cases; but this Court cannot by conjecture limit the possibilities of human art, and take upon itself to determine that by no attainable extension of discovery or improvement, other metals and mixtures of metals may not be brought within the compass of a very reduced expense. Within our own times, other metallic bodies have been discovered, and other compositions of metal invented. And it is the more reasonable in this case, to include such a supposition, because, it is clear, from the universality of the terms in which the patentee has sued out his own patent, that he has included them himself in his own speculations of profit,

"It is well worthy of observation, that these coffins are by their construction out of the reach of all examination. The parish bas no check, no means of internal search for probibited materials. They may be entirely varnished, or painted, or tinned, or otherwise prepared, so as to increase their duration, without betraying themselves by any considerable increase of weight, or any other manifestation. The parish is to accept them upon the mere bona fide of the maker, guaranteed only by the general presumption that more durable coffins would not answer his purpose for a gene ral traffic. Even that would not exclude particular bargains with many individuals who felt particular anxiety about their relations. It would not exclude more durable metals for his general traffic, if he could, by the improvements of art, be supplied with them at a marketable price. It appears rather too much to expect that the matter should be settled, upon an assumption, that these coffins, liable to no inspection, should be always composed of the materials which the affidavits describe them to be. The parish has a right to guard itself, in this way of increased expense, against the substitution of other metals, and the use of other disguises, even supposing that the simple coffin of iron was fairly entitled to be received upon the same footing as the coffin of oak.

"The state of this parish is likewise to be gravely considered. Situated in a most crowded part of the town, with a dense population, both of the living and the dead, both populations rapidly increasing. Here are four cemeteries full of bodies, packed as close as notions of decency and convenience will permit. Here is a crying demand for more sepulchral space, with great difficulty of obtaining it. Is such a parish a fit subject for such an experiment? for such it must be deemed, even by those who interpret the evidence most favourably for the iron side of the question, and

without adding, as I think most persons would do, a preponderance of it on the other side. The inconvenience on one side is, that the patentee of a novel invention must postpone his ampler harvest of profit, till it is ascertained by experiments made in places where no mischief can arise, whether it can be admitted in others, where it may disturb the fair use of a public, an ancient, and a sacred possession. No Court could, I think, hesitate upon the decision of such an alternative if proposed. The attempt to force this novelty has certainly produced much uneasiness, which ought to be treated with indulgence, and has generated oppositions, which have a right to be fairly disarmed, if they are to be disarmed at all. Let experience show, (and not many years' experience will be required to show what really exists,) that the apprehensions entertained are without foundation. If that can be shewn, it is to be hoped that the parishes themselves will do their duty, and if they do not, the Courts must endeavour to do theirs. At present the subject requires further probation, before such a claim can be enforced; it is breaking ground for a new purpose in a soil not yet sufficiently explored, and the Court must see and know much more, and more authentically, before it can decree the present notions, and the existing practice founded upon such notions, to be overthrown.

"The sum charged, or proposed to be charged, is ten pounds extra, and I observe what adds to the authority of the measure, that St. George's, Hanover-square, a parish peculiarly well governed, has agreed to adopt it. It is possible that if it had be longed to me to fix the measure in the first instance, I might have rated it somewhat lower. I observe that St. Saviour's, Southwark, which states similar circumstances of necessity, arising from their population, and the extent of their burial grounds, fixes it at 5l. and St. George's, Middlesex, 6l. 9s. 6d., stating likewise the saine necessities. However, I shall not disturb what the parish has done upon a deliberate consideration of all local circumstances, some of which may have escaped me, until the result of more experience is seen.

"I hesitate more upon the expressed condition, that the grave for the coffin shall be fifteen feet deep; I doubt not a little both upon the justice and the prodence of this. If the parish accepts what it considers as a fair compensation for the longer occupancy of the ground, it should rather seem that the coffin is entitled to be received into this same ground. The condition will occasion additional expense ;

may produce occasional difficulties from obstructions; may lead to the irruption of water, and so affect other interments, and what weighs not lightly, it will put this question of durability, too much into the hands of the other party. For these coffins buried at such a depth will remain out of sight and out of attention. The parish will have no means of observing the decay; but the persons who have an interest in the future reception of these coffins will be provided with means of observation upon the comparative durability; and if the question should be revived, it will come on their side with all the additional advantage of the evidence to be produced by themselves. I wish this matter to be re-considered; when I understand that it has undergone that re-consideration, I shall be prepared to sign the table."

The Lord Chancellor's Decision respecting the Mastership of Queen's College, Cambridge.

The Lord Chancellor said, This matter comes before me upon two petitions against the election of Mr. Godfrey, one from the Rev. W. Mandell, which states he ought to be considered as Master, the other from Mr. King, which prays that the mastership may be declared vacant, and that the fellows may be directed to proceed to a new election, or if the office shall have lapsed to the King as visitor, then that his Majesty may nominate to the

same.

A clause in the College Statutes requires that the former should be a person, qui expendere poterit annuatim ad minus viginti libras. There were four candidates for the situation, Mr. Farish, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Mandell. The qualification of Mr. Barnes was explained at the time. Mr. Mandell's may be collected from the affidavits. Mr. Farish had a paper in his pocket, which would have shewn what his was, and Mr. Godfrey did not shew what his was. It has been contended that the qualification must be a real estate, and that the words viginti libras are to be understood to mean twelve times viginti libras. If this be the true construction, no one of the candidates was qualified. It has also been contended that the qualification should have been explained at the time of election; but this, though highly useful, I do not think absolutely necessary.

The statutes next state the ceremo

nies which take place at the election of a president. Each fellow is to write down for whom he votes, and the senior

fellow is to read out the votes, and pronounce that person to be elected for whom a majority of all the fellows of the college, present and absent, shall have voted. If no candidate have a majority of all the fellows, a fresh scrutiny takes place. At the first scrutiny on this occa sion no candidate had a majority; but Mr. Mandell contends, that Mr. Godfrey, who voted for himself was in reality not a fellow, and that therefore his vote ought not to count; and that in consequence Mr. Mandell had the required majority, and is to be considered as elected. It becomesnecessary therefore in reference to this part of the case, to consider who are the real electors; and whether Mr. Godfrey was properly a fellow or not depends upon that part of the Statutes which relates to the several counties from which fellows are to be chosen. It is provided, that there shall be no more than one fellow at a time from each county of England; except in some particular cases, which do not apply to Mr. Godfrey. And Mr. Godfrey being born in Middlesex was elected to his fellowship at a time when there was already one fellow from that county in the college. But the president, and the majority of fellows are authorised by the Statutes to interpret any thing that may be ambiguous in the language of these statutes; and they have used this power of interpretation from very early times in a manner which is not sanctioned by the statutes: but in a question which arises centuries after such an interpretation has been made, it is a very dangerous thing to say that no force shall be given to it, though at first it might have been reasonably questioned. I must own that I find no authority in the statutes, nor any written instrument or document purporting to change the ordinance of the statute, upon the force of which I can say that there ought to be more than one fellow for Middlesex. But it appears that for two centuries at least there have been two fellows for Middlesex; and that there is a form known to the college of praying for a dispensation for a third Middlesex fellow. It appears to me therefore, that although usage cannot justify the violation of a statute, yet long usage must, if possible, be referred to a lawful origin. And as the Crown can dispense with the statute which prohibits there being more than one Middlesex fellow, the Crown could also by a general dispensation sanction the custom that there shall always be two Middlesex fellows. The usage therefore having obtained for the greater part of two centuries, during which every presi

dent, and every fellow has most solemnly sworn to observe the statutes, it appears to me more probable that such a dispensation should have issued, than that all the presidents and fellows for such a long period of time should have forgotten or disregarded the obligation of their oaths; and permitted that to obtain in the college, which is now supposed to have obtained there without lawful authority. I am of opinion therefore that Mr. Godfrey must be considered as lawfully a fellow, and consequently that Mr. Mandell was not elected on the first scrutiny.

I am now to consider whether Mr. Godfrey was duly elected; and if so, whether be continues to be master of the college, or whether by the operation of any statute either of the college, or of the land, he is no longer to be considered master. It is contended, then, as I before observed, that Mr. Godfrey was not duly elected, because at the time of election he did not possess the necessary qualification: as the only qualification which would suffice must in the first place partake of the nature of a real estate, and in the second place, it must exceed the original sum, the viginti libras mentioned in the statutes, in the same proportion that the sum which is now held to be a disqualification, for a fellowship exceeds the sum fixed by the statutes. Now, among various interpretations which the master and fellows have put upon their statutes at successive times, we find it stated in 1809, that by reason of the increase of the value of money, the disqualification of a fellow shall not take place now, unless that which is to disqualify amounts to 120l. a year; whereby they intimate that the decem libras of Queen Elizabeth's time is the 120l. a year of this time. And I do not believe from all the information I can get from either University, that this determination would be disapproved by any visitor. But no one of these interpretations of the statutes raises the sum which is to form the qualification of the master; and I therefore conclude, that whatever it may be fit to do in order to keep up the proportion that formerly existed between the master and fellows, I cannot apply that principle to destroy an election that has been completed before any such interpre. tation has been made, or any authority of or of the visitor, has inter

the college, posed. The next question is of considerable importance to the Universities in general, whether Mr. Godfrey's qualification, if it be a personal qualification is within the meaning of the college statutes. It is the

custom of almost every college in both universities to consider personal property no disqualification for a fellowship; and it would seem, that if real property alone can disqualify for a fellowship, that like real property alone can qualify for a mastership. Accordingly, there is evidence that it has always been understood in the college, that the qualification and disqualification must be of a real nature. But in this case it is not necessary to determine the question; and it would be a hazardous undertaking to pronounce generally what shall or shall not be considered a qualification, when the case before us does not require it. For with respect to the nature of Mr. Godfrey's estate, I think it must be taken to be a real estate. A real estate has been left to trustees to be sold, and the produce to be divided among a certain number of persons, of whom he is one. Now, according to the modern doctrines of a court of equity, this would certainly be treated in a suit as personal property. But in the present instance one of the persons interested has accepted a particular portion of the estate, as his share; and the remainder is held for the present in common, by the others; and they have agreed not to sell it, unless a certain sum be tendered, which very possibly never may be tendered, in which case, as I understand, the land is not to be sold, but is to remain as it is at present, and has been for years, in shape and substance a real property. And as there is nothing in the statutes to prevent the master from selling his qualification the day after he is elected, though I

suppose a master of a college would not think of doing any such thing, I am of opinion that Mr. Godfrey has a real qualification.

The next question refers to what took place subsequently to the election; for that Mr. Godfrey had the required majority is certain, and it only remains to inquire, whether he has forfeited his office. The fellows being bound to elect within eight days, or upon the eighth day: and Sunday being the eighth day, the election was made on the Saturday preceding, and Mr. Godfrey subscribed before the Vice Chancellor on the following Monday. After the scrutiny has taken place, the statutes require the senior fellow electionem pronuntiari, et personam sic electan admittere: and the question now to be decided will principally turn upon the meaning of this word admittere. That it meant something more than to elect is beyond all doubt; and any person who will look at what is to be found in the

thing to be done, then until that thing is done, the admission is not made. Then you come to this, this is so as to fellows and scholars, though there is no injunction on the subject, except the word admittantur; and the practice that has long prevailed. What then is the practice as to the master? On this point we have very little evidence. No one seems to remember what passed at the election of Dr. Milner, and the most that we learn is, that he was taken from the altar to his seat by the senior fellow. But with respect to the election of former masters, a witness deposes, that he is in possession of a book containing a copy of the statutes, in a blank leaf of which there is written in the hand writing of a former fellow of the college, a memorandum, entitled, "Forms attending the Election of a Master," which forms are, that he should be introduced to his seat in chapel by the senior fellow, should then repair to the vice-chancellor, and subscribe according to the Act of Charles II. and lastly, be admitted kneeling by the senior fellow in this form, "Admitte te, &c." Now it appears that this memorandum was drawn up in 1761, and that the writer was a fellow, and voted at the election of a former master, Dr. Plumptree; and it is reasonably inferred, that the forms abovementioned were the forms actually observed at that election. It is stated, how ever, that in many of the colleges no such forms are observed; but this has no bearing upon the present argument, because if

forms of this kind are observed as completing the admission, in bodies where admission is required, the circumstance that such ceremonies have been observed is sufficient to prove that they must still be continued; and therefore I do not think that Mr. Godfrey's admission was completed on the Sunday, and consequently he subscribed in the presence of the vice-chancellor before he was admitted to his office.

was.

The only remaining question is, whether what I call the admission was too long delayed. And I cannot say that it For every person connected with the matter appears to have been considerably ignorant of what was to be done; and the admission which subsequently took place was made as soon as professional advice could be got upon the subject. The case being thus decided, it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon the effect that would bave been produced upon Mr. Godfrey's election, if he had not subscribed before, or at his admission. That his office would thereby have become ipso facto void, is a point upon which there can be no doubt. But whether the vacancy thus occasioned would be to be filled up by the college, or by the crown, is a question of very great difficulty, with which I am not called upon to interfere. With respect to costs, it strikes me that the inquiry was so necessary on the part of the college in general, that Domus ought to pay the costs of all the Petitions.

ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS.

The Dean and Chapter of York cathedral have presented the rev. W. H. Dixon to the vicarage of Wiston and the perpetual curacy of Cawood, in that county.

The rev. H. J. Ridley, A.M. chaplain to the lord chancellor, and prebendary of Bristol, to hold by dispensation the rec tory of Abinger, Surrey, together with that of Newdigate, in the same county.

The rev. J. J. Dewe, perpetual curate of Harwich, to the vicarage of Alstonefield, Staffordshire; patron, Sir G. Crewe, bart.

The rev. H. Walter, to the rectory of Haselbury Bryan, Dorsetshire; patron, the duke of Northumberland.

The rev. Thomas Gronow, to the living of Cadoxton, near Neath. REMEMBRANCER, No. 31.

The rev. William Collett, the younger, B.A. to the vicarage of St. Mary in Surlingham, with St. Saviour's annexed, Norfolk; patron, the rev. William Collett, of Swanton Morley.

The rev. E. Heawood, M.A. to be master of the grammar school at Maidstone.

The rev. C. S. Bonnett, M.A. rector of Avington, to be one of the marquis of Buckingham's domestic chaplains.

The rev. Mr. Dent, to the very valuable living of Cockerham, Lancashire; patron, John Dent, Esq.

The rev. Harry Lee, fellow of Winchester college, to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Hereford.

The rev. A. H. Kenney, D.D. to the rectory of St. Olave, Southwark, vice the rev. W. Greene, resigned.

The rev. Thomas Garbett, appointed to 3 L