of a member of Parliament.  Three of the judges of the King’s Bench held, that the action could not be maintained, because, among other objections, “it was not any matter of profit, either in presenti, or in futuro.”  It would not enrich the plaintiff in presenti, nor would it in futuro go to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts.  But Lord Holt and the House of Lords were of another opinion.  The judgment of the three judges was reversed, and the doctrine they held, having been exploded for a century, seems now for the first time to be revived.

Individuals have a right to use their own property for purposes of benevolence, either towards the public, or towards other individuals.  They have a right to exercise this benevolence in such lawful manner as they may choose; and when the government has induced and excited it, by contracting to give perpetuity to the stipulated manner of exercising it, it is not law, but violence, to rescind this contract, and seize on the property.  Whether the State will grant these franchises, and under what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself.  But when once granted, the constitution holds them to be sacred, till forfeited for just cause.

That all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the public, belongs therefore to the public, is quite a new doctrine.  It has no precedent, and is supported by no known principle.  Dr. Wheelock might have answered his purposes, in this case, by executing a private deed of trust.  He might have conveyed his property to trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this charter.  Indeed, it appears that he had contemplated the establishing of his school in that manner, and had made his will, and devised the property to the same persons who were afterwards appointed trustees in the charter.  Many literary and other charitable institutions are founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and conferred on other persons, from time to time, as occasion may require.  In such a case, no lawyer would or could say, that the legislature might divest the trustees, constituted by deed or will, seize upon the property, and give it to other persons, for other purposes.  And does the granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the trust in a more convenient manner, make any difference?  Does or can this change the nature of the charity, and turn it into a public political corporation?  Happily, we are not without authority on this point.  It has been considered and adjudged.  Lord Hardwicke says, in so many words, “The charter of the crown cannot make a charity more or less public, but only more permanent than it would otherwise be."[32]