Report of proceedings before a committee of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, at Whitehall, 16th, 17, and 18th January 1861, relative to the ordinances of the Scottish Universities' Commissioners : issued on 6th August 1859, and 19th March 1860, to regulate the granting of degrees in medicine and surgery in the University of Edinburgh.

Date:
1861
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of proceedings before a committee of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, at Whitehall, 16th, 17, and 18th January 1861, relative to the ordinances of the Scottish Universities' Commissioners : issued on 6th August 1859, and 19th March 1860, to regulate the granting of degrees in medicine and surgery in the University of Edinburgh. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    304/328 (page 294)
    whose opinions he mentioned; but it is impossible to treat any opinions expressed by them as having the least feather’s weight of authority, when we reflect, with regard to two of them, Lord Moncreiff and Lord Fullerton, that those opinions which they expressed, were expressed as the foundation of a conclusion, from which, in each case, the Court of which they were members dissented, the House of Lords subsequently agreeing with the dissentients. Lord Moncreiff was in a minority of one upon the question, whether the Surgical degree of the University of Glasgow entitled its possessor to practise within the privileged districts in Scotland. He held that it did. He founded his argument upon what he considered to be the clear right of the University to grant a degree in Surgery, and its connection with the subject of Medicine and with their general powers. If he was right in that, I think it would be difficult to show any great logical flaw in the rest of his reasoning, which, at all events, was the conclusion which he drew from these premisses. The other Judges dissented from that conclusion, and so did the House of Lords. They were not therefore called upon to ex- press a judicial opinion upon the premisses, and did not do so. Lord Fullerton, wishing to maintain the independence of the University of all control and regulation by the Town Council of Edinburgh, as to the subject matter of degrees, founded his con- clusion upon similar reasoning as to the inherent rights and powers of Universities as to degrees to a certain exent. His Lordship did not go anything like so far as to this argument as your Lordships have heard. But the fact that he was in error upon the whole case, and that his view did not prevail, deprives the grounds upon which he proceeded, I think, of any consider- able authority. Then Lord Glenlee only remains, who cer- tainly did express an extra-judicial opinion , in favour of an inherent power; as to which Lord Brougham, in a later case, expresses his serious doubt as to whether that could be main- tained. I think, from an examination of the history of the matter, which your Lordships have had from Sir TV illiam Hamilton, and have listened to in the course of this argument, you will not have any hesitation in reference to Lord Brougham s doubt being well founded ; and, as Lord Glenlee gi\es no authorities, and the case does not depend upon wliat he said, I will not repeat what I and my learned friend, Sir Hugh Cairns,