fines and forfeitures there, which have been and may be applied hereto, are considerable.

February 25, 1711-12.

EDW. NORTHEY.

(4.) CASE and OPINION of the Attorney General, SIR EDWARD NORTHEY, on the surrender of the Bahama Charter. 1717.

Whitehall, December 10, 1717. SIR,--The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations command me to remind you of my letter of the 21st of the last month, which was to acquaint you that there being six proprietors of the Bahama Islands, whereof two are minors, the other four have executed a deed of surrender of their right of government to his Majesty, and to desire your immediate opinion whether a surrender executed by four out of six, as aforesaid, be valid and effectual.

WM. POPPLE.

Opinion. I am of opinion that a surrender by four where six are seised can only convey and extinguish thereby four parts in six of what the parties enjoyed. However, his Majesty being entitled under four, to four parts of the government, which is entire, he may execute the whole. And I do not know that the other two can be co-partners with his Majesty in governing, for which reason, and that there might not be an extinguishment by surrender, I apprehend, as this case is, a grant to the Crown of the four parts might be more proper.

December 10, 1717.

EDW. NORTHEY.

(5.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK and SIR WILLIAM FOLLETT, on a proposed surrender of the Charter of the University of King's College, in New Brunswick, and the grant of an amended Charter.

Temple, January 19, 1842.

MY LORD,-On the 11th of December last, we received a letter from Mr. Stephen, wherein he was pleased to state that the Council of the University of King's College, at Fredericton, in the province

of New Brunswick, are desirous of obtaining a modification of the charter from the Crown, under which it is incorporated, with a view to render the institution more acceptable to the inhabitants, and thereby to increase its usefulness.

That Her Majesty's government are willing to consent to the modification, and, as a preliminary to granting an amended charter, require the surrender of that now held by the college.

Doubts, however, are entertained by Her Majesty's law officers in the province as to the competency of the corporation to make such surrender, and also as to the mode in which the change desired can be lawfully effected.

Mr. Stephen further stated he had been directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of the college charter, together with a copy of the opinion delivered by the Attorney and Solicitor General of New Brunswick; and he requested that we would take the subject into our consideration, and report to your Lordship our opinion whether it is competent to the corporation of the college to surrender their present charter and accept a new one; if not, in what manner the desired alteration in the constitution of the college can be lawfully effected.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have perused the papers mentioned in Mr. Stephen's letter, and have fully considered the whole matter referred to us; and we have now the honour to report to your Lordship, that we do not think it necessary, in order to effect the intended alterations in the constitution of the college, that its present charter should be surrendered as a preliminary to the granting of an amended charter; and we think there are objections to such a course. We would recommend that a new charter should be granted to the college, containing the proposed modifications of the existing charter, and this new charter, if accepted by the college, will become the governing one of the corporation. We think that this new charter should recite the grant of the former, and that the Crown, considering it for the advantage of the institution, has thought fit to grant another charter to the college, and the charter should then set out all the regulations which it may be deemed expedient to provide for the government of the institution. To the Right Hon. Lord Stanley,

&c. &c. &c.

FRED. POLLOCK. W. W. FOLLETT.

(6.) CASE and JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR FREDERICK THESIGER and SIR FITZROY KELLY, as to the revocation of a Royal Warrant. granting the property of a deceased person which had devolved upon the Crown. 1852. Case. By warrant, under the Royal sign-manual, dated the 31st of January, 1851, reciting (inter alia) that by virtue of a Royal Warrant, dated the 25th of July, 1848, letters of administration (with will annexed) of the goods, chattels, and credits of A. N., a spinster, and a bastard, deceased, had been granted to George Maule, Esq., as nominee, and for the use and benefit of Her Majesty, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and that a memorial had been presented to the Commissioners of the Treasury, by C. N., praying, under the circumstances set forth in the said memorial, that a certain share of the said effects might be granted to the memorialist for the use and benefit of her minor grandchildren then residing with her, and under her care and charge, it was made known that Her Majesty did authorize and require the said George Maule to dispose of certain sums of stock, the property of the deceased, and pay over a portion of the proceeds to the said C. N., to be applied by her for the benefit of her grandchildren. The payment, however, of the money to C. N. was suspended, owing to an application on behalf of the mother of the said minor children; and there being reason to believe that the facts set forth in the memorial of C. N. were not correctly stated, an application was made to the Lords of the Treasury to revoke the former grant to her, and make a new grant. A doubt was raised whether it was competent to the Crown to revoke the warrant, and also whether, as Mr. Maule had died in the interval, the duty and power of executing the warrant devolved, under the statute 15 Vict. c. 3, s. 3 (relating to the case of letters of administration granted to Mr. Maule, Solicitor of the Treasury, as nominee of Her Majesty), upon the Solicitor of the Treasury for the time being, or whether the death of the nominee named in the first warrant did not render a new warrant necessary.

Opinion.-1. We are of opinion that, upon the assumption suggested, it is competent to Her Majesty to revoke the former grant, and make a new one, without scire facias or any other proceeding.

2. We think that if the former warrant was still in force and unrevoked, it could not be executed by the successor of Mr. Maule, but that a new warrant would be necessary. It is certainly desirable that such warrants in future should be made in favour of the Solicitor of the Treasury and his successors.

Temple, September 29, 1852.

FRED. THESIGER.
FITZROY KELLY.

(7.) CASE and JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR A. E. COCKBURN and SIR RICHARD BETHELL, as to power of the Crown to revoke or accept the Surrender of a Grant of separate Quarter Sessions, made under the Municipal Corporations Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. 1856.

Case. The Town Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme, being desirous that a separate Court of Quarter Sessions should no longer be holden in and for that borough, the Law Officers were asked to give their opinion whether the Crown is empowered to revoke or accept a surrender of a grant of separate Quarter Sessions, which has been made under the Municipal Corporations Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 103).

Opinion. It seems to us clear that the Crown has not the power in question. The Crown cannot, by virtue of the prerogative, abrogate courts of justice established by law. À fortiori, when a court is established by virtue of a power conferred by Act of Parliament, which conveys no power to abrogate, the Crown, having exercised, has exhausted its power, and cannot annul the Court it has once created.

Besides, the offices of Recorder and Clerk of the Peace, being during good behaviour, are freehold offices, and cannot be taken away by the revocation of the grant of the Court.

We are of opinion that the question put to us must be answered in the negative.

September 19, 1856.

A. E. COCKBURN.

R. BETHELL.

NOTES TO CHAPTER XII.

In Legat's Case, 10 Co. 113 a, it was resolved that the Crown may avoid its grant made upon a false insinuation or suggestion, and such letters patent by judgment of law shall be cancelled. "The King has an undoubted right to repeal a patent wherein he is deceived or his subjects prejudiced, and that by scire facias:" R. v. Butler, 3 Lev. 221. The power of the Crown to call back its grants when made under mistake is not like any right possessed by individuals; for when it has been deceived the grant may be recalled, notwithstanding any derivative title depending upon it; and those who have deceived it must bear the consequences. So laid down by Sir Thomas Plumer, M.R., in Cumming v. Forrester, 2 Jac. & W. 342: see Com. Dig. Grant, G. 8; Vin. Abr. Prerog. O b.

All charters or grants of the Crown may be repealed or revoked when they are contrary to law, or uncertain, or injurious to the rights and interests of third persons; and the appropriate process for the purpose is by writ of scire facias. And if the grant or charter is to the prejudice of any person, he is entitled, as of right, to the protection of this remedy: The Queen v. Hughes, L. R. 1 P. C. 87. The writ of scire facias, to repeal or revoke grants or charters of the Crown, is a prerogative judicial writ which must be founded upon a record. These Crown grants and charters under the great seal are always sealed in the Petty Bag Office, and enrolled in the Court of Chancery, where they become records: Ibid. "To every Crown grant there is annexed by the common law an implied condition that it may be repealed by scire facias by the Crown, or by a subject grieved using the prerogative of the Crown upon the fiat of the Attorney General:" per Jervis, C.J., in Eastern Archipelago Company v. The Queen, 2 E. & B. 914.

It deserves notice that the Act for the dissolution of the greater monasteries in 1539, 31 Hen. 8, c. 13, recites that the abbots, priors, abbesses, and prioresses had, " of their own free and voluntary minds, good-wills, and assents, without constraint, co-action, or compulsion," granted their monasteries, abbeys, and priories to the King, and had renounced, left, and forsaken the same. The statement was false, but it served to veil the rapacity of the Crown.

In the reign of Charles II. an information in the nature of a quo warranto was exhibited in the King's Bench, for the purpose of having it declared that the charters of the city of London had been forfeited, and judgment was given for the Crown: R. v. The City of London, 8 State Tr. 1039. But this judgment was declared void by statute 2 Will. & M. c. 8. See the case of R. v. Amery, 2 T. R. 515, where it was decided that when the charter of a corporation has been forfeited by a judgment of seizure quousque, and a new charter granted creating a new