Barnardiston king b dr bently who tam and the bishop of ely vide ante this  matter now come on to be argue upon demurrer to the prohibition Mr Harper as  counsel for the bishop say that he hope upon the whole record a consultation  shall be award he observe that there be two previous question which it will be  proper to have the opinion of the court upon before they enter into the  general inquiry about the subject matter of the article exhibit against the  doctor one whether the dr can be answerable single for such of the fact as the  article charge he to have commit joint in concurrence with the body of the  college the other whether the dr can plead the general Act of grace make the  that of the late king in bar to the present inquiry for both these matter the  dr have rely upon in his replication and to that replication the bishop have  demurrer to the first of these matter he observe that wherever a college  subject themselves to the censure of the visitor for a act which the college  have joint concur in such censure can only be inflict upon they in their  private capacity for a visitor power never reach to a suspension or  deprivation of the franchise of the corporation since that will be to give the  visitor a power of destroy the corporation itself he say if this be so the  conduct of each particular member may be inquire into how far he assist in  this collegiate act if he do assist he deserve Barnardiston king b er p to be  punish if he do not assist he deserve to be discharge to this purpose the case  be put of a corporation set their common seal to a bind with condition that  such a person commit murder where undoubted each individual member who give  his assent to the act will be indictable for the offence to the second point  he observe that the Act of grace be only a general pardon of all such crime  not particular except as the king may pardon by express word and therefore  such crime can only be intend to be forgive which may be punish by indictment  and be crime against the state but statute of college be only the rule for the  government of a private family and therefore offence against those statute can  be suppose to be take into the consideration of the legislature in pass the  present law accord the court deliver their opinion as to both point that they  can be no bar to the bishop visitation however they say they have a doubt  among themselves whether there do not appear to be such a fault in the proceed  as will make it to be to no purpose to go on any far they say the bishop  citation have be upon the statute of Elizabeth but in the plea the bishop have  aver that king Edward have make the bishop of Ely for the time be visitor of  the college and therefore it be to be doubt whether the stat of Elizabeth be  not void for which reason a day be give to speak to this question and then Mr  Harper come again and argue that the statute of Elizabeth may be well maintain  he say it be a point not Barnardiston king b clear know whether the statute of  Edward have appoint the bishop of Ely for the time be visitor of this college  for ever the word of the statute be only bishop Eliensis visitator sit he say  it be not a certain thing that those word will bind the king successor and it  may be a question whether the construction of they will not more proper be  that the then bishop of Ely shall be visitor or the bishop of Ely for the time  be during the life of that king only he say however that he must allow that  the other construction of the word may more proper be maintain because about  the same time that these statute be make in Henry b it be hold that a prior  successor may take advantage of a licence to purchase in mortmain make by the  crown to the prior himself though the licence be not make to the prior and his  successor but though he shall admit this point to be so he say he shall submit  it that the statute of Elizabeth be good notwithstanding and what he will rely  upon in proof of this shall be that in all royal foundation the king of  England for the time be have a prerogative of give new statute with the  consent of the college and that though a general visitor be appoint especial  where such visitor consent to the statute and act under the authority of they  he say this be like the case of all corporation the king indeed can give a new  charter unless the body accept it but if the body do accept it the charter be  well give the authority of the book he own be very rare in the particular  instance of the statute of college but what he will offer as a evidence of  this prerogative be that almost all the king of England from the time of  Edward have in fact give new statute to this college beside queen Elizabeth  which may be prove by produce they to the court under the great seal and this  have not only be the case of this college but he believe of all the royal  foundation in both university and this he say he hope will be admit as a proof  of a right especial when not one resolution have be offer of the practice be  illegal dr Hinchman beside say it be settle in the case of university college  in Oxford that where the king who find a college die without give any statute  any of the king successor for the time be may give at different time what  different statute they think proper and it may be doubt whether the heir of a  private founder can do this the court incline to their former opinion that  queen Elizabeth statute be void notwithstanding what have be say however order  this matter to stand far over vide post