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 right to be admitted fellows the distinction between the governors and the governed would be destroyed, and the very object of the charter and act of parliament, in giving to the fellows the superintendance of the others practising physic in and about _London_, would be defeated;—observing that the usage for a long period was in favour of this construction. 2dly, That Dr. _Stanger_, by giving his faith when he received his licence in 1789, was estopped to object to the bye-laws. But this point was abandoned in the course of the argument; it being considered that he was only bound to observe the bye-laws of the college that were not illegal. 3dly, That the bye-laws were neither against sound policy or law; and instances were alluded to of degrees taken in either of our universities giving privileges to the persons taking them in the other professions. And the counsel observed that the not having taken a degree in one of our universities was not an absolute bar to any person becoming a fellow of the college, there being two modes by which he might gain admission without that qualification.