IN Order to the Proof of This, Let it be Premiſed. 1. That from all the Preceeding Laws it appears that the ſaid Harvard-College was originally the College of the General Court of the Maſſachuſett; Colony; That the General Court of ſaid Colony built it and named it and ordered where it ſhould be built and what Kind of Building it ſhould be; And that all the Powers which any Perſons ever had from the beginning, or now have over the ſaid College, were originally derived to them from the General Court of the Colony aboveſaid; ſo that no Perſons whatever can have any Power over the ſaid College, but only ſo far as the General Court have been pleaſed to grant it to them. 2. It appears in particular that the Overſeers and Corporation of ſaid College owe their Being and all the ſtanding Powers They now have, or ever had over the ſaid College, To Four Laws of the General Court which were made in the Year 1642, 1650, 1657 and 1672. The Firſt of which Laws originally conſtituted Overſeers of ſaid College; The Second incorporated the ſaid College, and is called the Charter of 50; The Third is called an Appendix to ſaid Charter; And the Fourth confirmed, added to or altered, ſome or all of theſe preceeding Laws. So that no Powers can now belong to the Overſeers and Corporation of ſaid College but thoſe Powers which the Court granted to them in ſome or all of theſe four Laws. 3. That in the two latter Laws of 57 and 72, the Court gave to the Overſeers of ſaid College no New Powers of any Importance over the ſaid Corporation; And ſo there is no Occaſion to conſider any of theſe four Laws, but the two Firſt, in order to determine whether the Overſeers of ſaid College have an Independent and Sovereign Power over the ſaid Corporation.

Now from theſe two Laws, which conſtituted the Overſeers and Corporation of ſaid College, it manifeſtly appears that the Court did not veſt the Overſeers of ſaid College with ſuch a ſovereign Power over the ſaid Corporation; But that the Court, who originally had this Power, reſerved it to themſelves; And are VISITORS of ſaid College. For

1. The prior Law of 1642, which conſtitute • 〈…〉 of ſaid College, gave them no Power over that College conſidered as a Body Politick or 〈…〉

This Law was made before the Corporation of ſaid College 〈◊〉 a •• ING; and therefore it gave the Overſeers only a Power ever and unincorp • rate • College. It was the latter Law of 1650 which fiſt incorporated ſaid College; for in this Law 'tis exp •• ſly Ordered and • nacted by the Court, that From Henceforth the ſaid COLLEGE in Cambridge ſhall be a Corporation. So that by the Law of 1642 the Court gave the Overſeers of ſaid College no Power over that College conſider'd as a a Corporation; And therefore when afterwards the Court m • d Harvard-College a Corporation is 1650, ſo far as this latter Law, which in incorporated ſaid College, S ••••• ted the Members of this Corporation to the Overſeers, ſo far and no father have the Overſeers a Power over the ſaid College or Corporation. And thus the latter Law ſuperſedes or repeals the former Law of 1642. And this Senſe the Great and General Court ſeem to have put upon the latter Law of 1050; For when in Decemb. 1707 the ſaid Corporation were ordered to regulate themſelves according to the original Conſtitution of the ſaid College, the Court then declared that The firſt Foundation and Eſtabliſhment of That Houſe and the Government thereof had its Origin • from an Act of the General Court made and paſſed in the Year 1650 which had not been repealed or nulled. So that the FIRST Foundation both of that Houſe and the Government thereof had not its ORIGINAL from the prior Law of 1642 but from the latter Law of 1650. And hereon it follows that the Law of 1642 (which was before the FIRST Foundation of that Houſe and the Government thereof) was ſat aſide and removed out of the Way in order to Lay the 〈◊〉 ••• n • ation o • that Houſe and in Government upon the incorporating Act of 1650. And therefore the ſaid Law of 42 is n • Part of the P • undation of the preſent Houſe of the College not of the Government thereof. So that by this Law of 42 the Overſeers of ſaid College (inſtead of having 2 ſovereign Power over it) ſeem to have no Power at all over it, not over the Corporation thereof.

A plain Inſtance may illuſtrate this Law of 164 • : Suppoſe the General Court in 1642 had appointed Overſeers to order and govern the Inhabitants of a Place, in the Colony, who had not as yet been incorporated into a T •• n; and afterwards in 1650 the C •• rt ſhould have have made the place a Town • hip; — How far would theſe Inhabitants, now incorporated into a Town, be ſu • ject to their former Overſeers by Virtue of the Law which conſtituted ſuch Overſeers before the Place was made a Town? Could theſe Overſeers turn out the SELECT M • N of that Town 〈◊〉 all future Times after the Place was made a Townſhip? By N. Means! Unleſs the latter Law, which incorporated the Place into a Townſhip, gave ſuch a Power to the former Overſeers of the Place. Nor would theſe Overſeers have any Powers at all over ſuch a Place, after it was made a Town, unleſs thoſe Powers which were granted or confirmed to them in the latter Law which incorporated the Place into a Townſhip.—And thus as to the Overſeers and Corporation of the College aboveſaid; The Law of 42 which appointed Overſeers to ſaid College before it was incorporated, gives them no Power over that College after it was made a Corporation; but all the Powers of the Overſeers over ſaid College after it was incorporated, are only thoſe Powers which are granted or confirmed to them in the latter Law of 1650 which made the ſaid College a Corporation.

Some truly worthy and valuable teaching Elders of the ſix neighbouring Towns are of Opinion, That the Law of 42 aboveſaid is the great STANDING Law that contains all the more important and ſuperior Powers over the ſaid College; And that the Charter of 50 was made as a Thing by the BY, and only empower the Preſident and Fellows to do ſome ſmall Matters; and for the Sake of the College-Stock, it being neceſſary that they ſhould be a Corporation in Law in order to acquire and hold a Stock. But in Anſwer hereto. 1. This Suppoſition is apparently contrary to the above mentioned Declaration of the General Court, which determines that the Act or Charter of 50 is the ORIGINAL of ſaid College. So that the ſaid Law of 42 is beyond the ORIGINAL of that College, and therefore ſeems to be out of Date. So far is it from being certain that this Law of 42 is "The great ſtanding LAW—"the LAW that contains all the more important and ſuperiour Powers over the ſaid College. But 2. This Suppoſition aboveſaid is contrary to the whole Strain and Tenou • of the ſaid Charter of 50 which no longer treates the Preſident and Fellows as in a State of Minority under 〈…〉 (though the moſt Honourable in the Land) but at now grown up to the full Statute of MEN. Thus particularly the ſaid Charter enacts, That in all great and difficult Caſes a general Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and Society, or Corporation, ſhall be procured; and the Concluſion be made by the major Part (of the Corporation) the Overſeers conſenting thereto—Is this only a Power in ſaid Corporation to do ſome ſmall Matters? Or is this treating the Preſident and Fellows as ſtill in a State of Minority and Pupillage under Overſeers, when a general Meeting of ALL the Overſeers can make no Concluſion at all, and that in the moſt great and difficult Caſes, but by conſenting to a Concluſion made on ſuch Caſes by the Corporation? — Thus again 'tis enacted in ſaid Charter, That the Preſident and Fellows ſhall forever hereafter in Name and Fact be one Body Politick or Corporate in Law to ALL Intents and Purpoſes and therefore not to ONE Intent and Purpoſe only. viz. The acquiring and holding a Stock, and the ſuing or being ſued on the Account thereof. And thus evidently did the Court by this Charter, manumitt the ſaid College from a State of meer Pupillage to Overſeers, and locked on it as now grown up to Maturity and ſitting to be incorporatd with a Preſident and Fellows and to have all the Rights and Privileges of a Corporation in Law; — as truly as in the Inſtance, above ſuppoſed, of a Place in the Colony put under Overſeers, in its infant State; but afterwards incorporated when grown up and increaſed in full Numbers of Inhabitants. And as a Law that incorporates a Town can by a very juſt Figure of Speech be called the ORIGINAL of ſuch a Town, ſo the incorporating Act of 1650 above-mentioned is, in its own Nature, the ORIGINAL of Harvard-College, as well as it has been declared by the Legiſlature to Be the ORIGINAL of ſaid College. And therefore

II. The latter Law of 1650, which incorporated Harvard College, and not the Prior Law of 1642, contains thoſe Powers which the preſent Overſeers have over the Corporation of the ſaid College.

Now by this latter Law which incorporated Harvard College, theFor the Truth of this FACT let the ſaid Charter of 50, be conſulted from Beginning to End! all the Powers of the Overſeers which are either granted or mentioned, or even referred to, in that Charter are contained in the 3d, 6th and 8th ſmall Paragraphs of ſaid Charter, at it is printed in the preceeding Collection of Colony Laws relating to Harvard College. And ſo the Deciſion of the Fact here referred to, and whether the Writer of this Pamphlet ſpeaks Truth or Falſifies in ſuch an Aſſertion, may be SHORT. ONLY Power given to the Overſeers of ſaid College is a Power to Counſel the Corporation of that College to act, or to conſent to and allow of the Acts of the ſaid Corporation. So that the Overſeers of ſaid College have no independent and SOVEREIGN Power over the Corporation of ſaid College, even by that Law which is the only Law that now gives them any Power over that Corporation. To apply this in particular to the POWER of diſmiſſing a Member of ſaid Corporation. [Which let it be noted, is a Caſe on which this Law is abſolutely ſilent and no where ſays "WHO have ſuch a 〈…〉 the POWER given to the Overſeers over the ſaid Corporation, by that Law which appointed and made the ſaid Corporation, is a Power to counſel that Corporation to act or to conſent to their Acts; it follows that all the Power which the Overſeers can have in diſmiſſing a Member of that Corporation, is a Power to counſel the ſaid Corporation to diſmiſs ſuch a Member, or to conſent to an Act of that Corporation for his Diſmiſſion; And therefore the Overſeers of this College have no Power to diſmiſs a Member of that Corporation without an Act of the ſaid Corporation for it; What can be more plain?—So that it may f • eely be ſaid (and no Offence is juſtly offered in ſaying) that the Honourable and Reverend Overſeers of ſaid College, cannot, without a Breach upon the College-Charter, aſſume the Power to diſmiſs a Member of that Corporation, ſingly by themſelves? So far is this Charter from giving to the Overſeers of ſaid College a SOVEREIGN Power to call a Member out of that Corporation before themſelves alone; and try, and judge, and ſentence, and turn him out of that Corporation; and all this Time the PASSIVE Corporation are to know nothing, unleſs by private Notice given them, "What has been doing to One of their Members —or "What had finally become of him" 'till the Overſeers of ſaid College are pleaſed to give them Information. This is as foreign to the Deſign and Spirit of the Law, which incorporated Harvard College, as it is to the plain and expreſs Letter of it; and is ſuch a Power as evidently ſeems to NULL the Charter or muſt it ſelf be NULLED by it; And which of the Two are to Stand, to General Court alone, who founded that College and who appointed NO Viſitors to it, can finally determine and Declare "Whether their OWN Act of 1650 which incorporated that College, or "Whether One unwarranted Precedent, which is ſubverſive of that Act, is ultimately to remain VALID.

It may be added here Ex Abundanti that ſuppoſing ſome Powers granted to the Overſeers of ſaid College in the Law of 42, to act ſolely by themſelves, were NOT ſuperſeded or vacated by the Charter of 50 which firſt incorporated ſaid College; Yet all this notwithſtanding, 'tis ſtill TRUE that the Power of removing a Member of ſaid Corporation if NOT One of thoſe Powers that CAN be ſuppoſed to remain ſolely with the Overſeers After the ſaid Charter of 50 was granted. For ſince this Power of removing a Member of the Corporation is no where mentioned in the prior Law of 42 (and no Wonder, for the ſaid Corporation and 〈…〉 NO Being) it therefore follows that if ſuch a Power is contained at all in that Law, It muſt be ſo, becauſe it is implied under ſome of the GREAT and more important Powers granted to the Overſeers in that Law. Now, This, This, brings the Matter to a Point! For the Charter of 50 i • EXPRESS that the Overſeers are to act with the Corporation in all GREAT and DIFFICULT Caſes. So that ſuppoſing the Law of 42 was in ſome Reſpects ſtill in Force, yet the College Charter of 50 comes afterwards and leaves NO Powers in that Law for the Overſeers to act ſolely by themſelves in any Caſes of GREAT Importance! The Words in the Charter of 50 are theſe (Not they ſtand in the Copy of the Overſeers CLERK and in ſome other faulty Copies of that Charter, which ought to be corrected; but as the Words ſtand in the ORIGINAL Charter itſelf, and in the RECORDS of the General Court!) That For Direction in all emergent Occaſions, Execution of all Orders and By-Laws, and for the procuring of a GENERAl Meeting of ALL the OVERSEERS and SOCIETY in GREAT and DIFFICULT Caſes, and in Caſes of Non-agreement; In ALL which Caſes aforeſaid, the Concluſion ſhall be made by the major Part, the ſaid Preſident having a caſting Voice, the OVERSEERS Conſenting thereunto.—Now here if by the Term "Society" is meantThis Senſe of the Term "Society" ſeems not to be here intended; for if • ere, Then all the Members of the College muſt Vote with the Preſident and Fellows, and the Concluſion be made by the major Part.—If ſo "The UNDERGADUATES would moſt certainly; carry it! the College in general, including the Preſident, Fellows, and all its Members; Or if by that Term is meant the "SOCIETAS" that is, the Company of SOCII, which with a Preſident are the Corporation of SEVEN appointed in this Charter; 'Tis ſtill, either Way, True that in difficult Caſes and in great Caſes a General Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and of all the Corporation is to be PROCUREDPROCURED! and therefore not meerly notified or warned to meet, as ſome have pretended to argue, againſt the expreſs Words here referred to in the Charter. Such a looſe LICENSE indulged, in interpreting Laws, wou'd deſtroy any Law in the World!—But when this Charter mentions "The Procuring a general Meeting of all the Overſeers and Society in great and difficult Caſes" is it not ſelf evident that it actually •• ans that ſuch a Meeting ſhould BE Procured in thoſe Caſes? Moſt certainly;—And therefore the Charter is not ACTED upon if in thoſe Caſes ſuch a Meeting is not Procured! e. g. Feb. 18. 1741, 2., and in ALL ſuch Caſes (as it expreſly follows!) The Concluſion ſhall be made by the major Part (of the Corporation) the Preſident having a caſting Voice, the Overſeers CONSENTING thereunto. And thus 'tis evident to the Degree of Demonſtration, that in NO great Caſes and in NO difficult Caſes had the Overſeers a Power left them to act ſolely by themſelves, after the Charter of 50 had incorporated ſaid College! So carefully has this Charter guarded againſt an Independent and SOVEREIGN Power in the Overſeers of ſaid College to act without the Corporation in Matters of GREAT Moment. And ſo far is this Charter from granting or allowing 〈◊〉 the Overſeers a Power of acting, WITHOUT the Corporation in ſuch Caſes, that this Charter neither grants or allows it to the Overſeers, even acting WITH the Corporation, unleſs a GENERAL Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and of ALL the Corporation be procured for Concluding on ſuch Affairs of Importance.

This is the Purport and Intent, this is Spirit, Soul and Body of that Charter (and which No Power can alter but THAT Power which can deſtroy this Charter itſelf) viz. That Caſes of Importance ſhould be tranſacted in a General Aſſembly of the WHOLE Government of Harvard-College: And not 〈◊〉 be determined on by a PART, or, when unhappily divided and diſagreeing in their Judgments, by "a Party. Hence then to apply 〈…〉 and important a Caſe as the diſmiſſing a Member of that Corporation; 'tis demonſtrable 1. That a GENERAL Meeting of ALL the Overſeers, without a Meeting of the Corporation that is general alſo! can have NO Power by Charter to diſmiſs a Member of that Corporation. And 2. Much leſs have a general Meeting of all the Overſeers a Power to diſmiſs a Member of that Corporation without any Meeting at all of the Corporation, procured for that End. And 3. Much leſs ſtill have the Overſeers of ſaid College ſuch a Power, without a general Meeting even of their OWN Members procured for that End. — As in a late Caſe without a General, or even any Meeting of the Corporation, and alſo in the Winter Seaſon and Receſs of the General Court when there was not and could not be a general Meeting of the overſeers themſelves, ſome of thoſe Magiſtrates and Teaching Elders, who are mention'd in the Law of 42, Met together and aſſumed to themſelves the SOLE Power of turning out what Members of the Corporation they though ſit. This was ſuch an apparent receding from the Foundation of Harward-College that if a few more Precedents of the like Sort were Submitted to, it would ſettle ſuch a Power over that College that nothing could prevent the Ruin of its Conſtitution unleſs the Great and General Court, whoſe College it is, INTERPOSED and determined, as they did the LAST Time they Interpoſed "That the FIRST Foundation of that College and the GOVERNMENT thereof had its ORIGINAL from an ACT of the Court made and paſſed in the Year 1650, And ordered and 〈…〉 that according to that ACT the Overſeers of ſaid College ſhould make NO Concluſion in GREAT and difficult Caſes unleſs it were in a general Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and Society, or Corporation, UNITED.—Without ſuch a Remedy, the Conſequences of the Overſeers diſmiſſing Members of the Corporation by themſelves alone, when they have no ſuch Power BY Charter, may be theſe: "That poſſibly, in Times to Come, ſo many Members of the Corporation may be diſmiſſed ſolely by the Overſeers, and ſo without any competent Authority, that thoſe who ſucceed into their Places wou'd be meerly Members of the Corporation De Fa ••• while thoſe who were thus diſmiſſed would be ſtill Members of the Corporation De Jure. And t ••• by Degrees there might be a Corporation De Facto, in Oppoſition to a Corporation De Jure. And THEN what would become of all the COLLEGE-STOCK!—It would no longer be in the Hands of a Corporation De Jure but only in the Hands of a Corporation De Facto, that is, in plain Engliſh, It would be in the Hands of NO Corporation at all!

And yet if any Perſon belonging to Harvard-College offers to liſp this real and moſt certain Danger of all Things in that Society, He is induſtriouſly repreſented as One who is going to ruin the College! Who is ſtriking at its Foundation—Who is undernuning its Government—And betraying all Things into the Hands of the CHURCH—Juſt as if the Clergy of the Church of England would not REJOYCE to ſee the Day when That College ſhould be a Corporation De Facto with a VAST Treaſury, in Oppoſition to a Corporation De Jure with NO Treaſury at all! THEN would be the Time for them to cry "Down with it—Raſe it, raſe it, even to the Foundation. —Or rather this Cry would be prevented with a Laugh at a Society that like the fooliſh Woman in the Proverbs Plucketh down her Houſe with her own Hands; And thus ſuch a Suggeſtion that "The COLLEGE is in Danger (and not that "The CHURCH is in Danger") anſwers itſelf, and is as STUPID as it is VILLAINOUS. The Stupia • Part, no Doubt, came from ſome Teaching Elder in the COUNTRY; and the Villainous Part from ſome Long Chin who with his Brethren in Iniquity care not One SIX PENCE "What becomes of that College; or the Education of Youth in it: or whether the Tutors belonging to it, can examine Freſhmen; or be able ſo much as to underſtand the BOOKS which they hear their Claſſes recite out of!—Or How many Thouſands per Annum were ſquandered away by Parents for the Education of their Children in this ſort; if ever it ſhould ſo happen in future Times that ſuch a Courſe of Things ſhould prevail in that Place—THESE are the Men that want nothing but to keep the State of that Society in Darkneſs, and then (if they cou'd have the Influence of the Government in it) they know that they ſhould be "The RULERS of that DARKNESS.—

BUT to reſume the Argument drawn from the Clauſe in the Charter above cited which leaves NO Power in the Law of 42 for the Overſeers of ſaid College to act ſolely by themſelves in any Caſes of great Importance. "There is ſomething ſtill further remarkable with reſpect to theſe Words in the Charter of 50; and it is this; that the ſame Words are repeated over again without any real Alteration in the th •• d Law relating to the College; though the manifeſt Deſign of the Law was to explain and a •• ſome Parts of this Charter in Favour to the Overſeers of ſaid College. Now in this Law of 57 'tis expreſly ſaid, that for the procuring of a GENERAL Meeting of the Overſeers and Society in GREAT and DIFFICULT Caſes, and in Caſes of Non-agreement—In All theſe Caſes the Concluſion ſhall be valid [viz. for the procuring ſuch a Meeting] being made by the major Part of the Corporation, the Preſident having a caſting Vote. —So that this Law confirms it over again and ſhows it to be the continued as well as original Senſe of the Legiſtature, that in ALL Caſes relating to ſaid College which are difficult Caſes or great Caſes a GENERAL Meeting of the Overſeers and of the Society (or Corporation) are to be procured.—And which Way the Concluſion ſhall be made on theſe Caſes, when ſuch a united Meeting of the Overſeers and Corporation is procured, this Law does not ſay—And therefore does not alter! That is, this Law leaves it of Courſe without Alteration to the College-Charter of 50 which had already ſo clearly determined that Point, that it needed No Explanation when this explanatory Law was made!

So that ſuppoſing t •• Thouſand Times over (and LET the Ho •••• s and Ch ••• y's of the Age, turn this Argument round and round 'till their HOT Heads grow giddy with it) "That the Overſeers of ſaid College had Some Powers left them to act ſolely by themſelves after the Charter of 50 was granted; yet 'tis ſtill TRUE that the Charter of 50 and its Appendix in 57, ſhow the Original and Continued Senſe of the Legiſtature to be "That in all Difficult Caſes and in all Great Caſes ſuch a Power was Vacated from the Day and DATE of Charter of 50! And that in Lieu of this Power, both the Charter of 50 and the explanatory Law of 57Suppoſing the Law of 57 to be now null (as it can be proved to be) Yet this no Way affects the Force of this Argument; for that Law was once valid, and when it was ſo, it ſhowed the Senſe of the Legiſlature to be the ſame on this Point, now under Conſideration, as it was when the Legiſlature granted the ſaid Charter of 50. And this is the whole that the preſent Argument is concerned with. gives to the Overſeers (and that in a General Meeting of ALL their Number) only a Power of counſelling and conſenting to Acts of the Corporation in great and difficult Caſes.— How then is it poſſible for the Overſeers of ſaid College (againſt Both theſe Laws, and without any Law for it) To have the SOLE Power in ſo Great and Difficult a Caſe as That of removing a Preſident or any other Member of the ſaid Corporation. It Ought to be ſpoke out freely, "That, ſuch a Power is an IMPOSSIBLE Power! And whenever it is aſſumed, all its Acts are eſſentially Nullities. And therefore all that was done in a late Caſe, Novum • et ante hune diem inauditum, from Oct. 21. 1741, to April 1. 1742, was and is in it ſelf Null ab Initio; and there Now exiſts a certain Member of a Corporation De Facto, in Oppoſition to one De Jure.

Some of the Conſequences of which (together with the aſſuming a Power to make Members of the Corporation De Facto in Oppoſition to thoſe that are ſo De Jure) 'Tis of the laſt Importance to conſider more at large than as yet they have been. 1. In ſuch a Caſe while Some only (and not the Major Part) of the Members are meerly De Facto Members of the Corporation; 'Twill be utterly uncertain whether any of their Acts are VALID or not: And that for this plain Reaſon; Becauſe ſo many of their Votes may turn upon the Votes of a De Facto Member, whoſe Vote will be no Vote at all De Jure: And ſo the Votes of the ſaid Corporation ••• mſelves (when • urning on ſuch Votes) will really 〈…〉 at all 〈…〉 is choſen a Member of that Corporation, in Fact, he will not be a Member of that Corporation of right; Which (by the By) will be a quick Way of making the Majority of that Corporation to conſiſt of meer De Facto Members only! And thus when any Money is let out, who can ſay whether 'tis rightfully let out or not; or when any Lands or Tenements belonging to ſaid College areBy expreſs Charter the major Part of the Corporation can Leaſe, though the reſt are abſent. Suppoſe then but Four ſhould be preſent to leaſe a Farm of 100 l. per Annum, and one of theſe ſhould be a meer De Facto Member; the Conſequence of this is that This would be no Leaſe at all. For there would be only three ••• al Members to concur to ſuch an Act. And Three Members make no Quorum of the Corporation. And in this Caſe though the Corporation might with Difficully recover ſuch a Farm into their own Hands again; yet they would loſe the whole Rent! For the Leaſe on which it was DUE wou'd be only a Piece of Waſte Paper. leaſed, the Validity of ſuch Leaſes when depending on the Vote of a De Facto Member are no Leaſes at all; And if any Perſon to whom ſuch Lands or Tenements are leaſed, ſhould refuſe to pay Rent or when his Leaſe is expired ſhould refuſe to quit his Poſeſſion; What intricate Confuſion on this, as well as on the ſeveral other Accounts aboveſaid, would be introduced into all the Affairs of that Corporation. And what perplexed Difficulties (to the Sport of WICKED Lawyers and to the Grief and Concern of GOOD Ones) would the introducing one ſingle De Facto Member, Occaſion to that Corporation in recovering, not their Rents which in ſuch a Caſe they could not do, but even their own STOCK into their Hands again. Do the ra • a, mad, headlong Young teaching Elders think any Thing of ſuch TERRIBLE Conſequences when they appear ſoThe Writer of this Paper is reſolv'd to SPEAK as Keenly of THEM as they have •• alouſ •• acted againſt HIM. He owes them NO Obedience Independent on the Corporation. Nor ever will PAY them any, while They act in their SOLITARY Capacity. keenly Eager to vote to themſelves the Sole Power to turn out any Member of that Corporation; when ſuch a Power belongs not to them by Charter; And thereby that Member being ſtill a Member De Jure, his Succeſſor can be only a meer De Facto Member, i. e. No Member of that Corporation at all; And thus they would aſſume a Power to fill up that Corporation with meer De Facto, Members and ſo to diſſolve it! —This calls ALOUD for the Interpoſition of the Le •• ſlature, to reduce theſe young Elders within their proper Bounds; and to put a Stop to ſuch Confuſion Before it be too Late.—ALL theſe are the Beginning of Sorrows—But the END is not yet. Tho' by a SION that has been given th •• is Reaſon to think that it is NEAR even at the DOORS. For 2. When once the Overſeer • of ſaid College have aſſumed to themſelves the Sole Power of diſmiſſing any Members of the Corporation aboveſaid, the Conſequence will be This (Since it has been demonſtrated that they have NO ſuch Power By Charter!) that all the Members of ſaid Corporation, that ſucceed into the Place of Thoſe who are Thus diſmiſſed, will be meer De Facto Members of ſaid Corporation! And when a few ſuch are actually made (and ONE is already made!) Then the major Part of ſaid Corporation will ſoon come to conſiſt of De Facto Members. And what now will follow!— Why theſe Things. "That all their Acts will be Null and VOID; That a meer De Facto Corporation will be the only Corporation exiſting; and thereon that all the College Stock will be Left and SUNK! For Query; Could a meer De Facto Corporation SUE by Charter—when by Charter they are NO Corporation at all! Could ſuch a Corporation recover any Monies let out into the Hands of others! Or could they get in the Rents of all the Lands or Tenements ONCE poſſeſſed by a De Jure Corporation of ſaid College!—What if thoſe who had ſuch Monies in their Hand, or were in Poſſeſſion of ſuch Lands and Ten • ments ſhould refuſe to pay the Juſt Intereſt and Rents due for them! And not only ſo, but alſo keep thoſe Monies or Lands and Tenements in a SUIT! Could not a Lawyer ſucceſsfully force and PUSH their Cauſe againſt this meer De Facto Corporation, before any Court in the Province? Moſt certainly!—Yea, the Credit of ſuch a Corporation would at Length run ſo Low that the very FERRYMEN would ſtand Suit againſt them. For theſe liſtening Ferrymen would ſoon find out, from the infinite Numbers of Paſſengers whom they were perpetually rowing over, that "there was No Corporation to ſue them for their Ferry Rent." And thereon feeling Themſelves at the End of the Year to be "RICH MEN; And none to demand a ſingle Half-Pence of Ferrage Money at their Hands.—They would at once take it into their Head, to quit all their Boats, and putting their Negroes into them, would ſet up for JACK Gentlemen and perk it in the Face of their old MASTERS. This is comical enough; But yet any Lawyer in the Land if he was aſked the Queſtion in earneſt "Whether in this Caſe they could have ſuch a Right? "He would DECLARE that it was a Serious Truth! And thus the WHOLE College-Stock (which 'tis the Intereſt of ſaid College, to have conſtantly Out at Uſe;) would be in the Poſſeſſion of thoſe to whom it was Let: And a meer De Facto Corporation could never recover either Principal or Intereſt 〈…〉 College.—What then would become of it! It would either be held and enjoyed by the preſent Lucky Poſſeſſors or revert to the Donors and their Heirs, or "Eſcheat to the KING. And which of theſe would de the Conſequence, the Writer of this Paper is oblig • d in Modeſty not to determine but would leave to Thoſe who are Maſters of Law.

And thus the Diſſolution of all Things is at Hand! in ſaid College when once a Member of that Corporation is diſmiſſed without a competent Authority; The Same Power can diſmiſs ALL the Members of that Corporation; And then every Thing will return to its primitive Chaos; And the ſaid College will no longer be called "Harvard College; but be a" TOHU BOHU; without Form and VOID,—And DARKNESS will be upon the Face of the DEEP.

Enough, and perhaps more than Enough! has been ſaid on this ſecond general Article, viz. That the CHARTER of 50, and not the Prior Law of 42, contains thoſe Powers which the preſent Overſeers have over the Corporation of ſaid College.—And now on a Cool Review of the main ARGUMENT, and the particular Reaſonings under this Article, it may at Length the Juſtly affirmed 1. That the Charter of 50, which incorporated Harvard College, gives to the Overſeers a Power only to counſel the ſaid Corporation to act, or to conſent to their Acts. And therefore in ſuch a Caſe for Inſtance, as the diſmiſſing a Member of that Corporation, the Overſeers of ſaid College can do nothing by CHARTER, but Counſel the Corporation to Diſmiſs ſuch a Member, or Conſent to an Act of that Corporation for his Diſmiſſion.— Which has never yet been done, from the Time that the ſaid College in Dec. 1707. was ſet again on its firſt Charter of 50. to this preſent Day July 7.1742. as appears from the VOTES of the Honourable and Reverend Overſeers Themſelves;— And therefore Member of the Corporation has been diſmiſſed during this WHOLE Interval or Period of Time. 2. That Suppoſing the Charter of 50 Did not in ALL Caſes ſuperſede the Law of 42; yet it certainly ſuperſedes That Law ſo far as it reſpects GREAT and Difficult Caſes; ſo that in ALL Such Caſes of Importance, the Overſeers of ſaid College cannot act on the old Law of 42; but are to act on the Charter of 50 in Conjunction with the Corporation, and That in a General Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and Corporation, not meerly notified or warned, but PROCURED!—And therefore in ſo Great and Difficult a Caſe as the removing a Preſident or Any Member of that Corporation, the Overſeers of ſaid College cannot Allow of or Conſent to an Act of that Corporation for the Diſmiſſing ſuch a Member (which by CHARTER is All that the Overſeers Can do in ſuch a Caſe) unleſs a General Meeting of ALL the Overſeers and Corporation be Procured for that End. And 3. That the APPENDIX of 57 confirms all theſe Reaſonings to he TRUE. And ſhows the Senſe of the Legiſlature to be the ſame on theſe Point • 〈◊〉 which it was at firſt when the Charter of 〈◊〉 was granted. And it appeare that the Legiſlature never altered their Senſe of theſe Matters, but on the contrary, ſhowed This to be their Senſe over again, the Laſt Time they INTERPOSED to regulate the Conſtitution of ſaid College, When in Dec. 1707. The Court Referred Harvard College back again to the Act of 50 as the ORIGINAL of THAT Houſe, and of the GOVERNMENT thereof; N • w on This Act all theſe Reaſonings are grounded, And That as on their ORIGINAL likewiſe! and being thus placed on the ſame firm BASIS as Harvard College itſelf is, They muſt Stand or Fall! with THAT Houſe and the GOVERNMENT Thereof.—So that from all theſe concurring Arguments it appears to be an Impoſſibility in LAW that the Overſeers of ſaid College, ſhould have the Sole Power in themſelves to diſmiſs a Member of that Corporation. And therefore if they have any Power, in ſuch a Caſe, it muſt be in Conjunction With the Corporation and not Without Them!—Which is the next Thing to be conſidered and perhaps may be effectually diſproved. For

III. The Law, or CHARTER, which incorporated Harvard College, grants not the Power of B • ing a PRESIDENT or ANY other Member of the Corporation, to the Overſeers and Corporation of ſaid College in Conjunction:—Any more than it does to EITHER of the • ſingly and a Part.

Here let to be noted that a Guard was placed at the very Entrance on the laſt general Article (page 18) againſt ſuch a Power, as being no where granted in the Charter of 50, either to the Overſeer • , or to the Corporation, or to Both conjointly. And thus the General Argument on this Head, in the Preceeding Article, is carried on Hypothetically and by Way of Suppoſition only. viz. That IF the Overſeers of ſaid College had any Power in ſuch a Caſe, it muſt be in Conjunction with the Corporation and not without Them. But now the Writer of this Pamphlet comes to argue Categorically and Directly againſt ſuch a Power in the Overſeers and Corporation of ſaid College. And therefore to BEGIN.—By the Charter of 50 the Only Power granted to the Overſeers and Corporation, in this Caſe, is To make a NEW Member of the Corporation ſo often and from Time to Time as any of the Former ſhall DIE or be REMOVED. Here the Law ſtops ſhort: And no where ſays "HOW or By WHOM, a Preſident or Fellow of the Corporation ſhall be removed; And ſo the General COURT having this Power originally in Themſelves, over their OWN College! And not here granting it to any Perſons whatever, this Power therefore remains Still in the COURT; and the COURT alone have it to this Day:— As None but the COURT had ſuch a Power Before the Overſeers and Corporation were appointed by the Law • of 42 and 50, when they diſmiſſed Mr. Eaton from his Preſidency in ſaid College; and as None but the COURT had this Power After the Overſeers and Corporation were appointed, and FULLY inveſted with ALL their Powers, when in 1654 the Court delegated the Overſeers as their Committee to treat with the 〈◊〉 Preſident Mr. Dunſter, and to receive his final Reſignation, and to make RETURN to the Court of what they had done in that Affair, and the 〈◊〉 never after 〈…〉 Law, granted this Power to any Perſons whatever.

Now to clear this Argument from that MIST of Obſcurity, which modern Notions and ſome Novel Practices have caſt upon it, let thoſe Premiſes be again conſidered which were laid down a • the Beginning of this Diſcourſe, viz. That Harvard College was originally the College of the General Court; for that Court built it, and named and endowed it, as well as incorporated the ſame. —Therefore ALL Power over that College was originally in the General Court alone.—Therefore NO Powers over that College which have not been actually granted to others by ſome Law, CAN belong to any Perſons whatever, but are Still the Powers of the Court, at tru •• as they were at the Beginning when all Power over that College exiſted in the General Court alone, before the Times wherein the Court gave Some PART of their Power, ever THEIR OWN College, to the Overſeers and Corporation by the Acts of 42 and 50.—So that ALL Powers whatever that have not been communicated to the ſaid Overſeers and Corporation, by ſome poſitive Law or Grant from the General Court, ſtill continue in that Court; as the Water which has not as yet been communicated to the S • rian or Rivulet ſtill continues in the FOUNTAIN.— This is a certain Truth as to the Power of removing a Pre •• dent or Any Member of that Corporation; for there is no Law or Charter whatever in which the Court has communicated this Power to Others; and therefore this Power remains in the Fountain of ALL Power over that College, which is the GENERAL COURT alone! If any Thing farther need to be added, in ſo plain a CASE! there are two Things that may be urged which put it out of all Queſtion that the General Court reſerved this Power to Themſelves among other Powers of VISITATION which the Court never granted to any Perſons whatever!

1. The Firſt is that the explanatory Law of 57 is more Silent on this Power than the Charter of 50 itſelf! Now one great Deſign of this Law of 57 was to explain or determine what might ſeem obſcure and undermined in the Charter of 50; and of all Caſes that needed to be explained or determined in ſaid Charter, This Caſe (ſuppoſing it to be contained in that Charter!) needed it the moſt; take it either Way, viz. as a Caſe not determined at all in that Charter, or as of Importance to be determined and not fitting to be left at a looſe!—Yet does that explanatory Law leave this Clauſe in the Charter (which barely mentions the removing Members of the Corporation, without mentioning who had the Power to remove them) at as great a looſe as it was before! And though this Law deſcends to ſuch little Affairs as "How the Corporation ſhould hold a Meeting to agree with College-Servants and be reſponſible to the Overſeers for all ſuch Agreements; yet this Law ſays not one Word on ſo great and ſo undetermined a Caſe as this "Who ſhould have the Power of removing a Preſident or Fellow of ſaid Corporation" which (on both the Accounts above) needed more to be explained or determined by this Law of 57 than any Thing in that Charter whatever. Nothing therefore can account for the Reaſon why this explanatory Law ſhould paſs over ſo important a Matter in Silence, but this, viz. that ſuch a Power, not being granted in ſaid Charter to any Perſons whatever, was never looked on in thoſe Times to be contained in that Charter at all. And THEN the Wonder ceaſes why this explanatory Law did not determine or ſettle" Who had or ſhould have ſuch a Power; for this Law was to explain or determine what was IN the ſaid Charter, and not this Power which was Still in the General Court (for who can imagine that the Court in this explanatory Law deſigned to explain or ſettle their OWN Powers?) And hereon alſo Another Wonder ceaſes viz. Why the Overſeers of ſaid College ſhould be ſo wanting to Themſelves as no to put ſuch a Thing into their Propoſals to the Court for Explanation (though theſe PROPOSALS, which were for the Benefit of the Overſeers, was the very Occaſion of making this Law itſelf, as appears from the Preamble.) The Reaſon hereof ſeems to be very plain viz. Becauſe ALL Parties concerned with the Government of the College were conſcious, in thoſe early Times which were ſo near the Time wherein ſaid Charter was granted, that the Power of removing the Preſident or any Member of ſaid Corporation was never given BY Charter to any Perſons whaterver, but that the Court had reſerved it to themſelves. And therefore if one (among the reſt) of the PROPOSALS of the Overſeers to the Court had been to explain or determine "Who had the Power of removing the Preſident, or any other Members of the Corporation, on Male-Adminiſtration of when guilty of ſundry Crimes and Miſdemeanours; The Overſeers of ſaid College (with all due and ſincere Deference to them be it mentioned) might have been honourably reminded by the Court "WHO had This Power in Themſelves but three Years before, in the Caſe of Preſident Dunſter "When the Court thought fit to appoint the Overſeers (without joining the Corporation with them) as their Committee to manage that Affair, and "to make Return to the Court of what they had done therein."

2. Another Thing which puts it out of Queſtion that the Court reſerved this Power to Themſelves, is, the manifeſt Difference made in the Charter between the removing a Member of the Corporation and removing inferiour College Officers and Servants. Now to exhibit this to Eye ſight, let thoſe two Paſſages be laid together, which are the only Paſſages in the Charter that mention the removing of Both theſe Kinds of Officers.

The Chuſing and Removing Members of the Corporation by Charter. And the ſaid ſeven Perſons or the greater Number of them procuring the Preſence of the Overſeers of the College, and by their Counc • l and Conſent ſhall have Power, and are hereby authorized, at any Time or Times to ELECT a new Preſident Fellows or Treaſurer ſo often and from Time to Time as any of the ſaid Perſon or Perſons SHALL die or BE removed —

FINIS to This Power granted in the Charter!

The Chuſing and Removing College Servants by Charter. And the Preſident and Fellows, or major Part of them, from Time to Time may meet and CHUSE ſuch Officers and Servants for the College, and make ſuch Allowance to them, and THEM alſo to REMOVE, and after DEATH or REMOVAL to chuſe ſuch others—as they ſhall think Fit.

Thus equally expreſs and particular is this Law in ſpecifying Who ſhould have the Power of chuſing Both theſe Kinds of Officers. But when it comes to ſay Who ſhould have the Power to remove Then. -THEN appears the Difference! for as to the ſmall Power of removing College Servants, the Law is as plain and expreſs "Who ſhould have That Power, as it is "Who ſhould have the Power to Chuſe them. But as to the important Power of removing Members of the Corporation (which in Law can exiſt ſeparately from the Power of chuſing them, as well as in Conjunction ••• h it, and often does ſo in Colleges abroad) Here the Law is all over altum Silentium—Not a Word is ſaid who ſhould have this Power!—Now what Reaſon can be aſſign'd for ſo manifeſt a Difference, 〈◊〉 • his? viz. That the latter Power being of ſo much greater Importance than that of removing College Servants, the Court who had All Power originally in themſelves over this College (and who therefore could ſovereignly grant the Power of chuſing without granting t ••• • ower of removing, juſt as they pleaſed) did not intend in this Law to grant the important Power of removing Members of that Corporation, out of their own Hands; but thought fit to reſerve it to themſelves, among thoſe Viſitatorial Powers which the Court originally had over this College and never granted to Any Perſons whatever.

The only Objection that can be here made has, in Reality, been obviated already, viz. That tis implied of Courſe, and in the Nature of the Thing that thoſe have the Power of removing who by Charter have the Power of making Members of the Corporation; ſince the Court mention not, in the Charter, who ſhould have the Power of removing them or grant it to others. But this Objection ſuppreſſes one Half of the Truth; if the Whole Truth had been given, the Objection would appear inconcluſive a • firſt View: Thus that 'tis implied of Courſe and in the Nature of the Thing [ •• ther] that thoſe, who by Charter have the Power of making Members of the Corporation, have the Power of removing them [or elſe that the COURT, who originally had this Power, did not part with it at all, but reſerved it to themſelves] ſince the Court mention not in the Charter who ſhould have this Power or grant it to others. Now that the latter of theſe Suppoſitions is True, appears by what has been ſaid already; and may further appear beyond Contradiction by what follows. For 1. The Former Suppoſition (on which the Objection is grounded) no Way accounts for the Reaſon why this Law ſo expreſly grants the ſmall Power of Removing (as well as chuſing) the inferiour Officers; and yet makes no Grant at all of ſo much greater a Power as that of removing the Superiour. Whence comes it to paſs! that this Law does not leave the leſſer Power of removing College Servants, to be implied of Courſe in the Power of chuſing them; as well as according to this Suppoſition, it does the greater Power of removing Members of the Corporation?—If this Law had not expreſly mentioned who ſhould have the Power of removing Either of theſe Kinds of Officers, the Objection would then have been of ſome Force— Or if the Law had expreſly mentioned who ſhould have the greater Power of removing Members of the Corporation and had ſaid nothing about the leſſer Power of removing College Servants; then it might have been ſuppoſed (what ſeems to be the true Way of arguing in ſuch Caſes) that the Greater Power being granted, the Leſſer was left to be underſtood and ſo implied of courſe. But ſince, unfortunately, for the Objection 'tis quite the contrary. "What poſſible Reaſon can be given [if this Law ſuppoſes of courſe and in the Nature of the Thing, theſe are to 〈◊〉 the POWER of removing who have the Power of making College Officers] that the Law is not as ſilent on the petty Power of removing a College Servant, as it is abſolutely ſilent about the important Power of removing a Preſident or other Members of that Corporation? This is eaſily accounted for, on Suppoſition that the Court reſerved this greater Power entirely to themſelves; but 'tis impoſſible to account for it on Suppoſition that the Court made NO ſuch Reſerve. 2. There is no Connection in the Nature of the Thing between the Power of removing and the Power of putting into Office. So that it cannot be inferred that both theſe Powers are granted only becauſe One of them is ſo. Yea 'tis utterly untrue in Fact that thoſe always have the Power of removing, who have the Power of putting into Office. And of this the Repreſentatives themſelves, belonging to that Honourable Court who made this Law, are a known and publick Inſtance! For by the Choice of their reſpective Towns they are made Repreſentatives; but their reſpective Towns, 'tis well known, have not the Power of removing their Repreſentatives from out of the General Court; But the Houſe, alone, who have not the Power to make Repreſentatives for the Province, have yet the ſole Power to remove them from their Place in the Houſe. So that 'tis not true either Way, that thoſe have the Power of removing, who have the ſole Power of putting into Place or Truſt; nor thoſe the Power of putting into Place, who have the ſole Power of removing a Perſon from Place or Truſt—and that from one of the moſt Honourable PLACES and Truſts in the Province. Thus it appears, from ſo eminent an Inſtance, that there is no Connection in the Nature of the Thing between theſe two Powers.—In Truth, they are ſometimes granted and conveyed ſeparately and ſometimes in Conjunction, juſt as the ſupreme Power from whom they are communicated thinks fit. Certainly then a General Court who originally had theſe two Powers over a College that was a Creature of their OWN, may grant the One and ſovereignly keep the Other to themſelves without granting it at all. Now an abſolute SILENCE, under ſome Circumſtances, upon One of theſe Powers (when the other is expreſly and formally granted) is every Way equivalent to an Exception; and ſo makes an expreſs Negation of ſuch a Grant to be intirely ſuperfluous. And of this ſort is that Silence in the Charter on the Power of removing Members of the Corporation; for, by what has been obſerved above, it can be accounted for no other Way. But 3. and finally to decide this Matter "On which Side of the Queſtion are ancient Practices upon this Law? Theſe are the beſt Expoſitors of ancient Laws. Now let the Caſe of Preſident Dunſter (p. 5. & 9—12 of this Paper) be read over in View to the Charter on this Point, and it will appear that no Comment ever determined the Meaning of a TEXT better than the Account of this Caſe determines (what the Charter has not expreſly done) by whom the Preſident, Fellows or Treaſurer SHALL be removed! —The JUDGES on this Law (as Viſitors) in his Caſe, were the Legiſlature who made the Law. And who can explain or determine the Senſe of a Law ſo well as the Legiſlature who made it?—particularly if a great Part of that Legiſlature conſiſts of the ſame individual Perſons who framed and paſſed ſuch a Law; which, from the Elections in the Records for the Year 1690 and 〈◊〉 appears in this Caſe to be 〈◊〉 !— The Overſeers and Corporation alſo to whom the Charter of 50 was granted, conſiſted by a great Majority of the ſame Perſons in 1654 when Mr. Dunſter was diſmiſſed, as they did in 1650. So that the generality of all Perſons concerned in his Caſe muſt have had a perfect Underſtanding and even perſonal Knowledge of the Powers granted in the Charter; and of the Reaſon of that SILENCE in it, on the Power of removing Members of the Corporation. The Time alſo was ſo near the Time when that Charter was granted, that the very IDEAS of the ſeveral Power put into it, and the Import of the Clauſe that is ſo Silent on the Power of removing Members of that Corporation muſt have been freſh and lively in the Minds of all theſe Perſons who were concerned in his Diſmiſſion. And now with ſuch ſingular Advantages to know and to judge of the Senſe of this Law "How 〈◊〉 the all judge and act upon it in his Caſe? Why ALL alike! —with the ſame Sentiments, the ſame Views of the Charter on this Point.—Thus Mr. Dunſter when he found he muſt reſign, appears to be at no Loſs "To Whom to reſign. And thus the Court, to whom he reſigned, appear to receive his Reſignation as a Matter the Cogniſance of which belonged properly to them; and as what came regularly before them, without coming at all before the Overſeers and Corporation! —And when the Court delegated their Power to the Overſeers as their Committee to manage this Affair and make Return upon it, they do it juſt as they might have appointed any other Perſons to do the ſame Thing for them!— Nor is there the leaſt Appearance that the Overſeers or Mr. Dunſter or the Corporation ever thought that his Diſmiſſion, without Any Act of the Overſeers and Corporation for it, was not altogether according to Charter; nor did ANY of theſe Gentlemen thro' the WHOLE of their long Conferences and mutual Replies (which laſted ſo many Months and gave them all ſo much Occaſion to canvaſs this Point) ever once ſuggeſt that the Power of removing that Preſident was veſted by Charter in the Overſeers and Corporation. Not a Man of them ALL appears to know (what, with the Advantages above deſcribed, they muſt have known! if it had been implied in that Charter at all) that "Thoſe had the Power of removing Members of the Corporation who by Charter had the Power of making them ſuch."—And yet 'tis now pretended by ſome of their late Poſterity (who are of Yeſterday and know nothing) that 'tis ſo clear and obvious a Senſe of the Charter that thoſe ſhould have the Power of removing who have Power of chuſing, that 'tis implied of courſe and in the Nature of the Thing "ridiculous. Such modern Refinements on the Charter which ſome Children of our Forefathers have made long ſince their Day, are of NO Account; while the UNITED Senſe of the original Grantors and Grantees, in the only Inſtance of diſmiſſing a Member of that Corporation, is on the other Side of the Queſtion; and every rational Argument, grounded on the Silence of the Charter, and the Silence of the Appendix to the Charter, is on the ſame Side of the Queſtion alſo. It having been ſhewn that ſuch Silence could no Way be accounted for but by taking it (not as implying of courſs a Grant of ſuch a Power, but the reverſe) as indicating that the Court made no Grant of this Power at all, but reſerved it to themſelves—Nor does it ſeem in the leaſt ſtrange that the Power of ••••• ing Members of that Corporation ſhould be ſeparated from that of chuſing them; or if it did, 'tis nothing to the Queſtion; for as Chief Juſtice Holt obſerves on the Power that Founders of Colleges have in ſuch Caſes, The Queſtion is not, What is reaſonable for the Founder to do, but what be has done on peruſal of the Statute.—His WILL is his REASON in diſpoſing and ordering his OWN. And thus in the preſent Caſe; If it appears (as it plainly does on Peruſal of the Statute!) that the Court as Founder has made a Separation of theſe Powers; the ſovereign WILL of the Legiſlature in diſpoſing its OWN after this Manner, is and OUGHT to be "Reaſon ſufficient" for All beneath them to acquieſce in — ſuppoſing no other Reaſon could be aſſigned; which yet is not the Caſe in the Inſtance before us, for a wiſe and juſt Reaſon 〈◊〉 obvious: — The important Powers of Viſitation were never granted in that Charter; Now the Power of removing Members from out of that Corporation is of as great Importance as moſt Powers of Viſitation are, and is of much greater than that of electing Members into it. So that theſe two Powers might with very good Reaſon be ſeparated; and the Greater be reſerved (on the ſame wiſe Reaſon that ALL Powers of Viſitation were reſerved) while the loſſer was granted. For as to electing ſuch Members; No Perſon among a fit Number of Candidates has an antecedent Right to be choſen, and ſo is not legally injured if paſſed by; Nor can he claim an Appeal, if not choſen; Nor does it really imply that he is criminal in the Eyes of the Electors. But 'its quite otherwiſe when a Perſon already in a Corporation is turned out of it. This muſt be for Crimes; and high Crimes; the World will ſo take it; and his Credit as to any future Truſt or Place, and even in the common Employments of Life for Subſiſtence, may ſuffer on this Account. The preſent Preſident (his own Conſcience being Witneſs!) Would look on it as more ignominious to be turned out of his Place in that Corporation, than never to have been choſen into it at all, but have continued on his Miniſtry in the Church of which he was teaching Elder, Now it has often happened in Colleges abroad (and been as often lamented by the beſt Friends to ſuch Societies when it has happened) that ſome Preſidents and Heads of Colleges have been Set and Bent on aggrandizing themſelves and enlarging their own Power by all Manner of Ways and Means. In one Word, "The Conſtitution which gives them No negative, and on which therefore they are but PRIMI inter PARES is what they cannot bear! Nothing ſhort of BASHAW. Government will content them. And with a few leading Members gained over to their Side, and ſome others intimidated, they can compaſs their Ends and Tyrannize over the Reſt of their EQUALS who only ſtand up for the Rights of their own Place and the Priviledges of ſuch Societies againſt the ambitio •• Heads and Preſidents of this Sort, who will never leave till they have made ſuch troubleſome Equals fall Victims to theſe TURKISH Politicks. Now ſince in this Court, which incorporated Harvard-College, there were many worthy and learned Gentlemen, who had been educated in Colleges abroad, they muſt have ſeen ENOUGH of this Miſchief! To excite their Care to guard againſt it in a College they were then founding in this Land; and therefore they might judge the moſt effectual Way to prevent it, was to put NO ſuch Power into the Charter, as That of amoving Members of that Corporation, which 'twas the Intereſt, and ſo often the Inclination of Heads and leading Members of ſuch Corporations to Abuſe. And thus the Court in their Wiſdom might think fit to reſerve this important Power among thoſe Powers of VISITATION which were never granted in that Charter at all; and among which, according to chief Juſtice Holt, the FOUNDERS of Colleges can reſerve juſt what particular Powers they pleaſe. This leads in the laſt Place to conſider who are the VISITORS of Harvard College, and therefore to ſay—

IV. THE GREAT and GENERAL COURT who founded Harvard College, and appointed No Viſitors to it, when they finally incorporated the ſame, are the Sole local VISITORS of that College.

Colleges muſt have Viſitors! "Every College, ſays Holt on Colleges, hath a VISITOR either by to Appointment of the Founder, or the Law" ſo that if the Founder appoints no Viſitor himſelf, the Law will do it for him. To imagine therefore that Harvard College has no Viſitor is not only a vain Fancy but a dangerous Deluſion!—If that Society has none, the Concluſion is ſhort "Harvard College is NO Corporation in Law" And Then what will become of all their STOCK. 'Tis, on this Suppoſition, gone for ever out of the Hands of thoſe SEVEN that paſs by the idle Name of Preſident and Fellows of Harvard College."—The very FERRYMEN will deſpiſe them! And thoſe muſt be weaker than FERRYMEN who give any further Donations to an unincorporated Number of Men that can receive none, or Let them to Uſe, or ſue for them in again, by any NAME that they dare publickly own and can maintain in Law. But if that College is a Corporation, the Concluſion is as ſhort the other Way, that "VISITORS there are and muſt be Somewhere", and Theſe can call the whole Body of them to Account and make the loftieſt Head of that College to TREMBLE if they find him ſpoiling his LORD's Goods or ſmiting his Brethren with the FIST of Wickedneſs. The Power of VISITORS does not depend on any accidental or local Cuſtoms or Laws. It depends not even on the Appointment of the Founder himſelf! But has a neceſſary Exiſtence; and his Heirs will have it after him, if he appoints no VISTOR to a College or his own rounding. Now the Court alone founded Harvard College, and appointed no Viſitor to it. So None but the Court could be the Viſitors; and therefore, as Heir, none but the Legiſtature is or can be the local VISITORS of this College.

Here let the Proof of this 4th Article and the general Aſſertions under it be made out. The greater Part ſhall be taken from what Dr. Ayliff (i. e. L. L. D.) has written in his Account of the Univerſity of OXFORD," in which this Doctor of LAWS has treated at large on the Power of Viſitors as warranted by Cuſtom, Law, and common Right. Here then 1. It muſt be ſaid that Harvard College is a LAY Corporation. A College, ſays the Dr. Vol. 2. Pag. 52, is an eccleſiaſtical Corporation, by Cannon Law, if the Number of Clerks exceed or equal that of Laymen: If not; 'Tis confeſſed to be a LAY Corporation. Now in the Charter of 50, which is the ſole Foundation of Harvard College as a Corporation, there is no Proviſion made for any Clerks at all! And ſo 'tis accidental to that Foundation, whether thoſe who are upon it be Clerks or Lawyers or Phyſicians. Yea as to the Fact, viz. What Function the firſt SEVEN on that Foundation happened to be of, it appears there were ſix Laymen to one Clerk. Yet further, if the Overſeers were here conſidered (as being on the Foundation though not incorporated upon it) it appears that the Honourable were twenty, and the Reverend not more than ten, when firſt ſet on the Foundation of 50. And thus if the ſaid Corporation are taken ſingly, or together with the Overſeers, and this in View either to Fact or Right, it appears that more Laymen were on the Foundation than Clerks. So that according to Dr. Ayl ••• It muſt be confeſſed that Harvard College is a LAY Corporation. 'Tis evident alſo from the expreſs Deſign of the Inſtitution that the ſaid Corporation is not accleſiaſtical. All the Paſſages in the Char • er relating to its Deſign are theſe, "For the Advancement of all good Literature Arts and Sciences." This is plainly an Inſtitution at large. Again "For the Education of Youth in Knowledge and Godlineſs." Now Godlineſs does not diſtinguiſh a Clerk from a Layman any more than Knowledge does. Laſtly For the Advancement and Education of Youth in all Manner of good Literature Arts and Sciences, This Deſign is as unappropriated as can be; 'Tis common and indifferent to all; and not as we are told in ELECTION Sermons that the great and peculiar Deſign of our pious Anceſtours in founding this College was that it might be a NURSERY for the Goſpel-Miniſtry among us, and to ſupply our Churches with Paſtors and Teachers nothing of this is written by our pious Anceſtors in the Charter; and 'tis directly againſt the very TEXT of the Charter itſelf; and ſo it muſt paſs for Oral Tradition. And thus this College taken in all Views is not an eccleſiaſtical Corporation: If it had been ſo, the Right of Viſitation (according to Ayliff Pag. 7. And Holt on Colleges) would have devolved to the CHURCH as Heir; but now we muſt look elſewhere for this Right. And therefore 2. It muſt be determined who were the Founders of this College. Now Ayliff Page 6. ſays He is the Founder of a College who Firſt erects and endowes it and not He who incorporates it. In this Senſe of Founding (as diſtinguiſhed from the incorporating ACT by which alone a College is founded as a Body politick) the Dr. goes on and ſays, If the King and a common Perſon at the ſame Time gives Lands &c. to a College on its Foundation [viz. o • it • being FIRST erected and endowed] The King is ſaid to be the Founder by Reaſon of his Eminence; But if a common Perſon founds a College WITH Poſſeſſions of ſmall Value, and the King afterwards endowes it with greater, yet the common Perſon ſhall be taken to be the Founder and not the King. Hence "th • n by a Parity of Reaſon; In the firſt Caſe, ſuppoſing any common Perſons had been as early in erecting and endowing that College as the Court was, yet the Court alone (by Reaſon of its Eminence) would have been the Founder; and theſe common Perſons could by no Means be ſtiled Co-Founders with the Court! But in the latter Caſe (a fortiori) the Court is the ſole Founder: For if a common Perſon, on being the Firſt in erecting and endowing that College, would have held the Name of Founder againſt the Court itſelf; certainly then the Court, who really were the FIRST, will hold the Name of Founder againſt all common Perſons; let theſe afterwards give ever ſo much to it. Now that the Court were Firſt in erecting and endowing it, appears from the Province and College Records compared Page 4. 5, of this Paper. The Court firſt began the FUND for erecting and endowing this College in 1636. But what all private Perſons gave to is was afterwards; and in particular what Mr. Harvard gave to it was by WILL in 1638. Hence then Mr. Harvard and all other private Donours were Benefactors to this College: but the COURT alone 〈◊〉 Founders This brings 〈◊〉 directly to the P ••• ters of ſaid College. For 3. The Founder and his Heirs MUST be the Viſitors of a College, that is a lay Corporation, if he appoints no Viſitor to it himself.—Though Corporations for publick Governmennt as Cities, Towns, &c. have no Visitors, yet chief Juſtice Holt affirms of private Societies founded on the Score of Charity (as he ſays all Colleges are) that Where there is a Corporation, as a College or Hoſpital, there muſt 〈◊〉 Viſitors (Tit, Viſitors) A College cannot BE without a Viſitor, ſays Ayliff. Page 74. It is not at the Pleaſure of the Founder whether there ſhall be a Viſitor or not. Page 76." A Viſitor ſays Holt, is of Neceſſity by Law!—This Power was not introduced by Canons or Conſtitutions eccleſiſtical; but is an Appointment i • Law; it ariſes from the Property which the Founder had in the Lands given &c. and as HE is the Author of the Charity, the Law gives HIM and his HEIRS a viſitatorial Power (Tit. Viſitors) Thus this Right has a neceſſary Exiſtence. 'Tis originally in the Founder and Will deſcend to his Heirs if he appoint No Viſitor himſelf. Herein Dr. Ayliff and a greater than the Dr, are expreſs. If there be no particular Viſitor appointed by the Founder's Statutes, the Law appoints the Founder and his Heirs to be Viſitors. Thus Ayliff Page 76. In a Word, "The LAW doth in Defect of a particular Appointment, make the Founder Viſitor. If HE is ſilent during his own Time, the Right will deſcend to his HEIRS. Thus Holt on Viſitors. And after him what Need of further Evidence.

And now the only remaining Queſtion is, "Whether the Court who founded Harvard College ever did appoint a Viſitor to it? If not; Then from all theſe Authorities, this Right will deſcend to every ſucceeding Aſſembly as Heir. And that College cannot BE without the Court as Viſitors" yea GREAT and GENERAL as the COURT is, yet in all Humility let it be ſaid that it is not at the Pleaſure of that Court whether they ſhall be Viſitors or not—for in this Caſe the Court is Viſitor of Neceſſity by Law. But that the Court never appointed any Viſitor, appears from the Laws of 42 and 50 which are the only Laws in which 'twas ever pretended that Viſitors were appointed. The Name Viſitor or the Terms Viſitation, Viſitatorial &c. do not once occur in theſe Laws. Now Ayliff (Page 74. 5) makes it ſo neceſſary for "a Viſitor to be appointed and named ſuch by the Founder in expreſs Terms" that he even labours to prove that by the Deſcription of ſuch a Power given to any Perſons they are created Viſitors, whether expreſly ſtiled ſuch in the Founder's Statutes or not. Becauſe otherwiſe, ſays he, the giving ſuch a Power would be vain and the Clauſe uſeleſs ſince none therefore are ſtiled or appointed Viſitors by Name in theſe Laws, let the Powers granted in them be conſidered and compared with that of Viſitation as deſcribed by Ayliff and chief Juſtice Holt. To begin then with the Law of 42 which appointed Overſeers to Harvard College before it was incorporated. And here 1. Viſitors are not the ſtated Legiſlative or executive Power of a College; but are appointed by the Founder to ſee that thoſe, who are ſuch, do their Duty. But by the Law of 42, before there was a Corporation, the Overſeers themſelves were the only ſtated and ordinary Power to make Laws and Orders for the College. By this then they are not deſcribed as having a Power of Viſitation, nor would the Power given them to make Laws and Orders be vain and the Clauſe uſeleſs though they were not Viſitors—Unleſs that College was • o be governed without any Laws and Orders at all! 2. Viſitors are Independet and Sovereign in all Caſes where they are Viſitors at all. Thus on Appeals they are the dernier Reſort, Who ſhall judge them? —Let their Sentence be right or wrong, the Party is concluded by it ſays Holt on Viſitors. But by the Law of 42 the Overſeers in all Caſes of Appeals whatever, made from a Meeting of their Number that was not General to a General Meeting of their whole Number, could conclude Nothing againſt an Apellant! For if they did not reverſe former Judgment, the Party was ſo far from being concluded by i • , that the Overſeers themſelves were to ſtand accountable to the General Court for it; But a ſtanding Power over VISITORS to call them to Account for their Conduct, and that in the moſt ordinary Caſes that could come before them, is ſuch a Paradox as was never heard of in the World! Appeals lie from our inferior Courts to the Superior; but even Inferior Courts ſtand not accountable to the Superior for their Acts. 'Tis therefore doubly abſurd and impoſſible that the Overſeers ſhould be Viſitors on this Law. But 3. The great Buſineſs of a Viſitor, and the main End of his Power, is to ſee that the Charity of the Founder is not perverted ſays Ayliff Page 77. To prevent all perverting the Charity there is by Law a viſitatorial Power ſays Holt on Viſitors. But by the Law of 42 the Overſeers were the very Perſons who were betru • ted with the College-Stock and all Donations to it; ſo that 'till it can be ſhewn that this Law appoints them "on their perverting the Charity" to viſit themſelves, to ſet in Judgment upon themſelves for ſo doing, 'tis to No Purpoſe to 〈◊〉 them this Law appoints them Viſi •• 〈◊〉 4. All Power given the Overſeers in the Law of 42 (whether reſpecting the College-Stock or the making Statutes Orders or Conſtitutions for the College) was abrogated a few Years after, by the Charter of 50; as has been demonſtrated (Page 16, 17. of this Paper) both from the Nature of an incorporating Act, end from the expreſs Declaration of the General Court that the FIRST Foundation of that College and the Government thereof had its ORIGINAL from the Act of 50. So then from the Year 1650 the Overſeers were ſo far from being Viſitors by the Act of 42, that on that Act they could neither be Viſitors or Viſited on ANY Foundation at all! But 5. ſuppoſing the Charter of 50 did not wholly ſuperſede the Act of 42; yet the Argument Ex Abundanti, Page 19. 〈◊〉 ſeq. of this Paper, may be urged as ſtrongly againſt a Power of Viſitation in the Overſeers, as it may againſt any other Power of Importance granted to them in this Act; For the Charter of 50 comes after this Act, and leaves NO Powers of Importance in it: but veſts them in the General Aſſembly of all the Overſeers and Society! —And now what a VAIN Attempt would it be in any Perſons to ſtruggle through ſuch a SERIES of Impoſſibilities in order to ſettle a Power of Viſitation on ſuch a Law? And yet there is another Difficulty behind, that would make the Attempt (if poſſible) ſtill more vain: And that is, that in common Law, "Viſitors preſ • ppoſe "a Corporation! The Power of Viſitation exiſts conſequent on and not prior to the Act that incorpora ••• a College. Hear the following Authorities on this Point. The very Definition of a Viſitor in the common Law-Dictionaries (as in Jacob's) is "an Inſpector of the Government of a Corporation." But where was there a Corporation in 1642 for the Overſeers to Inſpect? Or where, in the Law of 42, is there a Syllable that ſtands in View to any Future Corporation, for the Overſeers or for Any one elſe to in • pect? None at all. The Overſeers then by that Law were not Viſitors even in Habitu • ut P • tenti • any more than in Act. And thus the laſt Shift, that would betake itſelf to the very Ja • gon of the School • en for a Support, i • in this Caſe precluded. From what Dr. Ayliff ſays alſo (Page 77.) 'Tis as plain as Words can make it, that Viſitors preſuppoſe a Corporation actually exiſting Where thoſe, ſays he, who are to receive the Charity of the Founder [as the Overſeers did in 42] are NOT incorporated 〈◊〉 but Truſtees are appointed, there is then NO viſitatorial Power; Becauſe the Intereſt of 〈◊〉 Re •••• is not veſted in them. But when they are incorporated then, to prevent all perverting the 〈◊〉 , the Law eſtabliſhes a viſitatorial Power. This was exactly the Caſe of Harvard College 〈◊〉 the Charity of its Founder. For by the Law of 42 the Overſeers were only to diſ •••• ••• er and manage to the Uſe and Behoof of the College and its Members [and not to their • own • s Overſeers] all Gift, Legacies &c made TO the ſaid College. Thus by this Act they were 〈◊〉 Truſtees of the Charity. But how different is the Stile of the incorporating Act of 50 The ••••• dent and Fellows by that Name ſhall and may purc •• ſe •• d acquire to THEMSELVES [here is 〈◊〉 Property] or receive upon free Gift and Donation any Lands.—And Goods and Sums of Money— 〈◊〉 to the Uſe and Behoof of ſaid Preſ ••••• and Fellows [as well as] Scholars of ſaid College. Here is Property apain; and the Intereſt of the Revenue, in all Senſes of the Phraſe is here and elſewhere by 〈◊〉 veſted in them as a Corporation. So then before the incorporating Act of 50 there was NO viſitatorial Power over Harvard College, becauſe the Intereſt of the Revenue was not veſted in a Corporation. The Doctor repeats this over again page 87. Adn ſays abſolutely (without Reſpect to Truſtees) that where 〈◊〉 Perſons are NOT incorporated there is NO viſitatorial Power, Becauſe the Intereſt of the Revenue •• • ot veſted in them. And all this is confirmed by Chief Juſtice Holt who (Tit. Viſitors) aſſerts in ſuch a Caſe where none are incorporated There is NO viſitatorial Power Becauſe the Intereſt of the Revenue is not veſted in them. But where they are incorporated there to prevent all perverting the Charity there is by Law a viſitatorial Power. This Power then has no BEING 'till a College is incorporated; and therefore could NOT BE in the Law of 42 which was made eight Years before the incorporating Harvard College. Adn thus ſo great an Authority as HOLT has decided the Caſe for ever againſt the Teaching Elders as being NO Viſitors upon that Act. FINIS to the Law of 42.

Paſs We n • w to the incorporating Act of 50. But this Act alſo deſcribes no Power of Viſitation. And particularly it does not deſcribe the Overſeers as the Viſitors. All the Power given them in this Law is a Power to Councel the Corporation of act, or to Conſent to their Acts: Which is a Power that cannot act at all but only councel Others to act (at whoſe Pleaſure it ſtill lies whether they will take ſuch Councel—) or elſe at fartheſt 'tis a Power that cannot act without the Corporation and ſo can effect nothing of itſelf. This is ſo f • r from being a Deſcription of a Power of Viſitation, which is independent and SOVEREIGN, that 'tis directly the Deſcription of a Power that is not ſuch. 'Tis a Power alſo that is ordinary and relates only to the conſenting to and ſo compleating the Laws and Orders made by the Corporation. But 'tis the Right and proper Office of a Viſitor when College Laws and Orders, that have been made and compleated, are found hurtful to the Society or its Members, Then to interpoſe and RESCIND them BY and OF HIMSELF. Now there is not a Syllable in the Charter that gives the Overſeers a Power thus to interpoſe and Reſcind One ſuch College Law or Order—let it be found ever ſo hurtful. "They then are NOT the VISITORS of Harvard College by Charter" Q. E. D.— Hence then the Overſeers of that College, Honourable and Reverend as they are on OTHER Accounts, yet it muſt be ſaid that they are NOT to be Honoured or Revered as VISITORS. Nor Can they have a Right to turn out Members of that Corporation! An Attempt to do ſuch an Act, as appears from all the Premiſes, would be in Effect (though far from ſuch Intention) as Attempt to null the Charter— to diſſolve the Corporation—to bring on a univerſal Diſſipation of its Treaſury—and thereon Mr. HOLLIS' Donations is particular muſt on the very Conditions on which they were received, be returned back to England again! This requires the ſerious Conſideration of ALL Perſons who have any Concern for that College.—But to go on. If any a • e deſcribed as Viſitors, in the Charter, 'Tis the general Aſſembly of All the OVERSEERS and SOCIETY in great and difficult Caſes, and in Caſes of Non-Agreement, in all which Caſes the Concluſion ſhall be made BY the Major Part [of the Corporation] the Overſeers conſenting thereunto. But this alſo is no Deſcription of a Power of Viſitation in them; for great and difficult Caſes and Caſes of Non-Agreement may happen to the ſtated Legiſlative and executive Power of a College, in making and executing Laws, as truly as to Viſitors. This Clauſe then deſcribes nothing peculiar to a Viſitor, but only what is common to a Viſitor and to others that are not ſuch; and ſo contains no Deſcription of a Power of Viſitation at all. The plain Senſe of the Clauſe is only this: that the ſtated Legiſlative and executive Power of that College, who by Charter are the Overſeers and Corporation, are not to determine ſuch important Caſes (and 'tis fitting they ſhould not!) as they may do ſmall and common Caſes at a Meeting that is not General, but are to do it at a full and general Meeting of All their Number. This alters not the Capacity in which they are to act in full and general Meeting on ſuch Caſes; but leaves them ſtill, what they were before, the Legiſlative and executive Power only. If it had altered their Capacity, ſo as to make them Viſitors—What Abſurdities would follow! For ever WHOM would it make them Viſitors? Why over the whole ſtated Legiſlative and Executive Power of the College (for ſo are ALL Viſitors of Colleges!) And thus the WHOLE Legiſlative and executive Power of that College would be Viſitors of the WHOLE Legiſlative and Executive Power of that College—Wholly Viſitors and Wholly to be viſited by themſelves. And ſo their WHOLE Number to ſet upon and give Sentence for (or againſt) their WHOLE Number. Such Abſurdities are too groſs to need any Refutation. Let One Conſequence of ſo abſurd an Interpretation of the Charter be mentioned: The only Ground on which Ayliff (and even Holt!) argues that a Power of Viſitation will exiſt of Neceſſity by Law, is, that they Charity might not be perverted by the incorporated, who have it in their Hands. Now ſuppoſe (what the very End of a viſitatorial Power obliges us to ſuppoſe may happen) that ſo great and difficult a Caſe Should happen, as that the Corporation ſhould embezzle the College-Stock or pervert if from its devoted Uſes;—How could this Miſchief be prevented! Or how would it be poſſible to call the Corporation to an Account for it! When in this very Caſe and by this very Clauſe of the Charter (if the Corporation with the Overſeers were Viſitors) the Concluſion muſt be made by the Corporation itſelf; and hereon the more they embezzled the College-Stock (and ſo the more they needed to be viſited!) the leſs likely they would be to make the Concluſion that they ſhould be viſited for it—or with the Overſeers to ſit in Judgment upon themſelves for ſo doing—unleſs it were for this fatal Purpoſs, viz. To vote themſelves innocent, and ſo come off Triumphant! For what could be done in ſuch a Caſe? None of theſe Viſitors could, BY Charter, make the Concluſion (for the Overſeers to conſent to) but the Corporation. So that if they ſhould be hardy enough to make ſuch a Concluſion (and ſtand by it!) They could go on to make Waſte of the College-Stock, and defy the whole Number of the Honourable and Reverend Overſeers to do their Worſt. Thus the very End for which the Law appoints a Power of Viſitation would be deſtroyed, if this Clauſe in the Charter was to be taken as deſcribing ſuch a Power given to the Corporation and Overſeers. 'Tis Time then to give up this Senſe of the Clauſe and with it ALL Thoughts of finding a Power of Viſitation deſcribed in the Charter: since this, which comes neareſt to the Deſcription of ſuch a Power, is not and cannot be a Deſcription of it.

And thus it appears, after a thorough Examination, that there is NO Law in which the Founder of this College conveyed this Right of viſiting the ſame, away to others. And then this Right (which MUST exiſt ſomewhere!) Can exiſt in None but the Founder and his Heirs; That is, according to chief Juſtice Holt, the COURT in this Caſe is Viſitor of NECESSITY by Law! —Thus it is in all Colleges in England, when the Founder appoints no Viſitor. Two Inſtances of this, in Ayliff, are remarkable. The one is Lincoln College The Biſhop of Lincoln, ſays Ayliff, is Viſitor of this College, only of common Right; and not by any particular Appointment of the Founder. 'Twas founded by R. Fleming Biſhop of Lincoln before the Reformation; who could have no Heir by Deſcent, in thoſe Times of enjoined Celibacy; Nor did he veſt this Right in another.—Yet it died not with him—nor devolved to the Crown—Nor to the Church in common—Nor to the Univerſity—But becauſe the Founder lived and died "Biſhop of Lincoln" This Right deſcended to his Succeſſors in that Sec. Such a neceſſary Exiſtence has this Right (independent on the Appointment of the Founder) and ſo inſeparable is it from HEIRSHIP that, unleſs the Founder make the Separation by his own Act, if there be no other Heir but a ſpiritual Heir, it falls to him of common Right. Another Inſtance is Chriſt Church College, one of the moſt famous in the Univerſity of Oxford, founded by King Henry 8th after the Impeachment of Cardinal Woolſey who began it. This College, ſays Ayliff, is viſited only by the King and Queen in Perſon or by their Commiſſion. King Henry 8th on his new Inſtitution thereof having left or appointed No ſpecial Viſitor by Any Statute; The CROWN as Heir in VISITOR; which ſome have deemed a Happineſs. In a like Caſe therefore on the NEW Inſtitution of Harvard College by the Charter of 50 (after Overſeers were appointed in 42) The COURT having loſe or appointed No ſpecial Viſitor by any Statute, the Legiſlature as Heir is VISITOR; which Some (and 'tis to be hoped that ALL the teaching Elders who are Overſeers) have deemed a HAPPINESS.— And as to the Corporation of that College, what is left for the to do but to own and recognize the Right of their FOUNDER over them! Of the Founder, that Annual Benefactor, that Viſitor, whom they have often treated with an Indignity that nothing could exceed but the Goodneſs and Patience even to Longſuffering with which the Court have forborn to reſent it in the ſevereſt Manner. What open Diſreſpect, for Inſtance, has been ſhown them by that Corporation at the publick Solemnity of a Commencement. The Court when ſitting ('tis true) have been invited to it; But when they came to the Place, ALL their Members but the Honourable Overſeers have been left at Noon-Day to wander about the Yard and Entries of that College, and been obliged to get a common Dinner where they could Find one (or return Home faſting!) While an ample Entertainment has been going on for Other Gueſts WITHIN. Theſe publick Affronts offered them by that Corporation, the Writer of this Paper has ſeen with his own Eyes and has bluſhed to ſee what he could not help; at the ſame Time that he has trembled at what might follow on their thus treating the LEGISLATURE! — A Legiſlature who gave them their BEING at firſt; and by whoſe Bounty annually continued to them, they have Subſiſted ever Since!

And now "who are the VISITORS of Harvard College" may appear to all Perſons who may have juſt and important Occaſion to apply to them. Nor can the Writer of this Paper think it foreign to the Subject, or unuſeful to Harvard-College (or to any Perſons concerned with it) to mention the peculiar Buſineſs of a Viſitor, and their Method of Procedure in Colleges abroad. A Viſitor, ſays Ayliff, Page 95, in all his Enquiries and Determinations ought to proceed according to the meer Law and Rights of Nations, where Matters of neceſſary Subſtance and not poſitive Form are obſerved. Thus on Complaints made to Viſitors There ought to be ſome Matter of Accuſation in Writing given to the Party accuſed, and a convenient Time aſſigned him for Anſwer, &c. and ſo of other Matters to which we have a common and natural Right, not to be deſtroyed by any local or more general Ordinance or Statute whatever. Thus Ayliff on the Method of their Procedure. As to the peculiar Office of a Viſitor, it primarily reſpects "the Revenues, the Poſſeſſions, the WHOLE Eſtate of a College! The inſpecting whereof is ſo eſſential a Part of this Office, that Ayliff and even chief Juſtice Holt often repeats it as the grand Reaſon why the Law appoints a Viſitor at all, "It is not FITTING fays Ayliff, that Members endowed and who have Charity beſtowed upon them ſhould be Left to themſelves." To apply this to the Corporation of Harvard College; the State of whoſe Treaſury has-been kept in ſuch myſterious Secrecy as if they had No Maſters! As if None but themſelves had any Buſineſs with their Treaſury, or a Right even ſo much as to know what it conſiſted of—The Writer of this Paper has been for 10 or 12 Years a Member of that Corporation, and he cannot find by their Records that there has been a formal Viſitation of their Treaſury ever ſince the Times of the Revolution! By what he has heard, the Viſitors of Colleges in England have a Regiſter of the whole Eſtate of their reſpective Colleges; and all the Additions thereto from Time to Time, are entered into ſuch Regiſters accordingly. And indeed how would it be poſſible for a Viſitor to know whether the Charity was perverted or not (which is the primary End for which the Law appoints a Viſitor) if the himſelf knew not what the Charity was, nor the particular Uſes and Ends for which it was beſtowed 'Tis his Right to demand, and the indiſpenſible Duty of a Corporation to give in ſuch an Account; if they ſhould refuſe it, they would be guilty of the moſt audacious Contumacy and be proceeded againſt as REBELS to their VISITOR accordingly.—Whether and how far the Corporation of Harvard College have exhibited in to their Viſitor ſuch Accounts of their WHOLE Eſtate! What Lands and Tenements, and what Monies and Goods it conſiſts of; with the Value, the Income, and the ſeveral Uſes of the particulars, the Writer of this Paper knows not—He never was privy to any ſuch Thing— Nor of late Years is it extant as he can find upon their Records.—But on ONE Account 'tis of the laſt Importance that the Whole Eſtate of that College ſhould be known. And that is, leaft by the continual Additions made thereto, it ſhould at Length exceed the Value of 500 l. per Annum, which is the Limit ſet to it by Charter, and ſo the Charter itſelf be Forfeit! [The Charter puts it on the Value and not the actual Income of 500 l. per Annum. The Rule then is "What by common Eſtimate the Value is, and not what the Corporation think fit to rent their Eſtate at"—And indeed they have ſometimes rented that for 5 l. which without being better'd by Improvement they have the very next Year rented at 25 or 30 l. per Annum] Now how near already they have, by acquiring purchaſing or receiving upon free Gift or Donation, opproached to the Limit of 500 l. per Annum (as Money paſſed in 1650) is highly needful to be aſcertained. The Library itſelf is worth 8 or 10000 l. The Lands and Tenements in Cambridge and the adjoining Towns may be valued at more than 200. l. per Annum —Beſides the three Buildings called Colleges, and the Preſident's Houſe, which have all been acquired 〈◊〉 received on Donation long ſince the Charter of 50 was granted: If to theſe were added the Lands on which they ſtand. And the In •••• of Charl •• T •••• •••• Y—And one Half of the Townſhip of Hopkintown—And Merriconeag—And the many other Lands and Tenements belonging to that College—with the Holliſian Donations of 300 l. or more per Annum —And the rich Apparatus—And all the INDIAN MONEY—And the Gifts of an honourable Family in Salem —And other numerous Donations formerly made—And that are continually making (three Gentlemen of Boſton have lately by Will given more than 1000 l. and a Chappel is now given)—ALL theſe, or What of theſe can properly be valued at ſome Rate per Annum, may perhaps on Due Eſtimate be found to come very near the NE Plus Ultra fixed by Charter! And 'tis the proper Right and Office of their Viſitor, by a frequent Inſpection of the STATE of the COLLEGE-STOCK, to ſee that by the continual Additions made thereto, it does exceed that Limit—Leaſt the Charter ſhould be Forfeit.

Another ſpecial Part of a Viſitor's Office is "to receive Appeals and redreſs Grievances." Viz. when the Caſes are important." A Viſitor, ſays Ayliff, is bound in Duty and Conſcience to receive an Appeal provided it be not frivolous He has a ſtanding Authority, ſays Holt on Viſitors, at all Times to hear Complaints and redreſs Grievances—He has a POWER to hear [and therefore when he judges it needful he may hear] Any Difference and redreſs Any particular Injury at Any Time. And now to make the Application of this to Harvard College—A Place where Grievances and Injuries do ſo much abound. Exp • lſions and even final Degradations, in many Caſes, are Grievances, and great Grievances. The beſt Gentlemen's Sons in the Country are liable to be expelled and ſo to be RUINED unleſs they can have Redreſs by appealing to a Viſitor. And this Remedy cannot be denied them! They have as much a Right to it as Viſitors have to BE Viſitors. — As to final Degradations; There is one peculiar Sort of it which is for no Crime at all. And that is the fixing Gentlemen's Sons (by a perpetual Degradation!) below their juſt Place in College Claſſes and then ſpreading it about the Country in printed Catalogues. Of this there often have been Complaints, and LOUD and JUST Complaints! The Writer of this Paper (who in Times paſt has been concerned in placing many a College Claſs) was ſo weary of the Injuries done to particular Perſons herein, that he at Length freely and publickly told the Preſident and Fellows that he could not in Conſcience have any Thing to do with ſuch Matters as they had been managed; it appearing to him that there was no RULE by which a Claſs could be placed, but what (on ſome View or other) was acted backward and forward upon, almoſt every Year—And ſometimes in placing one and the ſame Claſs; And that if they inſiſted on his acting with them in this Affair, he muſt inſiſt upon it to enter his Proteſt with Reaſons and numerous Examples that he could produce; and would refe • the whole Matter to the Overſeers and Corporation. On which his Brethren in the Government of the College choſe not to inſiſt on his acting with them in this Article; and from that Time forward went on without him.—And indeed the Matter is flagrant. There is ſcarce a Family of Note in the Country but what have had Injuſtice done them on this Account. 'Tis but their looking over the printed Catalogues and they may find where the Names of their abuſed Parents or abuſed Selves or abuſed Son • or Relatives ſtand for a publick and laſting Mark of Infamy on their Families. Even the Sons of Governours! And Sons of Councellours! After the Parents have been raiſed to theſe High Stations, are found placed beneath the Sons of thoſe who were only teaching Elders. And the •• are Gentlement (if it were decent to mention Names) that now have the Honour of ſitting in the General Court who know this to be true. Some could ſay, for Inſtance, how their Claſs-Mate Mr. Solomon Otis was treated on this Account. With what Face can any Perſon vindicate ſo ſcandalous an Act as that of placing him below ſo many Sons of teaching Elders, and of others, in a publick printed Catalogue to be ſpread over the whole Land! 'Tis ſurprizing that ſuch Numbers of Gentlemen in the Country, who have ſuffered theſe Indignities, can paſſively bear them without ſeeking Redreſs;—Or at leaſt not enquire "Whether the Acts of the Preſident and Fellows are Final in this Caſe? If theſe • entlemen will patiently bear ſuch ignominious Treatment—The Writer of this Paper had almoſt 〈◊〉 "They WELL deſerve to be thus treated." The Remedy is plain; The Preſident and Fellow have not the full Power of placing ſuch Claſſes. They of late Years have aſſumed it without Law and againſt Charter.—Perhaps the Practice was firſt ſettled on ſome of thoſe temporary Charters, made ſince the Revolution, on which a new Courſe of Things obtained in that College (and among other Things) DEGREES were then given without the Conſent of Overſeers, as well as Claſſes placed without ſuch Conſent.) But all theſe temporary Charters are long ſince extinct! And the Charter of 50 alone remains for the Governours of ſaid College to act upon. And therefore there muſt be ſome Ground, ſome Foundation, in the Charter of 50, for Such a Power; unleſs it be Ex Toto arbitrary and illegal, and then 'tis high Time it ſhould be demoliſhed. But the only Clauſe in the Charter of 50, that can be the Ground of this Power, is that which enables the Preſident & Fellows "to make By-Laws and Orders, provided the ſaid Orders be allowed by the Overſeers" So that if there had been a By-Law approved by the Overſeers that "The placing the Youth in their Claſſes, and in publick Catalogues, ſhould be left with the Corporation (or Preſident and Tutors—or Preſident Profeſſours and Tators, as Expulſions are) then their Doing this would have been Valid. But ſince there is no ſuch By-Law 〈◊〉 •• der, it neceſſarily follows from the Charter that the ORDERING the Places (or Precedency) 〈…〉 •••• 's Sons in a Claſs and publick Catalogue muſt, in every Act of it, receive the Conſent of 〈…〉 •••• s—as truly as every Act of giving the Youth their Degrees muſt receive ſuch Conſent." So 〈…〉 the LIST that contains the Order of their Names be preſented to the Overſeers, at ſome of 〈…〉 • etings, for their Peruſal and Approbation; 'Tis certain that ſuch Claſſes are not legally placed 〈…〉 —But ſtill; Whoever has this Power, yet if at any Time or by any Means there ſhould be a 〈…〉 Abuſe of it in ſome particular Inſtances (—as in the Caſe of Mr. Otis —) ſuch Errata are 〈…〉 to the Correction of the Viſitor; To whom in common Law, there li •• an Appeal which No 〈…〉 NO By-Laws of College can prevent. For "He has a Power to redreſs any particular 〈…〉 (ſays Holt) at any Time."—And is bound in Duty and Conſcience, ſays Ayliff, to receive an 〈…〉 ••• id • d it be not frivolous.

〈…〉 Writer of this Paper has gone through what he propoſed; and preſumes he has ſhown 〈…〉 to the Corporation and the Overſeers of Harvard College as they ſtand in View to 〈…〉 Powers over that College ſtill remain the GENERAL COURT. He has done th • 〈…〉 ought the moſt proper to Convince. Viz. by giving All the Laws that relate to 〈…〉 • hat are of Importance to it, and then the Reader having theſe Laws by him, may turn 〈…〉 judge for himſelf whether the Reaſonings of the Writer upon them are juſt and concluſive. The Writer is not ſenſible that he has concealed the Force of any Arguments that may be advanced in Oppoſition to what he has laid down. He has done his BEST to produce them all; and had given them their due Weight, and perhaps ſometimes too particular a Conſideration. What Errours there may be in his Reaſonings, or what Inaccuracies of Stile, or Improprieties of Phraſe and Expreſſion in his Writing, he leaves to the Judgment and Candour of his Readers. But if he has been guilty of any Artful Evaſions—any fallacious Sophiſtical Arguings on a Subject of ſuch Importances; let theſe be treated without Mercy.—As to any indecent Reflections in this Piece, which might be occaſioned by the Unexampled Treatment he has lately met with, he would only ſay, that 'He has not the Inhumanity to wiſh the moſt malicious of his UNREASONABLE Enemies to change Circumſtances with him, and then be put upon the Trial to write a Piece on this Subject with 〈◊〉 Reflections in it. But with Theſe and all O • her Defects in the Piece itſelf, it may ſtill be of publick Service to Harvard College, whoſe Treaſury! Whoſe Conſtitution! Whoſe very BEING! it ſo nearly concerns. He therefore offers it to the ſerious Peruſal of ALL the true Friends to that Society; and ſubſcribes himſelf