. 01 BUT* 



COLLEGIUM. 



16 



The accidmul introduction of lead into the system often produces 



nurnihlmf those of ordinary colic. (PAnrm's Couc.J 

 I.ISKIM. OR COLOSSEUM. [AMramiEATU.] 

 ( ' >i. i.. \TKltAL8. [CoxAXornnTT.] 

 COLLATIO, or MO8A1CABUM ET ROMANARUM LEGUM 

 ( 1.1. ATlo, or l.KX DEI, is a compilation, probably made in the 0th 

 century of our era. It innrisjU of a comparison between the Law of 

 Moses and the Roman Law, in sixteen titles. Each title has certain 

 legal rule, at the bead from the Law of Moses, headed thus. " Moses 

 ' to which are subjoined, by way of comparison, rules of Roman 

 law taken from the five Roman jurists Papinian, Paulus, Uaius, 

 I'lpian, and Modest inu and from the three compilations which pre- 

 ceded that of Justinian the Oregorianus Codex, Hermogenianus 

 Codex, and Theodoaanus Codex. The value of the CoUatio consists 

 solely in the extract* which it contain* from the source above men- 

 tioned. The last and best edition of the CoUatio is by Blume, in the 

 Bom edition of the 'Corpus Juris Ante-Justinianei,' and in the 

 separate edition of 18)3, if* The first edition is by P. Pithou, 

 Pan*, 1673, 4to. It U also printed in Schulting's ' Jurisprudent!* Veins 

 ante-Justinianea,' Leyden, 1717. 

 COl.l.ATInN. [BEXEFICE.] 



COLLirciirM. -r foXLKXJIl'M, from the word ft>, "tocollect 

 or bring together," literally signifies any association or body of men ; 

 but a technical meaning was attached to it, namely, that of a number 

 of persons joined in some office or employment, or living by common 

 rules. The word Corpus was also used in the same sense (D. SO, 6, 6), 

 and those who were members of a collegium or corpus were hence called 

 corporati. The word Univeraitas was sometimes used as equivalent to 

 Collegium or Corpus, but it had also the more general signification of 

 " community," or " collective body of citizens.'' In the Roman polity 

 collegium signified any association of persons such as the law allowed, 

 requiring confirmation by special enactment or by a senatus consultum, 

 or an imperial constitution, in which case it was called Collegium 

 Legitimum. A collegium necessarily consisted of three persons at 

 least (Dig. 50. tit 16, L 85.) 



In general, any association or collegium, unless it had the sanction 

 of a senatus consultum, or of the emperor, or were established by a 

 lex, was illegal (illicitum) ; and on proof of such illegality, might be 

 dissolved by imperial letters (mandatis), constitutions, and senatus 

 consult*: and when dissolved, the members were allowed to divide the 

 property of the association according to their respective shares. (D. 

 3 pr.) The members of a collegium were called sodales ; the 

 terms and object of their union or association might be any that were 

 not illegal. 



A great variety of collegia (many of them like our companies) 

 existed at Rome and in the empire, as wo see by ancient writings and 

 inscriptions, such as the CoUegia Fabrorum, Pistorum, Pontiticum, 

 Fratrum Arvalium. Virorum Kpulonum, Augurum, Ac. Some of 

 these, such as the college* of Pontifices and Augurs, were of a religious 

 character. These collegia possessed property as a corporate body ; and 

 in the time of the Emperor Hadrian, if they were collegia legitima, 

 they could take a legacy or bequest (C. 6, 24, 8) in their corporate 

 capacity. CoUegia were allowed, as a matter of course, to have a com- 

 mon chest, and an actor, syndicus or attorney, to look after their rights 

 and interests, and appear on their behalf. Plutarch ascribes the origin 

 of colleges, as a political institution, to Nmna Pompilius ; and Diony- 

 sius mentions an ancient law, passed by Tarquin the Proud, for the 

 purpose of putting down the societies and colleges which were then in 

 existence at Rome. That the institution was often perverted to 

 improper ends, we have proof not only in the writings of the Roman 

 authors (see, among others, Cicero, ' Pro Sextio,' c. 15), but in the 

 repeated enactments that were aimed at the colleges from time to 

 time. (See Suetonius, ' Julius Cos.,' c. 42 ; and ' Augustus,' c. 32.) 

 (D. 8, 4, 1, 1.) The maxims that what was due to a university was 

 not due to the individual members ; and that the debts of universities 

 were not the debts of the individual members ; and that even though 

 all the member* were changed, the university still existed compre- 

 hend the essential notion of a corporation as understood by the law of 



I':/., i 

 In Kiicl 



In England, a COLLEGE is an eleemosynary lay corporation, of the 

 same kind as an hospital, existing as a corporate body either by pre- 

 scription or by the grant of the king. But as regards Christ's Church, 

 Oxford, that has been held to be a spiritual body, as being, not a 

 college, but a dean and chapter. (Fisher's case, Bunbury, 209 ; and in 

 Pitt T. James, Hobart, 122.) Trinity College, Cambridge, was expressly 

 held to be a spiritual corporation, under the Stat. 1 A 2 Phil. A Mary. 

 A college is not necessarily a place of learning. An hospital, also, is not 

 necessarily a mere charitable endowment, but w sometimes a place of 

 learning, as Christ's Hospital, London. Its particular form and con- 

 stitution depend on the terms of the foundation. (Phillips r. Bury 

 1 Lord Raymond 6 ; and Skinner, 447.) A college consists of a head, 

 called by the various names of provost (pncpositus), master, rector, 

 principal or warden, and a body of fellows (socii), and of scholars also, 

 besides various officers or servants, according to the peculiar nature of 

 the foundation. A college is wholly subject to the laws, statutes, and 

 ordinances which the founder makes, and to the visitor wh<.m In 

 appoint*, and to no other*. All elections, and the general management 

 of a college, must be in conformity with such statutes or rules. If a 



college does not exceed its jurisdiction, the king's courts have no 

 cognisance, and expulsion of a member is entirely within it* juris. 

 diction, and therefore, in general, a mandamus cannot be had to restore 

 a fellow to his fellowship (Comyn's Digest, ' Visitor,' s. 15) ; nay, uinre, 

 where a college, a* visitor, had removed an individual from a mastership 

 in a school, not only has a mandamus been refused (Craford's case. 

 Styles, 457), but the Court of Chancery refused to interfere by injunr- 

 tion (Whiston r. Dean and Chapter of Rochester, 18 Law Journal, 

 Chancery, 478). If there is no special visitor appointed by the founder, 

 the right of visitation, in default of the heirs of the founder, devolves 

 upon the king, who exercises it by the great seal ; and in such case it is 

 to be exercised by the crown cypres (or as near as possible) t<> tin- 

 manner in which it was exercised by the founder anil bin heirs. 

 St. Catherine ColL, 4 Term Rep. 243.) When the king is founder, his 

 successors are the visitors. 



The general power of a visitor is to judge according to the statutes 

 of a college, to expel and deprive for just reason, and to hear appeals. 

 His precise power* are determined by the founder's statutes, and if 

 there are any exceptions to his |>ower, the jiiriK.lieti.rn in such cxcepted 

 rinrn devolves on the king. Certain times are generally named in the 

 statutes for visitation, but the visitor may visit whenever he is called 

 in, it being incident to his office to hear complaints. So long as a 

 visitor keeps within his jurisdiction his acts cannot be controlled, am) 

 there is no appeal from him, as was decided in the above-mentioned 

 case of Phillips r. Bury. The visitors are not bound to any particular 

 forms of proceeding, and, in general, want of jurisdiction is the only 

 ground on which they are liable to pmhiliitinn. If a visitor's power is 

 not limited or defined, he must use his best discretion. If a power to 

 interpret the statutes is given to any person, as to the bishop of tin- 

 diocese, this will constitute him and his successors visitors. The heirs 

 of a founder cannot alter the statutes, unless such a power is expressly 

 reserved ; and it appears, that where the king is founder, his successors 

 cannot alter statutes without the consent of the college, unless such a 

 power is reserved. But as to the power to alter statutes, it must be 

 observed, that in the case of the crown at least, it has not unfre- 

 quently been done, though such a power might now possibly be 

 disputed, unless expressly reserved to the founder and his heirs by bin 

 original statutes. In Attorney-General r. Archbp. of York (2 Russell 

 A Mylne, 468), Lord Brougham said, " No man can doubt what the 

 powers of a visitor are. In practice they are perfectly uncontrolled, uf 

 removal, new appointment, variation, and alteration. They .-ire. in 

 truth, of a most extensive and arbitrary nature." Bat LCI - 

 has expressed strong doubt* whether a visitor can repeal or alter 

 statutes without an express power given by the founder. (1 Burrows, 

 201.) 



Whenever a visitor is appointed, the Court of Chancery never inf. r- 

 feres with the internal management of a college ; how far it ex. 

 jurisdiction in matters pertaining to the management of the funds, on 

 the ground that as to the funds of a college, those who possess the 

 legal estate are in the situation of trustees, is a doubtful p. -int. 

 Certainly, in the case of charitable foundations, where the governors 

 or visitors are trustees for the charity, and are found to IK; making a 

 fraudulent use of their powers, the Court of Chancery can and will 

 interfere on information (see 15 Ves. 314) ; and even where the 

 founder has left directions in his will vesting the sole government and 

 management of the charity in the visitors, the Court of Chancery will 

 exercise control, where inrh rintort an aim trtatttt of the charity 

 estates. It U said, however, that such interference of Chancery with 

 visitors, is only where both the legal estate and the receipt of the 

 rents are vested in the visitors. (Att.-0en. r. .Middletoii. '1 Ves. sen. 

 328 ; see Green r. Rutherforth, 1 Ves. sen., 473 A 475.) In colleges, 

 when a new foundation in engrafted on an old one, it becomes part 

 of the old one, and subject to the same visitorial authority, unless 

 in the indenture of annexation by which the college takes the additional 

 foundation a difference in the matter of visitation is expressly declared 

 (R. r. Bishop of Kly , 1 W. Blackstone, 70) ; unless new statutes are given 

 with the new foundation, in which case the college accepting the 

 foundation will be bound in all respects by the new statutes, for they 

 take the benefit cum ontre. (See the cases collected in Grant on 

 Corporations, 542, u.) 



The validity of all elections in colleges must be determined 1>\ the 

 words of the founder's statutes or rules. In the disputes that have 

 arisen on elections, the point has generally been, whether the master's 

 concurrence is necessary, or whether a bare majority of the electors, of 

 which electors the master is one, is sufficient. (See, as to this, Grant 

 on Corporations, 532, 538, 53&.) In Catharine Hall, Cambridge, foil, iwi 

 must be elected " communi omnium consensu ant saltern ex con 

 magistri et majoris partis comuuinitatis ; " and it was held by l."i.l 

 Eldon, upon these words and another clause which follows, that no 

 election was valid in which the master did not concur. 



The statutes of Clare Hall, Cambridge, require " that the election of 

 a fellow shall be by the master and the major part of the fellows 

 present;" and here it was held, on reference to the chancellor, the 

 Duke of Grafton (A.D. 1788), that a valid election might bo 

 without the concurrence of the master. But this interpretation is 

 obviously wrong, and is referred to with disapprobation in the case of 

 Queen's College, Cambridge (5 Russell, 97), in which case the lord- 

 chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, in declaring bis opinion with referee to 



