attorneygeneral v talbot march see Att gentleman v earl of powis key chancery  have no jurisdiction to interfere with the election of member of college or  misapplication of their fund c where the appointment of a general visitor can  be infer see the case in the supplement p plea that the chancellor of the  university be visitor of Clare half to the whole relief and discovery of such  a information support the plea be set forth at large in the supplement p c No  precise word to constitute a general visitor see Ves c S c atk the foundress  of Clare hall college in Cambridge appoint the chancellor to corrigendum to  amend to determine doubt and visit et si quid repererit it construe the  statute exclude her heir therefrom by the will of one freeman pound be direct  to be lie out in land for the relief of ten poor scholar two of who to be  fellow of Clare hall the executor be trustee of the legacy agree with the  college for it and follow the will of the donor as to the qualification which  ought to be observe the information pray that the relator shall be admit  fellow the defendant put in a plea thereto and the general question be whether  by this plea it be sufficient sow to the court that there be a general visitor  which have two subordinate question whether here be a general visitor of the  college and whether that general visitor extend to the private foundation by  freeman Lord chancellor I have receive satisfaction enough to determine on  this plea at present because it will not be final on the merit and certain as  it be of the first impression it be of great consequence if a determination  shall make that college shall be still liable to a account with regard to the  election of member or application or misapplication of profit it will open a  door to a great deal more of vexation this be fl e first case of the kind I  have know as to the first question upon what be set forth I think there be a  general visitor on the old foundation instead of the general word create a  visitor the founder have split they too much in direct what to do which be the  occasion of most of the question in college about visitor vide Ves win there  be no particular form of word requisite to make a visitor but it must be  construe on the whole from the intent of the founder but here it be to visit  to which it be consequential that he shall have power to receive appeal and  all other act of visitorial power and in the general creation of it extend to  all kind of right vesey senior from the word si quid c and the visitor may  remove a fellow and let in another have a right which as he may do on the  annual visitation he may do on appeal and the exclude the heir show a strong  intent that he shall be a general visitor not to a particular purpose  therefore on the several statute set forth in the plea take together the  chancellor be visitor the power be absolute and final and can be take away by  the court of law in this kingdom such also be the intent and notwithstanding  what have be say it be the most convenient jurisdiction for though perhaps it  may be sometime absurd yet it be less expensive than a suit in law or equity  aid in general have be exercise in a reasonable manner as to the second  question I think it do extend to the two fellowship find by freeman it be say  there be nothing in the will express or imply that they shall be part of the  ancient body but I think otherwise from the word in the will that it mean two  fellow accord to the nature of that foundation and institution it be true say  to be a question of great consequence for if it shall be allow that these  original graft fellow shall not be under the same power it will create great  confusion it be say that this be a corporation can not extend itself and that  therefore this agreement can make they part of the college but I must take  they as member have the number be limit they can not have add thereto but here  it be indefinite and the corporation may add in a reasonable manner and they  will be subject to the same power and though the agreement be a private  contract with the trustee it be such a act of the college as the visitor have  a right to vesey senior er p take notice of so that as to the question whether  the college do right in refuse the relator the visitor be a more proper judge  than a court of law or equity because he can better enter into their  qualification it will be open to the relator who may counterplead the fact set  forth in the plea but I must take it to be otherwise now from the prayer of  the information against which I also hold as it pray a account for the college  may have innocent err in construe the statute but why do the plaintiff come  here why not bring a mandamus the information not be for the establishment of  a charity will take away the jurisdiction of commonlaw and though it be say  good judge be to widen jurisdiction yet I be against enlarge the jurisdiction  of this court to case arise in college on this foundation which will cause  more controversy the plea shall be allow it be still open at the hear the  cause Reg lib a fol