Bentley vers episc elien offence against the private statute of a college be  not pardon by the Act of grace fitzg viner vol p c barn b r barn strange  report er p b r SC fort a copy of the present report bro p c with the proceed  before the visitor the statute and article in prohibition the plaintiff  declare that king Henry December that year of his reign find Trinity college  in Cambridge and that his successor queen Elizabeth make a body of statute the  forty whereof be entitle de instructress si res to drive out removal and speak  of the bishop of Ely there be the word to make straight to punish to drive out  that he be cite to appear before the bishop as special visitor appoint by the  say forty statute of Elizabeth to answer to sixtyfour article which be insist  upon as violation of the statute some of which be long before the last Act of  grace and other of they be for set the college seal in conjunction with the  fellow the bishop for a consultation set out a former statute of Edward in  these word visitator bishop Eliensis sit and aver that he be a visitor general  and as such have a right to proceed upon the article the doctor put in a  immaterial replication to which there be a demurrer and after several argument  these point be rule first that though several of the fact charge appear to be  before the Act of grace yet they be not pardon by that statute but be still  inquirable by the visitor there be two sort of corporation first those that be  for public government and second those that be for private charity the first  of these be govern by the commonlaw but the second be the creature of the  founder and govern by his private law not that the particular person be exempt  from the commonlaw but the body in general be and as these be private law they  be in the nature of trust and the breach of they be no crime cognisable by the  commonlaw the king power of pardon arise from his have the executive power in  he and though in this case the king be founder yet the breach of his private  statute be not crime against the crown the crime pardon be such as be against  the public law and statute of the realm strange whereas these be in the nature  of domestic rule for the better order of a private family second that though  several of the crime impute to he for violation of the statute of the college  appear to be do by he in conjunction with other yet that be no reason to  exclude the inquiry of the visitor suppose the whole body shall join in set  the seal to a deed to encourage a murder will they not be several punishable  in their natural capacity if he be not con in the act and it be concur only as  to he a virtual consent as include in the body that will be proper matter of  excuse if a power be lodge in two or three justice and they abuse it be they  not several punishable for it their be corporate act therefore be no ground  for a prohibition three that by the statute of Edward the bishop of Ely and  his successor be appoint general visitor it be epus Eliebsis without any  Christian name accord to the case h b power in act of parliament give to  bishop or justice will vest in their successor without the word for the time  be fourthly that though the three former determination be in favour of the  suit below yet the prohibition ought to stand because the bishop have not cite  the doctor upon the foot of his general visitatorial power but as a special  visitor appoint by the forty statute of Elizabeth which the court say he be  not for be before appoint general visitor there remain no far power in the  crown with regard to enlarge the visitatorial power in the other report of  this case this reason be omit and the reason rely upon be that the that  statute of Elizabeth neither by the letter or design extend to create he a  visitor but suppose he so already they say it be a question they will not  determine whether when the crown have give statute and appoint a visitor the  successor can any way alter or annul the former statute this mean where there  be no reservation of a power to alter or annul the report in Fitzgibbon make  Lord Raymond go on to say that where there be not a concurrence of all party  new statute can by law bind they I e university or other corporation or repeal  the old one however I will not be think to mean that even that concurrence  will make the second good and in the report of the master c of saint John  college Cambridge and Toddington burn ecclesiastical law title college black  Rep SC Lord Mansfield declare that the first point of what be say in fitzg to  be Lord Raymond opinion be so determine in the present case see also the  opinion of Lord Mansfield king v vice chancellor c of Cambridge burr as to the  interference of commonlaw court where there be a visitor vide the case cite  king v chancellor c of Cambridge ante and the note to which may be add king v  bishop of Ely and king v bishop of Ely Black Rep the practice indeed have be  otherwise but it have never be determine to be good for this last reason they  be all of opinion that the prohibition ought to stand N B upon a writ of error  in parliament this judgement be reverse and the lord go into the consideration  of the several article and as to some grant a prohibition and as to other a  consultation strange report er p strange michaelmas term george king in b r  Robert Lord Raymond Lord chief justice sir Francis page Knt sir Edmund probin  Knt William lee Esq justice sir Philip York Knt attorneygeneral Charles Talbot  Esq solicitor general