Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/145

 Ch.VIIL] Franchises. — Corporations, 125 acts, it seems the same number may effectually accept a new charter (fl). No particular ceremony is necessary to constitute an acceptance of the charter by the grantees : their non objecting for even a short period of time seems to determine their elec- tion ; and to render the acceptance irrevocable {b). And this is a matter to be tried by a jury (c). It is admitted on all hands, that the charter by which a body is incorporated must be accepted, as it is offered : part of its provisions cannot be rejected, and part accepted ; and a par- tial acceptance is, in such case, an acceptance in toto (d). But there appears to be some doubt whether, if a new charter be given to a corporation already in being, and acting under a former charter, or (which is equivalent thereto) prescriptive usage, such corporation already existing is at liberty to accept the new charter pro tanto only, rejecting the remainder. That they may reject the new charter in toto, is indubitable; because the King cannot take away, abridge, or alter any liberties or privileges granted by him or his predecessors, without the consent of the individuals holding them {e). And in the case of « The King v. The Vice-Chancellor, &c. of Cambridge (/)," Lord Mansfield said, that " an old corporation is not obliged to accept a new charter in toto, and to receive either all or more of it ; and that they may act partly under it and partly imder their old charter or prescription.'* That however was a case in which the question rather was as to the acceptance of one of several unconnected and independent statutes or char- ters to which perhaps there may be no objection. But to hold that a corporation is at liberty to accept parts only of entire and dependent provisions offered them by a charter, would be to permit them, and not the King, to make it. By rejecting part of a consecutive provision, an alteration may be effected in the grant which renders it wholly different from that which the King meant to confer. This distinction seems to hav^ been taken by Mr. J. BuUer, in " The King r;. Amery (^)," in which he observed, " that the averment in the plea before him (a) 1 T. R. 588. (rf) 3 Burr. 1656. {b) 4 Mod. 269. I Salk. 167. 1 Ld. e) See preceding notes, 1 Kyd. 67. ilaym.29, 32. 1 T. R. 587. 3 Ibid. (/) 3 Burr. 1656. 189. (g) 1 Term Rep, 589. (c) Ibid. proceeded