are as effectual as if the whole had assented; declares that every statute made by the founder of any such corporation, whereby the grant or election of the head, with the consent of the majority, is liable to be hindered by any one or more being in the minority, shall be void. The major part must be present, and the consent of each must be given at a regular assembly (b). This statute extends only to acts that concern the whole corporation; therefore, if the statutes of a college require a license for absence to be by the wardens, three bursars, five deans, and five senior fellows, the majority is not sufficient, but all must concur (c).

The statute 31 Eliz. c. 6, to secure the election of the fittest persons, renders void the elections of fellows, scholars, and other persons, into colleges, schools, hospitals, and the like societies, obtained by money, fee, reward, or other profit.

On a question whether a fellow of a college could be elected to fill the office of senior bursar, without the concurrent voice of the master, under the statutes of the college, which ordered that he should be elected "per præsidentem et majorem partem sociorum," it was held that such phrase had reference to the individuals by whom the election was to be made, and that the concurrence of the president was necessary in such election. And under the words of another statute, relating to the election of fellows (d), the phrase "præsidens et major pars sociorum omnium tam præsentium quam absentium," was held not to denote the body by whom the election was to be made as a body; for if these words denoted the body by whom the election was to be made, and not the individuals who were to concur in the election, it would follow, that if the president assembled with the greater number of the existing fellows, and then proceeded to the election, the majority of those who were thus assembled, would be sufficient to constitute a valid election. But

(b) Gibs. Cod. 744.

major pars sociorum omnium tam præsentium quam absentium consenserit, pro electo habeatur; quem sic electum præsidens teneatur (d)" Et in quem præsidens et pronuntiare et admittere."

(c) Dyer, 247; Com. Dig. Franchises, (F. 11). See 1 Bl. Com. 478; Cowp. 377.

as it was clear, from a subsequent part of the statute, that such an election would not be valid, unless the persons concurring in the election constituted a majority of the whole number of existing fellows; it was held, that those words referred to the individuals by whom the election was to be made, and that the president was a necessary party concurring in the election (e).

The statutes of Clare Hall, Cambridge, provide that "the election of a fellow shall be by the master and the major part of the fellows present;" it was held, that a valid election might be made without the concurrent voice of the master (f).

In Caius College, Cambridge, the election of a fellow is to be by the master and major part of the fellows; it was held, that an election by the major part of the persons entitled to vote in the election was valid, though the master refused to concur with them (g).

In Catherine Hall, Cambridge, where the election of fellows is to be "communi omnium assensu aut saltem ex consensu magistri et majoris partis communitatis," it was held, that the concurrent voice or consent of the master of the college present at an election, was necessary to the election of a fellow thereof (h).

Where the statutes of a college directed that the president, on his election, should be admitted, and prescribed an oath to be taken by him, and some other ceremonies to be performed; it was held, upon evidence of a particular form of admission, besides the oath and ceremonies mentioned in the statutes having been used, and upon the ground, that in such offices the admission is generally a distinct act, that the admission did not consist in taking the oath, and going through the ceremonies mentioned in the statutes, but in the observance of that particular form. It was also held,

(e) In re Queen's College, Cambridge, 5 Russ. 64.

(f) Case of Clare Hall, 5 Russ. 73 n.

(g) Case of Gonville's and Caius College, 5 Russ. 76 n.

(h) Case of Catherine Hall, 5 Russ. 85 n.

that the president elect did not therefore forfeit his office by taking the oaths and going through those ceremonies, without having previously subscribed the declaration required by the act of uniformity (i).

The effect of the act of uniformity, in the case of a party neglecting to subscribe, is to render his office void without a judicial sentence. And it seems, where the fellows of a college are required to elect a president within a certain time after a vacancy, that if the elected president neglects to subscribe the declaration of conformity before his admission, his office is, ipso facto, void, and a new election must take place within the time prescribed by the statutes (j).

In college statutes, making the possession of property a disqualification, real estate alone is in general considered. But when real estate is required as a qualification for certain offices by college statutes, the modern doctrines of equity are not to be too rigidly applied in determining what is real; and, therefore, an interest in land which in a court of equity would be deemed personal estate, may satisfy the statute (k).

A qualification in the grant of a living, that the person to be presented should not, at such time as the church should be void, "be presented, instituted, or inducted into any other living," was held to be complied with by the previous resignation of another living. A resignation of a living, sent by the post to the bishop, who endorsed and signed a memorandum of his acceptance, was sufficient, though not a public act (1).

It was held, that the trustees of a charity, after having accepted the resignation of a fellow on a foundation requiring him to travel, who had not complied with the condition imposed by the donor's will, could not compel the fellow to refund the salary which he had received, although it might Rep. 45, 46.

(i) Case of Queen's College, Jac. Rep. 1; see Stat. 13 & 14 Car. II.

c. 4, s. 10; 1 W. & M. c. 8.

(k) S. C. ibid. 37, 38.

(1) Heyes v. Exeter College, Ox

(j) Case of Queen's College, Jac. ford, 12 Ves. 336.

have been otherwise, if the trustees had refused to accept the resignation, and required the fellow to comply with the terms of the gift or refund (m).

SECTION II.

Of the Election of Curates and Chaplains by Inhabitants.

It is a general rule of law, that no person can be authorised to preach publicly within a chapel, to which all the inhabitants of a district may have a right to resort, without the consent of the clergyman to whom the cure of souls is given; but this rule only applies to a chapel, open to all the inhabitants of a certain district, and not to one belonging to a private individual, where service is performed for the convenience of his family and friends; for the appointment of a chaplain by the owner of such a chapel, does not confer any freehold interest, but merely a permission to enter.

But where there has been an endowment of a chapel beyond legal memory, and the nomination has gone in a particular course, it will be presumed to have gone according to the will of the founder; and in the case of prescription, every thing necessary to give effect to that which has for so long a period been done, as the consent of the rector or vicar, and of the patron and ordinary, will be presumed (n).

Consent to such an agreement will be sufficient without any compensation to the incumbent, where nothing is taken from his income. It is also a rule of law, that wherever a chapel of ease is erected, the incumbent of the mother church is entitled to nominate the minister, unless there be a special agreement to the contrary, to which parson, patron, and ordinary are parties (o).

(m) Attorney General v. Stephens, 1 Atk. 358; S. C. 2 Eq. Abr. 196, pl. 17.

(n) Farnworth v. Bishop of Chester, 4 Barn. & Cr. 568; S. C. 7 Dowl.

& R. 96.

(0) Dixon v. Kershaw, Ambl. 528; S. C.nom. Dixon v. Metcalfe, 2 Eden, 360, cited 4 B. & C. 368.

The parishioners of a parish, who obtained from a dean and chapter the grant of land for a burial ground, and who obtained a royal license, and afterwards built a chapel at their own expense, were held to be entitled to the right of nominating the minister, as the dean and chapter had not reserved any power of nomination (p).

In 1631, A. M. founded a chapel of ease in a township of a parish, and endowed it with lands for the maintenance of a minister, and by his will directed, that his son should, during his life, have the nomination and election of the minister, and might by will or deed, set down the order or course for the nomination and election of the minister after his death; and if he should not set down any course or order, then the minister should be nominated and elected by all the householders and heads of families in the township, and the heirs male of A. M.'s body, and such other of his kindred or blood, as should have any land in the township, or the greater number of them, with the advice of some godly ministers near adjoining.

By the instrument of consecration by the bishop of the diocese, all tithes, fees, and emoluments whatsoever on burials, marriages, &c., were reserved to the vicar of the parish. The son not having set down any order as to the election, it was held, that the householders and heads of families of the township, where the chapel was situate, had no right to present a curate to the chapel without the consent of the vicar of the parish (q).

The major part of a certain number of persons who are incorporated, may do any corporate act, although it is not so provided by the charter. By charter of Edward VI., twelve persons were incorporated by name, to elect a chaplain for the church of Kirton in Lincolnshire; and by another clause, three of the twelve were to choose a chaplain to officiate in the church of Sandford, within the parish of Kirton, with

(p) Herbert v. Dean and Chapter of Westminster, 1 P. Wms. 773; but see 4 B. & C. 569, 571.

(q) Farnworth and others v. Bishop of Chester and others, 4 B. & Cr. 555; S. C. 7 Dowl. & R. 96.