case the case OF Mr Jennings OF Clarehall Qure if the founder of a college  appoint a general visitor whether his authority extend to annex foundation S c  ante post counsel move upon a return to a mandamus to the master and fellow of  Clarehall to restore Jennings to his fellowship on Mr Dickinss foundation  modern they return their several statute c and that by one of they the  chancellor be appoint to be their visitor and therefore the master be not  oblige to admit Mr Jennings to his fellowship there be a visitor wright I take  this return to be very insufficient for I agree that where there be a general  visitor that he ought to be apply to but here the chancellor be only a visitor  to some particular purpose as appear by the context of the statute which say  if a man be guilty of such particular crime why then in omnibus c that be in  all thing relate to those fact he shall be subject to the chancellor second  the king can appoint a visitor to any particular foundation indeed to hospital  c he may appoint visitor so that it signify nothing though king James do make  a visitor for the countess of Clare find this charity in Provectionem rei  literal so that this be whole a lie foundationThat the corporation of  university be lie foundation see king v vicechancellor of Cambridge burr a and  it do not appear to be for spiritual matter so a foundation ad studend et  orand be lie though it be ad orand for every man be bind to pray to God three  the statute of my lady Clare who put the master and fellow find by her under  the power of the chancellor do not subject those fellowship which be find  afterward to his power therefore since we have no other remedy I hope we shall  have a peremptory mandamus grant by this court e contra as for what he say out  of the return I shall not answer it modern er p first I take it that no  peremptory mandamus ought to go for that he be not duly elect second whether  he be or be not duly elect the examination of it do not belong to this court  but to another jurisdiction these fellow be the founder creature and must be  subject to the restriction and limitation that be prescribe by the statute  which say that the majority of the fellow and the master shall choose so that  the master consent be absolute necessary and here dr Blith be the master and  do not think fit to consent and choose Mr Jennings fellow and here be nothing  in the statute to enforce the master consent roll Abr modern so in peterhouse  there can be a election without the master consent in the next place here be a  visitor appoint by the statute this court will not interpose three if this  cause have relate to the old foundation there have be no doubt of it now it be  say that in omnibus the chancellor shall be visitor then fourthly profert hic  in curian be not necessary to be in a return holt chief justice to what  purpose shall it be produce in court when nobody be here to demand oyer?As to  the merit of the cause how can they bring in stranger and make they subject to  the restriction impose by the founder though there be a visitor for the fellow  find by my lady Clare yet whether the power of this visitor shall be extend to  the new fellow be the question whether there must not be a new incorporation  of the second fellowship find by dickens Rokeby justice Dickinss charity be to  be dispose of by the master and fellow but it do not seem to relate to the old  establishment it do not appear that this case be ever decide burr but that new  engraft fellowship if no statute be make by the founder of they must follow  the original foundation and be subject to the same discipline and judicature  see green v rutherforth vezey attorneygeneral v Talbot atk vezey king v bishop  of Ely Bl Rep and saint John college Cambridge v Toddington burr Rep a  Adjournatur