The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-11 00:00:00

CONVOCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF LONDON.

Yesterday an adjourned meeting of the Convo-
cation of the University of London—the second
under its new charter of incorporation—was held
in Burlington House, Piccadilly, Dr. C. J. Foster
in the chair.

At the commencement of the protracted proceed-
ings the meeting was very numerously,attended.
The first business on the paper was the considera-
tion of the Report of the Committee of Convocation
as to the constitution of the Convocation itself, and
the mode in which its busineas should be in future
conducted; and the chairman having moved that
the report be taken as read, it having been in the
hands of members for some time,
Dr. BRINTON moved, as an amendment, that the
question as to the election of a representative of the
University on the medical counsel, under the act of
last session, which stood fifth on the list upon the
paper, should take precedence.
There was a large attendance of the medical
graduates of the University, and the decision of the
Convocation as to the matter in dispute would, in
all probability, determine the question whether
they should or should not continue to be members
of Convocation in future.

After some.discussion, in which much warmth of
feeling was displayed, the amendment was carried
by a large majority.
Dr. HUMBLE then moved—" That it is the
opinion of Con Vocation that the Member of the
Gmeral Council of Medical Education and Regis-
tration of the United Kingdom, to be chosen by
the University of London under the Medical Act,
should be chosen by the whole university, which
consists of the chancellor, vice-chancellor, fellows,
and graduates." In support of this resolution the
doctor stated that at the close of last session an act
was passed for the better regulation of the medical
profession, and for the distinguishing between qua-
lified aid non-qualified practitioners. Among other
provisions it constituted a medical council, to be
appointed by the medical corporations, and to in-
clude (me representative each from the Universities
of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and London. Tho
senate of the London University had appointed Dr.
Storar as representative of the University, and he
contended at great length that by so doing they had
acted illegally. The various clauses of the charter
which treated of the corporate action of the Uni-
versity, nowhere recognised the senate as having
such a power. It was true that the senate had
acted upon the opinion of counsel, but he denied
that it was justified by the charter, which distinctly,
constituted the whole university, namely, the chan-
cellor, the vice-chancellor, the fellows, and the
graduates, the governing body. The appointment
of the representative of the university at the medi-
cal council by the senate was therefore not only
iliecal. but a usurpation of the nowerg of 41-to wholo
body—it was an attempt to trample upon the pri-
vileges of the graduates which ought to be re-
sisted to the last, and whatever might be
the decision of that meeting, matter could
not rest where it was. If it decided against
his motion, the question must be carried into
the Court of Queen's Bench, or whatever other
tribunal might be the proper one, and if ultimately
decided adversely it would alienate from the Uni-
versity the great body of medical graduates who
claimed a right to have a voice in the election of
the representative of the University on the medical
council. (Cheers.)
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. LITTLER moved an amendment to the effect
that the opinion of the counsel upon which the
senate had acted in appointing Dr. Storar was not
only not decisive, but was totally and entirely er-
roneous, and in proof of that fact he quoted the
opinion of Mr. Edward James, of the Northern
Circuit, to whom a case had been submitted, and
who, upon a full consideration of the charter, gave
his opinion that the election did not rest either
with the senate or the convocation, but with the
whole body of the University ; and, further, that
Dr. Storar might be remored from his position by
a writ of quo warranto.
Mr. G. JESSEL, M.A., to whom the question had
been referred by this Senate, la conjunction with
their ordinary law adviser, T. Tomlinson, Esq.,
explained that he had come to its consideration
with the most earnest desire to find the graduates
entitled to the power for which they contended ;
but the result was that he found himself com-
pelled to come to the conclusion that the power
vested in the senate, as the governing body of the
corporation ; and he hoped that, as he would not
venture to pronounce an opinion on a surgical
question, the medical members of the University
would not rashly decide upon a legal ques-
tion, which decision might afterwards render con-
vocation ridiculous. He moved, as the best means
of disposing of the matter, the previous question.
Dr. BARRATT did not agree either in the motion
or the amendment. It was clear that the question
must be decided elsewhere ; and after hearing the
statements that had been made to convocation, he
moved, as another amendment, that as it appeared
there were conflicting legal opinions on the subject,
the convocation regretted that the election had been
made by the senate before the opinion of the con,
vocation had been taken on the subject. (Hear.)
Mr. JESSEL withdrew his amendment in favour
of this proposition, which was seconded by Dr.
QUAIN.
Dr. WOOD (a member of the senate) explained
that he was in favour of postponing the election
fe n
counsel,t a ken
bunuttitl ht
ahte
ito pmi,naiso n
madeof coTit-ohcea tai
uo convocation
ohraidt y been.
and at the urgent instance of the Government, who
wished to appoint their representative.
Mr. WAYLEY moved, as another amendment,
that the question at issue should be submitted to
the law officers of the Crown, and that in the mean-
time the senate suspend the confirmation of the
minute appointing Dr. Storar.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. SPENCER ;
and after
CHAIRMAN,
some fu
on puttingrtherdiscu
discussion,
the
sion
the questions to the
vote, declared that both amendments were carried
by a large majority, and the original motion
negatived.
The report of the committee appointed by con-
vocation on the 4th May, to provide a working
constitution and a set of standing orders for the
conduct of its business, was then, on the motion of
the Chairman, taken as read and received.
Mr. JESSEL at some length explained the:various
points in the report, which afterwards became the
subject of a debate confined exclusively to technical
points, and which occupied the remainder of a pro-
longed sitting.
At the same time a protracted and occasionally
personal debate ensued, in the course of which
Dr. STORAR, amidst loud cheers, said he had
counselled the postponement of the election, and
had, during the time the question was before Par-
liament, repeatedly urged upon Government and
members of Parliament the necessity for strictly
and plainly defining the electoral body.
In the course of the proceedings a nomination of
six persons to be submitted to her Majesty to fill
vacant fellowships took place.
The scrutineers reported that out of seventeen
candidates the election had fallen on T. S. Osler,
LL.B., J. Storar, M.D., W. A. Miller, M.D., G. 8.A., and R. H.
Jessel, M.A., J. G. Greenwood,
Hutton, M.A.
After a protracted sitting the convocation was
adjourned to consider the other questions on the
paper, namely, a building for the University—its
Parliamentary representation—and the regulations
as to degrees in arts, adopted by the senate on the
7th July