Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)Paris, John Ayrton
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)
Paris, John Ayrton
Medical laws and legislation -- Great Britain
_Cambridge_, and other places beyond these limits, as not falling within
the description of those persons of whom (according to the construction)
the college is to consist.
Taking the whole of the charter and the usage this construction will
reconcile all the difficulties; the intention of the Crown was to
incorporate the six persons named in the charter and all men practising
physic at that time _de et in civitate prædictâ_; and all those persons
were entitled to admission: but the Crown did not intend to give any
right to those, who might thereafter become _homines facultatis_, but
intended that the succession should be continued by the power incident
to all corporations to elect. Had the charter of incorporation nominated
every man authorised to practise physic in _London_ and given no
directions as to the succession, they would have been authorised to
continue themselves by election as they have done; and the charter has
done the same thing in substance by incorporating the same persons by a
general reference to their character and situation. This avoids all
contradiction; it is consistent with the usage; and according to this
construction no one is entitled as a matter of right but only by
election. In making such elections there is a trust and duty to keep up
the body by a choice of learned men sufficient to answer the purposes of
the charter; and if this be done all the interest that the public have
is consulted; they have no interest in this or that man being a member
of the college: so long as the body is continued and there are proper
censors elects and other officers, and so long as proper persons are
licensed and improper ones restrained, the objects of the charter as far
as concerns the public will be attained. We have been pressed however
with the dicta of Lord _Mansfield_ in _R._ v. Dr. _Askew_; very great
deference is always due to whatever fell from him: but it is sufficient
to say that this was not the point then before the Court, the only
question there being whether licentiates were of the body.
On the other question respecting the validity of the bye-laws, I can
hardly add to what has already been said by the Court; and therefore
shall only say that I agree with them in thinking the bye-laws
reasonable.
Rule discharged[175].
Return to a Habeas Corpus.
(Goodall. 467)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account