by the major part of the fellows then present, he may be proposed at the next _comitia majora_ to be a fellow, and admitted if the majority of the fellows then present consent. The ordinary greater meetings (_comitia majora_) are holden four times a year, and consist of the president or vice-president and ten fellows at the least. The ordinary lesser meetings (_comitia minora_) consisting of the president or vice-president registar and censors of the college, are holden once a month. A letter was also inserted in the affidavits written by King _Charles_ the Second to the college not to admit any person who had not had his education in either of our universities of _Oxford_ or _Cambridge_: but it was admitted in the argument that no notice could legally be taken of this letter. It was also stated in the affidavits that Dr. _Stanger_, when he was licensed; gave his 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.