practising who were unfit, they to whom the charter was offered would refuse the advantages of this corporation, especially as the obvious means of constituting a body to consist of all would be to make it compulsory on the physicians to become members, as in the case with companies in some city and corporate towns, of which persons carrying on certain trades are obliged to be free. But seeing that there is in some degree an uncertainty as to the words “_homnes ejusdem facultatis_,” the usage that has prevailed ought to govern us in the construction of them, especially as the usage perfectly accords with the design of the incorporation. It is said indeed that the usage is in favour of Dr. _Stanger’s_ claim: but that is not so; for there is no proof that before these bye-laws were made any persons were admitted into the body as a matter of right, and we must therefore take it that they came in by election. If Dr. _Stanger_ claim as a matter of right, it must be under the words of the charter “_quod ipsi omnesque homines ejusdem facultatis_ &c.” but if this gave him a right, the college could not resist his claim though he would not submit to examination. And if every _homo ejusdem facultatis_ came within this description of claim, Dr. _Archer_ would have had a right to be admitted. The charter does not say that all the men of the faculty, who on examination shall be found fit, shall be admitted; if it has said any thing in their favor, it has given them the right as soon as they become men of the faculty; it has directed no examination. Suppose by a charter all the weavers of a town were incorporated, they would all have a right to be admitted without any examination. If then all the men of the faculty within the limited district have a right from being men of the faculty, they possess all the fitness that the charter requires. This seems to me to be only a contrivance to get out of Dr. _Archer’s_ case, and to set up a right on the ground of being a licentiate. In the course of the argument it was said that only those were to be admitted who were “profound sad and discrete, groundedly learned and deeply studied in physic:” but if so, it destroys the argument arising from the words “_omnes homines ejusdem facultatis_.” An argument has also been drawn from the statute 3 _Hen._ 8:, and it has been said that the persons licensed by that act were the only persons who at the time of the charter were men of the faculty, and that they and the six persons named were meant to be incorporated. But the words of the charter do not extend to all those persons; they are confined to the “_homines de et in civitate prædictâ_,” that is, to all men of and in the city of _London_ practising physic: but this does not extend to persons practising in other places. Now if that construction had been adopted, it would have excluded the greater part of those who have been members of the college practising physic in _Oxford_,