faith or promise to the college that he would observe the statutes of the college &c. in the usual mode.
Adair Serjt. Law, Chambre, and Christian, argued in support of the rule; and
Erskine, Gibbs, Dampier, and Warren, against it.
The case was argued very much at length on three several days: but it is unnecessary to give a detail of the arguments, as the Court in giving their opinions went into them. The points insisted upon by the counsel in support of the rule were these; 1st. That under the general words of the charter "omnes homines ejusdem facultatis." &c. Dr. Stanger, who came within that description by his license, had an inchoate right, which authorised him to tender himself to the college for examination in order that he might be admitted, if on examination the president and college thought him qualified; though they admitted that the president and college were the sole judges of his fitness. And they referred to the several dicta of Lord Mansfield and Aston J. in R. v. Dr. Askew and others, 4 Burr. 2169; 2202; 2193; 2202. Secondly, That the bye-Laws requiring an education at either of our universities or at Dublin were illegal and void, on grounds of public policy, and also on the ground that they superadded a qualification not required by the Charter, 4 Burr. 2198, 9; 2203, 4; and that it narrowed the number of the eligible; R. v. Spencer, 3 Burr. 1827; and R. v. Cutbush, 4 Burr, 2204.
On the other hand it was insisted, 1st. That Dr. Stanger had no right to be examined in order to be a fellow, either as a licentiate, Dr. Archer's case, 4 Burr. 2203; or as coming within the description "omnes homines ejusdem facultatis" &c.; but that the election into that body was a mere matter of grant or favor, for that the charter evidently marked out two descriptions of persons, the members of the college (the fellows) and all those who practised physic in London or within seven miles thereof, that the former were to superintend the latter; and that if the latter had also a
