324 
judicial opinion of Lord, Mansfield ; the 
Licentiates contend, that it would be a 
weak defertion of their right, to exchange 
what is fecured to them by the law of 
the land, for a precarious privilege under 
an arbitrary bye-law. ‘They maintain, 
that if they would fubmit to be depen- 
dent on bye-laws for admiffion, the ex- 
ifting bye-laws before ftated, are not 
founded on candid, liberal, and general 
principles, and that even, exceptionable 
as they are, they are not adhered to by 
the college. Is it reafonable, they atk, 
that men educated in the beft medical 
{chools, who have pafled effentially the 
fame examinations, and paid the fame 
fees, required for admiffion into the order 
of candidates, fhould be compelled to ac- 
knowledge their own inferiority, and 
then to wait feven years, and until they 
have completed their thirty-fixth year, 
before they can be propoted for election, 
to be admitted to repals the examinations, 
which the graduates of inferior medical 
fchools can claim immediately after ha- 
ving taken their doétor’s degree? Is it 
reafonable, that they fhould be re-ex- 
amined by perfons who are not bound to 
decide on cath, as the ceulors are ; and 
undergo five ballots, in a body, many 
members of which ate adverfe to their 
admiilion on any grounds? But fuppofing 
they fhould fubmit to fuch narrow re- 
frictions, what profpeét have the Licen- 
tiates of being ever admitted under the 
bye-law before ftated? Jt was framed 
{oon after the great conteft between the 
Coliege and Licentiates, in Dr. Fother- 
gill’s cafe, in 17713 at a period of violent 
animofity, after Lord Mansfield had af- 
ferted, that “ the bye-laws cf the college 
were narrow and illegal, and would not 
admit even. a Boerhaave;’’ after he had 
faid, ‘the college wil now confider, 
whether they will truft toa return upon 
thefe bye-laws, or amend them:”” it was 
made—not ina fpirit of candour and con, 
ciliation, to admit all that were fit; but 
to fhelter the college, on-any future trial, 
againft a repetition of the fevere reproofs 
the court had juft made, and to prevent 
an inevitable return againit their mono- 
poly... Though difcovered long before, it 
was never promulgated by the college, 
until extorted from them in the prefent 
conteft : no ane: has ever been admitted 
under it; and. the only perfon who ever 
_applied, declares, that he was menaced 
with an examination which icarcely any 
man could pafs, and folicited by fome of 
the fellows not to perfift, and even told 
Cale of the Licentiates. 
[May 
that no Licentiate would ever be admit- 
ted under it. When he was propofed, 
the motion was not even put toa ballot, 
undera pretence that it was not feconded, 
though that is not required by the bye- 
law. Such a bye-law, fo adminiftered, 
the Licentiates contend, is a mockery of 
juttice and reafon. 
The other bye-law, of admiffion 
through favour, which intitles the 
prefidext to propofe a Licentiate. of ten 
years fianding, once only in two years 5 
they contend, is nearly inefficient to admit, 
and chiefly operative to ditgrace, divide, 
and impoverifh their body. Admiftion 
through favour, implics inferiority 1n thofe 
who accept it; tends to render them fub- 
-fervient to thofe who ccncede it; excites 
an hoftile competition, through a mrean° 
objeét, in thofe who contend for it; and, in 
the prefent inftance, enables the fellows 
to hold out alure for the Licentiates, to 
recommend the in confultation, in pre- 
ference to their own body. Of what 
value is the chance of being propofed once 
in two years, to the individuals of a body 
confitting cf more than one hundred, of 
which the perfons eligible muft have been 
ten years members? But even this re- - 
-mote and precarious chance, depends upen 
a variety of contingencies. The fellows 
muft in,general be fatished with the con- 
duét of the Licentiates, or they willagain 
limit the privilege, as they have done 
twice within a few years: a majority of 
the eleéts, who alone appoint the prefi- 
dent, muft approve the ulage, or they wiile ” 
choofe a prefident who will not propcie 
any Licentiate tor election, as Was very 
lately the cafe: the prefident muft be 
difpofed to exerciie his privilege, which 
he has not, done during the laft five years ; 
and the ceniors alfo to permit him : the 
perfon propofed-muft have a majority of 
votes out of a ‘body of his protefiional 
competitors, many of whom eppofe the 
admiffion of Licentiates on any ground, 
and tome fpecifically under this bye-law. 
Is it reafonable, the Licentiates atk, that 
thofe who have enjoyed all the ad- 
vantages that fchools can give, and .are 
known to poffeis all that any body oF men 
in the profeflion can attain, thould be de- 
prived of their chartered rights, and told 
that they are compenfated by foch bye- 
laws fo adnnnificred ? i, mitead ot hay- 
ing an unqutftionable right, they were 
intirely dependent on the candour and 
generofity of the college, they contend, 
that it would be better to be totally ex- 
cluded} than defcead to the humiliatien 
and 
