5 i8 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



indignation arose amongst the Members, both in London and 

 the provinces, which was voiced by the editor of The Lancet of 

 that day : 



11 Without hesitation, we declare our belief that a more 

 mischievous, a more iniquitous Charter was never honoured by 

 the sign-manual of the Crown. We shall find little difficulty in 

 establishing the fact that it was obtained from the Government 

 — as was the Charter of 1800 — by misrepresentation and fraud!' 



Sir John Tweedy, himself a Fellow and recently the Presi- 

 dent of the College, published (about 1889) an article in The 

 Lancet, from which the following is extracted : " Viewed from 

 the historical standpoint, the demand now being made by the 

 Members is not for the acquisition of new privileges, but for the 

 restitution of ancient rights and liberties." He proceeds to 

 recall how by cunning and hardihood on the part of the Council 

 the ancient liberties, privileges, and franchises of the Members, 

 as confirmed by the Act of 1745 — which has never been repealed 

 — have been (with or without legislative sanction) filched from 

 the body corporate, i.e. the general body of Members. Sir John 

 expressed this opinion : " There is so much to be said in praise 

 of the Fellowship as an academical distinction, that it is easy 

 to overlook the needless injustice wrought by the manner of its 

 institution in abolishing the constitutional rights of the Members. 

 Sir Benjamin Brodie is credited with being the promoter of the 

 order of Fellows, and in the account which he gave of the 

 reasons for establishing this order not a word is said about a 

 suffrage or a franchise restricted to the Fellows." 



Sad to relate, however, when Sir John Tweedy became 

 President of the College, no reform took place. Either Sir John 

 failed to press his views, or he succumbed to the reactionaries 

 of the Council. 



The Society maintains that the whole property of the College 

 belongs to and is vested in the Members, and that the Council 

 is merely their executive committee. It is only in so far as they 

 are Members that the Fellows have any legal interest in the 

 property. On this point, in the pamphlet referred to, Sir John 

 Tweedy remarked : " It would be interesting to learn by what 

 arguments the Council justifies its administration of trust 

 property vested in the Members" as a whole and of which the 

 Council renders to the Members no account, or certainly not 

 an adequate one. In November 191 1 the Council was requested 



