The reform of the College of Surgeons.

  • Mackenzie, Morell, 1837-1892.
Date:
[1890]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The reform of the College of Surgeons. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    5/20 (page 605)
    ment which has never been repealed. It is evident, moreover, that during the years 1796 to 1800 the old Company of Surgeons must have existed as a legal nominis umbra, as they continued to admit persons under letters testimonial, and on December 13th, 1799— that is four months before the Charter of 1800—by a unanimous vote accepted the guardianship of Hunter’s Museum. The new Company was intituled “ The Royal College of Surgeons in London,” and the surviving Assistants of the old Company were to form the nucleus of the new Corporation. To the Royal College were con- firmed “all the liberties and privileges by any Act or Letters Patent granted or confirmed to or otherwise belonging to the previously existing body.” It seems obvious, as the Members contend, that a Royal Charter could not take away any of the privileges which had been granted to Members by the Act of Parliament of 1745, and as that Act had not deprived the Commonalty of their rights, the ancient privileges of the Members still belong to them de jure even if they have lapsed de facto. Persons in a position to be well acquainted with all the circumstances of the case have not hesitated to say that this Charter of 1800 was obtained by “ misrepresentation and fraud,”1 and that the Crown was deliberately misled in the matter. It contained several of the provisions which had excited most oppo- sition on the part of the Members, and which as a matter of fact had caused the rejection of the Bill by Parliament. The petition against this measure stated that the “ ancient privileges of the Members as such would be annihilated, and their right of meeting in general court would be taken away.” The Court of Assistants was to choose the Master, the Governors, and the Examiners, and to fill up vacancies as they arose in their own ranks. In short, the oligarchical form of government into which the old company had gradually degenerated was fully recognised and con- firmed by this Charter, and beyond the fact that it is necessarily implied that the Assistants must be chosen from among the Members, no voice in the management of the corporate affairs is given to the Members. The only crumb of comfort which they could find in the document was that their “ancient privileges” are nowhere expressly annulled therein. They are simply passed over as of none account. From those who had nothing, however, even the little that they seemed to have was before very long taken away. By a Charter granted in 1843, a “ new class of members ... to he called Fellows ” was created, from among whom alone the members of the Council were in future to be chosen. The Fellows were to be a higher academical order, and were to win their spurs by passing a special examination a good deal more searching than the one required for the ordinary Membership. The Members thus lost the only real (1) Lancet, vol. i., 1843, No. 44, p. 125. T T VOL. XLVI1. N.S.