the inconvenience which would result from the obstinacy of one or more of a large body of trustees refusing to concur in an election (k), and partly on an intention of the founder, inferred from the nature of such trusts, that the act of the majority of the trustees should bind the rest (/).

A vicar, churchwardens, and overseers of the poor of a parish, had the nomination of the master of a charity-school and a vacancy having occurred, a meeting was held to elect a successor to the office, at which the vicar, the two churchwardens, and the four overseers of the poor attended. After a candidate had been elected at such meeting, and a minute of his election had been entered by the clerk, it was held to be competent for the majority of the electors, before the meeting was dissolved, to reverse their vote, rescind the minute of election, and postpone the election to a subsequent day, provided, in so doing, they acted bonâ fide, and with a view to the welfare of the charity (m).

By statute 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 4, every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every tutor in any private family, must subscribe the declaration that he will conform to the liturgy of the church of England, as by law established, and be licensed by the ordinary. The bishop may examine the party applying for a license, as to his learning, morality, and religion (n), and take time to inquire into the character of an elected schoolmaster, before granting the license (o).

The provisions of the legislature, with respect to dissenting and Roman Catholic schoolmasters, have been already mentioned (p).

(k) Withnell v. Gartham, 6 T. grammar-school, without such liR. 388; Rex v. Beeston, 3 T. R. cense. Rex v. Dowse, 1 Lord Raym. 592. 672.

(1) 2 Cr. & Jerv. 656.

(m) Attorney General v. Matthew, 3 Russ. 500.

(n) Rex v. Archbishop of York, 6 T. R. 490; ante, p. 397. An indict

ment does not lie for keeping a writing or reading-school, not being a

See

(0) 2 Str. 1023. Com. 448. stat. 23 Eliz. c. 1, ss. 6, 17. 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9; Cox's case, 1 P. Wms. 29; Matthews v. Burdett, 2 Salk. 672.

(p) Ante, pp. 102, 109, 111. By 53 Geo. III. c. 107, commissioners

We have already seen that a master of a free school of royal foundation, may be elected on an information in the attorney general's name (q).

By the orders made on the foundation of a school, it was provided that the schoolmaster should from time to time be appointed by three of the original feoffees named, or their respective heirs male for the time being, or three of them; and if there should not be an heir male of any of such three feoffees, then from time to time, upon every death or removal, the schoolmaster should be chosen by the curate, churchwardens, and six other of the chief inhabitants of Woodbridge for the time being. The three feoffees being all dead without an heir male to any of them, disputes arose as to naming six of the chief inhabitants, to join with the curate and churchwardens in the appointment of a schoolmaster, and upon the last vacancy two persons had been elected.

On a petition being presented to the lord chancellor, as visitor, praying a declaration in respect of the late election of a master of the school, and directions for the future elections, Lord Eldon said, "the master has hitherto had a freehold in his office, and he doubted very much whether the visitor could appoint him. It was clear, the curate and churchwardens, officiating in some manner with six of the chief inhabitants, were the patrons of the office. It was in their gift, not in the gift of the visitor; and the mere circumstance, that they had made two elections that were both void, would not authorise the visitor himself to appoint the master, but only authorise him to call upon the persons entitled to make the appointment” (r).

are appointed for the regulation of appointment of a schoolmaster, upendowed schools in Ireland.

(q) Attorney General v. Town of Shrewsbury, Bunb. 215; ante, pp. 336, 337.

(r) It was referred to the attorney general to consider and report, what directions or alterations touching the mode and right of election and

on the present or any future vacancy, would be fit and proper to be made; and what directions and alterations were proper to be made in the orders, constitutions, and directions of the said school, as should seem to him most conducive to the interest and benefit of the objects of

Where by the statutes of a charity school a master was to be nominated by the wardens within sixty days after an avoidance, upon their default by the dean and chapter of York within thirty days, and then by the bishop, it was held that such right of nomination was not subject to the general rules of lapse as in cases of presentation to livings (s).

Schoolmasters of endowed schools have frequently an estate of freehold in their office, to which a right to the school-house and other property is attached; but they are often liable to be removed by the visitor for misconduct, such as neglecting the scholars (t).

In a recent case, it was held that a schoolmaster may have a sort of middle interest, neither amounting to an estate for life, subject to defeasance, nor yet an estate at will; but accruing to him out of a nomination by the trustees, as part of a contract between them, and conferring a right to the employment of a schoolmaster, and the occupation of the school-house, during good behaviour, and until a dismissal by the trustees, in whom the legal estate is vested, or a majority of them, on reasonable notice (u). Such an appointment not conferring an office incident or appurtenant to land, may be made without deed, and even without writing (v). But

the charity, and the furtherance of the intention of the donors thereof. Attorney General v. Black, 11 Ves.

191.

should continue such schoolmaster of the said school-house; and that he should be permitted to have the possession and enjoyment of the dwell

(s) Attorney General v. Wycliffe, ing-house and premises, as his resi1 Ves. sen. 80.

(t) Doe d. Thanet v. Gartham, 8 Moore, 368; ante, pp. 365, 366; Doe d. Coyle v. Cole, 6 Carr. & Payne,

359.

(u) A schoolmaster, appointed by a majority of trustees, in whom the fee was vested, was held to have an interest of that description, under terms in substance as follows: that there should be paid to the master a salary of 401. annually, so long as he

dence as such schoolmaster, until his dismissal from the said employment by a majority of the persons, who, for the time being, should be seised of the same premises. Wilkinson v. Malin, 2 Cr. & Jerv. 636, 650, 658; S. C. 2 Tyrw. 544; ante, p. 727.

(v) S. C. Ibid. If a schoolmaster is in effect the cestui que trust residing upon what is substantially his own, under a trust for his benefit,

where land belongs to an office, it seems that the appointment to the office must be by deed in order to pass the freehold in such land (w).

It was held that notice to a schoolmaster to retire from his office within a certain time, given by five out of ten trustees of a charity, without any public meeting, or any declaration by a majority assembled at such a meeting, was not a valid dismissal; because, in the first place, at the time when the notice was given, there were ten trustees, so that the persons who gave notice did not even constitute a majority of the whole body. In the next, even if they did constitute a majority of the whole body, it was the whole body which was to dismiss, and not a majority of it. So that, if there was a meeting, and a majority were for dismissal, then the declaration of the majority is not merely that of the majority, but of the whole body, which does in fact dismiss (x).

In the year 1621, certain lands were granted to fourteen feoffees, for the maintenance of a schoolmaster, to instruct the children of all the inhabitants of a parish; and it was provided that no act concerning the lands should be done, but in a vestry or meeting of the feoffees, and ten at least of the inhabitants of such parish, which should be vestrymen and not feoffees, at a vestry meeting; and a power of removal of the schoolmaster was given, so that it was with the consent and agreement of the feoffees and vestrymen, or the major part of them, which should be assembled in vestry, so always as at least ten of the vestrymen, which were not feoffees, should vote at the holding of the vestry. The judges of

he acquires a settlement, Rex v. Owersby Le Moore, 16 East, 356. See Rex v. Melborne, Burr, S. C. 244. So a schoolmaster gains a settlement under 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, by residing in a house worth 107. a-year assigned to him, rent free, in his character of schoolmaster, although he was liable to be

dismissed from his office at the will of the donor. Rex v. Lakenheath, 2 Dowl. & R. 816, S. C. 1 B. & C. 531. See stat. 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 68.

(w) Co. Litt. 49 a; Saunders v. Owen, 1 Salk. 467; S. C. 1 Ld. Raym. 158.

(x) Wilkinson v. Malin, 2 Crompt. & Jerv. 656, 657; S.C. 2 Tyrw. 544.

the Court of Common Pleas, on a case referred to them by the vice chancellor, certified, that in the execution of the power of removal of the master, the votes were to be taken per capita, and not according to the provisions of the act 58 Geo. III. c. 59, for the regulation of parish vestries (y).

A corporation intrusted, in their corporate capacity, with the management of certain property, clothed with a trust for the maintenance of a schoolmaster, with the power of nominating him and dismissing him at their will and pleasure, would not, any more than an individual with such a power over an estate devoted to a charity, be permitted to act corruptly in the execution of the trust, as in removing the schoolmaster because he had not voted at an election of members of parliament for a borough according to the wishes of certain members of the corporation (z).

It seems that at common law, a general resignation bond of an office is legal, although the party may have a freehold in the office; and that a bond given by a schoolmaster of an ancient public school, who had a freehold in his office, to resign at the request of the patron of the school making the appointment, is good at law, although equity will restrain any improper use of it by the patron. Lord Kenyon saw nothing illegal or wrong in the patron of the school taking such a bond, for it enforces the good behaviour of the master, and may tend to prevent those ill consequences which too frequently happen from the neglect of those whose duty it is to superintend such institutions. It being a more easy method of exercising a visitatorial authority, which must exist somewhere (a).

not decided, because it did not appear upon the record that the schoolmaster had a freehold office;

(y) Attorney General v. Wilkinson, 7 Moore, 187; S. C. 3 Brod. & Bing. 266. (z) Dummer v. the Corporation of S. C. 3 Bos. & Pull. 231. See Chippenham, 14 Ves. 252.

(a) Legh v. Lewis, 1 East, 391; cited 1 Bligh, N. S. 158. There was a writ of error in this case, but the point in question was

Laying v. Paine, Willes, 571, on the stat. 5 & 6 Edw. VI. to prevent the sale of public offices; Bagshaw v. Bossley, 4 T. R. 78, that a bond in aid of the law is valid. Lord