.
If a charter be granted by the king, it may be altered by a new charter
granted by the king, and accepted by the corporators. But if the first
charter be granted by Parliament, the consent of Parliament must be
obtained to any alteration. In _King v. Miller_,[58] Lord Kenyon says:
"Where a corporation takes its rise from the king's charter, the king by
granting, and the corporation by accepting another charter, may alter
it, because it is done with the consent of all the parties who are
competent to consent to the alteration."[59]

There are, in this case, all the essential constituent parts of a
contract. There is something to be contracted about, there are parties,
and there are plain terms in which the agreement of the parties on the
subject of the contract is expressed. There are mutual considerations
and inducements. The charter recites, that the founder, on his part, has
agreed to establish his seminary in New Hampshire, and to enlarge it
beyond its original design, among other things, for the benefit of that
Province; and thereupon a charter is given to him and his associates,
designated by himself, promising and assuring to them, under the
plighted faith of the State, the right of governing the college and
administering its concerns in the manner provided in the charter. There
is a complete and perfect grant to them of all the power of
superintendence, visitation, and government. Is not this a contract? If
lands or money had been granted to him and his associates, for the same
purposes, such grant could not be rescinded. And is there any
difference, in legal contemplation, between a grant of corporate
franchises and a grant of tangible property? No such difference is
recognized in any decided case, nor does it exist in the common
apprehension of mankind.

It is therefore contended, that this case falls within the true meaning
of this provision of the Constitution, as expounded in the decisions of
this court; that the charter of 1769 is a contract, a stipulation or
agreement, mutual in its considerations, express and formal in its
terms, and of a most binding and solemn nature. That the acts in
question impair this contract, has already been sufficiently shown. They
repeal and abrogate its most essential parts.

A single observation may not be improper on the opinion of the court of
New Hampshire, which has been published. The learned judges who
delivered that opinion have viewed this question in a very diff