to have it under stood, as left open to the different Colleges in the University of Cambridge, to proceed as they think fit with respect to future Elections in relation to this practice, as obtaining in the University, for I give no opinion upon it; if I were driven to give an opinion upon it, I have formed an opinion upon it, but it is not necessary in my view of the case ; a view which I shall take of the case presently, and which I will fully explain to you ; and if there is any thing of such novelty, or any thing so unsatisfactory, after what we have already heard in this case as to make it desirable, I shall not have the least objection to hear any further observation from one Counsel on a side, with reference to the point I am now about to state; for I apprehend, after - all, the true point here is, what is in point of construction of the Statutes, the Act which is to be called the admisffion of Doctor Godfrey. "f ow, Heave no - doubt at all, with re'spect to the Fellows; I can have no doubt, that no Fellow is admitted until the President pronounces these words, admitto to sociurn, So and so. The word admittere, found in a Statute in Queen Elizabeth's reign, must be like the word admittere found at any other time. Then a construction must. be put upon it re cording to the practice which has prevailed, the usage ising out of the Statute or the Law, is it may he, which has directed the admission. .There is nothing in these Statutes with respect to the Fellows, not one single word in theiii which presotibes any such ceremony, except the word admittere ; and therefore, when it has been contended before me, as it has been contended•very ably before the, that the Statutes do not require any ceremonies of this kind, I say, that is a fallacy', provided the word admittere itself requires those ceremonies to be gone through. If to admit a man according to these Statutes, requires he should be told by authority. that he is admitted, then the construttien put upon the word is, that which does require the ceremony, though the author of the tatute has not gone on him self to say precisely and exactly what it was he meant by the word admittere; and this appears to me to be an answer to what has been stated in a.communication to me from Cam bridge, for which communication I aln very much obliged ; for it was very respectfully stated, that the head of a College did not think fit to go down upon his knees to the Senior Fellow of the College, upon the ground that a person of higher rank "was not to have that ceremony performed by a person of lower rank. In the first place, I doubt the soundness of thatebe cause, until he is admitted, - quere, whether he iS Of higher rank ; and in the next, place, if the Statutes regulating the relations of those persons-, require that to be gone through, the. Statutes • are arranswer to all that, arising from the punctilio, that you do not like to do that before a person of lower rank, which a person of lower rank must do before you; there may be more or less of ceremony to be used, according to the usages of a par ticular College, but if the word admittere requires any thing to be done, then, until that thing is done, which the word admit tere requires ; I say the admission is not made. Then you come to this ; this is so as to the fellows, tins is so as to•the scholars, though there is no word as to either • of them except the adraittantur, and the practice which has arisen under them ; then what is t a practice as to the Masser. Now there we are certainly left very deficient with respect to evidence, I must admit, for as to the affidavits that go to the Election of Doctor Milner, .it appears to inc there is a total failure of memory of what passed there, except that it does appear that Doctor Milrier was taken from the altar to his seat, and placed in his seat by the senior fellow of the day ; what passed, whether any words were used upon that occasion or net, the affidavits - are silent, and the other liffidavits that relate to Doctor 31ilfier's Election ; those that ido not speak of the circumstance of his being carried to4ris cl*t. arc affidavit, that amount to nothing more than that - the parties do not recollect what did pass ; 1 think almost every one of them, as far as I have examined ' them, has' that remarkable paper which is to be found in the affidavit of Mr. tharhani, - and which appears in a sense certainly to have been sanctioned by Dr. Plumtree ; but before I read that, I would take the liberty to say, that upon looking into ancient instruments, instruments of aboat that period, and , which have.obtained ever since, if you will look at the book I . • referted to-the other dey, I mean Gibson's Codex, which con , tains all about the admission of Bishops, all about the admis sion of Deans, all about the admission of Prebendaries, and so on, you will find what is the legal construction of the word adirettere in doetnnenta of this kind ; and I do not find that the Bishop scruples about being admitted by his inferior in rank, or that the Dean scruples being admitted by his inferior in rank, or that the Prebendary makes any scniple of being ad mitted by his inferior in rank, but they all have a form, and so it is where a Clergyman is to be instituted, the Law requires the Bishop to admit him by an Act distinct from institution and induction. But making that general observation upon these instrurneats to which fwould refer, and connecting that with the fact, that under the word admitt e re, both w ith respect to the Fellows and the Scholars, the word admittere must mean something more than the pronunciare electum ; anti that, al though there is a Juramentum of the Abater, with a delivery of tire keys, yet the construction of the word admittere, with respect to the Master and the Scholars, is a construction .that cannot be satisfied by the delivery of any symbols of that kind. Connecting all these together; then I refer you to this affidavit of Mr. Gorham, in which he speaks to the fact of his being " admitted to his Fellowship by the. very Reverend Isaac. Milner, then President of the said College ' the depo nent kneeling before him, and the said president pro nouncing the. words, " Ego, Isaacus Milner, intros hujus Collegii adinitto te in sociam perpetuum nomine • patris, et F ihii, et Spiritus Sancti." Now 1 may be wrong here, but I apprehend that Mr. Gorham was no Fellow till Doctor Milner had pronounced those words, " although as this Deponent believes and has no doubt no such form of admis sion is to be found prescribed in the Statutes of the College." I agree with him there, no form of admission is prescribed in the Statutes ; but if admission is expressed in the Statutes, admission must be made in some form as admission. • Then the question is, looking to the form which is in use in this College, and the form which Lain use in .other bodies of the same nature, sueh as I have been referring you to, whether the word which requires admission being there, does not require the usual forms to be observed in order to complete the admission, as one among the number of its laudabiles consuetudines. Now I do not undertake to say whether that is right reasoning or not, — whether this is to :be considered a laudabiles cousuetudo, as dis tinguished front the Statutes, for I conceive 1 am wrong if I am not right - in saying, that when the Statutes require admission they require the party to do something, and then the question , is, what is required, " and is, as this Deponent verily believes, invariably used on the admission of, and as the established re gular form of admitting each and every newly elected Fellow of the said College, and that a similar form is in use on the admis sion of every scholar thereof, though not mentioned in the said Statutes." There again we are at a little variance, because, for the reason 1. have given, I think it is in substance mentioned in the Statute, " and this Deponent further saith that a book con taining a copy of the Statutes, of .the said Statutes which book belonged to the late Rev. Thomas Thwaites, Clerk, formerly a Fellow of the said College, lies, since the death of the Deponent, said Thomas Thwaites, come to the hands of this Deponent, and is now in his possession, and belongs o him, having been given to the Deponent by the Reverend Charles iarisln: Clerk, ' one of the five Senior Fellows of the said College; that in such in book this Deponent found Written one of the blank leaves thereof, and; as he has no doubt, in the hand writing of the said Reverend Thomas Thwaites, a memorandum. entituled forms attending the election." Here is the original memorandum— • " Forms attending the - election of the Master, not mentioned in the Statutes, are us follow :—The books and kers being deliver ed, the Senior Fellow introduces him into his seat, in Chapel,- he then must go and subscribe before the Vice-Chancellor for the time being, anti after that the Senior Fellow m us t admi nister to him the oath of allegiance, &c., which see in the Mas- ' ter's book ;" and the words, the-Master's books appear to me to be of some consequence, when connected with the Statute, which clearly shows that there wee. a book, that is in a peculiar sense the Master's hook ; " and also the subscriptions then to be made %before the Senior Fellow"--you will find how that is to be pre sently—." who lastly admits .him in the following form, the Master kneeling :—ln nomine Dei Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Ego, Senior Socius, hujus Collegii admitto te in Presidentem hujus Collegii." Then lie says lie must, on some Sunday, read the morning service ; for this appeara to be a collection o'f all lie is bound to do, both under the Statutes and the general law of the land. He must on sonic Sunday read the morning service before the majority of Fellows and Scholars, and so on. There is something again that would explain the consuetudines; he says " that thus memorandum was some time since taken out of the copy of the Statutes by this Deponent, and is now produced to him at the swearing this his affidavit; and he says, that the note at the foot thereof, in the hand writing of this Deponent, was made and subscribed by him on the 21st day of April last, and that the note (see Collections relative to the History of Queen's College, page 31, M.S., in the Lodge) was also written by the Deponent, at the same time, and is a refe rence to a work of the late Doctor Plumtre, formerly Pre sident of the :mid College, being a manuscript prepared by him when 'President thereof, wherein it is by him mentioned and recorded that Mr. Herbert Palmer was, upon the 11th of April, 1644, made Master by the Earl of Manchester, which Earl came down in person to. the College Chapel, and there in stalled him in the Master's seat, and perforined the other cere monies usual upon the admission of a Master; and, he says, that it appears by the records of the College that Mr. Thwaites was chosen a Fellow in the year 1751, which is the date pre fixed by the said Thomas Thwaites to his copy of the Statutes, and was, therefore, the date given by this Deponent in his note, to the memorandum; but he says, on more minute examination he is satisfied that the date which he assigned to the memoran dum in his note thereto is erroneous ; he says he has no doubt that such memorandum was not written by Mr. Thwaites earlier than the year 1761 ; and that it appears by the Records of the College that he was a Fellow of the College, and that he voted at the election of Doctor Pluintre, who was chosen President in 1760, and that the memorandum is, as he verily believes, a record of what passed at the admission of the said Doctor Plumtre, and that the ceremonies mentioned in the me morandum were then used." Then he goes on to say " that in the month of April he as sisted Doctor Godfrey in searching for the book described in the memorandum as the Master's book, but could not find it. That he has lately seen what he has no doubt is the book so therein referred to, and in such book this deponent has ob served the signature of the very Reverend Isaac Milner, the late President of the College, with whose hand-writing this de- j ponent is well acquainted, and the names of the said Robert Plunitre and others, predecessors of the said Isaac Milner, all of whom appear to be subscribed in the said book, agreeably , to the memorandum of the said Thomas Thwaites, which this deponent, considers (and it appears to me justly - Considers) to be further verified thereby." Then he says, "he believes that the forms so mentioned are among the number of what he be fore calls the laudabiles consuetudines of the College,' which j the Fellows are bound to maintain inviolate,' as far as to them belongs, by the oaths administered to them previous to their admission to their respective Fellowships." Now, it is certainly stated in many of these affidavits, that in many of the Colleges in the University of Cambridge those forms are not observed ; I do not think that bears at all upon the argument, because, if forms of this kind are observed as completing the admission in bodies where admission is re. quired, the circumstance that such forms have been observed must, as it appears to me, give a construction as to what is tie cessary to be done in those bodies in which such forms have ob tained and have been ,observed ; and I am disposed, therfore, to hold as my present opinion, that this admission of Doctor Godfrey's was not complete when he subscribed before the Vice-Chancellor upon the Monday morning. If lam right in that opinion, it is quite unnecessary for me to discuss or to give any opinion upon the question, what is the effeceof a subscrip tion upon the Sunday ; and I should be very unwilling to do that, because if any thing were to fall from me to shake the validity of what has been so often done in the University of Cambridge on a Sunday, I might be introducing mischief and confusion in a place, in which I hope and wish all will remain quiet on ail such subjects. It appears to me t it is not neces sary to say any thing upon that, if I am right in supposing that Doctor Godfrey's admission was not completed on the Sunday, which I state, subject to observation if it shall be wished. The next qnestion is, and it is a material question, whether what I call the admission was too long delayed ? Now, with regard to that, I confess I cannot bring myself to se.7.- that it .as too long delayed, for here was a case-in which, as it seems to me, every body who had to do with the matter was conside rably ignorant ca. what was to be done, and the admission which was afterwards made, whether with more or less of ceremony than was necessary to that admission, seems to me to have been made as soon as professional advice could be got upon the sub ject. Whether that admission was necessary or not, for I un derstand the interval between the Sunday and the day when the admission was necessary or not, for I understand t.t.e . interval between the Sunday and the day, when the admiss.on *.vas made, tfae, according fo this affidavit, tten t ent in corikiting Mr• Serjeant Lens, BS to what was to be done to make she Election complete, if the Election was complete by . the admission—the case is put upon the word admission ; it then becomes quite unnecessary to consider two other points, namely, a point which 1 have already mentioned before, what is the meaning ef, the word AT in this Statute of Charley the Second ; and another question of considerable importance and considerable difficulty, whether, if by reason of the non aubsc'ription at admission in another way of understanding, the word•admiseion, the Head ship of the College is vacant, the nontinatioo of a future Master of the College is in the Crown. or whet'oef he is to be elected by the Fellows ; that 1 state to be a question probably of sours importance to the College, and no small difficulty as to the de termination of it. It does *ecru to me, upon looking at Statute of the 13th and 14th Charles the Second, and Upon looking at the Statute of 15th Charles IL, that if there was ont• a subscription within the intent and meaning of the 13th and 14th Charles 11., the office was ipso facto void, that it required no judicial sentence to make it so ; and I am the rather inclined to that opinion, because the Statute, 15th Charles H., which speaks of those cases in which it had become impossible to comply with the Statute, says, if they make the subscription within a sufficient time, they shall - be restored to their office, unless the offices. have been hiledin the meantime by those who had the power of electing, in consequence of the vacancyoccae sinned by non-subscription. In the former instance, it is int , possible a person could be restored to his office unless he was out of his Mice ; - and therefore the two Statutes appear to nee to prove this, that the former Statute made the office ipso - facto' void statutably adjudged to be voki ; and that the subsequent Statute, in speaking of restoration to the ofilea, necessarily meant a man's being restored to something he bad lest, and that the words, " as if' he had been naturally died," arc wards or very considerable importance in the construction of t:tett Statute. Ent, on the other hand, it is to be observed en the question, whether the College or the Crown hove a right to till the vurancy it there is one; that there arc subsequent Statutes in pari materia, whiclein general cases undoubtedly would tens w prove, that in order to give effect to former Acts of Par/ia meat, these subsequent Acts of Parliament leive given thet Crown power of nominating, Ihr the It:l:nese of giving till to the Acts that vacated, for the pen e otee of giving the Crewe. the power of nominating, where the perettns having the right u 5 Election had not in the mean time into posed, and made e non . Election. But that will notelecide this question ; if we are to come to that for the question here, would be taking the Statutes altogether, if there was not a due P.e . ction made within eight days, whether the Fellows had any power to make an Electuta - afterwards, - whether, independently of any such Statute, the! had any such power, on Witieh again it must be observed, tots is riot the fault of the Fellows that there was a non subscription of the declaration ; they had done their duty in making the Election, and then it would turn upon this, whether the Statutes saying, that the party elected who lets not so subscribed is to be considered as naturally dead, the capacity of electing would not again open to the College, to which again must be replied this difficulty, and a most meteeial difficulty - it is, that they tuu rs , be taken to be cognizant of the laws of the land, and must he take to be cognizant of . this, that though Doctor Godfrey wet among them, he wait naturally dead, and they were bound to • proceed to election within eight days. I think,it would he difficult to make it bear that construction. But these two Istts points are not necessary to be decided now, if I am right ir1 113 : 1 construction I have put upon the word.admittere consm: by the usage of other bodies, and by tile practiee and usage iu this College itself. It is my present opinion, indeed I could not state what uponCrle have, if it were not my present opinion, that which 1.11;•'• stated, is the construction to be nut u •t' oed admittere ve but as I believe I have put that in a sense somewhat newt i t . have taken the liberty, if I m a y s e ex p r ess myself, to • 41,1-4 pretty largely into the construction, 1 have given, for reason, that if those who h a v e h ear d the construct i on flat given, and the feasons I have expressed, think I am wrong : ) shall be ready on Saturday morning to bear one Courisiill I`'ll side on that point; if that proposition is made to into. - sl. most readily accede to it; but if it is not expressed to nten ee li shall decide that Doctor Godfrey is duly elected. Longer en' Saturday morning, I think I ought not to delay. I have studiously excluded one consideration ; man can look at this Election, as to which no objection ho . r diel stated to me with reference to either of the Candidates , e t „ te e on literary rounds,g on moral grounds, or on religious g"; 7 e e nows but where there is a difference of opinion among the upon i: ; .'10 is the most fit to be . elected, and they have I °' - ti n their tLis occasion, as they do on all, the most fit persun 6 , o eg the own College, though there is a difference of opinieu ns t ' - ifainv }t Fellows, yet that difference of opinion stated in tit' the chi goes no further than the difference of opinion stated ' ll they unction Whichthey took in their votes; for, their v° n to ne were bound by the most solemn obligations men l 'a thlgP c under, to vote for the. ndividual whom each indiyidtue that v the fittest person to be elected ; therefore 1 mutt taks, t ' et oull to be as expressive as the affidavit, and that the aftoo o m ea goes where it states Mr. ..itnandell to be the fittest P, ear t" to state, by reiteration, the sentiments of those who cots etat i e him. If the circumstance of this subscription not being _7 orte . upon the Sunday, and of its being made on the Itlondat7.ol - as soon as the Vice-Chancellor could be seen, 3 c t ,f a r stance rendering this election void, whether, if the Pci r t tie pointment should be found to be any where else, it 04 , 1 , _ 1 • 0. n ee. exercised in a particular way, is that on which I hav ' toys oil thing, because it is not for me. It is my duty to e i c t f, reslee opinion to his Majesty as to what has passed, and with :wive? tbink ite r l . to what ought to De done. That is a consideration ttinns of I have not dealt, because I think it would be pres eutt P me, who have nothing to do with it. c my state Mr. HuntiEnaTit—Your Lordship will excu se ttrat eict ing that, in consequence of the letter read by yoo IZte eis such of the Fellows as were present thouht it ottr t e l ' lng ot r i : e; duty, tinctly to disavow our privity in any respect I have wee s , n t i o n w e, ri a t l e i t f o ro t n n l e k w 'e h ll o o n ve l v• e ' ou h" lnaetsep ee r i e v: an answer within the time,. a distinct disavowal, ,an d n 3 Are I°f ; sion of their disapprobation ; the other Genteou lc c ie to 6 * haveB' Senior had e f i r l ot within distance of the post, but I can take uponlq., * (t e die let_ that they can by no means have had any knowleug - t eat We `- ter ; your Lordship will therefore permit me to s* . c I tremely reprobate it. 01 stir . LORD CHANCELLOR—Mr. Hubbersty, t ime if 1 , t . l t t should not do justice to the Members of the On* A le, 1 , not say that from every thing which has passed hctO r ; e: that ' 5 suspected them of having any thing to do with sellut t t i t tee• ter tome I should be doing them the most gross h o fer p bc Mr. IfCB33ERSTY-1. omitted to ask your Lerci'', g , Can mission to inspect the letter, because.if identified, it is our intention to bring it before the .L, it is fi .l t , e LORD CHANCELLOR —No, it is not worth ' , ail ' to you t ing too much import ance t o it.—l am much obligeo _flora° mentioning it, but it is not worth while. con te 7 re' Mr. lloicet—:When your Lordship alltoled t? bo lo r ef neous construction of the Statute of Queen Eli n , cons° sums our Lordship meant to speak of Elizabeth the ; Edward IV. istA e Mr. SILADWELL—N o , my L earne d F r iend is . 1° ,• 3 , these Statutes were ma d e i n 150. ouerot t -enet- LORD CHANCELLOR—These Statutes are '.1 1 3 , ' beth's Statutes, but the further back you go, I thiol' , the the ground is. t otes c ' tsa Mr. Hume—The original Statutes are the e, • g Consort of Edward IV. so ieeln e , tete eo LORD CHANCELLOR—But, however, Mr. ue the best thing you eau do la, to take into consider," !on 05 t elt this and Saturday,. what has passed, and if it th °et t 1 res ' able to offer any further considerations, I will lii tend to them, and will then diseote of thetettee. 10 1 ' el. at' -K etell t COURT OF CHANCERY, SATTIE.DAT, 4 . 1 ' A "; iS not o ,l ' _ Mr. BLIGH—In the case of Que.en's College, intention to trouble your Lordship with any arli•Ten, fort t ro pe 6 . I am instructed merely to ask your Lords LP ete•l° . the costs. I - -LC LORD CHANCELLOR4t. strikes me, that it :va s to pay the costs. of sary on the part of the College in general, that Mr. HanT—Does your Lordship mean petitions ? 'tionse _oks LORD CHANCELLOH—Yes ; of all the Pen t‘ipt Bob' Mr. SHADWELL—Your Lordship will permit ' up _ OO hating to Qtteen's College to be handed back, at, the •e o leer Loup CHANCELLOIt—I will give order. sti en d the , , Qt shall be handed hack, sad the original affithav e ''„ eoe toOe'l affidavits also, after my Secretary has. had ta erasing my own notes upon them. Mr. SI - LADWXI.I.—I am obliged to your a.or- • the COO GENRA ASSEA.WIA . nr , Viarc l4 'i E L PRESByTERY OF CITP.AI:—The Reverep, Kingskettie ; the Reverena ;Mr. Andrew Thomson , 1 ttw 2Z 3 , the Reverend Mr. Alenander. Lawson.; C r eich ; t ' rend rend Mr. Henry D. Cook, Kittnany, Ministers . Vie son, Esq. of Pitlqhie, and David - Con s table, yoong e " Mel, Esq. Advocate, elder.—',Edinburgh CourPt.) BOARD or AGRTcur,TURE'S CATTLE Saturday afternoon and yes.-.:relay morning a (Treat tine animals arrived frun: various patts of thcliiPg“ ° ; - , l e' t P3' ' acious - H t a, l'ard of Mr. Aldridge, in Ce'L t ,,, ne.-u ry :Lon t,7 -acre, % mIo the JUdges adjudging the premiunrs were to examine them vl4 after which the public wera to be admitted to view the -0 ' m v.o The Committee at Lloyd's Coffee-house sijo giwitttwenty pcunds to the' Yvtnouth boatp.:en whor ' . 1 , 1 : Q 414 .eves of the cr,...w of tlic Syntrn•:t:y, - late/y wrene4 9 '..c.4.v.tt of 'iN4;-f01.k.... i I