Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/916
ad promotionem reverendi viri Roberti Johnson clerici sacræ theologiæ baccalaurei & unius e dicti collegij sociis, damus objicimus & articulamur prout sequitur, viz. [These articles were set forth verbatim in the declaration, and in an appendix to the printed case, from whence they are copied in the note subjoined.] (See note 1, p. 903.)
—The declaration then objected to the articles,—that [223] they were uncertain, containing a charge of negligence only, and not violations of the statutes within the meaning of the latter [224] part of the 40th statute of Queen Elizabeth, and therefore could not be proceeded upon, for want of previous admonitions.—[225] That the facts charged were done by the corporation, and would therefore, if punishable, be punishable only by the general visitor [226] of the corporation, who was the King, and not the Bishop of Ely; but that they were really not punishable at all, because of [227] the act of general pardon of the 7th George I. And the declaration concluded, that notwithstanding these things were alledg-[228]-ed, and the King's writ of prohibition delivered to the Bishop, yet he afterwards proceeded in order [to] condemn and deprive the [229] Doctor of his office of Master of the said college, in disinherison of the Crown, and to the damage of him the said Dr. Bentley, £100.
[230] The Bishop, as to proceeding after prohibition delivered, pleaded not guilty, and thereupon issue was joined; and then, in order [231] to obtain a writ of consultation, he set forth, that King Edward VI. gave certain statutes to this college, which the college accepted, and that among them was this statute.
[232] De Visitatore.
Visitator Episcopus Eliensis sit.—Omnes et singulos tam humilioris, quam altioris ordinis cogat; et de servandis statutis, de [233] veræ religionis cultu, de superstitione papistica expellandâ, de honestate morum, de re etiam familiari et domesticâ quærat, singulos pro magnitudine culpæ corrigat, puniat expellat: quæ frugi et honesta, pro suâ præstantiâ laudet, ut collegii honos et undatoris [234] mens stare possint; vitiorum et ignorantiæ emendationem imprimis spectet: ei hanc curam severè mandamus, et hortamur ut sidelitur in hac causa agat, sibique ante oculos constituat, in extremo judicio pro tribunali Christi, quanta sit omnibus de singulis factis et officiis ratio reddenda.
The Bishop then averred, that neither he nor any of his predecessors, Bishops of Ely, had ever done any thing to destroy the visitatorial power, arising to them from this statute.—He then set forth several of the statutes of Queen Elizabeth, not mentioned in the declaration, and averred the acceptance of those statutes by the college.—He then stated the act of parliament made in the 18th year of Queen Elizabeth, by which all leases made by colleges, in which one third of the rent is not reserved in corn, are declared void; and the corn so reserved is ordered to be applied to the use of the college, on pain of deprivation of the governor of the college, and all others consenting to any misapplication.—That Dr. Bentley, during all the time of his mastership, had misbehaved himself, and violated the statutes, of which, he (the Bishop) being informed, did, as a Visitor of the college, and of Dr. Bentley as Master, issue such citation, and exhibit such articles as were mentioned in the declaration.—That the crimes mentioned in those articles, were violations of the statutes, within the statute de Magistri si res exigat amotione, in the declaration set forth; that the crimes in the 35th and following articles, were dilapidations of the goods of the college; that all dilapidations were excepted out of the general pardon; and that there was not in that act, any pardon of the violations of college statutes.—That Dr. Bentley did not endeavour to procure the consent of the eight seniors for punishing the officers, who were not punishable without such consent.—That no particular punishment was appointed by the statutes, for the crimes objected against Dr. Bentley, but deprivation, which could not be, till after conviction before the Bishop of Ely; that the matters said in the declaration to be corporate acts, were really not so.—That before the prohibition, the 30th and 32d articles were amended upon Dr. Bentley's complaint.—That the Bishop, and not the King, was the general visitor of the college. And the plea concluded with praying the King's writ of consultation.
Dr. Bentley, by replication, denied that the crimes alledged against him were violations of the statutes, within the second part of the statute de Magistri si res exigat amotione; and that any of the crimes in the 35th and following articles, were dilapidations of the goods of the college, within the second part of the last mentioned
900