¥796-] 
Practife; whilft the graduates of Oxford 
and Cambridge are admitted to all the 
benefits of Fellowfhip for an equal fum. 
In the prefent cafe, the Licentiates only 
fubmit to the Judges of the Court of 
King’s Bench, to decide, whether a bye- 
law is legal. which Lord Mansheld, de- 
livering his opinion judicially in that 
Court, declared to be 1ilegal ? 
“* Tt has been faid,’”’ Lord Mansfield ob- 
ferved (fee Burrow’s Reports, vol. iv. 
p. 2199) ‘ that there are many amongft 
“‘ the Licentiatés, who would do honour 
to the College, or any fociety of which 
they fhould be members, by their 
s fkill and learning, as well as other va- 
“ luable and amiable qualities. If this 
‘‘ be fo, how can any bye-laws, which 
‘exclude the poffibility of admitting /uch 
“ perfons into the College, ftand with 
* the truft repofed im them of admitting 
all that are fui ?” 
The next material ‘affertion of Mr. 
Erfkine was, that Lord Mansfield was of 
opinion, ona former trial, that fome per- 
fons might be permitted to practife un- 
der a licence, who were not intitled to be 
admitted of the College. This opinion, 
as it was qualified by that great judge, 
undoubtedly cannot be contefted. He 
obferved, that ** a partial licence had 
“« been granted to an oculift; that a per- 
“ fon may be fit to praétife in oe branch, 
“ who is not fit to practife in another. 
“ Licences have alfo been granted to 
“ women; and that may not be unrea- 
“ fonable in particular cafes; fuch as 
<6 Mrs. Stevens’s medicine for the ftone. 
“« Of late years, indeed, general licences 
“¢ have been ufual. Thefe licences, pro- 
‘ bably, took their rife from that 7/egal 
 bye-law which refrained the number of 
“ Fellows to twenty. This was arbi- 
“ trary and unjuftifiable: they were 
“© obliged to admit a//fuch as came within 
“< the terms of their charter.’’ But be- 
caufe Lord Mansfield admitted the rea- 
fonablenefs of granting licences, merely 
to oculifts, partial practifers, and ven- 
ders of empirical medicines, is it to be 
iferred, that he meant alfo, that Phyfi- 
cians, who had received the beft educa- 
tions, and who would do honour to the 
College, or any other fociety, by their 
fkill and learning, were intitled to no- 
thing more? The reverfe is too clear to 
admit of argument. 
6 
6 
an 
wn 
nm 
na 
a 
Mr. Erfkine then proceeded to ftate, 
“that the College have power not only by 
their charter, but by the law of the land, 
to make fit and redfonable bye-laws ;” 
Which is as indifpusable as x H a byes 
Cafe of ‘the Licentiates. 
to an exclufive privilege : 
41 
law, prohibiting the admiffion of nearly 
all the Phyficiatis in ‘Great Britain, ‘ts 
neither fit nor reaforiable. The next 
affertion is.equally incontrovertible, ‘thet 
the judgment and difcretion of deter- 
mining upon the ‘fkill, ‘ability, and fuf- 
ficiency to pra‘tife this profeflion, as well 
ds to be ‘admitted into the Fellowship, 
is trufted to the College.” But it would 
be ridiculons to fuppofe, that they had 
alfo right of confining the education of 
thofe who were ‘to ‘practife phyfic, and 
Who might claim the honours of their 
profeffion in the metropolis of Great 
Britain, to the moft inconfiderable medi- 
cal fchools in Europe. Mr. Erfkine theh 
obferved, “that it 1s much relied upon, in 
* publications conneéted with this ‘con 
troverfy, that Lord Mansfield fays, ‘ tf 
the College fhould refute to examine the 
candidate at all, the Court would oblige 
themto doit :”’ imterpreting Lord Mani- 
field’s obfervation to apply to candidates 
alone who were graduatés of Oxford 
and Cambridge. But Lord Mansfield 
never mentioned, or alluded to, either 
of thefe univerfities. When ‘he made 
that remark, the college had not then 
even advanced in a court of law, the 
abfurd plea of a title in fiich graduates 
the only 
grounds on which the College could re= 
fufe examination and admiffion, ever 
hinted at by Lord Mansfield, were in- 
fufficiency in point of fkill, learning, or 
morals. 
Mr. Erfkine next expatiated upon che 
impropriety of the College being ‘bound 
to examine every man who offers him- 
felf, whatever may Have been his rank 
in fociety ; whatever may have been his 
mode of education; whatever may be 
the probability of his being fit to undergo 
that examination with effeét; whatever 
might be the confequence to the intereft 
of learning, and the advantage of the 
{cience of medicine, that fuch a perfon 
fhould be a member of the Colleve of 
Phyficians.”’ The Licentiates do not 

* Alluding to an eloquent and unanfwerable 
treatife, lately publifhed by Dr. Ferris, entitled 
a General View of the Eftablifhment of Phys 
fic, as a Science, inEngland, by the Incorpora- 
tion of the College of Phyficians of London ; 
together with an Enquiry into the Nature of 
that Incorporation: in which it is demone 
ftrated, that the exclufion of all phyficians, ex- 
cept the graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, 
from the corporate privileges of the College, 
is founded in ufurpation, being contrary to the 
lettés ahd fpirit of its charters 
3G 2 contend, 
