§ Mr. Wakleypresented a Petition from the Surgeons at Andover, complaining of an individual in that town who had obtained the diploma of the College of Surgeons through fraudulent means. The hon. Member read extracts from the petition, in which it was set forth, that the Royal College of Surgeons obtained their Charter in the year 1800, and among other matters they had bye-laws drawn up for the regulation of candidates for admission. In the year 1833, it was required by the regulations, that a party looking for a diploma should be of the full age of twenty-two years, and that he should be engaged in practice of six years, and have attended certain courses of lectures to qualify him for becoming a member. The individual complained of entered in a medical establishment at Andover in the year 1829, and remained until October, 1833, when he left and proceeded to London for a period of three months, and then returned with the necessary certificates and diplomas, and commenced practising. The surgeons of that town made a complaint to the College, and sent forward affidavits, alleging that for the short time the individual was absent, he could not have qualified to entitle him to practice; and calling on them to institute an inquiry into his pretensions. The College accordingly-cited him to appear before them, but he declined doing so, and from that time they have taken no step to enforce their regulations, and he continues practising. It could not be denied that by the bye-laws the College have the power to reject a candidate, and also to have a mandamus issued to show cause why he practised. The hon. Member quoted the case of the King v. Richardson and other cases, to show that the College had the power of dismissal, and the enforcement of the regulations. As the government of the College was vested in the Council, he maintained that in justice to the other practitioners, who went through a regular professional course of studies, that they ought to call the party before the Court of King's Bench, to prove that his certificates had not been fraudulently obtained.
§ Sir Frederick Pollockknew something of this case, and though he was anxious that the petition might have the best attention, he felt bound to say, that the hon. Member for Finsbury was not quite correct in his law. He was right, however, if the allegations in the petition were true, in declaring that the College had the power of declaring the appointment null and void; but the allegations were not true, as would be found had they been studied. It was stated in the petition that the College had not taken the proper steps to compel the attendance of the party, but they did take proper steps and consulted counsel, first taking the precaution to lay all the documents and certificates before him, and counsel's opinion was, that it would be highly improper to take any further proceedings in the business than what they had already done. It was not contended in the first place that the Gentleman was not perfectly competent for the discharge of the duties he had undertaken, for the complaint was more against the extent of his practice than against the validity of his diploma. What was the case? The Gentleman appeared before the College and presented his papers, and after standing the usual examination, to the entire satisfaction of the Court of Examiners, he was granted his diploma, and the usual documents to entitle him to practise surgery. Some time after, doubts were entertained that, from the short time he was absent from Andover, he could not have been properly qualified; but there was no doubt of the certificate being genuine. Then it was that certain affidavits were presented to the College to expel him. He (Sir Frederick Pollock) was then consulted, and after the most anxious deliberation, and giving his best attention to the subject, he was decidedly of opinion that the College could not expel him, and so he communicated to them. Had the College expelled him, he would be at liberty to apply for a mandamus, and then they would have to prove that his credentials were not genuine, consequently no jury under such circumstances would be prepared to give a verdict against him, nor could any lawyer be found to anticipate that verdict would be in favour of the College. Had the College been made acquainted with the state of the case before the admission of the party, it might be necessary to institute an inquiry; but having obtained the right, it would not 167 become them to reverse the decision. He had showed the hon. Gentleman opposite his opinion at length, and permitted him to read it. The College took every step to ascertain the justice of the case; but it was too much to say that a man was to be put on trial on mere suspicion, and there must be a reasonable prospect of coming to a proper decision. All he would say was, that the College were ready to do their duty. He would not object to the petition lying on the table.
§ Mr. Wakleydiffered from that part of the law laid down by the hon. and learned Member where he stated that a man was not to be put on his trial on mere suspicion. He thought it was usual to put a man on trial because of the suspicions against him. There was much more than ground for suspicion in this case, but unfortunately it involved other parties who were in the council; for if it were proved that he had not obtained the certificates by his own fraud, it must appear that they were improperly given to him. The case, however, could not remain in its then state, but must ultimately terminate in a court of law.
§ Petition to lie on the table.