his chancellor (f), and a prohibition will lie against their visitation by others (g); and it is said that the king may visit by special commissioners (h).

It was adjudged that the king had an undoubted right to visit the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had power to visit. the whole province in which the universities are situated (i). When a private eleemosynary corporation is created by the charter of the crown, it is subject to no other control on the part of the crown than what is expressly or impliedly

(g) Reg. 406; Com. Dig. Visitor, lations as the said dean and chapter (A).

reserved by the charter itself. Unless a power be reserved for that purpose, the crown cannot, by virtue of its prerogative (without the consent of the corporation), alter or amend the charter, or divest the corporation of any of its franchises, or increase them, or add to or diminish the number of the trustees, or remove any of the members, or change or control the administration of the charity, or compel the corporation to receive a new charter (k)—although, when an integral part of a corporation is gone, and the corporation has no power of restoring it, or of doing any corporate act, the corporation is so far dissolved that the crown may grant a new charter (l).

Where the king erects a school, appoints governors, and gives them land and a power of making bye-laws, they are subject to royal visitation, because the revenues are liable to abuse; and the king, being the curator of his own charities, will not be construed to have parted with the visitatorial power without express words for that purpose.

It is the settled doctrine of the Court of Chancery, that it does not entertain a general jurisdiction to regulate and control charities established by charter, which the court cannot alter. If the governors appointed for the regulation of the charity are not those who have the management of the revenues, that court has no jurisdiction; but if the governors have also the management of the revenues, the court does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, so far as they are to be considered trustees of the revenue. The court will not, in the case of a corporation instituted by charter and act of parliament, for the purpose of governing a charity, take the jurisdiction out of their

(k) Rex v. Pasmore, 3 T. R. 199. (1) S. C. 3 T. R. 199.

In cases where certain individuals are incorporated as governors of a school, care should be taken in filling up the vacancies in their number, for if it be reduced to one, there will be no one having a power to do any corporate act, and there is danger of the revenues of the founda

tion being lost; for, on the dissolution or determination of a corporation, the lands belonging to it do not escheat to the lord, but revert to the donor, or his heirs; 1 Roll. Abr. 816; Co. Litt. 13 b; 1 Lev. 237; 3 T. R. 241; 3 Burr. 1868. Wilmot's Notes, 169. See the Case of Halifax School, 2 Carlisle's Hist. of Endowed Schools, 808–813.

hands unless an actual abuse of trust has been committed (m).

The free grammar-school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI. (n), who endowed the school, and, by his letters patent, appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school; but, by the letters patent, no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment being vested in these governors, it was held that they were not visitors; and that a commission of charitable uses, under the statute 43 Eliz. c. 4, to inspect the conduct of the governors, was well issued (o).

Where a charity is one of royal foundation, and no special visitor has been appointed, it seems that any complaint, even as to the misapplication of the revenues, must be addressed, not to the Court of Chancery, but to the great officer there presiding, as exercising the visitatorial power of the crown. Thus where an information was brought to have the increasing surplus profits of a charity-school, founded by the crown, applied for the benefit of the master, who was not a party thereto, but there was a cross bill to have them applied for the benefit of the poor children-Lord Hardwicke said, "it was a causeless information; and, although the doctrine was true, in general, that where there is an information it ought not to be dismissed, but there should be a decree to establish the charity according to the intent of the donor, yet that rule relates to private charities: for where there is a foundation for a perpetual charity by the crown, it is established, as well as it can be already, by a higher authority than the Court of Chancery. This is a foundation by the crown, and there is a particular direction by the last charter for the application

(m) Attorney General v. Governors of Foundling Hospital, 2 Ves. Jun. 42. See ante, 292-296.

(n) See private stat. 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 17, for enabling the governors of Birmingham School to erect school-houses, and to extend the

objects of the charity, and for other purposes.

(0) Eden v. Foster, 2 P. Wms. 325; S. C. Sel. Cas. Ch. 36; Gilb. Eq. Cas. 178. See ante, pp. 292296.

of the revenue; and no decree will be made for the establishment of a charity which is properly regulated by charter from the crown" (p). A free school, founded by charter or by act of parliament, with proper powers, must be regulated, in the first instance, by the charter, not by application to a court of equity (q); but where a local visitor is appointed, and a trust is expressed in the original instrument, as to the application of the revenue, the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to compel a due application, although the charity was a royal foundation (r).

Where a charity was founded by a royal charter, and an application was made by petition against the trustees, on a charge of their having misapplied part of the charity funds, but not requiring the interference of the court to regulate the charity, nor to alter or carry it into execution on any principle of cy-pres, it was held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition under the stat. 52 Geo. III. c. 101 (s).

So in the case of the free-school of Shrewsbury, which was founded by Edward VI., who gave the bailiffs and burgesses power to nominate the schoolmaster, and to make ordinances for his direction (with the advice of the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry), and also for the preservation of the revenue. In consideration of Queen Elizabeth having increased the revenue of the school, the bailiffs and burgesses agreed to such ordinances as the then head master A. should, with the advice of the bishop appoint, who accordingly made several, relating to the disposition of the revenues and the qualification of the master. Afterwards, the bailiffs and burgesses made bye-laws, that upon every vacancy of a master, the college should nominate a proper person (qualified as required by the ordinance of the master, A.) to the bailiffs, who should nominate such person. By a deed between the bailiffs and

(p) Attorney General v. Smart, 1 Ves. sen. 72.

(q) Attorney General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. sen. 327; Attorney General v. Price, 3 Atk. 108; Attorney General v. Governors of Harrow School, 2

Ves. sen. 552; Attorney General v.
Corporation of Bedford, Id. 505.

(r) Ex parte, Berkhampstead Free School, 2 Ves. & B. 138.

(s) In re Chertsey Market, 6 Price, 276.

burgesses, and the bishop and the college, they covenanted to perform the bye-laws; and the mode of election prescribed by them had been observed for one hundred and fiftytwo years. On an information in the Court of Exchequer, at the relation of the college, to compel the town to nominate, according to the bye-laws and usage, it was objected that Edward VI. having been the founder, was visitor; and that the decree sought to be obtained would interfere with the visitatorial power, and the crown could only visit under the great seal; but it was decided that the court might establish the charity, and although it was insisted that the right of nomination, given by the letters patent, being a naked authority, could not be delegated, the court overruled that objection, for the bye-laws contained only a regulation and not a total delegation of the authority (†).

It was incidentally laid down by Lord Mansfield, that on the failure of the heirs of the founder of a college, the right of visitation did not devolve to the crown as visitor, but that the jurisdiction over the college devolved to the Court of King's Bench as in the case of other corporations (u). But that doctrine has been expressly overruled, and it has been decided, that in the case of a private eleemosynary foundation, if no special visitor be appointed by the founder, the right of visitation, on a failure of his heirs, devolves upon the king, to be exercised by the great seal. Thus in the case of St. Catherine's Hall, Cambridge, which was founded and endowed by Dr. Wodelarke, who gave certain statutes, and the foundation which consisted of a master and fellows, was confirmed and incorporated by letters patent of the 15 Edw. IV. In 1549, Edw. VI. sent down by commission several visitors to Cambridge, to alter and reform the statutes of many of the colleges in the university, and (amongst others) of that college; and it appeared, that ever since that time, (except for a short period in the reign of Queen Mary, as to some part), the college had been governed by the statutes