Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1127

separately, as to the college estate. The act mentions the master, governors, and follows of colleges, and their possessions, and enables them to make leases, by writings under their respective seals of office, of any lands belonging to their respective colleges; which extends to the possessions of Trinity College, who then had lands and a [529] common seal; but not to the Provost, who then had no lands, nor to the lands since granted to him, because they do not fall within the description of lands belonging to a college. If the lands in question were within this act, they must be considered as part of the estate of or belonging to the college; the plea and demurrer were allowed on that principle; and the plea itself stated, that the late Provost was seised in fee of those lands in right of his college. If those lands were part of the estate of the college, though set apart for the support of the Provost for the time being, they would fall under the direction of the college statutes, which were admitted, by the answer, to be as stated in the bill. These statutes required, that in setting fands to farm, the statutes made in Ireland should be strictly observed, namely, that a moiety of the just annual value should be reserved. And in the chapter intitled, Concerning the quality and duty of the Provost, it is directed, "That he should so administer the affairs and business of the college, that he may appear to seek not his own, but the advantage of the college;" the seven senior Fellows are made his assessors, and by their council he is to manage all the greater affairs relative to œconomy, and the setting of lands is to be authenticated under the college seal. The Provost is bound by his oath, to observe, to the utmost of his power, the statutes of the college, and to preserve and administer all the lands, possessions, and revenues of the same, without diminution or waste; he is therefore a trustee for his successors, under the direction of these statutes; and if he has diminished any part of the estate to his own advantage, and to the prejudice of his successors, and of the college, he has committed a breach of trust; and this breach of trust is not covered, because an act of parliament has laid down the same rule; but, on the contrary, the act of parliament gives additional strength to the college statute; which lays the Provost under an official obligation, to conform his conduct to the act of parliament. Now, though it should be admitted, that a Bishop, or any other person bound by the statute of 10th and 11th Charles I. might make leases in trust for themselves, at less rents than that statute requires, without any offence against conscience, surely no such privilege could be contended for in the case of the Provost of the college of Dublin; but every such lease made by him, contrary to this statute, must be considered as made in breach of his duty; and though a stranger, taking such lease from the Provost, might be entitled to shelter himself under this statute against the hands of a Court of Equity, yet the Provost himself, having committed a breach of his trust, or his representative or trustee standing in his place, could have no such right; and the appellant relied upon the obligation on the Provost by his oath, to observe the college statutes, as distinguishing this case, if it was a case within the statute of Charles, and consequently within the college statutes, (in which light the late Provost himself did not consider it,) from cases of leases made in trust for Bishops or other ecclesiastical bodies. And if no equitable circumstances were to induce a Court of Equity to interfere, where a Provost has made a lease [530] in trust for himself, contrary to his official duty, and to the positive injunctions of the college statutes; the Provost and senior Fellows might in future times follow his example, and would be equally entitled to make leases of the great college estates, in trust for themselves, at any under-value they should think proper, which would be ruinous to that great seminary of learning.

Dr. Andrews, when made Provost, found his college in possession of about £80,000 left them by their late Provost, Dr. Baldwin; which fund, by the statutes of the college, it was his duty carefully to preserve, and it could not be diminished without his concurrence; the Provost having, by the express words of the statutes, a negative in all propositions made at the board. On the 6th of May 1760, a resolution was entered into at a board of the Provost and senior Fellows, and which could not have passed without the assent of Dr. Andrews, by which the lessees of the Provost's estate were in effect invited to give up their leases, upon an engagement by the college, as residuary legatees of Dr. Baldwin, that no advantage should be taken by their not standing out to an eviction. Dr. Clement saw the tendency of this resolution, and in fact entered a protest against it. It is admitted, that some part of the college