Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/991

existence, though at the same time regularly entered in their own books; and the practice of the court below, in not receiving any deeds, though of ever so ancient a date, without proof, created the necessity for the cross bill in point of discovery. That the account of improvements ought not to have been restrained to those made by the appellant only, but should have been extended to all improvements generally, and particularly to those made by his father and brother, who both died but a short time before the expiration of the first lease, agreeably to the proofs in the cause; and the rather, as no improvements could be allowed under the decree, but such as fell within the description of lasting and valuable improvements, of which the corporation would have the benefit. And therefore it was hoped, that the decree would be reversed, and the original bill dismissed with costs.

On the part of the respondents it was contended (E. Starkie, A. Forrester), that the case made by the consent of all parties, for the opinion of the Court [327] of King's Bench, reduced the question to this single point, viz. Whether the reversionary lease was good or not? for the determination whereof, the judgment on the information in the nature of a quo warranto, the new charter of King James II. and the act of King William and Queen Mary, must be considered.—As to the first, the ancient writ of quo warranto was the King's writ of right for franchises and liberties, wherein judgment was given, either of ouster or allowance of them, and in some instances seizure. But the information in nature of a quo warranto was properly a criminal proceeding, for punishing the usurper by fine; and the legality of giving judgment of ouster therein was doubted, till the statute 9 Ann, cap. 20. The information against the corporation of Drogheda, in the reign of James II. like many others of that time, was a most unjust proceeding, without any legal ground, and calculated only for taking the power and possessions of the corporation out of the hands of the then lawful Protestant members of that body, and placing them in the hands of Papists. The judgment of seizure given on that information was erroneous, and short of the intended purpose; because, notwithstanding that judgment, the corporation was not dissolved, but still left subsisting. And such was plainly the opinion even of those times, by their afterwards procuring a surrender of the old charter; which surrender however not being matter of record, in which way alone the Crown can take, was absolutely null and void.—As to the charter of James II. it was not at all a confirmatory charter, but granted upon a supposition of the old corporation being gone and extinguished, by the judgment of seizure therein recited: it created a new corporate body by express words, unum novum corpus corporatum; and constituted new and different persons from those of the old corporation, to be Mayors, Sheriff's, and Burgesses of the new corporate body and as the old corporate body still subsisted this new charter was void. But whether the old corporation subsisted or not, yet none of the lands belonging to the old corporation were vested in the new one: for, if the old corporation subsisted, their lands remained in them; or if by the judgment of seizure they were forfeited to King James, they remained in the Crown at the time of the new charter; no grant being made thereof by that charter, or otherwise, to the new corporation, and consequently the new corporation had no power of disposing of the old corporation's estate, by leasing, or otherwise. The lease in question was therefore void in its creation, as being made by a body who had no sort of power to grant it; and being a reversionary lease, made when there was a former one subsisting for above fifty years to come, it was an unnecessary act at least; but when considered that it was made to their own Popish Alderman, acting under the new charter, it appeared to be no better than a job in favour of one of their own party. If however any doubt could remain as to the invalidity of this lease, it was effectually cleared by the act of 1 William and Mary, which restored the old body corporate to the same state and condition, to all intents and purposes whatso-[328]-ever, as they were in on the 24th of June 1683; the proceedings on the information in the nature of a quo warranto, the judgment of seizure thereon, the surrender of the old charter, the grant of the new charter, or other act or acts since that time, notwithstanding; all which proceedings, etc. were declared to be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever so that the new charter being void, the lease in question made by virtue of it, and by new officers appointed under it, must be void also; and the disposing of the old corporation lands by the new body, being no less an injury than the divesting them of their franchises, the intent of the act was clearly to restore the old corpora-