investigation rendered the exercife of the right almost a judicial act; and that it was infinitely lefs liable to abufe than a corporation regulating itself. And the new charter was accepted on the most important condition of its acceptors having the valuable privilege of fending representatives to the fenate of the nation. Evidence was then examined, to prove thať Penhall and his brethren had been elected freemen' by the mayor and aldermen, in exclufion of the commonalty, and that they were therefore illegally chofen. On an objection rélative to the reading of the petitions from both parties, on the proceedings for the new charter, it was acknowledged that, although the prefent times were not fufpicious, there had been times when the rights of individuals and of corporations were by no means fafe in the hands of the attorney and folicitor generals, whofe opinions they confidered as given, in this inftance, to their client, the crown,* The * Frafer, 20, The petitions being read, according to agreement, it appeared Penhall was one of thofe who opposed the new grant. The committee determining, after fome debate, on receiving evidence, A witness being called, faid, that he attended when the business was agitated before the lord privy-feal (the Duke of Grafton), the lord chief baron Smith attended as affeffor to his Grace: the parties were then heard by counsel, and again before the Chancellor. He allowed, on cross-examination, that the agent of the other party applied for a copy of the new charter, and and the names of the new corporators, which was refused; but this he knew only from the declaration of the agent. The acceptance of the new charter was then proved by all, except the fix old burgeffes, who refused. Mr. Eaft argued, that the prefent committee were not precluded in their judgment by the decifions of former committees, and contended that the queftion, Whether the right of voting in Helfton belonged only to thofe of the corporation? K 2 ration? had been virtually decided in the court of King's Bench. He stated it as a general maxim, that the king's grants are to be upheld, if poffible, and not to be deemed void, except from neceffity; and, when upheld, are to be conftrued in the moft liberal manner; or, as the books exprefs it, ufque ad plenitudinem. (2 Inft. 496.) He confidered the new corporation could be neither valid, nor the charter construed ad ple nitudinem, if the old corporation was fuppofed to exist, and the charter did not confer the rights it meant to bestow. The queftion therefore might be refolved into the three following inquiries: First,-In what right Mr. Penhall claimed to vote? The answer must be that of being an old corporator of the borough. Secondly, Does the corporation, of which he claims to be a member, exift in law? And, Thirdly, Suppofing it does not, can a corporator have a right of voting, when the corporation by which he claims, has ceafed to exift? In anfwer * 8 Co. 55, 10 Co. 67. b. answer to the second queftion, which he confidered the most material, he obferved, corporations are not formed by the crown merely to bestow privileges to individuals, but to promote the happiness and intereft of the public. When therefore they can no longer benefit the community, they fhall forfeit the privileges granted to them for that beneficial purpose. The King's Bench had confirmed this principle, in the cafe of the King and Pafmore. He then enumerated the principal arguments used by the judges in that cafe. He contended, that not one of the powers which Mr. Juftice Blackstone states* as effential to a corporation, existed in that of Helston, when the new charter was granted. They had neither perpetual fucceffion; they could neither fue, nor be fued; they could not purchase land; they had no common feal; nor could they make bye-laws for their internal regulation. He next contended that, when one integral part of a corporation was loft, without the power of supplying it, the whole was diffolved. Among many authorities, he quoted that of Sir George' Treby, K 3 * Vol. I. 475• Treby, in the great quo warranto cafe refpecting the city of London, who acknowledged that a corporation cannot exist by halves. Mr. Eaft then adverted to the feveral cases of Bewdley, Banbury, Tregony, Tiverton, Maidftone, Colchester, and Seaber, all as cafes in point, except the latter; in which he stated, that the corporation being revived by a new charter, accepted by the members of the old corporation, the remaining fcintilla juris was rekindled. In adverting to the cafe of Ban ury, he stated, that the cafe of Lazarus being then mentioned at the bar, doubting if he would have been reftored to his eftate after three days death, Lord ChiefJuftice Parker faid, that as the Creator only can raise a dead man, fo none but the crown can raise a deceafed corporation, which itself created. He added, the corporation, in the present, cafe (Banbury), is not afleep, but dead; and the expreffion Lazarus fleepeth, was owing to the intention of reviving him: but the expectation of feire facias to revive a corporation, or of a new grant, cannot be entertained. In arguing upon this important fubject, he flated, that Lord Holt exprefsly fays, I am of opinion "that |