without hope of repair." In 1721, the arbitrary and selfish spirit of the predominant party led them to prevail on the English universities not to incorporate physicians with foreign degrees any longer; by which surreptitious proceeding the great body of physicians in London were indirectly debarred admittance. But as this limitation would affect their funds, they established a class of honorary fellows to make up the deficiency. The honour was to be purchased by the payment of one hundred pounds in addition to the sums usually paid by ordinary members. About the middle of the last century, the sentiments of candour, liberality, and justice, which ought to distinguish a college of enlightened men, for a time resumed their proper ascendancy. It was regularly proposed "to bring in all such foreign graduates as were properly qualified, on terms both honourable and beneficial to the College itself. It is asserted that the plan was well received by several of the leading people in the College; that it was agreed to in two comitia, but that in the third it was rejected, as was supposed, through the influence of the English universities*." This fit of liberality was speedily succeeded, in the predominant party, by a more

* Letter from a Physician in Town to a Friend in the Country, 1753, p. 18.

rigorous spirit of oppression. In 1752, they made a bye-law," positively enacting for the first time, that no person who was not a doctor of physic, of either Oxford or Cambridge, was to be admitted a fellow *." It was not, however, till 1765, that the encroaching spirit of monopoly and oppression, encouraged by success, emboldened the College to publish this extraordinary bye-law. Thus the College would not admit without incorporation, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge would not incorporate without the leave of the College; for " it appears that an "it arrangement subsisted between the College and the English universities, by which degrees of incorporation could be either withheld or extended, as these parties privately agreed, without regard to their public dutiest." This management, by which the great body of British physicians were juggled out of their rights, although detestable in science, might be worthy of admiration in diplomacy. About the same period, as if to complete the climax, the system of admission by favour was also established,—a system calculated to divide the licentiates, to render them subservient, and to encrease the already enormous emoluments and authority of the fellows.

Stanger's Justification, &c. p. 86.

+ Ibid, p. 89, 90.

This arbitrary system necessarily occasioned those scandalous scenes of strife, tumult, and litigation, between the licentiates and fellows, which commenced about the middle of the last century, and will probably terminate but with the existence of the college. In vain did Lord Mansfield and his colleagues advise them, in the opinions which those litigations called forth from the Bench, to amend their bye-laws.

These are the words of that venerable judge : "I have a great respect for this learned body; and if they should think proper to hearken to my advice, I would wish them to consider whether this may not be a proper opportunity for them to review their statutes. And I would recommend it to them to take the best advice in doing it; and to attend to the design and intention of the crown and parliament in their institution. I see a source of great dispute and litigation in them as they now stand: there has not, as it should seem, been due consideration had of the charter, or legal advice taken in forming them."

Four times, in the course of these litigations, did the venerable Judges of the Court of King's Bench repeat their warning to the College to amend their bye-laws. It is much to be regretted that the question had not then been brought forward in such a shape as to have enabled the Bench to give a decision, which should at once

lay open the door to all fit persons, applying, under the charter and acts of parliament, for admission to the fellowship.

It will be proper here to state the grounds on which the several proceedings that called forth the opinions of these Judges, were brought forward. The first case that came before Lord Mansfield was that of Dr. Letch in 1767, who was refused admission on the ground of incompetency. It would seem that Dr. Letch alleged the College acted unfairly by him. When the College, however, pronounced him incompetent, it was not for the Court of King's Bench to say that he was fit to be received into the fellowship. But, although the Judges could not force the College to admit a person whom they alleged incompetent, Lord Mansfield, on that occasion, made some very pertinent remarks on the manner of discharging the duty of examination: "There can be as little doubt that the College are obliged, in conformity to the trust and confidence placed in them, to admit all that are fit, as to reject all that are unfit. Their conduct in the exercise of the trust (of examining) ought to be fair, candid, and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious, or biassed: much less warped by resentment or personal dislike." Without forming any opinion of the fairness with which the College might have acted on this occasion, it is obvious that the pre

posterous mode of examining in a close court, and in a dead language, leaves it too much in their power to be unjust with impunity. Even on the ground of fitness, some young graduates of Oxford or Cambridge might, by virtue of this secret and mysterious ordeal, reject a Hippocrates, a Harvey, a Boerhaave, a Sydenham, a Cullen, a Brown.

We see why the Court could not, upon the grounds stated in this case, grant a mandamus. "If the person examined by them (the College)," said Mr. Justice Aston, "had been approved, proposed, and elected, then, indeed, a mandamus would lie: and so it would if the College should refuse to examine the candidate at all." This shews clearly what would have been the decision of Mr. Justice Aston, had Dr. Stanger's case come before him.

In the same year, the affairs of the College came before the Court of King's Bench in another shape: " Nov. 20, 1767, a motion was made for a rule upon Dr. Askew, the president, and the four then censors of the College, to shew cause why an information, in nature of a quo warranto, should not be granted against them, to shew by what authority they acted as censors of the College of Physicians? The objection was, that whereas the election ought to be by the whole body, these gentlemen had been elected only by a select body; namely, by the fellows, ex