Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)

ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE. — PHYSIOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. Abortion. — INFANTICIDE. — 1. To ascertain whether the Child was born alive? — II. Whether, supposing the child to have been born alive, its death was the result of natural causes, of wilful violence, or of negligence and abandonment?

Although a child in ventre sa mere has for certain purposes civil rights from the earliest period of conception, yet it was long undetermined in what rank of crime the killing of a fœtus should be placed. “It was anciently holden, says Hawkins, (1 P. C. 121) that the causing an abortion, by giving a potion to, or striking a woman big with child, was murder.” But at this day it is said to be a great misprision only, and not murder, unless the child be born alive, and die thereof, in which case it seems clearly to be murder, notwithstanding some opinions to the contrary.^[46] And in this respect the common law^[47] seems to be agreeable to the Mosaical,^[48] which as to this purpose is thus expressed. “If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine; and if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”

“It seems also agreed, that where one counsels a woman to kill her child when it shall be born, who afterwards does kill it in pursuance of such advice, he 85is an accessary to the murder.” 1 Hawk. P. C. 121, and authorities there cited.

By the old law^[49] there was this difference between ordinary murder, and the murder of bastard children, that in the latter case the onus probandi was in some measure thrown upon the supposed criminal, a practice totally at variance with our general principles of justice; and though many fictions and judicial evasions were resorted to for the purpose of softening the extreme rigor of this statute,^[50] as by supposing that very slight circumstances, as knocking for help when in labour, providing linen, &c. took away the concealment,^[51] yet the law remained in nominal force till the passing of the stat. 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, by which it is enacted that trials of women for the murder of bastard children should proceed on the same rules of evidence as trials for murder.^[52] 86This part of our subject, therefore, might have been considered under the general head of murder; but though the legal distinctions which marked the crime of infanticide are thus removed, there are yet so many peculiarities in the physiological mode of collecting the evidence of its commission, that we have reserved it for separate consideration, in conjunction with the offence of procuring abortion to which it bears a close affinity.

The case of the King v. Phillips, 3 Campb. R. p. 73, appears to have been the first that was tried under the new law.

This was an indictment on the 2d sect. of Lord Ellenborough’s act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, for administering savin to a woman not quick with child, for the purpose of procuring abortion.^[53]

87The first count of the indictment charged that the prisoner on the 10th day of January 1811, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 20th of March in the year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Mary’s in the county of Monmouth, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully and feloniously did administer to and cause to be administered to and taken by one Hannah Mary Goldsmith, single woman, divers large quantities, that is to say, 6 ounces of the decoction of a certain shrub called savin, then and there being a noxious and destructive thing, the said H. M. G. on the said 10th day of January in the year aforesaid, and continually from thence until the said 20th day of March in the year aforesaid, at &c. aforesaid, being with child, but not quick with child, to wit, at the respective times of administering such divers large quantities of the decoction of the said shrub called savin as aforesaid, with intent thereby to cause and procure the miscarriage of the said H. M. G., against the form of the statute, &c.

It appeared that the prisoner prepared the medicine which he administered to Miss Goldsmith by pouring boiling water on the leaves of a shrub: and the medical 88men examined, stated that such a preparation is called an infusion not a decoction,—which is made by boiling the substance in the water.

The prisoner’s counsel insisted that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the medicine was misdescribed.

Lawrence, J. This objection will not hold. The infusion and decoction are ejusdem generis, and the variance is immaterial. The question is, whether the prisoner administered any matter or thing to this woman with intent to procure abortion.

Witnesses were called for the prisoner to prove that the shrub he used was not savin.

The counsel for the prosecution, insisted, that even in that case the prisoner might be found guilty upon the last count of the indictment, which charged that he administered a large quantity “of a certain mixture to the jurors unknown, then and there being a noxious and destructive thing.”

The prisoner’s counsel objected that unless the shrub was savin, there was no evidence that the mixture was “noxious and destructive.”

Lawrence, J. In an indictment on this clause of the statute, it was improper to introduce these words; and although they are introduced, there is no necessity to prove them. It is immaterial whether the shrub was savin or not, or whether or not it was capable of procuring abortion,^[54] or even whether the woman was actually with child. If the prisoner believed at the 89time that it would procure abortion, and administered it with that intent, the case is within the statute, and he is guilty of the offence laid to his charge.

The prisoner urged that he had given the young woman an innocent draught for the purpose of amusing her, as she had threatened to destroy herself, unless enabled to conceal her shame; and the Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

The prisoner had been previously tried on the first section of the statute^[55] for the capital charge, in administering savin to Miss Goldsmith to procure abortion, she being then quick with child.^[56] In point of fact, she was in the fourth month of her pregnancy. She swore, however, that she had not felt the child move within her before taking the medicine, and that she was not then quick with child. The medical men in their examinations, differed as to the time when the fœtus may be stated to be quick, and to have a distinct existence; but they all agreed that in common understanding, a woman is not considered to be quick with child till she has herself felt the child alive and quick within her, which happens with different 90women in different stages of pregnancy, although most usually about the sixteenth or eighteenth week after conception.

Lawrence, J. said, this was the interpretation that must be put upon the words quick with child in the statute; and as the woman in this case had not felt the child alive within her before taking the medicine,—he directed an acquittal.

It cannot be necessary here to repeat that the popular idea of quick or not quick with child is founded in error;^[57] yet as Acts of Parliament are not often drawn, and seldom even reviewed previous to their passing, by those whose profession, science, trade, or business, would best enable them to convey their meaning with distinctness; and as penal statutes must be construed strictly, and according to the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words, we must be content to recognise a distinction in law which does not exist in nature. There is, however, another peculiarity in the two sections which are founded on this distinction of quick or not quick, which calls for immediate attention; in the first of these, that which applies to women quick with child, and in which the offence is made a capital felony, there is no mention of using any instrument or other means whatever, but the crime is confined to administering any deadly poison, or other noxious and destructive substance or thing; while in the clause against the minor offence the use of instruments or other means whatsoever is expressly included. Now we shall have occasion hereafter to show that medicines internally administered can seldom produce abortion, but that the effect can be infallibly secured by instruments; the most probable 91mode therefore of committing the crime appears to be protected by the most penal clause.

A case^[58] on this point is inserted in the Edinburgh Medical Journal for April, 1810; we entirely concur in the sentiment of the editors; “we cannot,” they say, “avoid remarking the apparent inconsistency 92of the law of England, in having no statute to punish its actual perpetration by the only certain means of effecting it, while it punishes by death, without benefit of clergy, the attempting it by means which are very seldom effectual. Thus Pizzy was tried for attempting to cause Ann Cheney to abort, by giving her medicines, which had no effect; and his having actually perpetrated the crime by mechanical violence, was only brought forward as proving the intention with which the medicines were given.”^[59] The act therefore requires amendment, framed however with such care, that the necessary practice of procuring premature labour by qualified practitioners may be defended, while the immoral and criminal use of instrumental abortion may be adequately punished.

Abortion^[60] may be procured by the administration of powerful medicines, or by the application of mechanical violence, such as blows, or pressure on the abdomen; or by the introduction of sharp instruments into the uterus, so as to rupture the membranes. We shall offer a few remarks upon each of these several modes of accomplishing the criminal object in question. From a very early period attempts have been made to devise means of procuring abortion by the administration of certain drugs, which were considered as capable of acting specifically upon the womb, and of occasioning the exclusion of its contents. It would be idle to enumerate the various substances which have, at different times, been employed for such a purpose, not a few of which were derived from the fertile sources of credulity and superstition; and yet we are bound to admit, that upon this occasion at least, credulity has proved a blessing to mankind, by suggesting the substitution of a harmless amulet, or an inefficacious drug, for an application of extreme violence and danger, and, perhaps of death. The physicians of the present age disclaim the existence of any specific class of abortives, but we 94are ready to admit that the administration of violent medicines, by involving the uterus in the general shock thus given to the system, will occasion abortion, provided there exist at the same time, a certain predisposition on the part of the female; should this latter condition, however, be wanting, the poculum abortionis may, by the violence of its operation, destroy the life of the unhappy mother, or very materially injure her, without accomplishing the object for which it was administered. In the case of Mrs. Robert Turner, one of the persons poisoned by Elizabeth Fenning, notwithstanding the long and violent sufferings she had experienced during her pregnancy, brought forth a living child at the natural period. On the other hand, a grocer’s wife in Edinburgh, having swallowed by mistake a handful of nitre, suffered abortion in less than half an hour; and in the case of Mrs. Atwood, of Mitcham, who with the rest of her family was poisoned by mushrooms, as already related, (vol. ii, p. 431) although rescued from death, miscarried in consequence of the violence which her general system had sustained.

The medicines more particularly employed for procuring abortion are savine,^[61] and other irritating drugs, especially those which tend to excite a considerable degree of vascular action; such medicines, likewise, as exert a violent action on the stomach, or bowels, will be likely to produce miscarriage, and are often taken for such purpose in quantities sufficient to produce fatal results. Mr. Burns observes that it is an old remark that those purgatives which occasion much tenesmus, will be more likely to excite the expulsion of the ovum. The strong cathartics, 95however, which are sometimes taken to promote such an effect, not only act by exciting tenesmus, but likewise by inflaming the stomach and bowels, and thus affect the uterus in two ways. It cannot be too generally known, adds the last mentioned author, that when these medicines do produce abortion the mother will seldom survive their effect. It is a mistaken notion that abortion can be more readily excited by drastic purges, immediately after the woman discovers herself pregnant; on the contrary, the action of the uterus is then more independent of that of the other organs, and is therefore not so easily injured by changes in their condition. Upon the same principle that violent cathartics or emetics operate upon the pregnant uterus, any other sudden shock upon the body will occasion a similar effect on that organ; the extraction of a tooth, for example, has been known to produce abortion. A thunder-storm, or violent cannonade, has been supposed to occasion the same result by the concussion of the air; but Mr. Burns considers it more probable that such an effect is owing to mental trepidation. The influence of the passions upon these occasions, such as fear and joy, especially if suddenly produced, is too well known to require a comment, and it has been too often artfully excited for criminal purposes. The same observation will apply to other violent impressions upon the body, such as that occasioned by rapid and uneasy travelling, dancing,^[62] walking, &c. Blood-letting also, if carried to any extent, will be liable to occasion 96miscarriage. Belloc relates a case in which these means were criminally used for such a purpose; the woman was bled by a medical practitioner, when, after his departure, the bandage was removed, and a farther quantity of blood taken. But all the modes above related were soon discovered not only to be highly dangerous to the woman, but extremely precarious in their results; and hence a practice appears to have early originated of ensuring the exclusion of the ovum by the more direct and certain method of introducing a stillet, or some sharp-pointed instrument into the uterus; an allusion to an instrument of this kind was made on the trial of Charles Angus (vol. ii, p. 177) and was described as a silver tube with a slide, at the end of which was a dart with three points. Ovid^[63] appears to allude to this operation in the following passage.

The practice is also reprobated by Tertullian,^[64] who has described the instrument with which the operation of penetrating the ovular membranes was performed, “est etiam æeneum spiculum quo jugulatio ipsa dirigitur, cæco latrocinio εμβρυοσφακτην appellant, utique viventis infantis peremptorium.”

It is hardly necessary to remark that such an operation, unless performed by a skilful surgeon, will be very liable to endanger the life of the female. Guy Patin relates the case of a midwife who was hanged at Paris for occasioning the death of a lady in that 97city, by an attempt to procure abortion by this method. On her trial she said she had frequently practised it with success; but, in this case it seems, the instrument had pierced the body of the uterus, instead of passing through the os internum. We have already noticed a parallel case which occurred at Durham, see page 72.

In cases of criminal abortion the medical practitioner may be called upon to deliver an opinion upon the circumstances of the case. The data from which he is to draw his conclusions have been already fully investigated in different parts of this work. We must therefore refer the reader to the Physiological Illustrations of Conception and Parturition, vol. i, p. 230, and to our directions for conducting the dissection of the uterus, vol. iii, p. 67, for the solution of the different problems to which the consideration of the subject may give origin.

In cases of alleged infanticide, the evidence of the forensic physician is of the highest importance, and as his opinion upon such an occasion must necessarily go far to influence the judgment, and direct the verdict of the jury, he should be fully prepared to appreciate the difficulties of the case, and to clear away the numerous fallacies, and popular prejudices with which the subject is embarrassed. To Dr. William Hunter, the profession and the public owe the deepest obligation, for the philosophical and humane manner in which he examined the general value of physiological testimony in proof of the commission of child-murder. Previous to this enlightened dissertation^[65] it is to be greatly feared that many unfortunate women had fallen the innocent victims of false theory and prejudice. The objections, however, so forcibly urged by Dr. Hunter against the validity of certain physiological tests, although well calculated to awaken inquiry, in order to divest such evidence of its fallacy, were not intended, as some have imagined, to discard physiological testimony altogether. With this conviction, we shall proceed to a critical examination of the various proofs which physiology has been supposed capable of affording, in support of an accusation of infanticide.

99The objects of this inquiry may be conveniently arranged under four divisions, viz.

1. To ascertain whether the child was born alive?

2. If born alive, whether its death was the result of natural causes; of wilful murder; or of negligence and abandonment?

3. If its death arose from the want of due care, whether such negligence should be regarded as criminal or accidental?

4. Whether the woman accused presents on examination, such appearances as correspond with her supposed relations to the child?

Upon each of these heads we shall offer such observations as appear to us to be essential to ensure the safe judgment of the practitioner. Several of the questions, involved in the inquiry, have already engaged our attention in the first volume of the present work, under the history of conception; while the industry with which the numerous authorities on the subject of infanticide, and its scientific relations, have been lately collated by Dr. Hutchinson,^[66] in England, and Professor Capuron, in France, will justify us in giving to this branch of our work the character of a commentary, rather than that of a regular history.

On the discovery of the body of a newly-born infant, it becomes our first duty to ascertain whether the spark of life be entirely extinct; if the sensible proofs of absolute death should be absent, no time is 100to be lost in subjecting it to those means^[67] which are best calculated to excite it to vigorous life, such as external warmth, frictions, inflation of the lungs, &c.

Having satisfied ourselves that the child is dead, we are to proceed to such inquiries, as may enable us to furnish the best possible evidence on the case, in a court of judicature, viz.

In the absence of all direct testimony, our investigation is to be conducted upon principles very similar to those which we have already recommended in those obscure cases of death in which “the person is found dead, and the history of his dissolution is unknown.” See vol. iii, p. 2. The appearances of the corpse—the character of the spot in which it was found—the report of competent witnesses—and the phenomena displayed on dissection, are, in both cases, the circumstances from which we are to elicit data for the solution of our difficult problem.

A. The inspection of the body of the infant. By this we are first to learn, whether it had arrived at that degree of maturity which is essential for enabling it to sustain an independent existence—“etoit il viable?”^[68] If it can be fairly shewn that the child had not reached the end of the seventh month of uterine gestation, the charge of infanticide ought to be withdrawn, 101although we are well aware that various opinions might be cited in support of a contrary position. (See Physiological Illustrations, vol. i, p. 243.) The weight of the child is a circumstance which should always be ascertained, as being capable of throwing some light on the question at issue. If the fœtus has passed the period of seven months, it will generally weigh four pounds, although upon this point again a difference of opinion has unfortunately existed.^[69]

The length of the fœtus, at the full term, is said to vary less than its weight. It is generally from 102nineteen to twenty-two inches. Seventeen and twenty-six will include the two extremes. Professor Chaussier has presented us with a scale of relative admeasurements, from which he thinks we may deduce the age of a child. He asserts that at the full term of gestation, the middle of the body of the fœtus corresponds exactly with the umbicus; at the eighth month it is two or three centimeters higher; that it approaches still nearer the sternum at the seventh month; and at the sixth falls exactly at the abdominal extremity of that bone.^[70] If this statement is to be relied upon, we should be able to conclude, says Dr. Smith, that when the middle of the length of the body falls at the cartilago ensiformis, the fœtus must be under the seventh month, and consequently could not have continued to live after birth.

The surface of the fœtus will moreover present an appearance, arising from its great vascularity, which is very characteristic of its immaturity; the red hue, however, to which we more particularly allude, is not acquired until the vessels have attained a certain capacity, and the circulation a considerable degree of vigour; and it is worthy of remark that the appearance becomes again obscure, as the developement of the fœtus advances, from the increasing opacity of the integuments, but in those parts where the deposition of fat in the cellular membrane is wanting, the redness will remain conspicuous, as in the palms of the hands, or in the soles of the feet. The head still maintains an unjust proportion to the rest of the body; the bones of which it consists are extremely soft and yielding; and, on account of the extent of 103the fontanelles, the connection between them is extremely imperfect. The eye-lids are closed; the hair on the eye-brows and the eye-lashes but thinly scattered; the pupil is generally closed by a membrane; the nails are wanting, or scarcely apparent. The sexual organs will also afford some characteristic appearances. In the male, the testes, between the sixth and eighth month are in progress towards the scrotum; at the end of the seventh they are not yet found there. The scrotum is generally of a bright red colour. In females the vulva is projecting, and the labia separated by the protuberance of the clitoris.

The general external appearance of a fœtus may, moreover, indicate the important fact of its having been retained in the uterus after its death. Lecieux observes that the ordinary term which it remains in the womb, in this state, is from five to twenty days; and that, according to the length of this period, the body will have lost more or less of its consistence and firmness; the limbs become lax, and the muscles are readily torn; the epidermis may be removed by the slightest friction; the skin also assumes a purplish, or brownish-red colour; there is often some bloody serum effused in the cellular tissue, just beneath the skin, especially about the cranium;^[71] the umbilical cord is large in circumference, soft, infiltrated with serum, livid, and is very readily torn; the thorax is flattened, the head falls into different shapes, and becomes flattened from its own weight; the membranes which serve as a bond of union to the several bones of the cranium, are much relaxed. The brain is in a nearly fluid state, and emits a fetid odour.

We should next proceed to a more minute and particular inspection of the external appearances; for 104which purpose the body should be cleansed from the dirt and impurities with which it may be invested, taking care to notice upon this occasion, whether the surface be covered with that sebaceous matter usually present on the skin of newly-born infants, and whether any mud or other matter, capable of stopping the mouth and nostrils be found about them. The head should also be shaved, in order that the fontanelles and sutures may be carefully examined with a view to ascertain whether any injury had been committed on the brain through these avenues. A midwife was executed at Paris for having introduced fine and sharp wires into these parts, before the heads of the unfortunate infants were expelled from the vagina, and consequently before respiration could have taken place. Every appearance of ecchymosis, or wound, should be inspected with attention, in order that its true character may be verified; and upon this occasion it will be important to bear in mind that on the surface of dead bodies, especially on those parts on which they have lain, superficial livid marks, arising from stagnation of blood in the small vessels of the skin will very generally present themselves, and which have received the name of sugillations, in contradistinction to that of ecchymoses, which are produced during the life of the individual. As the people, observes Dr. Hutchinson, are apt to regard the former of these discolourations as signs of violence, and as such propositions have even been maintained in courts of judicature, it is highly essential to obviate the possibility of litigation on this point, by removing a layer of the skin where such lividness is present, to shew that it is confined to this organ, and is not attended with infiltration of blood in the cellular tissue.

105The appearance of wounds inflicted during life will vary according to the length of time the subject has survived. If death takes place immediately, they will present red and bloody surfaces, with ecchymosis. Should life have lingered for some hours, their edges will be somewhat tumid and retracted, and the surrounding skin will display a reddish appearance; clots of blood may also exist in them, and these will be found to adhere to their surfaces. In those cases in which several days elapse before death, they may appear bedewed with purulent matter. Dr. Hutchinson very justly remarks that wounds, made when the circulation has ceased, and the body become cold; and when the blood has coagulated in the vessels, and the muscles have become rigid, may be known to have been inflicted after death by the pallid appearance of their surfaces, and by the total absence of tumefaction and retraction; such wounds, moreover, never contain any adherent clots of blood, and there is no surrounding ecchymosis. These characters may not perhaps be quite so distinct, where the violence has been effected immediately after death, while the body is still warm, the blood fluid, and the muscles endowed with contractility; yet in this latter case there will neither appear tumefaction, nor ecchymosis; and the blood, which may have oozed from the divided surfaces, will remain fluid, or form clots not adherent to them.

Contusions, effected during life, are always accompanied with more or less of ecchymosis; and, if produced by severe external violence, the skin will necessarily be involved in the injury. When ecchymosis is superficial, and the subject outlives its course, its progress and decline present highly characteristic phenomena; at first the injured surface presents a 106spot of a red, or bluish colour; this spot which is formed by the blood infiltrated into the cellular tissue, soon assumes a deep livid, or leaden hue; it then after a few days becomes, successively, violet, yellowish, and terminates by a pale citron colour. It is generally seven or eight days before it disappears. These characters will always enable the anatomist to distinguish contusions made during life, from those occurring after death.

The state of the cervical vertebræ should also be carefully examined, for the death of the infant may have been occasioned by a fatal luxation, produced perhaps by some sudden contortion of the neck. Any marks of pressure, or violence about this part should therefore be carefully noted; and it will be obviously more convenient to examine the spine, before the large cavities of the bodies are exposed; and which may be accomplished in the following manner. After dissecting the soft parts from the vertebræ, the dorsal parts may be readily removed by scissars, while the apophyses of the true vertebræ can be very easily cut through. The practitioner will thus be enabled to estimate the nature and extent of any wound, or laceration, or effusion of blood, that may be discovered in connection with the spinal marrow. The appearance and condition of the umbilical cord should also be examined before any of the great cavities are laid open; for it is obvious where a ligature has not been properly applied to it, death may have arisen as the result of hemorrhage from this part. Other reasons also exist which render such an inspection of the greatest importance.

The ample directions which have been already offered upon this subject, (vol. iii, p. 45) will in a great degree supersede the necessity of very minute details on the present occasion. There are, however, some few phenomena that exclusively relate to the evidence of infanticide, and must accordingly receive a due share of our attention. Certain peculiarities, moreover, exist in the mode of conducting the dissection of an infant, which demand some explanation.

Cavities of the mouth, œsophagus, larynx, and trachea.

It will be adviseable to commence our incision through the integuments, from the under lip to the top of the sternum, passing quite through the former part; another incision is to follow the inferior margin of the lower jaw; then the triangular portions thus marked out are to be separated from the parts beneath; the head should be bent back in order to put the soft parts that are to come under the knife upon the stretch. The jaw may now be divided at its symphysis, so as to separate it into two lateral portions, which may be turned aside by dividing with a scalpel all the parts which adhere to its internal surface. The object of this arrangement is to bring into view the cavities of the mouth, œsophagus, larynx, and trachea, the condition of which is so frequently connected with the death of the child that they ought never to escape examination. The position of the tongue should be noticed, and the contents of the mouth, if any, ought to be recorded, for cases have occurred in which extraneous matters, 108such as mud, sand, feathers, &c. have been accidentally, or criminally introduced. It will at the same time be extremely proper to ascertain the state of the nasal cavities, and to observe the quantity and consistence of the mucus in these parts, as well as in the fauces. The tongue may now be gradually pulled downwards, until the isthmus of the fauces is stretched, when, by cutting through the arch of the palate, the whole of the pharynx will be exposed; the dissection should then be extended in order to bring the commencement of the œsophagus into view, which should be carefully examined. The position of the epiglottis is the next object of inspection; and lastly, the interior of the larynx and trachea may be disclosed by making an incision through the thyroid, crycoid, and tracheal cartilages, at their anterior parts. Ligatures should be placed on the lower parts of the œsophagus and trachea.

Thoracic cavity. Having accomplished the examination above described, we may proceed to expose the cavities of the thorax and abdomen, in the manner already explained, (vol. iii, p. 52) remembering always that, by carelessly wounding the thoracic viscera, we shall, in a great degree, defeat the objects of the dissection; on this account it will be advisable to make the division of the ribs with scissars, instead of a scalpel. From the examination of these cavities we shall, in the first place, derive a confirmation, or refutation, of the opinion respecting the maturity, or viabilité of the subject, which the external view of the body had suggested. Previous to the end of the seventh month the heart will be found exceeding in size its just proportions, and without much difference of capacity between the auricles and ventricles. The lungs will appear small, solid, and retracted 109from the anterior part of the cavity. In the abdomen we shall find the liver very considerable in size, and situated near the umbilicus, from which it afterwards gradually recedes as the fœtus advances. The gall-bladder will be found to contain a nearly colourless serous fluid, which during the eighth month gradually becomes yellowish, and acquires a bitter taste. If the appearances above described be compared with those which are displayed on the dissection of a full grown fœtus, we shall be able to form a very just estimate of the value of an anatomical investigation, in discovering the term of its intra-uterine or fœtal life. But, by the inspection of the thoracic organs, we endeavour to derive an inference still more important; the state of the lungs is supposed to be capable of indicating whether respiration have ever been performed; and, consequently, whether the child was born alive. It is affirmed that the lungs of the fœtus are small, not filling the cavities of the chest, or covering the pericardium; dense; compact; of a deep-red, or chocolate colour, not unlike that of the liver; carrying but little blood, and having a specific gravity exceeding that of fresh water, and, consequently, sinking in that fluid. Upon cutting into them no air will be emitted, nor will any blood follow the incision. When, however, respiration has been established, these organs become more voluminous, present a yielding elastic texture, and assume a florid-red colour; they, moreover, contain and transmit a larger quantity of blood, and have a specific gravity less than that of fresh water, and accordingly float in it. On cutting into the lungs, under these circumstances, the air contained in their cells will escape, and produce a peculiar crackling noise, which has been well expressed by the term 110crepitating; a bloody fluid will at the same time exude.

That a change in the character of the pulmonary structure so important as that just described should have attracted the notice of the physiologist, and been eagerly seized, as evidence in proof of the infant having respired, and therefore been born alive, cannot be a matter of surprise; and we accordingly find that the hydrostatic test long enjoyed the unreserved confidence of the profession and the public. Whenever an infant was found dead, under circumstances of doubt and suspicion, its lungs were removed from the body, and immersed in water; if they sank, the subject of the experiment was immediately declared to have been still-born. If, on the contrary, they floated, it was concluded without farther enquiry, that the infant had lived after its birth. The aphorism of Baglivi may be received as an expression of the general feeling so long entertained upon this subject. “Pulmones fœtus mortui in utero matris, si extrahantur, et in aqua ponantur, petunt fundum; mortui vero extra uterum et aqua injecti innatent in ea. Quod signum ad infanticidia detegenda est evidentissimum.”^[72] The number of innocent females who may have been thus sacrificed through a physiological conceit, is a circumstance that must excite the most awful reflection.^[73] It is now well ascertained, and as generally admitted, that the validity of the hydrostatic test, as usually applied, must afford very unquestionable indications. Bohn,^[74] Hoffman,^[75] and Heister,^[76] 111have shewn that the lungs of a fœtus, born dead, will under some circumstances, to be hereafter explained, float in water; while those of one that has lived after its birth may sink in the same fluid. Dr. Gordon Smith is inclined to attribute some of the uncertainty, by which the minds of medical men have been obscured with regard to the pulmonary tests, to confusion in the method of conducting the experiment, for there is, says he, but one order in which the steps can be taken, and if the anatomist should inadvertently resort to one stage of the process before another that should have preceded, he will baffle his own efforts. In commencing an examination of the thoracic organs, we should, previous to the disturbance of the parts, notice whether any morbid appearances present themselves, such as adhesions between the lungs and the pleura costalis, &c. We should at the same time observe whether the lungs be collapsed, or dilated, and whether they cover the lateral parts of the pericardium. We then proceed to separate the pulmonary organs from the body, in order to submit them to the hydrostatic test, to which we have adverted. For the performance of this dissection, Dr. Hutchinson has given us so many complete and satisfactory directions, that we shall here introduce them for the instruction of the forensic physician. “Ligatures must be placed on the aorta and venæ cavæ, near their attachment to the heart; the trachea is then to be removed close to the bronchiæ; the vessels cut beyond the ligatures; and the heart and lungs, attached together, removed from the cavity of the thorax. If bloody, they should be cleansed with a sponge; and then the colour of the lungs, their consistence and elasticity, and their state with regard to healthy structure, be distinctly noticed, 112without compressing them forcibly, or lacerating in any way their structure. If the body generally be in a state of putrid decomposition, it should be ascertained whether the lungs are also thus affected, and in what degree. A livid colour from congestion of dark coloured blood in the minute vessels, should not be mistaken for gangrene; an appearance of this kind seems often to have the same origin as the lividness of the surface of dead bodies. The lungs are to be turned with the bronchial trunks downwards, that any fluid which may be contained in these tubes may flow out; and whatever escapes from them should be preserved in a clean vessel. These organs are then to be weighed in conjunction with the heart. A vessel, of a foot or a little more in diameter, and of at least a foot and a half in depth, is to be filled to the height of not less than a foot with pure fresh, and if possible, river water, the temperature of which should be nearly equal to that of the air, unless this be very cold or very hot. The lungs and heart, still attached together, are to be placed in a gentle manner in this water. It must then be remarked, whether they float near the surface, or sink to the bottom; whether they fall suddenly, or descend slowly; whether the lungs turn uppermost, and float near the surface of the water, or about the middle of the fluid.

The heart is now to be separated from the lungs, having previously applied a ligature to the pulmonary vessels, to prevent the escape of the blood they may contain; and the weight of the heart alone then determined, that it may be subtracted from that of the heart and lungs together, as previously ascertained. The lungs are now to be placed alone in the water, and great attention must be paid to the position they assume in it; that is, whether they sink 113rapidly or slowly, or float near the surface; whether, by reversing their vertical situation in the water, they sink more readily or with more difficulty; and, if any part constantly rises and is drawn under water by the rest, this part should be particularly marked.

The two lobes must be separated, and the above-mentioned experiment made with each distinctly, and any difference in the results remarked; if one lobe float, and the other sink, it should be noticed whether it is the right or left that floats. Each lobe is then to be cut into several pieces, taking care not to confuse those of the right with those of the left.”

Having examined the physiological principles upon which the hydrostatic test is established, and explained the manner in which it is to be conducted, it remains for us to enumerate the several objections which have been urged against its validity.

1. A fœtus may breathe as soon as its head is without the vagina, and immediately die.—This is one of the great arguments adduced by Dr. Hunter;^[77] “a child,” says he, “will very commonly breathe as soon as its mouth is born, or protruded from the mother, and in that case may lose its life before its body be born; especially when there happens to be a considerable interval of time between what we may call the birth of the child’s head, and the protrusion of its body. And, if this may happen when the best assistance is at hand, it is still more likely to happen where there is none; that is, where the woman is delivered by herself;” and he adds, “if a child makes but one gasp, and instantly dies, the lungs will swim in water as readily as if it had breathed longer, and had then been strangled.” This opinion, however, 114must not be received without qualification. We admit that under such circumstances a portion of the lungs will become inflated, and therefore swim in water; but it would appear from the more precise and comprehensive views of later physiologists, that respiration is not completely performed on the first effort, but that it is a process gradually advancing to perfection; and that it will be more or less protracted according to the degree of vigour of which the infant is possessed. Portal has shewn by experiments^[78] that the air enters the right lung sooner than the left, and that the left lobe is very often not at all dilated for several days. The same fact was observed by Blancardi.^[79] Dr. Hutchinson states that he was informed by a late physician to the Foundling-hospital at Naples, who opened daily, on an average, the bodies of ten or twelve infants, which had generally died within twenty-four hours after birth, that he hardly ever found more than a very small portion of the lungs dilated by air; this portion was frequently not larger than a walnut in its green shell, and but rarely larger than a hen’s egg, and it was commonly situate in the right lung.^[80] “I have seen,” continues the author above cited, “a case where the right lobe, when separated from the left, sank in water, though this was the most dilated by respiration, and the infant had lived forty hours, and cried pretty strongly: but it died from suffocation by being overlaid, as it is popularly termed, by the mother, which 115had produced such an engorgement of blood in the lungs, as to counterbalance the influence which the small quantity of air they contained could have exerted on their specific gravity. A piece somewhat more than a cubic inch in volume was the greatest portion that in this case floated in water.”

2. The lungs may have been artificially inflated.—It is so generally known, observes Dr. Hunter, that a child born apparently dead may be brought to life by inflating its lungs, that the mother herself, or some other person, might have tried the experiment. It might even have been done with a most diabolical intention of bringing about the condemnation of the mother. There exists not a doubt but that such an operation would impart buoyancy to the lungs, although the fact has been doubted. Camper, Jager, Schmitt, and Buttner decided the question by numerous experiments.

3. The lungs may float, in consequence of putrefaction.—We have stated on a former occasion that the buoyancy of the human body is materially influenced by the putrefactive process, (vol. ii, p. 40.) Haller procured the lungs of a child that died before its birth. They were of a dark red colour, and both when entire, and when cut in pieces, sank in water. A portion being left to putrefy in water, the colour became brighter, it was covered with air bubbles, ascended gradually as the process of putrefaction advanced, and at length reached the surface, where it continued to float. But in answer to the objection which such a fact would seem to oppose to the validity of the hydrostatic test, let it be remembered that the lungs are particularly unsusceptible of the putrefactive process, and resist it longer than any of the soft parts. So that the body must be very far advanced 116in decomposition before the lungs are found to participate in it. Camper instituted a number of experiments upon infants, at Amsterdam, by exposing their bodies to the action of water, as well as to that of air, and his results fully confirm the fact we have just stated. Ballard was called upon to examine a child, the muscles of whose face were reduced to “boulli”—were in a state of solution—and in which putrefaction had advanced so far as even to prevent discrimination of the sex, notwithstanding which the lungs immediately sunk. If we make incisions into these organs, when in a state of advanced putrefaction, we shall observe air bubbles of a considerable size, and running in lines along the fissures, between the component lobuli of the lungs; where such phenomena present themselves we may be assured, says Dr. Hunter, that the air is emphysematous, and not that which has been introduced by respiration; for, in this latter case, the air bubbles will be hardly visible to the naked eye. But there still remains another mode by which we may determine whether the gas diffused in the texture of the pulmonary organs be the effect of respiration, or decomposition. It consists in pressing portions of the lungs between the fingers, or twisting them in a folded cloth, with all the force we can command; when, should the gas have arisen from putrefaction, the portions thus treated will sink in water; a change which no force, however powerful, will effect in those cases where the gaseous distention has arisen from respiration.

From the view which we have taken of the hydrostatic test, and of the objections which have been urged against its validity, the practitioner will be enabled to appreciate its importance. Plouquet, desirous 117of procuring additional evidence, respecting the existence of respiration, from the condition of the pulmonary organs, proposed a test founded on the absolute weight of the lungs compared with that of the body. Respiration produces two important changes in them—by inflating their texture it diminishes their specific gravity; and by promoting a determination of blood to their vessels, it increases their absolute weight; upon the former of these changes, the hydrostatic test is founded, as we have already explained; on the latter, Professor Plouquet endeavoured to found his “Nova Docimasia Pulmonaris,” which is now very generally known by the name of Plouquet’s test, or assay. The blood-vessels, observes this distinguished physiologist, being collapsed and compressed in the lungs of the fœtus, admit only a small portion of blood; but after respiration, being dilated, and extended, and more free in the expanded lungs, they receive a greater quantity; in consequence of which they become still farther expanded, and of greater calibre. As this increased capacity of the vessels is necessarily permanent, a greater quantity of blood will remain after death in the arteries and veins, and more especially in the latter, than in the lungs of those infants who have never respired, and consequently the absolute weight of the lungs must be increased.

In conformity with these views, Plouquet found on examination, that the body of a male infant, born dead, and which had not respired, weighed 53040 grains, the lungs inclusive; and that these latter organs alone weighed 792 grains; the proportion of the lungs to the body, in weight, was therefore in this case as 1 to 67. In another infant, under similar circumstances, 118he found the proportion as 1 to 70. On examining an infant, born at the full period, and which had respired, the proportion was found to be as 2 to 70, so that the weight of the lungs was absolutely doubled by the act of respiration.

It would be a loss of time to enumerate the different objections which have been urged against the validity of this test, on various grounds, many of which admit of an easy answer. It is sufficient to state that experiments, subsequent to those of Plouquet, by Haartman,^[81] Struve,^[82] Schmitt, and Lecieux,^[83] have shewn that no constant relation between the weight of the lungs and that of the body, under the circumstances above mentioned, can be established. The reason of which, as Dr. Hutchinson has justly observed, without considering the influence of variation in the original construction of the body, is sufficiently accounted for, by the great diversity in the manner in which respiration is established in new-born infants. We have already stated that, in a great proportion of them, it is but gradually and slowly effected; and that several days even may elapse before the lungs are fully dilated. Dr. Gordon Smith^[84] is disposed to believe that data might be obtained for a just conclusion upon this point, if practitioners would institute farther inquiry into the subject; and, with this impression, he has been induced to enter more 119fully into the history of the test, than we deem necessary, believing as we do, that it can never afford evidence sufficiently decisive for practical application. Daniel has proposed a modification of Plouquet’s test, but which is more objectionable even than that which he professes to improve. The same physiologist considers that an inference may be drawn from the increased circumference of the thorax, and the vaulted appearance it assumes after respiration. The objections urged by Dr. Hutchinson to these latter indications appear to us to be unanswerable; the circumference of the thorax, says he, varies so much in infants of the same age and sex, both absolutely and in proportion to other parts of their body, that it cannot be possible to obtain any decisive evidence from it. The vaulted appearance of the chest is almost equally fallacious in the generality of cases, or else it is devoid of utility; because the figure of the thoracic parietes is not much changed until respiration has been fully established, and then we have other and more certain means of detecting its existence. Besides which, it appears from the experiments of Schmitt, that the thoracic parietes were distended outwards by artificial insufflation after death, as much as they are by actual respiration as it occurs in the new-born infant. With these remarks we shall dismiss the subject of Docimasia Pulmonaris, and proceed to inquire whether the structure of the heart is capable of affording any useful indications. There can be no doubt but that, some time after birth, we shall find on inspecting the heart, evident marks of the altered course of the circulation. The foramen ovale will be closed, and in extending our examination, we shall find that the ductus arteriosus and canalis venosus, have collapsed and assumed the appearance of imperforated 120ligaments; but it must be remembered that such changes require some time for their completion, and in cases where the child has perished shortly after its birth, we do not believe that the alteration in structure will be sufficiently obvious to afford any information of practical application. The degree of importance which is to be attached to the arched state of the diaphragm has been already appreciated. The empty state of the urinary bladder and intestines has been alluded to by some authors, as affording a degree of presumptive evidence, since the evacuation of the urine from the former, and that of the meconium from the latter, are performed by most living children soon after birth. We are, however, inclined to attach but very little importance to such indications; and with regard to the meconium, every practitioner in midwifery knows well that it is frequently evacuated by the pressure of the maternal parts on the child during its passage through the pelvis; especially in breech presentations.

The stomach and intestines ought, in every case, to be considered as important objects of examination. It is possible that the trace of some aliment may be discovered, if so, no further proof can be required as to the child having lived. If any thing more than simple mucous fluid exist in the stomach, it should be examined by chemical tests. This remark, which we owe to Dr. Hutchinson, applies especially to the possibility of poison having been exhibited; and on this point the mucous membrane of the stomach will furnish useful evidence. If there should appear any fluid in this viscus, resembling water, it will be necessary to examine its nature, and to ascertain if any vegetable matters be present in it, such as portions of 121weeds, straw, &c. In our examination we should always keep in mind the possibility of the child having been destroyed by drowning, strangulation, poisoning, and the infliction of wounds, subjects which we have already so fully discussed in the second volume of our work, that we do not consider it necessary to dwell upon them in this place.

The cranial cavity.—For the examination of this part Dr. Hutchinson has given us some very minute and valuable instructions, of which we shall avail ourselves. The cranial cavity, he observes, should be exposed, by making, in the first instance, an incision through the integuments of the skull, penetrating to the bone, from the root of the nose to the spinous process of the second or third cervical vertebra; another incision of the same kind should extend from one ear to the other, passing transversely over the summit of the head. Each of the four triangular portions of integuments thus formed, should then be detached from the cranium, beginning at their apex and terminating at their base. The temporal and occipital muscles should then be separated in a similar manner. After examining the state of the cranium, the bones may be removed by dividing the membranous connection between the parietal, frontal, temporal, and occipital bones, with scissars. This, however, should be done without lesion of the vessels of the brain, or of the venous sinuses; in order to avoid the lateral sinus which always contains fluid blood, and which is situated very near the mastoidean angle of the parietal bone, Dr. Hutchinson directs the anatomist, when the point just indicated is approached, to deviate a little from the membrane, and to cut the parietal bone itself near its margin. In the first 122place, the view of the brain will afford presumptive evidence of its age; previous to the termination of the sixth month it will appear as a soft mass, equally white throughout its whole extent; in the eighth month the cerebral substance will have acquired more consistence, its interior will present a reddish colour, although its surface still remains white. The pia mater, which in the earlier stages seemed only to be over its surface, will now be found adherent to it; and some of those grooves and undulations become apparent, which afterwards constitute the circumvolutions. In pursuing the dissection of the brain, the practitioner must be careful in noting every morbid appearance, such as congestions, extravasations, &c., for the cause of death may have arisen from the injured structure of these parts.

C. The character of the spot in which the body was found will often afford presumptive evidence of considerable weight, but in availing ourselves of its indications, we must cautiously avoid the fallacies to which it may give origin; to some of which we shall have occasion to refer at a future period of the investigation. We next proceed to the consideration of the several problems involved in the second division of our inquiry, viz.

If sufficient proof should have been obtained that the child was born alive, we have to inquire into the causes of its death; upon which the anatomical dissection will have thrown some light, and in 123a great measure, prepared our decision. Medical writers on the subject of infanticide have very judiciously considered the modes of violent death in new-born children, as divisible into two great classes, viz. those of omission, and those of commission. It will be convenient for us, on the present occasion, to arrange our remarks with reference to such a division.

Death by omission.—For want of due care the child may perish during, or immediately subsequent to, the labour. It may die from suffocation caused by the viscid mucus naturally existing about the pharynx and glottis in newly-born infants getting into the trachea, especially if the infant has lain on its back for some time after its delivery; or suffocation may be occasioned by the discharge of blood from the mother, or by the wet linen over it, collapsing and excluding the air, or by being drawn close to its mouth and nose by the suction of breathing. Children are, moreover, often born with a portion of the membranes over the face, which, if not removed, must impede respiration. In some cases strangulation is produced by the umbilical cord; the livid circle therefore round the neck, which without due consideration, might seem to afford a proof of criminal violence, is to be regarded with reference to the probability of such an occurrence; it is possible, adds Dr. Hutchinson, that the navel-string may be twisted round the neck of the infant, but loosely, until the body is nearly expelled; and then, if the placenta be firmly retained in the uterus, it may become tightened, and cause suffocation. These circumstances may happen when there is no person about the woman to render her proper assistance; and, therefore, careful examination is necessary, in order to ascertain, if, with the livid circle round the neck, 124there are marks of nails, or points of fingers, or excoriation of the skin. The breadth of the mark, also, and whether or not it makes a complete circle, with the ends exactly meeting, and without deviating from this circle, should be carefully noticed; the latter circumstances conjoined cannot arise from a natural twisting of the navel string. The livid part should be carefully dissected, in order to ascertain if there are ruptured blood-vessels corresponding to it, whether the trachea or larynx be flattened, or their cartilaginous rings laterally compressed; for it is asserted that such injuries never can occur from the natural twisting of the navel string. The practitioner will be enabled by the foregoing remarks to appreciate the value of that indication, upon which the vulgar have ever laid much stress,—the swollen and red appearance of the countenance. Dr. Hunter has made the following judicious observation upon the phenomenon: “when the child’s head or face looks swollen, and very red or black, the vulgar, because hanged people look so, are apt to conclude that it must have been strangled. But those who are in the practice of midwifery know that nothing is more common in natural births; and that the swelling and deep colour disappear gradually, if the child lives but a few days. This appearance is particularly observable in those cases where the navel-string happens to gird the child’s neck, and where its head happens to be born some time before its body.”

A woman suffering labour alone may have the fœtus escape from her, and fall to the ground, on its head, and be thus killed; or she may unexpectedly be seized with pains in situations at once destructive to the child. In the case of infants being found in privies, this circumstance ought not to escape our remembrance. 125A woman was tried at the Old Bailey for the murder of her child, by dropping it into a privy. She declared that while there for a natural purpose, an uncommon pain took her, the child fell, and she sat some time before she was able to stir. On this occasion, we learn from Dr. Gordon Smith, that a practitioner was examined on the possibility of such an event; who stated that an instance came within his own knowledge, where, while the midwife was playing at cards in the room, the woman was taken suddenly, and the child dropped on the floor. To this the author just cited adds another illustrative case. It recently happened, says he, in the circle of my own acquaintance, that a lady who had borne many children, and must therefore have been alive to the import of uneasiness in the last hours of pregnancy, was sitting in company at dinner, and perfectly free from any consciousness of approaching labour, when she experienced an irresistible impulse to repair to the water-closet. She had scarcely arrived there when she was delivered: now had the place of retirement been differently constructed, this infant might have perished. It will very properly be urged that a woman, on finding what has happened, ought, if her feelings and intentions were honest, to give immediate alarm. This is true, but says Dr. Smith, we must admit, in the first place, the possibility of her not being able to do so, in consequence of the effects of the occurrence on her own person; and, in the next place, it is but just to allow that, although an alarm, after she has fully recovered, might secure her in the case of trial, yet as it can be of no use in restoring the life of the child, the idea of concealment will more naturally arise.

126A very remarkable case, in illustration of the subject under discussion, is related by Burnett, in his Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland. “It occurred at Aberdeen in September 1804. The girl had become pregnant in circumstances peculiarly disastrous; actuated by the strongest impulse of shame and remorse, she concealed her situation from every one, and ascribed her appearance to cold she had caught. On the day of her delivery she had been to market, and in returning home accidentally slipt her foot, and fell into a mill-pond, where she would have been drowned had she not obtained immediate assistance. She was carried all wet into an adjoining malt-kiln, where there was a large fire, and left under the charge of another woman. The latter having gone out for a very short time, leaving the girl sitting by the fire, found on her return that she had been delivered of a child. The infant was in life, and lying at the extremity of the ashes near the fire. The girl said that her pains came on unexpectedly while sitting by the fire, and that she became insensible and could give no assistance to her child. No violence appeared on the body of the child, but it appeared to have been scorched by the fire, which occasioned its death a few hours thereafter. The prosecutor consented to a petition for banishment.”

The next circumstance which deserves notice under the consideration of the causes of death, by omission, is that of neglecting to divide the navel-string, and to apply a ligature to the infantine portion of it.—With regard to the value of the presumptive proof of criminal intention which such neglect may offer, there are several very weighty objections, and which have been enumerated by Dr. Hutchinson, in the following order. 1. The infant may perish during its birth from 127hemorrhage from the placenta, or rupture of the navel string, and the mother may, or may not, have divided the latter. 2. The child may have lived after its birth, and the mother may have torn or cut asunder the navel-string, and finding no hemorrhage ensue she has not been led to put a ligature on the infantine portion, and afterwards hemorrhage has taken place from it, from which the infant has died. 3. The mother may discover the hemorrhage in the last mentioned case, and may apply a ligature to the navel string, but too late to preserve the infant’s life. 4. The blood of the mother may be artfully placed about the child, and the navel string left untied; and the mother may wish to have it appear that the infant perished from hemorrhage occurring unknown to her, and that she was not aware of the necessity of tying the navel-string, even though it be found that she had cut it, not torn it asunder with her hands. In the first three cases we shall find, on dissection, evidence of extensive hemorrhage, as indicated by the emptiness of the heart and blood-vessels, paleness of the viscera, &c. In the last case, the proper fulness of the arterial and venous systems will betray the imposture. It is impossible, as Dr. Hutchinson very candidly admits, to trace any rules of general application respecting the first three cases. The decision must be partially founded on various collateral moral circumstances, which come especially within the province of the jury.

A new-born child may perish from exposure to cold. This cause of death will be indicated by the character of the place and circumstances under which its body was found. The appearance of the corpse, upon such an occasion, will also assist our judgment; there will generally be a paleness of the skin, and 128a vacuity in the superficial vessels. It may perish for want of nourishment. But let it be remembered that new-born children are seldom, or never, famished to death, within a few days of their birth; for they require very little nourishment, and it was formerly the custom to keep them some days from the breast; such an omission, however, if suspected, may be ascertained by examining the stomach, and, at the same time, by deducing from the appearance of the umbilicus,^[85] the probable period that has elapsed since its birth.

Death by commission.—We have already pointed out the various means by which the death of the newly-born infant is usually accomplished; such as by wounding, suffocating, strangling, poisoning, &c.; and in the course of our work we have so fully considered the phenomena of violent death, that it cannot be necessary, on the present occasion, to expend farther time on their discussion.

The last object of the inquiry, viz. the appearance and condition of the woman’s person, has been also considered under the history of parturition, and the various questions to which it has given origin, vol. i, p. 249.

We have thus then presented to the reader the various avenues of information, which the sciences of anatomy and physiology are capable of disclosing; and it will, we trust, appear evident, that the forensic physician can rarely furnish more than presumptive evidence in the support of cases of imputed child-murder.

With the moral circumstances of the case the medical-jurist can have nothing to do; and yet it is impossible 129not to inquire whether the deed may not frequently be the result of insanity. Such was the opinion of Dr. Hunter; and we cordially agree with Dr. Smith, that a verdict to this effect might be returned in many cases of this kind with at least as much truth, as in some of suicide. It must not be urged, continues the last mentioned author, that the insanity here is not real because temporary, as long as temporary insanity is so readily admitted in the other case; and we know well that in many instances of the like state of mind, where suicide is unsuccessfully attempted, the supposed lunacy shortly disappears. This plea, however, rarely avails the child-murderer; and yet if the loss of property, or other misfortunes, are to be taken into account as presumptive causes of insanity where there is real evidence of the fact, (the feelings arising from which being the real goad that stings some men to their fate) are we to give a modest female,—one that has probably erred through excess of confidence and attachment—no credit for despair, and distraction, under the anticipation of the infamy that is approaching her?^[86]

It is stated by several authors, that the period at which puerperal mania and phrenitis supervenes is variable, but that it is seldom, if ever, sooner than the third day; often, not for a fortnight; and, in some cases, not for several weeks after delivery. We must be cautious, however, in not applying this general assertion, to the disparagement of particular cases; for several instances are recorded which furnish striking exceptions to the rule. “In the year 1668 at Aylesbury, a married woman of good reputation 130being delivered of a child, and not having slept many nights, fell into a temporary phrenzy, and killed her infant in the absence of any company; but, company coming in, she told them she had killed her infant, and there it lay; she was brought to gaol presently, and after some sleep she recovered her understanding, but marvelled how or why she came thither; she was indicted for murder, and upon her trial the whole matter appearing, it was left to the jury with this direction, that if it did appear that she had any use of reason when she did it, they were to find her guilty; but if they found her under a phrenzy, though by reason of her late delivery and want of sleep, they should acquit her; that had there been any occasion to move her to this fact, as to hide her shame, which is ordinarily the case of such as are delivered of bastard children and destroy them; or if there had been jealousy of the husband that the child had been none of his; or if she had hid the infant, or denied the fact, these had been evidences that the phrenzy was counterfeit; but none of these appearing, and the honesty and virtuous deportment of the woman in her health being known to the jury, and many circumstances of insanity appearing, the jury found her not guilty, to the satisfaction of all that heard it.” 1 H. P. C. p. 36. Had this woman been of doubtful character, though innocent, she might have been executed, for want of medical evidence to prove the nature and frequency of puerperal insanity.

OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND PLEAS IN BAR OF EXECUTION.

In the preceding pages we have endeavoured to lay down such rules, and to draw attention to such points, as may enable medical witnesses to assist the ends of Justice in detecting the perpetration of crime; another duty remains: having discovered the guilty, questions may yet arise, as to whether the criminal is or is not a proper subject for the severity of the law; 1st, in respect of natural incapacity, as in the case of infants and idiots a nativitate; 2d, of accidental incapacities, as in lunacy and temporary derangement of intellect. So also it may be a medical question whether a prisoner stands mute of malice, or by the visitation of God; and 3dly, of temporary unfitness for punishment, as where judgment on a female is to be respited, by reason of her pregnancy; to these we shall add the plea of non-identity, for though we have already stated that personal identity does not appear to us to be a subject peculiarly appropriate to medical jurisprudence,^[87] yet as the greater number of writers on this subject have so considered it, we should not be warranted in omiting all notice of the subject.

“It is clear that an infant above fourteen and under twenty-one is equally subject to capital punishments, as well as others of full age; for it is præsumptio juris, that after fourteen years they are doli capaces, and can discern between good and evil; and if the 132law should not animadvert upon such offenders by reason of their nonage, the kingdom would come to confusion.^[88] Experience makes us know, that every day murders,^[89] bloodsheds, burglaries, larcenies, burning of houses,^[90] rapes,^[91] clipping and counterfeiting of money, are committed by youths above fourteen and under twenty-one; and if they should have impunity by reason of such their minority, no man’s life or estate would be safe. In my remembrance, at Thetford, a young lad of sixteen years old was convict for successive wilful burning of three dwelling houses, and in the last of them burning a child to death, and yet had carried the matter so subtilly, that by a false accusation of another person for burning the first house, an innocent person was brought in danger, if it had not been strangely discovered: he had judgment to die, and was executed accordingly.” 1 Hale. P. C. p. 25.

133But though above fourteen, criminal incapacity cannot be presumed on the mere pretence of nonage, children considerably under that age may be found doli capaces, and be tried, and even executed accordingly, whenever from peculiar evidence it shall appear that by precocity in vice or intellect they can clearly distinguish right from wrong, malitia supplet ætatem: thus John Dean was executed under the age of nine for arson and murder; and William York, in more modern times, was tried and condemned for murder at ten.^[92] Seven years of age, or the period 134of absolute infancy, is probably the limit within which actual crime or sin cannot be imputed morally or legally; (see 1 H. P. C. p. 19; 1 Hawk. P. C. p. 1351; 1 Bl. Com. p. 464); but the law of England does not appear to have fixed any determinate period;^[93] Alfred decreed that none should be punished capitally for theft under twelve years of age. Athelstan enlarged the period till fifteen, (see notes 1 H. P. C. p. 12, 23); but the old standard of twelve appears to 136have prevailed from the time of Hen. 1; thus in the time of Ed. 1, Adam de Arnhale, æt. 12, was committed to the custody of the marshal for stealing nine shillings at night in the dwelling house; postea habito respecto ad imprisonamentum, quod prædictus Adam habuit, & etiam ad teneram ætatem ejusdem Adæ, eo quod non nisi ætatis 12 annorum, qui talis ætatis judicium ferre non potest, ideo de gratia regis deliberetur, 1 P. C. 24; but he was spared, as Sir M. Hale says, de gratia regis, in respect that he was passed the old standard of twelve years.

If an infant clearly under seven years of age be indicted, the case ought not to go to the jury; but the prisoner should be discharged by the court; for “he cannot be guilty of felony, whatever circumstances of discretion may appear; for ex presumptione juris he cannot have discretion, and no averment shall be received against that presumption;” (1 H. P. C. p. 28) but if it be not apparent that he is under seven, and he have sufficient discretion, then, as in the case mentioned [note ^[94]] the issue may go to the jury; and with their verdict they may find, according to the evidence, that he was under seven years of age; and the court may then discharge him, for it was no felony. 1 H. P. C. 27. Also if the prisoner be above seven, and under twelve years of age, unless there be apparent proof of capacity; but it is safer for the court to discharge him, for his trial can answer no useful purpose; and if he once be a felon convict by the verdict of a jury, though subsequently pardoned, the circumstance will probably give a stamp to his character which is never likely to be effaced. Therefore if the humanity of magistrates and prosecutors does not previously interpose to save children from 137this peril, and the contamination of a gaol, the discretion of the judge may; and it is fortunate that, in London at least, public munificence, in this as in many other cases, has supplied the want of legislation: the Philanthropic and other similar societies afford a refuge and prospect of amendment for the infant culprit, to them therefore he should be committed.

As the fact of absolute infancy may generally be ascertained by the mere view of the party, and his capacity ascertained by questions propounded by the court, an infant prisoner may, as before stated, be discharged without further trial; not so however in cases of idiotcy, madness, or lunacy, these must be tried by a jury, for they may easily be feigned, and it is therefore by evidence of previous conduct that the question is to be determined, rather than by reference to the prisoner’s demeanor in court, which may probably be counterfeit.

If the prisoner be found to be an idiot, he must be discharged of the indictment, and handed over to safe custody,^[95] but if he be only lunatic, then other questions arise; first, whether the prisoner is then in a lucid interval, for if he be not, he should not be arraigned at that time; “but the judge in his discretion may discharge the jury of him, and remit him to gaol to be tried after the recovery of his understanding, especially if any doubt appear upon the evidence touching the guilt of the fact, and this in favorem vitæ; and if there be no colour of evidence to prove him guilty, or if there be a pregnant evidence to prove his insanity at the time of the fact committed, then upon the same favor of life and liberty it is fit it 138should be proceeded in the trial in order to his acquittal and enlargement.” 1 H. P. C. 35.^[96]

Secondly, if he be then in a lucid interval, and therefore fit to be tried, whether he was so at the time of the act committed, and this must be tried according to the whole evidence both of the fact and the lunacy, on a plea of not guilty.^[97]

For criminal purposes it is not sufficient that a prisoner have been previously found idiot or lunatic, or the contrary, by inquisition in chancery, 1 H. P. C. p. 33, though the circumstance may create a strong presumption. For there may be a partial insanity which may disqualify a man from the management of his estate, and therefore render him a fit subject for the equitable protection, although he may have a perfect sense of right and wrong in criminal matters, and ought therefore to be responsible for his acts. Personal antipathies and fancied injury are constant subjects of limited insanity; but these ought not to excuse murder; for such a doctrine, by removing the restraints of fear, would constantly convert the passions of hatred and revenge, in themselves limited madness, into absolute insanity.

“He that is non compos mentis and totally deprived of all compassings and imaginations, cannot commit high treason by compassing or imagining the death 139of the king; for furiosus solo furore punitur; but it must be an absolute madness, and a total deprivation of memory.” Coke, P. C. p. 3; but in Beverly’s case, 4 Rep. 124, he says “Mes in ascun cases non compos mentis poit committe haut treason, comme si il tua, ou offer a tuer le roy.” “This,” says Sir Mathew Hale, “is a safe exception, and I shall not question it, because it tends so much to the safety of the king’s person: but yet the same author (Coke P. C. p. 6) tells us, that though this was anciently thought to be law, yet it is not so now; for such a person as cannot compass the death of the king by reason of his insanity, cannot be guilty of treason within the statute of 25 Ed. 3.” Nothing can be more honourable to the independent impartiality of the English law than such an interpretation, amply illustrated in the cases of Hatfield (27 How. St. Tri.) and others, who had attempted the life of his late Majesty George the 3d; and this more especially, as the king must at all times be more exposed to this species of attack than any other person; for beside the sense of supposed wrong, delay or perversion of justice, exaggerated political feeling,^[98] or other causes all pointing the maniac to the same object, there is no madness more frequent than fancied greatness; lunatic asylums are filled with imaginary emperors, kings, princes, and nobles, whose only glimmering of reason is to direct their vengeance against the supposed usurpers of their dignities.

“He who is guilty of any crime whatever through his voluntary drunkenness shall be punished for it as much as if he had been sober.” 1 Hawk. P. C. 3. “A drunkard,” says Sir E. Coke, (1 Ins. 247) “who 140is voluntarius dæmon, hath no privilege thereby.” 4 Bl. Com. 26. But if by continual drunkenness he have become absolutely mad, then the original cause is not referred to, and he may be excused; not so however if there be only a predisposition to temporary madness, and that madness be voluntarily excited by drinking. There are many men, soldiers, who have been severely wounded, in the head especially, who well know that excess makes them mad; but if such persons wilfully deprive themselves of reason, they ought not to be excused one crime by the voluntary perpetration of another.^[99]

“He who incites a madman (idiot, infant, or lunatic) to do a murder or other crime, (as to kill himself) is a principal offender, and as much punishable as if he had done it himself.” 1 Hawk. P. C. p. 3 and 118. 1 H. P. C. 617.

“It seems agreed at this day, that if one, who has committed a capital offence, become non compos before conviction, he shall not be arraigned; and if after conviction, that he shall not be executed.” 1 Hawk. P. C. 3; 1 H. P. C. 36. Indeed in the bloody reign of Henry the eighth, a statute was made (33 H. 8, c. 20) which enacted, that if a person, being compos mentis, should commit treason, and after fall into madness, he might be tried in his absence, and should suffer death, as if he were of perfect memory. But this savage and inhuman law was 141repealed by the Stat. 1 and 2 P. and M. c. 10. For as is observed by Sir Ed. Coke, “the execution of an offender is for example, ut pœna ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat: but so it is not when a madman is executed; but should be a miserable spectacle, both against law, and of extreme inhumanity and cruelty, and can be no example to others.” 4 Bl. Com. p. 25.

Pregnancy is a good plea in bar of execution; but it does not prevent trial or sentence; in a recent instance, however, when a woman was brought to the bar evidently in labour, she was remanded by the court; and query, whether this discretion ought not to be exercised in all cases of advanced pregnancy; for the agitation of the trial may be of more fatal effect than the judgment of the law, and the unfortunate woman, though acquitted, may perish with her child from the mere effect of mental distraction.

When the plea of pregnancy is made to stay execution “the judge must direct a jury of twelve matrons or discreet women to inquire the fact: and if they bring in their verdict quick with child (for barely with child^[100] unless it be alive in the womb, is not sufficient) execution shall be stayed generally till the next session: and so from session to session till either she is delivered, or proves by the course of nature not to have been with child at all. But if she once hath the benefit of this reprieve, and has been delivered, and afterwards become pregnant again, she shall not be entitled to the benefit of a further respite from that 142cause.^[101] For she may now be executed before the child is quick in the womb; and shall not, by her own incontinence, evade the sentence of justice.” 4 Bl. Com. 395; (see also 2 Hawk. P. C. 658, and authorities there.) But Sir M. Hale says that though she be quick a second time she shall have no respite on that account. 1 P. C. 369. And yet he afterwards draws a nice distinction in favorem prolis, that if the woman were not quick, or with child at all,^[102] at the time of the first inquest of the matrons, and afterwards become with child, she shall have her respite; “for the advantage she had at first was not really by reason of pregnancy, but by a mistake of the jury of women.” “And therefore as hath been said, in all cases of reprieves for pregnancy, the judge ought to make a new demand, what the prisoner hath to say wherefore execution should not be awarded.” Ib. And so in all cases where any time intervenes between the attainder and the award of execution, for the party may have become insane, or may plead pregnancy, or a pardon, or an act of grace, or diversity of person, that he is not the same that was attainted. 1 Bl. Com. 396.

This brings us to the last of the pleas which we have proposed to treat upon under this head. The question of Personal Identity may arise in many ways; as whether a child claiming an inheritance is the same that he pretends, or is pretended to be, as in the Douglas or Anglesea causes; (vide ante) whether a prisoner is actually the person who committed a particular offence, when the jury tries the fact and the identity together; 143and where a prisoner after conviction escapes and is retaken, whether he is the same that was convicted.^[103] The former cases we have noticed under the heads of Supposititious Children, vol. i, p. 220, warning our readers not to be too hasty in determining identity upon mere resemblance.^[104] And in the 144last case “a jury shall be impanneled to try the collateral issue, namely, the identity of his person; and not whether guilty or innocent; for that has been 145decided before. And in these collateral issues the trial shall be instanter, and no time allowed the prisoner to make his defence or produce his witnesses, unless he will make oath that he is not the person attainted: (Fors. C. L. 41) neither shall any peremptory challenges of the jury be allowed the prisoner; though formerly such challenges were held to be allowable, whenever a man’s life was in question.” 4 Bl. Com. 396. And query whether this is not the better doctrine; the case of Mr. Radcliffe, brother of Lord Derwentwater, (Fors. C. L. 41) in which the contrary was held, was for high treason shortly after the rebellion of 1745; and as Sir M. Forster says, 146speaking of Monmouth’s attainder, “that was a time of great heat and violence, and few things then done ought to be drawn into example.” Ib. 44. There does not appear to be any good reason why a prisoner should not have all the safeguards on a collateral issue or inquest of office, which are allowed on the main issue; especially when, as in the present instance, his life depends upon the question.

OF PUNISHMENTS.

Punishments may be divided into three classes; capital, when the death of the offender is intended to deter others from similar offence; precautionary, when a noxious individual is removed from general society by imprisonment or transportation; and correctional, when by some pain or penalty inflicted on the individual, he is to be deterred from future crime. Though the subject would admit of much curious detail, our remaining space will not allow us to trace the different modes or modifications of legitimate punishment used in various nations or ages; nor to enter our protest of abhorrence against the many and inhuman tortures which religious fanaticism or political rancour have invented for their antagonists; the only point on which we can physiologically have occasion to observe, as applicable to the capital punishments of the present times, is, that they should be inflicted with as little pain as possible to the criminal, lest compassion for the sufferings of the man, should supersede the salutary horror of his offence; an end which is really, though not apparently, attained in our ordinary mode of execution by hanging; the victim does not suffer, though sometimes his convulsive struggles induce a contrary belief; but the method is defective in one point, it is not calculated to produce a deep impression on the minds of spectators, Pompa mortis magis terret quam mors ipsa. The French mode of decapitation, though held in abhorrence from the outrages with which its very name has 148become associated, is equally humane; an instant terminates the mortal sufferings of the criminal; for this reason it was originally adopted, and when we consider that it superceded the barbarous punishment of breaking on the wheel, previously in use, and the clumsy and uncertain method of decapitation by the sword or axe, we feel ourselves justified, in spite of popular prejudice, in designating the guillotine^[105] an invention of humanity.

Decapitation is also a punishment known in the law of England, and as a more dignified and impressive death, is reserved for the execution of nobles, or distinguished commoners, in cases of high treason, the rest of the barbarous sentence (now abolished by act of parliament), and the previous sentence of hanging, being dispensed with by the king’s authority.

The barbarous punishment of burning, formerly part of the law, is no longer in use; Catharine Hayes, to whose case we have alluded (vol. ii, p. 73), was the last who suffered in this manner.

On the subject of imprisonment we have already commented, (vol. ii, p. 112), and from the very general attention now excited, as well by the discovery of abuses, as by an encreasing spirit of humanity, we may expect the best results.

Of punishment, not capital, there are two which require medical consideration; the one is military flogging, the other the novel invention of the tread-mill. On the first of these, we might have had more 149cause to complain, had the old system of the army been continued; it is however due to the character of the present Commander in Chief to notice, that under his direction the punishment of flogging has been much diminished; regimental courts martial, composed of five officers (possibly infants), are now restricted in their sentences to the infliction of three hundred lashes; formerly double the number was deemed a moderate punishment; and there is good reason to believe, that the discipline of a regiment, and the capacity of a commanding officer, is no longer considered in the direct, but on the contrary, in the inverse ratio of the number of lashes inflicted:^[106] we need not say that the general state and conduct of troops has proved the policy of the alteration, we have only to hope that the improvement will be extended, and that the English army will not long be subjected to a degrading and barbarous torture, from which less moral men, and much worse soldiers, are exempted in every other service in Europe. It is necessary, however, that till this very desirable reform is effected, some observation should be made on the mode of inflicting this punishment.

It is generally supposed that the surgeon who is present at a military execution, is responsible for its consequences; this is not legally true, and it is physiologically impossible; the punishment is too uncertain in its operation to allow of any medical assistant’s ascertaining the boundaries of danger; moral feeling, age, strength, nervous irritability, climate, previous disease, organic defects, and other circumstances, many of which it would be impossible for the most skilful to detect, and least of all by mere view of the 150culprit tied up to the halberts, may render a punishment fatal, which had been intended to be lenient. No surgeon therefore can answer, either for the ultimate, or immediate consequences of this species of corporal punishment; he may indeed err on the safe side, by interposing as early as possible,^[107] but there is no criterion by which he can be guided in forming an absolute opinion on the danger or safety of the punishment.

But though the surgeon cannot be held criminally responsible (except in cases of gross ignorance or negligence) for the result of such executions, yet, if the commanding officer permits a single lash to be inflicted after the medical attendant has interposed, he would be held guilty of murder should the soldier die from the effects of excessive punishment; for malice will be presumed from such continuance after due notice.^[108] In the notorious case of Governor Wall, who was executed for the murder of a soldier by excessive and illegal flogging; the punishment was originally unlawful, having been inflicted without sentence of a court martial, the mode of infliction was unusual, and the surgeon was stated to have been so much intimidated, that he was afraid to interfere, (a poor excuse for neglect of professional duty); under these circumstances, the plea that the deceased killed himself by excessive drinking, though the fact was 151far from improbable under the climate of Goree, was unavailable; the illegal flogging was the primary cause of the death, and therefore neither the effect of climate, misconduct, or mismanagement, could remove the original criminality. In this as in several other cases of death from ill-usage, it is a constant but unavailing plea that the deceased died not of the wounds or blows, but of fever, or defective treatment.^[109]

On the subject of the tread-mill, we are not enabled to pronounce any very decided opinion, the invention has not been in use long enough to determine with any degree of accuracy its merits or defects; that it is held in considerable dread by offenders is certain, and the fear of returning to it may operate favourably on that class for which it appears best calculated, the regular vagabond; but it does not give any habit of industry, or teach any mode of labour to the merely idle or casually culpable, and therefore ought not to be indiscriminately applied to all cases. The punishment too is one of the most unequal in its operation that can be conceived; a man, who has been accustomed to running up stairs all his life, with good lungs and muscular legs, will scarcely suffer by it; while an asthmatic tailor, weaver, or other sedentary artizan will be half killed by the exercise. For women in certain stages, whether of menstruation or pregnancy, it is a dangerous and indecent torture, one which should immediately be forbidden, if not by the humanity of magistrates, by the wisdom of the legislature.

152One very material objection to this machine arises out of the probability of abuse in the places where it is generally erected; an air of mystery has been thrown round houses of correction, which has acquired for some of them the odious name of bastile; even grand juries have been denied admission to them, on the ground that they are the prisons of the magistrates, not of the sheriff; we certainly do not understand either the policy or propriety of this distinction; that they should not be thrown open to the idle or merely curious we are ready to admit, but contend that they should be open to all official inspection; much must in every prison depend on the conduct and discretion of the jailors—to know that he is open to public animadversion is the best security for the due exercise of his office: a contrary assurance is well calculated to produce despotic feeling in ordinary minds; how much more then is it to be guarded against, when persons of the lower class are entrusted with extraordinary power of coercion, and are continually irritated by the refractory conduct of those who are placed under their authority. In such cases constant inspection, at uncertain times, and by uninterested persons, is the best guarantee against abuse.

POSTSCRIPT.

While this work was in the press several circumstances have occurred which it may be necessary to notice; first, as respecting the corporate medical bodies, His Majesty has been pleased to confer additional honors on the President of the College of Physicians, for which see the Preface;—the College itself is about to be removed from their late house in Warwick Lane to a more convenient site among the new buildings of Pall Mall East. A new charter has been granted to the College of Surgeons, but as it is not yet confirmed by Act of Parliament, it does not materially vary the public right of the College, or supply what was wanting in their jurisdiction. The Apothecaries’ Company have very properly exerted their powers under the Act of 55 Geo. iii, for punishing illegal practice.^[110]

The Marriage Act which is incidentally referred to, vol. i, p. 169, is in part repealed by an act of the last session, which in turn is about to be amended or repealed in the present. The Portsmouth case, adhuc sub judice, affords some curious illustrations on the subjects of impotence and insanity.

The impolitic duty on salt has been lowered to one-seventh of its former amount. An act has been passed to prevent nuisances by gas-water; (vol. i, p. 339) and another for regulating the sale of Bread; (vol. i, p. 375) to these we must refer our readers for the modification or correction of our former remarks on the several subjects connected with them.

INDEX OF CASES.

• A.
• Aland, Sheldon, v., 297
• Alberton, Rex, v., 217
• Alder’s case, II. 122
• Aldred’s case, 348
• Amery and Monk, the King, v., 14
• Anderson v. Edie, 382
• Angus, case of Chas., II. 176, 184—III. 69, 96
• Annesly causes, II. 220
• Annesly in re, 298
• Aram, case of Eugene, III. 79
• Archer’s case, 50
• Archer’s case, II. 129
• Armstrong ex parte, 296
• Arnhale, Adam de, case of, II. 136
• Arnold, Lodie, v., 340
• Askew, Rex, v., 42, 44
• Atkins v. Gardener, 29
• Attorney General v. Doughty, 340, 348
• Attorney General v. Parnther, 299
• Audley’s case, 439
• Avison v. Lord Kinnaird, 386
• B.
• Baker, ex parte, 298
• Baker, Slater, v., 80
• Barnsley, ex parte, 291
• Bateman, case of Mary, III. 13
• Beddingfield and Ringe, case of, III. 30
• Bellingham, case of, III. 139
• Beswick v. Hall, 353
• Berry, Green, and Hill, case of, III. 31
• Bevan’s case, II. 472
• 156Beverly’s case, 292
• Birch v. Holt, 340
• Blandy, Miss, case of, 157, 249
• Blisset, Dickenson, &, 292
• Bloomfield’s case, 434
• Blunt, Want, v., 385
• Bolcot, Chorley, v., 78
• Boldero, Goodall, &, 382
• Bonham v. Coll. of Phys., 23
• Bourne, Coll. of Phys., v., 30
• Bowerman, case of Thomas, III. 80
• Braddon & Spake, the King, v., III. 20
• Brain’s case, III. 122
• Brazier’s case, 422
• Broughton v. Randall, 380
• Brown’s case, 352
• Brown, Cuthbert, v., 217
• Brownrigg’s case, II. 112
• Bugg, Coll. of Phys. v., 30
• Burns, case of, III. 29
• Burton, Hume, v., 300
• Burwell, Groenvelt, v., 38
• Bush, Coll. of Phys. v., 28, 30
• Butler v. Coll. of Phys., 20—30—31
• Butler, Coll. of Phys. v., 31
• Butterfield’s case, 303
• C.
• Castlehaven’s case, 439
• Cambridge, V. C. of, the King, v., 14
• Canning, Elizabeth, case of, 369
• Cave’s case, 434
• Chester, King v. Bishop of, 3
• Chester, B. of, Fox, v., 387
• Chetwynd’s case, II. 2
• Chorley v. Bolcot, 78
• Chumley ex parte, 298
• Clarke, Rex, v., 294
• Clinch, case of, III. 144
• Cockayne ex parte, 298
• Codd and Pizzy, case of, III. 91
• Coleman, case of, 440—III. 143
• College of Physicians v. Huybert, 18
• College of Physicians, Butler v., 20—30—31
• 157College of Physicians, Bonham v., 23
• College of Physicians v. West, 24
• College of Physicians, Grenville v., 28
• College of Physicians v. Talbois, 28
• College of Physicians v. Salmon, 28
• College of Physicians v. Bush, 28—30
• College of Physicians v. Tenant, 29
• College of Physicians v. Needham, 30
• College of Physicians v. Bugg, 30
• College of Physicians v. Bourne, 30
• College of Physicians v. Harder, 30
• College of Physicians v. Merry, 30
• College of Physicians v. Stone, 30
• College of Physicians, Trigg v., 30
• College of Physicians v. Butler, 31
• College of Physicians v. Rose, 32
• Cowper, case of, II. 38—III. 39
• Cooper v. Marshall, 340
• Copping, Dale, v., 79
• Cory and Cory, 293
• Coalson v. White, 340
• Cranmer, ex parte, 291
• Cuthbert v. Brown, 217
• Cutt’s case, 296
• D.
• Da Costa, Sylva, v., 296
• Dale v. Copping, 79
• Darwin, Rigeway, v., 291
• Dean, John, case of, III. 132
• Deplock, Taylor, v., 391
• Dey, John, case of, III. 140
• Dewal v. Saunders, 339
• Dickenson v. Blisset, 292
• Dickson, Margaret, case of, II. 91—III. 85—110
• Dikes, ex parte, 298
• Donnall’s case, II. 157—246—250
• Donellan’s case, II. 130—161—402—467.—Appx. 243
• Dormer’s case, 298
• Douglas cause, 220
• Doughty, Attorney General, v., 340—348
• Duchess of Chandos’ case, 295
• Duffin’s case, 435
• Dwyer and Edie, 382
• 158E.
• East, Giles, case of, III. 132
• Edie, Anderson v., 382
• Edie, Dwyer, v., 382
• Edwards, Shephard, v., 78
• Ely, Rochfort, v., 297
• Essex, Countess of, v. Earl of, 177—211
• Evans and Munroe, the King, v., 351
• Eyre v. Wake, 295
• F.
• Fenning, Eliza, case of, II. 188—217—250
• Ferne, ex parte, 297
• Ferrand, the King v., II. 98
• Ferrers, Earl, case of, III. 140
• Fish v. Palmer, 225
• Fitzgerald’s case, 295
• Fleming and Windham’s case, 439
• Fletcher, Tyrie v., 382
• Forbes’ case, 420
• Forse and Hembling’s case, 294
• Fothergill’s case, 50
• Fox, v. Bishop of Chester, 386
• Foxcroft’s case, 217
• Francis, case of, III. 51
• Francis, Newling, v., 14
• Fuller, v. Prentice, 154
• G.
• Gardener, Laughton, v., 29
• Gardener, Atkins, v., 29
• Godfrey, Sir E. murder of, III. 31
• Goodall, v. Boldero, 382
• Gore, case of Agnes, II. 129
• Gould, Regina, v., II. 110
• Green, Berry, and Hill, case of, III. 31
• Gremaire, v. Le Clerk, 78
• Grenville, v. College of Physicians, 28
• Greenwood’s case, 302
• Grimstone, ex parte, 296
• Groenvelt, v. Burwell, 38
• 159H.
• Hadfield’s case, 299—III. 139
• Hall and Warren, 293—299
• Hall, ex parte, 296
• Hamerton, Roebuck, v., 229
• Harder, College of Physicians, v., 30
• Harmwood’s case, 434
• Harris, King, v., 131
• Harrison, Rex, v., II. 94
• Hastings, ex parte, 298
• Hayes, case of Catharine, III. 73
• Hayes, v. Jaques, 229
• Hembling, Forse &, 294
• Herbert, Taynham, v., 340
• Hill’s case, 434
• Hill, Beswick, v., 353
• Hill, Green, and Berry, case of, III. 31
• Holmes, Lipscombe, v., 78
• Holt, Birch, v., 340
• Holyland’s, ex parte, 300
• Hope’s case, II. 472
• Huggins, Rex, v., II. 113
• Hughes, Middleton, v., 17
• Hume, v. Barton, 300
• J.
• James, Col. case of, 389
• Jaques, Hayes, v., 229
• Johnson, Bowles, v., 154
• Jones, v. Powell, 341
• Jones, Tenant, v., 351
• K.
• King, the, v. Amery and Monk, 14
• King, the, v. Bishop of Chester, 3
• King, the, v. Miller, 14
• King, the, v. Vice Chancellor of Cambridge, 14
• King, the, v. Askew, 42—44
• King, the, v. College of Surgeons, 57
• King, the, v. Pond, 72
• King, the, v. Taunton, 86
• King, the, v. Lynn, 100
• King, the, v. Harris, 131
• King, the, v. Munro and Evans, 351
• King, the, v. Ferrand, II. 98
• 160King, the, v. Phillips, III. 56
• King, the, v. Bradden and Spake, III. 20
• Kingston, Duchess of, 160
• Kinnaird, Avison, v., 386
• L.
• Lady Marr’s case, 295
• Lady Annadale’s case, 295
• Lady Cope’s case, 298
• Lambe’s case, 439
• Laughton, v. Gardener, 29
• Law, Sharp, v., 54
• Le Clerc, Lemaire, v., 78
• Letch’s case, 42
• Levet’s case, 28
• Lipscombe, v. Holmes, 78
• Littleton, ex parte, 294
• Lockyer, v. Offley, 386
• Lodie, v. Arnold, 340
• Lord Donegall’s case, 290
• Lord Wenman’s case, 296
• Lord Audley’s case, 439
• Ludlow, ex parte, 298
• Lund, ex parte, 296
• Lynn, the King, v., 100
• M.
• Mac Donald, Rex, v., 353
• Macley, case of, III. 144
• Maclin’s case, III. 51
• Mac Quirk, case of, III. 151
• Mainwaring, Watson, v., 385
• March, Elizabeth, case of, III. 132
• Marshall, Cooper, v., 340
• Mason and Mason, 391
• Merry, College of Physicians, v., 30
• Middleton, v. Hughes, 17
• Mildmay, ex parte, 298
• Mills, Mary, case of, 306
• Mordaunt, Welborn, v., 353
• Morley, v. Pragnal, 346
• Munroe and Evans, King, v., 351
• 161N.
• Nairne and Ogilvie’s case, II. 184—185
• Neal’s case, 298
• Neale, v. Pettigrew, 80
• Needham, College of Physicians, v., 30
• Newling, v. Francis, 14
• Nicholson, case of, III. 140
• O.
• Offley, Lockyer, v., 386
• Ogilvie and Nairne’s case, II. 184—185
• Ogle, ex parte, 295
• Olive, Severn, v., 157—159
• P
• Palmer v. Poultney, 340
• Palmer, Fish, v., 225
• Parnther, Attorney-General, v., 299
• Perreaus, case of the, III. 144
• Pettigrew, Neale, v., 81
• Phillips, the King, v., III. 86
• Phrazier, Prodgers, &, 290
• Pitt’s case, 297
• Pizzy and Codd, case of, III. 91
• Pond, the King, v., 72
• Poole, Willis, v., 384
• Poultney, Palmer, v., 340
• Powel, Jones, v., 341
• Powel’s case, 422
• Pragnal, Morley, v., 346
• Prentice, Fuller, v., 154
• Prentice, Seare, v., 81
• Prior, Rosewell, v., 340—354
• Prodgers and Phrazier, 290
• Q
• Quain’s case, II. 123
• R
• Radcliffe, case of, III. 145
• Randall, Broughton, v., 390
• Ranket’s case, 344
• Redman, Joseph, case of, III. 143
• Regina v. Wigg, 337
• Regina v. Gould, II. 110
• 162Rex v. Alberton, 217
• Rex v. Harrison, II. 94
• Rex v. E. Ridley, II. 110
• Rex v. Clarke, 294
• Rex v. Rosewell, 340
• Rex v. Travers, 422
• Rex v. Mac Donald, 353
• Rex v. White and Ward, 343—348
• Rex v. Roupel, 350
• Rex v. et Regina v. Wilcox, 339—341
• Ridley, E. Rex, v., II. 110
• Rigeway & Darwin, 291
• Ringe and Beddingfield, case of, III. 30
• Roberts, ex parte, 296
• Roebuck v. Hamerton, 229
• Rochfort & Ely, 297
• Rosewell, Rex, v., 340
• Rosewell v. Prior, 340—354
• Rose, College of Physicians, v., 32
• Roupel, Rex, v., 350
• Russen’s case, 420—428
• S
• Salmon, College of Physicians, v., 28
• Saunder’s case, II. 129
• Saunders, Dewal, &, 339
• Scawen’s case, II. 468
• Schomberg’s case, 12
• Scorey’s case, II. 99
• Seare v. Prentice, 80
• Self’s case, II. 110
• Sergison v. Sergison, 221
• Severn v. Olive, 157—159
• Sharpe v. Law, 54
• Shelden v. Aland, 297
• Shepherd v. Edwards, 78
• Sheridan’s case, 434
• Slater v. Baker and Stapleton, 80
• Smithson’s case, 297
• Southcote, ex parte, 295
• Spake and Braddon, the King, v., III. 20
• Stapleton, Slater, v., 80
• Stainsforth, Tarleton, v., 385
• Stansfield, case of, II. 38—III. 39
• 163Stanwix, General, case of, 388
• Stone, College of Physicians, v., 30
• Stone’s case, 297
• Street v. Tugwell, 348
• Sylva v. Da Costa, 296
• T
• Talbois, College of Physicians, v., 28—30
• Tarleton v. Stainsforth, 385
• Taunton, the King, v., 86
• Taylor v. Deplock, 391
• Tenant, College of Physicians, v., 30
• Tenant, Jones, v., 351
• Teynham v. Herbert, 340
• Thornton, Abraham, case of, 417—421—436—III. 35—37
• Tinckler, case of Margaret, III. 72
• Travers, Rex, v., 422
• Trigg v. College of Physicians, 30
• Tugwell, Street, v., 348
• Tyrie v. Fletcher, 382
• V
• Vaux’s case, II. 129—130—467
• W
• Wake, Eyre, v., 295
• Walborough, Alice de, case of, III. 132
• Want v. Blunt, 385
• Ward, White &, Rex v., 343—348
• Ward, ex parte, 295—297
• Warren, Hall v., 293—299
• Warren, ex parte, 298
• Wilson v. Mainwaring, 385
• Weir, Thomas and Jane, case of, 421
• Westborn v. Mordaunt, 353
• Weston’s case, II. 130
• West, College of Physicians, v., 24
• West, Style v., 171
• White v. Wilson, 293—300
• White and Ward, Rex v., 343—348
• White, Coulson, v., 340
• Whiting’s case, II. 197
• Wigg, Regina, v., 337
• 164Willis v. Poole, 384
• Wilcox, Rex et Regina, v., 339
• Wilson, White v., 293—300
• Windham and Heming’s case, 439
• Wragg, ex parte, 297
• X
• Xaris Storeghtor’s case, 297
• Y
• York, William, case of, III. 133

INDEX.

• ABATEMENT of nuisances, 333—339—340
• ABDOMEN, examination of the, III. 60
• ABORTION, II. 379—III. 84
  • causes of, 269
  • physiological illustrations of, III. 93
• ABSORPTION of mineral poison, II. 187
  • poison, acting by, II. 208
  • of arsenic, II. 192—220
• ACCESS, when presumed, 217
• ACCIDENTAL homicide, II. 466
• ACETOMETER, 377
• ACIDS, concentrated, poisons, II. 202—207—301
• ACID, nitric, death by, II. 147—202—305
  • sulphuric, II. 202—302
  • muriatic, II. 202—313
  • phosphoric, II. 202
  • arsenious and arsenic, II. 211
  • oxalic, II. 315
  • prussic, II. 396
  • manufactories, nuisances by, 337—343
• ACONITE, II. 138—159—203—207—379
  • poisoning by, II. 380
• ACRID poisons, II. 202—207
• ACTIONS for nuisances, 340—353
  • for unlicenced practice, 28
  • by medical practitioners, 77
  • for mala praxis, 80
• ADIPOCIRE, formation of, 96—III. 25
• 166ADOLESCENCE, 185
• ADULTERATIONS of food, 374
  • of bread, 375
  • of beer, 377
  • of milk, 378
  • of medicines, 380
• AERIAL poisons, II. 456
• AFFIRMATION of Quakers, 167
• AFFUSION, cold, use of, II. 391
  • warm, II. 393
• AGARICUS Muscarius, II. 427
  • intoxication by, ib.
• AGES, 179
• AGE, of consent, 168—170
  • of puberty, 170—179—185
  • old, 179
    • no bar to marriage, 172
    • children of, 175
    • determination of, 382
  • of deceased persons, enquiries respecting, III. 8—22
  • of criminal responsibility, III. 131
• AGUE, jumping, 362
• AIR, deprived of oxygen, effects of, II. 48
  • consumption of, encreased by muscular action, II. 54
  • hindering the circulation of, 348
  • tainting, 330—350
  • revival by fresh, II. 4
  • its influence on contagion, 120—126
• ALBUMEN, an antidote to sublimate, II. 264
• ALCHEMISTS, 2
• ALCOHOL, poison by, II. 203—207—433—436
  • physiological action of, II. 437
• ALIEN, cannot be a Fellow of the College of Physicians, 15
• ALKALIES, caustic, poisons, II. 202—207—218
• ALKALINE earths, poisons, II. 202—325
• ALMONDS, essential oil of, II. 207—396—402—405
  • effect of oil and albumen on, II. 404
  • analysis of, II. 405
• ALVINE concretions, supposed or feigned, 367
• AMENORRHŒA, 235
• AMENTIA acquisita, 310
• AMMONIA, II. 323
  • a poison, II. 202
  • use of, in detecting arsenic, II. 241—244
  • 167effect of, on sublimate, II. 271
    • on copper, II. 281—287—293
  • test of, II. 324
  • poisoning by, II. 324
• AMMONIURET of silver, a test for arsenic, II. 244
  • of copper, II. 245
• ANAPHRODISIACS, 209
• ANATOMY, bodies for, 21
• ANDILUVIAN fever, 120
• ANIMAL putrefaction, effects of, 123—126—II. 443
  • a source of nuisance, 332
• ANIMAL poisons, II. 440
• ANIMALS, experiments on, not always conclusive, II. 198
  • see Appendix, 272
• ANIMATION, suspended, II. 9
• ANTIDOTES for arsenic, —
  • sublimate, II. 263
  • antimony, II. 281
  • nitrate of silver, II. 300
  • sulphuric acid, II. 304
  • oxalic acid, II. 316
  • potass, II. 323
  • baryta, II. 328
  • hellebore, II. 374
  • prussic acid, II. 406
  • mushrooms, II. 433
• ANTIMONY, II. 141—201
  • tartarized, effect on sublimate, II. 274
  • generally, II. 277
  • tartarized, II. 279
    • poisoning by, II. 208
    • antidotes of, II. 281
    • physiological action of, II. 282
    • dissection after, II. 283
    • tests for, II. 284—285
• APHRODISIACS, 209
• APOPLEXY, death by, II. 22—24—43
  • produced by poison, III. 14—17
  • by compression, III. 23
• APOPLECTIC conformation, III. 22
• APOTHECARY’S wares, search of, 18—20
• APOTHECARY, practice by, 32—37
• APOTHECARIES, Society of, 59
  • their charter, 59
  • 168their powers, 60
  • actions against, 68
  • malpractice by, 64
  • court of examination of, 65
  • who may practice as, 66
    • or, as assistants, 66
  • examiners in the country, 66
  • practicing without certificate, 67
• AQUA FORTIS, death by, II. 147
• AQUA Tophana, II. 135—141
• ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury, licence of, 13—48
• ARMS, bearing, 73
• ARSENIC, sale of, should be regulated, 140
  • generally, II. 141—148—207—210
  • properties of, II. 211
  • metallic, not poisonous, II. 212
    • garlic smell of, II. 234
    • whitens copper, II. 236
    • imperfect tests of, II. 235—237
  • poisoning by, confounded with cholera
    • morbus, II. 156—160—219
      • putrefaction after, II. 183—229
      • case of Mitchel, II. 187
  • absorption of, II. 192
  • and its compounds, II. 201
  • poisoning per vaginum by, II. 221
  • case of accidental poisoning by, III. 9
    • See cases of Turner, Mitchel, Blandy, Overbury, Donnell, Ogilvie, & Nairne.
• ARSENIC acid and its salts, II. 256
  • • effect of tests on, II. 257
  • sulphurets of, II. 257
    • tests of, II. 258
• ARSENIATES, distinguished from Phosphates, II. 242—245—248
• ARSENIOUS acid, or white oxide, II. 212
  • properties of, II. 213
  • vapour of, inodorous, II. 213—235
  • poisoning by, degrees of, II. 216
  • poisoning by, symptoms of, II. 157—216
  • poisoning by, lowest degree of, II. 216
    • second degree of, II. 217
    • third degree of, II. 218
  • 169modes of poisoning by, II. 220—221
  • death by external application of, II. 220
  • experiments on external application of, II. 221
    • internal use of, ib.
  • physiological action of, II. 223
  • dissection of bodies poisoned by, II. 225
  • disease induced by, II. 229
  • state of the blood produced by, ib.
  • introduced post mortem, II. 230
  • redness of the stomach not a certain proof of, II. 230
  • chemical tests of, II. 232
  • solid, how detected, II. 232
  • how reduced to metal, II. 233
  • different modes of detecting, II. 234—240
  • metalized by charcoal, II. 238
    • by lime, ib.
  • effect of nitre on, II. 239
    • nitrate of silver, II. 239—240
    • muriates on, II. 242
    • ammoniuret of silver, II. 244
    • sulphate of copper, II. 245
    • ammoniuret of copper, ib.
    • sulphuretted hydrogen, II. 248
    • lime water, II. 249
  • tests of, errors respecting, II. 246—249
  • adulterations of, II. 243—249
  • does not blacken steel, II. 250
  • does not prevent dough from rising, ib.
  • examination of when mixed with food, II. 252
    • when absorbed by the stomach, II. 254
  • effect of iodine on, II. 272
• ARSENICAL vapour, effects of, 339
• ARSON (see Combustion), 402
• ASSISTANT, Surgeon liable for the mala praxis of his, 81
• ASTHMA, extraordinary treatment of, II. 200
• ASPHYXIA, II. 35
  • of privies, II. 49
  • treatment of, II. 75—84
• ASPHYXIA, idiopathica, II. 30
• ASTRINGENT poisons, II. 202
• ATROPIA, II. 411
• 170B
• BARYTA, II. 202—327
  • poisoning by, ib.
  • muriate of, ib.—207
  • physiological action of, II. 328
  • antidotes to, ib.
  • tests of, II. 329
• BELLADONNA, II. 203—410
  • poisoning by, II. 411
  • physiological action of, II. 412
  • detection of, II. 413
• BATEMAN, Mary, case of, II. 269
• BEER, adulterations of, II. 377
• BELLAND, or Derbyshire colic, II. 355
• BILE acrid, may poison, II. 158—196
• BILLS of health, 127
  • of mortality, 143
• BIRTH, legal time of, 248
  • in France, ib.
• BISHOP of London, licences of, 12
• BITES of venomous animals, II. 440
• BITTER almonds (see almonds), —
• BLACK Assize at Oxford, 125
• BLANDY, Mr. case of, II. 218—227—249
• BLANE, Sir G. on fevers, 117
• BLEEDING, danger of, during pregnancy, III. 95
• BLINDNESS, feigned, 358—371
• BLOOD, circulation of, discovered, 9
  • quality of, to support life, II. 19
  • black, its effects on the brain, II. 32—36—37
  • state of, in bodies frozen, II. 62
  • vomiting of, feigned, 365
  • extraordinary marks of, III. 33
• BLOWS, murder by, II. 116—122
• BODIES, combustion of human, 412—415
• BODY found in the water, examination of, III. 32—62
• BONES, examination of, III. 73
  • of animals, mistakes of, III. 82
• BOTANIC Garden, 69
• BOUGHTON, case of Sir Theodosius, II. 401
• BRAIN, examination of, in cases of insanity, 327
  • injuries of, II. 23
  • functions of the, II. 18—20
  • action of opium on, II. 389
  • dissection of the, III. 46
• 171BREAD, adulterations of, 375
  • kinds of, 375
• BREWERIES, when nuisances, 333—341
• BRINVILLIER, poisons of, II. 135
• BRISTOL Infirmary, 126
• BRITANICUS, death of, II. 134
• BROTHEL, death in a, II. 44
• BRUISES, II. 121
• BRYONY, II. 203—207
• BUILDING, excessive, 349
• BULAM Fever, 117
• BULLET, murder discovered by examination of, III. 39
• BURIAL in cities, 92
  • at Paris, 95
  • not to be hindered, 100
  • nor disturbed, 100
  • premature, II. 5
  • of suicides, II. 108
• BURNING, (see Combustion), 402
• BURNS, Margaret, case of, 254—II. 176
• BYE-LAWS, powers of making, &c., 22
  • of College of Physicians, 47—50—51
  • of College of Surgeons, 57
• C.
• CÆSARIAN operation, 226—274
  • curious case of, 276
• CAIUS, Dr. John, 7
• CALCUTTA, black hole of, II. 50
• CALOMEL, sublimate converted into, II. 274
• CAMBRIDGE, degrees at, 3—17
• CAMBOGE, see Gamboge, II. 371
• CAMPHOR, II. 203—207
• CANDIDATES, Inceptor, 52
• CANTHARIDES, II. 142—202—207—330
  • poisoning by, II. 331
  • mode of detecting, II. 332
• CARBONIC acid gas, effects of, II. 49—III. 24—37
  • given out by plants, ib.
• CARBURETTED hydrogen gas, II. 464
• CARDAMOMS, tincture of, produces a red colour in the stomach, II. 23
• CARNAL knowledge (see Rape), 427—433
• 172CASTRATION, 200—433
• CATAMENIA, see Menses.
• CAUSTIC alkalies, II. 318
  • alkaline earths, II. 325
  • lunar, II. 299
  • see Silver.
• CENSORS to be elected, 16
  • their powers, 16—18—24—27—38
  • their search, 20
  • provincial proposed, 139
• CERTIFICATES of apothecaries, 66
  • annual list of, 67
• CERTIORARI, writ of, 44
• CERUSSE, dangerous use of, II. 351—360
• CHAMBRE ardente, II. 136
• CHAMPIGNONS, II. 426
• CHANCELLOR, his jurisdiction over idiots and lunatics, 291
  • though no commission found, 294
• CHARTERS of College of Physicians, 14—21
  • • abstract of, 15
  • of College of Surgeons, 55—57
  • of Society of Apothecaries, 59
• CHILD, signs that a woman has borne a, 256
• CHARCOAL, fumes of, III. 36
• CHERRY laurel-water, II. 400
  • dangerous use of, II. 402
• CHILD-BEARING, 172—256
  • earliest and latest periods of, 256
  • premature, 257
  • protracted, 258
  • see Parturition.
• CHILDREN, legitimacy of, 216—246
  • legitimation of, 218
  • supposititious, 219
  • identity of, 222
  • greatest number at a birth, 259
• CHLORINE, II. 464
  • proposed use of, II. 253—272
• CHOLERA, II. 155
  • spontanea, II. 156
  • accidentalis, II. 156—160
  • treatment of, II. 160
• CHROMATE of potass, II. 243
• 173CHURCHES, burial in, 92
• CHURCH-YARDS overcharged, 93—96
  • exhumations in, 95
  • of Paris, 95
    • Dublin, 93
    • St. Margaret, 93
    • Dunkirk, 95
    • St. Denis, 97
    • St. Benoit, 97
• CICUTA, II. 138
• CITIES, cleanliness in, 91
• CLASSIFICATION of poisons, II. 199
  • table, II. 207
• CLEANLINESS in cities, 91—123
• CLERKS, parish, corporation of, 144
• CLIMACTERIC, grand, 182
  • disease, 193
• CLITORIS, 207
  • enlarged, 286—288
• CLOATHS, infected, should be burnt, 142
• COCULUS Indicus, II. 203—207—423
  • effect of, on fish, II. 424
• COFFINS, iron, 99
• COLD, death by exposure to, II. 13—16—59
  • • cases of, II. 60
  • effects of, II. 61
    • on the blood, II. 62
  • affusion, use of, II. 391
  • death of, infant by, III. 128
• COLIC of Poitou, or saturnine, II. 340—344—346—358
  • Devonshire, ib.
  • Derbyshire, II. 355
  • miners, ib.
  • painters, ib.
• COLLEGE of Physicians, see Physicians.
  • of Surgeons, 54
    • its charters, 55—57
    • its powers, 56
    • its by-laws, 57
• COLOCYNTH, II. 207—377
  • poisoning by, ib.
• COMBUSTION spontaneous, 402
  • of hay, 404
  • by friction, 403
  • 174by fermentation, 403—404
  • by chemical action, 403—406
    • turf, flax, hemp, rags, oatmeal, 404
    • bran, 405
  • of animal matter, 405
    • woollen stuffs, 406
  • by fixed oils, 110—406
  • cases of, 404—405—406—407
  • of cere cloth, 409
    • lamp black, 410
  • by black wad, ib.
    • mineral acids, 411
    • pyrites, ib.
    • quicklime, ib.
  • spontaneous of human bodies, 412
  • authorities on, ib.
  • cases of, 413—415
• COMMISSIONERS of lunatics, 296
• COMMISSION of lunacy, 295
  • misconduct of, 294—296
  • supercedeas of, 299
• COMPOS or non-compos, 290
• CONCEPTION, see Impregnation.
  • phenomena of, 230
  • false, 254
  • extra-uterine, 281
• CONSANGUINITY, a bar to marriage, 168
  • physiological reason, ib.
• CONSENT, age of, 168—170
  • not necessary to impregnation, 436
• CONSTABLE, physicians exempt from being, 18
  • when medical practitioners are exempt, and when not, 72
• CONTAGION in factories, 90
  • from dead bodies, 95
  • questions on, 114
• CONTAGIOUS diseases, 105
• CONTUSIONS, II. 121
• COPPER, action of, on the stomach, II. 144
  • and its compounds, II. 202
  • whitened by arsenic, II. 236
  • sulphate of, test for arsenic, II. 245
  • ammoniuret of, II. ib.
  • whitened by sublimate, II. 272
  • 175generally, II. 285
  • solubility of, II. 286
  • culinary precautions on, II. 287—288
  • oxide of, II. 287
  • effect of ammonia on, II. 287—293
  • oxidation and solution of, by oils, II. 287
  • green carbonate of (verdigris), II. 288
  • dangerous use of, II. 289
  • vessels should be tinned, II. 290
  • sulphate of, II. 291
  • poisoning by salts of, II. 291
    • dissection after, II. ib.
  • tests of, II. 292
  • effect of iron on, II. 293
  • subcarbonate of potass, ib.
  • arseniate of potass, ib.
  • triple prusiate of potass, effect of on, II. 294
  • mode of detecting, ib.
  • works, when nuisances, 339—347
  • importance of, 342
• CORONER’s inquest, II. 93—112
  • how to be held, II. 94
  • return of, II. 97
  • must be on view, II. 98
  • may be quashed, II. 98—101
  • may be traversed, II. 107
  • see Suicide.
• CORONER how to be elected, II. 93
  • notice of sudden death to be given to, II. 97
  • may be discharged or removed, II. 101
• CORPORA lutea, III. 70
• CORROSIVE poisons, II. 154—200—201—207
  • sublimate, II. 141
  • see Sublimate.
• COSTS of experiments, disallowed, 157
• COUP de Soleil, II. 63
• COURTESEY, tenant to the, 223
  • effect of cæsarian operation, 226
• CRIMINAL responsibility, III. 131
• CRANIUM of infant, examination of, III. 121
• CROTON tiglium, II. 203—207
• CULINARY poisons, III. 11
• CUMMIN, supposed property of, 364
• 176CUTS, II. 119
• CYDER, danger of lead in, II. 340
• CYMBALARIA, II. 142
• D.
• DANGEROUS drugs, sale of, 140
• DATURA, questions on the herb, II. 138
• DEAD body, examination of, III. 18
• DEAD, burial of the, 92
  • disposal of by various nations, 92—94
  • decomposition of the, 98
• DEATH, real and apparent, II. 3
  • signs of real, II. 3—11—14
  • apparent after parturition, II. 5
    • cases of, II. 4—10
  • causes and phenomena of, II. 16
  • sudden, II. 16—97
  • by arsenic, II. 16
    • cold, II. 13—16
    • lightning, II. 16—63
    • apoplexy, II. 22
    • grief, II. 26—29—30—110
    • excessive joy, II. 28
    • fear, II. 29—110
    • suffocation, II. 32
    • drowning, II. 35
    • hanging, II. 42
    • injury of the nerves, II. 44
    • manual strangulation, II. 46
    • smothering, II. 48
    • noxious air, II. ib.
    • cold, II. 59
    • heat, II. 63
    • starvation, II. 67—110
    • wounds, II. 116
    • blows, II. ib.
    • intoxication, II. 437
    • maggots, II. 453
    • chlorine, II. 465
    • mala praxis, II. 467
  • sudden, appearance of the stomach after, II. 174
• DEAF and dumb, 171—292
• DEAFNESS, feigned, 370
• 177DECLARATIONS of dying men, 165—167—III. 6
• DECOMPOSITION of dead bodies, 98
• DECREPITUDE, 195
• DEGENERATION by intermarriage, 168
• DEGREES at Oxford and Cambridge, 3
  • Dublin, ib.
• DELIRIUM, 300
• DELIVERY, recent, proof of, 222—242—249
  • • see Parturition.
  • pretended, cases of, 249
  • instrumental, 274
• DELUSIONS, III. 7
• DETECTION of opium, II. 394
  • belladonna, II. 413
• DEODAND, II. 99
• D’EON, Chevalier, 228
• DIAMOND dust, II. 145
• DIGITALIS, II. 148
• DISEASES, feigned, 355
  • contagious, 105—II. 113
  • epidemic, 104—107
  • pestilential, 104
  • endemic, 106
  • hereditary, 173—324
• DISEASED flesh, II. 444—447
• DISLOCATION of cervical vertebræ, III. 52
• DISORDERS, see Disease.
• DISSECTION of criminals, 12
  • necessary skill in, II. 163
  • in cases of insanity, 327—II. 104
  • of body poisoned by arsenic, II. 225
    • sublimate, II. 226
    • tartar emetic, II. 283
    • copper, II. 291
    • sulphate of zinc, II. 298
    • sulphuric acid, II. 304
    • nitric acid, II. 309
    • potass, II. 323
    • soda, II. ib.
    • lime, II. 326
    • cantharides, II. 332
    • lead, II. 357
    • nitre, II. 382
    • 178opium, II. 393
    • prussic acid, II. 407
    • belladonna, II. 412
    • mushrooms, II. 233
  • danger of punctures during, II. 448
  • of the stomach, by Mr. Burns, II. 168
    • by Dr. Haviland, II. 169
  • of Margaret Burns, II. 178
  • of William Mitchell, II. 190
  • anatomical, instructions for, III. 45
  • of the brain and its membranes, III. 46
  • of the thorax, III. 52
  • of the abdomen, III. 60
  • of the uterus, III. 67
  • of the vagina, III. 72
  • of infants, III. 107
• DIVING, II. 33
• DIVORCE, 176
  • propter impotentiam, 177
• DOGS meat, poison of, II. 446
• DONELLAN, case of, II. 401
• DORCHESTER, Marquis of, 10
• DOUGH, arsenic does not prevent its rising, II. 250
  • corrosive sublimate does, II. 250—265
• DOWNING, Mrs. case of, II. 241
• DROPSY, feigned, 364
• DROWNING, II. 35—III. 21—39
  • death, how produced by, ib.
  • signs of death by, II. 37—89
  • resuscitation after, II. 38—76
• DROWNED bodies, buoyancy of, II. 40
• DRUGS, search of, 20—63—68—138
  • poisonous, sale of, 139
• DRUNKENNESS, does not excuse, III. 138
• DRY-GRINDERS, guard for, II. 457
• DUBLIN, Trinity College, degree at, 3
• DUEL, surgeon attending, 167
• DUMBNESS, feigned, 370
• DURESS, murder by, II. 112
• DYSENTERY, decline of, 88
• E
• EARTHS, caustic alkaline, II. 325
• EFFLUVIA, putrefactive, 95
  • contagious, 106
• 179ELATIN, II. 376
• ELATERIUM, II. 207—375
• ELECTRICITY, death by, II. 63
  • use of, II. 82
• ELECTIONS, how regulated, 41
  • of Censors, 46
• EMBRYULCIA, 279
• EMETIC tartar, II. 207
• EMISSIO seminis, 203
  • in cases of rape, 427—433
  • how to be proved, 434
• ENAMEL powder, II. 334
• ENDEMIC, distinction of, 106
  • fever, remarkable, 119
• EPIDEMIC, distinction of, 104—107
• EPILEPSY, 172—329—III. 21
  • feigned, 356—361
• ERGOT, or spurred rye, II. 204
• ESCAPE of persons committed by Censors, 20
• ESSEX, case of the Earl of, III. 20—32
• EUNUCH, can commit a rape, 433
• EUPHORBIUM, II. 111—203—207—377
• EVIDENCE, medical, 153—399
  • mode of giving, 163
  • in cases of Rape, 421
  • in cases of Poisoning, II. 153
• EXECUTION, pleas in bar of, III. 131
  • See witness.
• EXAMINATION of body found dead, III. 18
  • of the skeleton, III. 73
• EXEMPTIONS of physicians, 16—72
  • of surgeons, 72
  • of apothecaries, 72
• EXPERIMENTS, cost of, disallowed, 157
• EXPULSION, power of, 41
• EXTRA-uterine conception, 281
• EYE, orbit of the, dangerous wounds of, III. 51
• F
• FAINTING, II. 25
  • See Syncope.
• FACTORIES, diseases in, 89
• FŒTUS, extra-uterine, 282
  • extraordinary defects in, II. 20
• 180FALLOPIAN tubes, imperfect, 214
• FANATICISM, prevalent cause of insanity, 314—363
• FASTING pretended, 368
• FATIGUE, effects of, 126
• FEAR, no legal ground of nuisance, sed. qy., 351
  • death by, II. 29
• FECUNDITY, premature, 257
  • protracted, 258
  • multeparous, 258—259
• FEES, physicians, cannot be recovered at law, 77
• FELLOW of College of Physicians must generally be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge, 3
  • who may be, 42
  • who may not, 15
  • who is, 46
• FERMENTATION, nuisances by, 330
• FEVER, yellow, 109—116—135
  • generation of, 115
  • Bulam, 117
  • Sir G. Blane on, 117
  • pestilential, 117
  • sporadic 118
  • malignant, 117
  • epidemic, 119
  • Andalusian or Gibraltar, 120
  • in Cork, 124
  • in Jails, 124
  • in Dublin, 126
  • feigned, 364
• FILTH, whether capable of producing contagion, 122—126
• FINES, grant of, to College of Physicians, 22
  • how to be levied, 24
• FIRE, nuisances by action of, 331
• FISH, poisonous, II. 449
• FLAX, steeping, a nuisance, 332
• FLESH, diseased, II. 444—447
• FLEXIBILITY of body apparently dead, II. 14
• FLOGGING, military, III. 147
• FLUX, black, chemical use of, II. 233
• FŒTUS, skeleton of the, III. 75
  • weight of the, III. 101
  • length of the, III. 101
  • appearances of, III. 101
• FOMITES, 106
• 181FOOD, adulterations of, 74
• FOOTSTEPS, importance of tracing, III. 37
• FORAMINA, examination of, III. 79
  • natural, extraordinary case of, III. 80
• FOXGLOVE, II. 203
• FRACTURE of the skull, examination of, III. 46
• FROTH or foam, appearance of, III. 21
• FUMIGATION should be enforced, 142
• FUNGI, poisonous, II. 425
• G
• GALVANISM, II. 82
• GAMBOGE, II. 203—207—371
• GAOL fever, II. 115
  • • See Jail.
  • infectious diseases in, II. 113—115
• GAOLER, to receive persons committed by the College of Physicians, 20—26
• GAS, nuisances by, 331
  • diminution of, 339
• GASES, noxious, II. 48
• GASTRIC juice, effects of, II. 164—168—171
  • appearance of solutions by, II. 175
  • perforations, II. 164—III. 64
• GENITALS, examination of the, III. 72
• GESTATION, usual period of, 218—230
  • shortest period, 241
  • longest period, 242
  • authorities on, 247
• GLASS powdered, II. 146—334
• GODFREY, Sir Edmonsbury, II. 95
• GOULARD’S extract, II. 350
• GRAVES, depth of, 93—98
• GRAVEL, feigned, 366
• GRIEF, excessive, death by, II. 26—28—30—110
• GUNPOWDER, not to be kept in large quantities, 352
• GUNSHOT wounds, II. 124
  • course of, ib.
• H
• HABEAS Corpus to bring up a lunatic, 294
• HÆMOPTHYSIS, feigned, 365
• HAIR, chopped, II. 334
• 182HANGING, death by, II. 42
  • whether induced by apoplexy, II. 43
  • signs of death, produced by, II. 45
  • recovering after, 89
  • death by, III. 42
  • accidental, III. 43
  • murder by, III. 44
• HARGRAVE, Francis, his note on the legitimate period of gestation, 218
• HARVEY, Dr. William, 8
• HEAD, injuries of, 326—II. 25
  • policy of preserving, III. 73
• HEALTH, preservation of the public, 85
  • in Ireland, 85
• HEART, functions of the, II. 17
  • rupture of, II. 26
    • See Syncope.
  • morbid structure of, II. 30
  • examination of the, III. 56
  • ruptured, III. 60
  • of infant, examination of the, III. 119
• HEAT, death by, II. 63
  • application of, II. 81
• HELLEBORE, II. 203—207
  • white, II. 372
    • poisoning by, II. 373
    • antidote to, II. 374
  • black, II. 374
  • fœtid, II. 375
• HEMLOCK, II. 148—203—207—420
  • water, II. 421
• HENBANE, II. 207
  • black, II. 395
• HEREDITARY madness, 325
• HERMAPHRODITES, 207—228—283
  • non-existence of, 284—288
  • supposed cases of, 285—288
• HERNIA feigned, 373
• HOMICIDE generally, II. 1
  • by misadventure, II. 466
• HOMO diluvii testis, detected, III. 83
• HORN manufactories, a source of nuisance, 338
• HOSPITALS, ventilation of, 126
  • not nuisances, 351
• 183HUMANE Society, system of, II. 77
• HUNTERIAN Museum, 58
• HYDROGEN, sulphuretted, II. 49
• HYDRO-cyanic acid, II. 396
  • see prussic acid.
• HYDROMETER, 377
• HYDROSTATIC test of infanticide, III. 109
  • Dr. Hutchinson’s mode, III. 111
  • test, objections to, III. 113
• HYDROPHOBIA, suggestion on, II. 446
• HYMEN, 203
  • imperforate, 207
  • as a proof of virginity, 428
  • authorities on, 430
• HYPOCONDRIASIS, 320
• HYSSOP, hedge, II. 207
• HYSTERIA, feigned, 362
• I
• IDENTITY of children, 219
  • how to be proved, 222
  • mistakes as to, 440—III. 8—142
  • non, plea of, III. 131
• IDIOT, cannot marry, 171
• IDIOTS, 289—290
• IDIOTCY, medically considered, 308
  • congenital, 308
  • general symptoms of, 309
  • in criminal cases, III. 131
• ILLUSION, mental, 301
• IMPOTENCE, 176—197
  • mental, 177—210
  • corporeal, 197
  • absolute or relative, 197—215—217
  • temporary or permanent, ib.
  • organic, 197
  • by phymosis, 204
  • in females, 206
    • by adhesion, ib.
    • by irritability, 208
  • functional, 208
  • by epilepsy, 209
• IMPOSITIONS, 355
• 184IMPREGNATION, 203—III. 71
  • sine penetratione, 203
  • per urethram, 204
  • experiments on, 268
  • consent not necessary to, 436
• IMPRISON, power of Censors to, 24
• IMPRISONMENT, murder by excessive, II. 112
• INCISED wounds, II. 119
• INDICTMENT for nuisances, 334—350
• INFANT, violation of, 419
  • • See Rape.
  • dead body of, how to be examined, III. 99
  • whether born alive, III. 100
  • dissection of, III. 107
  • death of, whether natural, III. 122
  • criminals, III. 131
• INFANCY, 188
• INFANTICIDE, 249—258—III. 84
  • physiological illustrations of, III. 98
• INFECTION, distinction of, 105
  • increasing danger of, a nuisance, 352
• INJUNCTION, against nuisances, 340
• INQUEST, Coroners, II. 93—112
  • • See Coroner.
  • by Justices of the Peace, II. 98—107
• INQUISITION of lunacy, 295
  • in England does not bind land in Ireland, 295
• INQUIRY, medical, synopsis of, III. 1
  • as to bodily health, III. 8
  • age and occupation, ib.
  • present symptoms, ib.
  • meals last taken, III. 9
  • stools and vomitings, III. 11—13
  • remedies used, III. 12
  • paroxysm of passion, III. 14
  • intoxication, III. 15
  • body found dead, III. 18
  • description of person, III. 22
  • formation of the neck, III. 22
  • period elapsed since death, III. 23
  • marks of wounds, III. 25
  • whether self inflicted, III. 32
  • smell of cloaths, III. 35
  • 185marks of rape, III. 35
  • surrounding objects, III. 36
  • marks of struggle, III. 37
  • thunder storms, III. 38
  • coup de soleil, III. 38
  • weapons, their nature and situation, III. 38
  • on body found in the water, III. 39
  • on body found hanging, III. 42
• INSANITY, medically considered, 307
  • symptoms of, 312—320—359
  • sudden, 315
  • exaggerated ideas of, 316—318
  • necessity of medical evidence on, 315
  • questions on, 317
  • kinds of, 318
  • excessive coection improper in, 322
  • recovery from, 323
  • causes of, 324
  • hereditary, 324
  • from injuries of the head, 326
  • increase of, in France, 326
  • wine and spirits, dangerous in, 327
  • women more liable to, 327
  • appearances on dissection, 327—II. 104
  • feigned, 358
  • puerperal, 327—III. 129
• INSENSIBILITY, delivery during, 243
• INSURANCE on lives, 381
  • foreign case on, 387
• INTOXICATION, suffocation during, II. 58
  • effect of cold during, II. 60
  • death by, II. 437
  • treatment of, II. 439
• INTUS-susception, III. 65
• IODINE, effect of, on arsenic and sublimate, II. 272
• IRISH Health Act, 85
• IRON, effect of, on copper, II. 293
• J
• JAIL fever, 124—II. 115
  • at Cambridge, 124
    • Oxford, 125—II. 115
    • Exeter, 125
    • 186Taunton, 125
    • at Newgate, 125
    • Dublin, II. 115
• JATROPA, curcas, II. 203—207
• JAUNDICE, feigned, 365
• JOY, excessive, death by, II. 28
• JURIES, physicians exempt, 16
• JUVENTUS, 192
• K
• KALI (see Potass)
• KIDNEYS, rupture of the, III. 67
• L
• LABOUR, premature, when to be excited, 271
• LACERATIONS, II. 123
• LACTOMETER, 377
• LAUREL water, II. 396
• LAZAR, or Leper, 86
• LAZARETTOES, 104—129
• LEAD, melted, death by, II. 202
  • and its compounds, II. 202—336
  • red, danger of, II. 277—352
    • detection of, ib.
  • melted, death by swallowing, II. 317
  • action of water on, II. 338
  • diseases induced by, ib.—356
  • in wines and cider, II. 340—344
  • combined with tin, is safe, II. 348
  • sugar of, II. 349
  • Goulard’s extract of, II. 350—359—360
  • white, II. 350
  • sub-carbonate of, ib.
  • oxide of, II. 351
  • red, II. 352
  • symptoms of poisoning by, II. 353
  • dissection after, II. 357
  • physiological action of, II. 358
  • tests of, II. 361
• LEADEN utensils, danger of, II. 338
  • glaze of earthenware, II. 340
• LEGITIMACY, 216—246
• LEGITIMATION of children, 218
• 187LEPROSO amovendo, writ de, 86
• LETTUCE, II. 207
• LEUCORRHŒA, 418
• LIABILITIES, medical, 72
• LICENTIATES, litigations of, 41—46—50
• LICENCE, partial, 48
• LIGHTNING, death by, II. 63
  • returning stroke of, II. 66
  • precautions during, II. 66
• LIKENESS, dangers of trusting to, 221
• LILLY, Wm., the Astrologer, licenced, 13
• LIME kiln, when a nuisance, 351
  • a poison, II. 202
  • vapour of, III. 36
• LIME water, effect of, on arsenic, II. 249
  • effect of, on sublimate, II. 271
    • tartar emetic, II. 284
  • quick, II. 325
    • poisoning by, ib.
    • tests of, II. 326
• LINACRE, Dr. Thomas, 6
• LITHARGE, II. 351—359
  • adulteration of wine by, II. 346
• LIVES, insurance on, 381
• LIVER, examination of the, III. 65
  • ruptured, ib.
• LOCAL circumstances, or habit, when important, III. 27
• LOCHIA, 252
• LOCUSTA, poisons of, II. 133—139
• LONDON, City of, not to be prejudiced, 17
  • practice in, 16
  • extent of buildings in, 349
• LOURLULARY, or Lourgary, 350
• LUCID intervals, 299
  • difficulty of ascertaining, 322
• LUNAR caustic, a test for arsenic, II. 240
• LUNACY in criminal cases, III. 131
• LUNATIC may contract marriage, and how, 171
• LUNATICS, 289
  • access to, 294
  • commission, 295
  • committee of the person, 297
    • estate, 298
  • comfort of, the first object, 298
  • 188recovery of, 299—323
  • mode of examining, 318
  • suicide by, II. 105—107
  • supposed legal remedy of, 294
  • asylums, 304
  • commissions for visiting, 304
• LUNGS, examination of the, III. 53
  • of infant, examination of, III. 109
    • weight of, III. 117
  • functions of the, II. 17
  • appearance of, in cases of narcotic poisoning, II. 394
• LUTEA, corpora, III. 70
• LUTE, fire, composition of, II. 234
• M
• MACLEAN, Dr. C. on the Plague, 110
• MADNESS, 289
  • see Insanity.
• MAGGOTS, death by, II. 453
• MALA praxis, punishment of, 38
  • death by, II. 467
• MALTA, plague of 1813, 130
• MANHOOD, 193
• MANIA, 311
  • • See Insanity.
  • hereditary, 173—186
• MANDAMUS, Dr. Letch’s, 42
  • Dr. Fothergill’s, 50
  • Dr. Archer’s, 50
• MANNERS, change of its influence on health, 88
• MANSLAUGHTER, II. 2
• MANUFACTORIES, diseases in, 89
• MARRIAGE, 168
  • who may contract, ib.
  • parties to, must be habiles ad matrimonium, 170
    • must be habiles ad consensus, 171
  • idiot cannot contract, 171
  • deaf and dumb can, ib.
  • lunatic may and how, ib.
  • ancient laws of, 172
  • nullity of, 176
• MECONIC acid, II. 385—387
• 189MEDICAL practitioners, exemptions and liabilities of, 72
• MEDICINES, patent, abuse of, 40
  • dangerous, sale of, 140
• MELANCHOLIA, 312—320
• MELIUS inquirendum in lunacy, 296
• MEMBERS of the College of Physicians, who are, 41—45
• MENORRHAGIA, 255
• MENSES, 187—232
  • peculiarity of the discharge, 187
  • cessation of, 194
• MERCURY, poisoning by, II. 148
  • and its compounds, II. 201
  • metallic, II. 258—264
  • oxymuriate or bichloride of, (see Sublimate).
  • red oxide of, II. 275
  • nitric oxide of, II. 276
  • sulphuret of, II. 276
  • volatility of, II. 459
  • metallic, salivation by, II. 459
• MERCURIAL vapours, II. 458
• MIDWIFE, baptism by, 82
  • oath of, 83
  • licence of, by the College, 43
    • by the Bishops, 83
• MIDWIFERY, 82
• MILITARY surgery, 355
• MILITIA, liability to serve in, 75
• MILK, secretion of, how far a proof of delivery, 253
  • man having, 254
  • adulterations of, 378
  • assay of, ib.
• MILREEK, or miner’s colic, II. 355
• MINERAL poisons, II. 209
  • readily detected, II. 186
• MINES, accidents in, II. 99
• MINIUM, II. 352
• MITCHELL and family, case of, II. 187—217
• MONKS practised physic, 2
• MONOMANIA, 318
• MONSTERS, 226—227
  • not to be destroyed, 228
• MORPHIA, II. 385
  • effect of, II. 387
• 190MORTALITY, bills of, 143
  • Breslaw, ib.
  • Northampton, ib.—147
  • London, 143
  • importance of, 145
  • imperfections of, 145—146
  • Chester, 147
  • York, ib.
• MURDER, II. 2
  • self, (see suicide), II. 104
  • generally, II. 110
  • of infants, (see Infanticide), II. 111
  • by duress, II. 112
  • by wounding, II. 116
  • by blows, II. 116
• MURIATIC acid, II. 202—313
  • poisoning by, II. 313
  • tests of, II. 314
• MUSCLE (Mytilus Edulis), II. 449—453
• MUSHROOMS, poison of, II. 203
  • poisonous, II. 425
  • poisoning by, II. 428
  • antidotes, II. 433
• N
• NARCOTIC poisons, II. 141—161—203—207—382
• NARROTICO-acrid poisons, II. 203—205—207—410
• NARCOTINE, II. 385
• NAVEL string, strangulation by, III. 123
  • neglect of, III. 126
  • hemorrhage, III. 127
• NECK, dislocation of, II. 44
• NECROPOLIS, project of, 99
• NERVES, injuries of, II. 44
• NICOTIN, II. 416
• NIGHTSHADE, II. 207—410
• NITRATE of silver, a test for arsenic, II. 240
  • objection to, considered, II. 241
  • best mode of using, II. 241
  • poisoning by, II. 300
    • See silver.
• NITRE, poisoning by, II. 381
  • test of, II. 382
• 191NITRIC acid, II. 305
  • death by, II. 147—202
  • poisoning by, II. 306
  • tests of, II. 312
• NITRIC oxide of mercury, II. 276
• NOISES, excessive, nuisances by, 331—348—351
• NON-COMPOS, (see insanity and lunacy), 290
• NOYAU, creme de, danger of, II. 404
• NUISANCES, 330
  • various kinds of, 330
  • by putrefaction or fermentation, 330
  • by tainting the air, 330
    • the waters, 331—350—351
  • by noises, 331—348—351
  • indictment of, 334
  • actions for, 340
  • injunctions against, 340
  • when allowed, 341
  • evidence on, 347
  • by probable danger, 352
  • whether a new comer can have his action for, 353
  • continuance of, 353
• NUX vomica, II. 203—421
  • uncertain effects of, II. 422
• O
• OATH of Censor, 18
  • allegiance and supremacy, 18
• OBSTRUCTIONS, death or disease by, II. 144—145
• ŒSOPHAGUS ruptured, II. 63
• OFFALS, animal poison in, II. 446
• OILS, fixed, dangers of, (see combustion), 406
• ONIONS, decoction of, error respecting, II. 246
• OPERATION, cæsarian, 226—274
  • sigaultian, 274—280
• OPIUM, sale of, should be regulated, 140—II. 383
  • poisoning by, II. 142—207
  • excessive dose of, II. 151
  • Turkey, II, 384
  • East Indian, II. 383
  • eaters, II. 388
  • symptoms of poisoning by, II. 389
  • action on the brain, II. 389—390
  • 192physiological action of, II. 390
  • treatment in cases of poisoning by, II. 391
  • mechanical removal of from the stomach, II. 392
  • detection of, 394
• OPHTHALMIA, feigned, 372
• OPTICAL deceptions, II. 247
• ORGANIC lesions, and effects of poison, II. 162
• ORPIMENT, II. 257
• OSSIFICATION, III. 75
• OVARIA, absence of, 192—213
  • essential to puberty, 192
  • diseased, 213
  • should be examined, II. 181
  • examination of the, III. 70
• OVERBURY, Sir T. murder of, II. 130—137—222—331
• OXALIC acid, II. 315
  • fatal mistakes of, 141—II. 315
  • poisoning by, II. 316
  • tests of, ib.
  • antidotes to, ib.
• OXYGEN, requisite for respiration, II. 34
  • consumption of, increased by action, II. 34—39
  • death, by air deprived of, II. 42
• OXYGENIZED blood, necessary to life, II. 20
• OXFORD, University of, degrees in, 3—17
• OXYMURIATIC acid gas, II. 464
• P
• PAINTER’S colic, II. 355
• PALSY, feigned, 362
• PAPIST, recusant cannot practice, 15
• PARIS, cemeteries of, 95
• PARISH Offices, physicians exempt, 18
• PARR, old, 172
• PARTURITION, 241
  • questions on, 241
  • during insensibility, 243
  • recent, signs of, 251
    • difficulty of determining, 258
    • diseases resembling, 254
• PASSIONS violent, their effect, II. 26
• PASSION, effects of, III. 14
• PEEL, Sir Robert, cotton factories, 89
• 193PEINE fort et dure, II. 56
• PELVIS, distorted, 272—274
• PENETRATION, in rape, 427
• PENIS, malformation of, 203
  • excessive, 204
  • diminutive, 201
  • mutilated, 205
  • paralysis of, 205
• PERFORATIONS, gastric, II. 164—III. 62
  • in the stomach, II. 164
    • appearance of, II. 175
    • not always a sign of poison, II. 175
• PERICARDIUM, examination of, III. 56
• PERSONAL identity, III 8—131—142
• PHANTOMS of insanity, 321
• PHARMACOPŒIA, 52
• PHOSPHATES distinguished from arsenic, II. 241
• PHOSPHORUS, II. 202—333
  • poisoning by, II. 333
• PHYSICIAN, profession of, 1
  • College of, founded, 6
    • powers of, 23
  • charter confirmed, 13
  • College of how to sue, 28
  • classes of, 52
• PICROTOXINE, II. 425
• PLAGUE, regulations in time of, 86
  • contagion of, 95
  • definition of, 108
  • authorities on, 108—111—112
  • contagious, 109
  • Dr. Maclean on, 110
  • at Marseilles, ib.
    • Messina, ib.
  • ancient authorities on, 111
  • report of the College on, 113—Appx. 185
  • in London, 121
  • source of the, 127
  • at Malta, 1813, 130
  • police, 104
• PLOMB or asphyxia of privies, 101
• PLOUQUET’S test of infanticide, III. 117
• POISON, definition of, II. 142
• POISONS generally, II. 131
  • 194classification of, 199—207
  • slow, II. 132—143—149—355
  • vegetable, II. 138—182—366
  • narcotic, II. 141—154—161—200—203—381
  • consecutive, II. 147—149
  • accumulative, II. 148—149—260—355
  • absolute, II. 150
  • relative, II. ib.
  • corrosive, II. 154—200—201
  • astringent, II. 200—202—336
  • animal, II. 440
  • septic, II. 200—204—ib.
  • aerial, II. 204—456
  • acrid, II. 200—202—371
  • mineral, II. 209
  • mechanical, II. 334
  • narcotico-acrid, II. 200—203—205
  • absorption of, II. 208
  • external application of, II. ib.
  • effect of on animals, II. 193
  • of the toad, II. 139
  • of the lepus marinus, II. 141
  • of acrid bile, II. 158
  • of fishes, II. 204
  • of vipers, II. 442
• POISONING, murder by, II. 128
  • antiquity of, II. 132—138
  • fables of, II. 136
  • evidence of, II. 153
  • questions on, II. 154
  • by arsenic, II. 216
    • sublimate, II. 259
    • antimony, II. 270
    • copper, II. 291
    • muriate of tin, II. 295
    • sulphate of zinc, II. 297
    • nitrate of silver, II. —
    • concentrated acids, II. 301
    • sulphuric acid, II. 303
    • oxalic acid, II. 316
    • potass, II. 202—320—322
    • soda, II. 323
    • ammonia, II. 324
    • 195lime, II. 325
    • baryta, II. 327
    • phosphorus, II. 333
    • lead, II. 353
    • white hellebore, II. 373
    • black hellebore, II. 374
    • fœtid hellebore, II. 375
    • elaterium, II. 376
    • colocynth, II. 377
    • euphorbium, II. 378
    • savine, II. 378
    • aconite, II. 380
    • nitre, II. 381
    • opium, II. 388
    • henbane, II. 395
    • prussic acid, II. 398
    • nightshade, II. 411
    • stramonium, II. 414
    • tobacco, II. 418
    • hemlock, II. 421
    • nux vomica, II. 422
    • mushrooms, II. 428
    • alcohol, II. 436
    • fish, II. 451
• POISONOUS drugs, sale of, II. 139
  • proposed regulation, II. 141
  • fish, II. 449
• POITOU, colic of, II. 340—344—346—350
• POLICE plague, 104
  • medical, 138
• POPPIES red, mistake arising from, II. 231
• POTASS, II. 319
  • a poison, II. 202—320
  • carbonate and subcarbonate, effect on sublimate, II. 271
    • effect on copper, II. 293
  • arseniate of, effect on copper, II. 293
  • triple prussiate of, effect on copper, II. 294
  • subcarbonate of, II. 322
  • poisoning by, ib.
  • antidotes to, II. 323
• POTASSÆ, liquor, II. 320
  • tests of, ib.
• POTASSA fusa, II. 321
• 196POTASSA cum calce, II. 321
• PRACTICE within London and seven miles, confined to College of Physicians and their Licentiates, 16—41
  • unlicenced, punishment of, 23—26
    • action for, 28
  • what is, 30—35
  • in the country, 41
• PRATIQUE, 128
• PREGNANCY, 230
  • See Gestation.
  • symptoms of, 233
  • how to ascertain, 236
  • mistaken for dropsy, 237
  • may be coexistent with dropsy, 238
  • privileges of, 239
  • feigned, 249
  • signs on dissection, III. 69
  • plea of, III. 131—141
• PRESCRIPTIONS, 64
• PRIAPISM, 205
• PRINCE Charles Edward, 223
• PRINCES, births of, disputed, ib.
  • precautions at, ib.
• PRISON discipline, 89—II. 113
• PRISONERS, death of, II. 111—112
• PRIVIES, cleansing, 100
  • asphixia of, 101
  • explosion in, ib.
  • regulation of, 102
  • in Paris, ib.
  • gas of, II. 463
  • infants found in, III. 124
• PRECOCITY of talent, 184
• PROLAPSUS uteri, 287
  • feigned, 373
• PROTESTANTS, French, charter to, 30
• PRUSSIAN blue, nuisance of manufactory, 337
• PRUSSIC acid, II. 207—396
  • spontaneous generation of, II. 162
  • properties of, II. 397
  • poisoning by, II. 398
  • suicide by, II. 399—401
  • accidents by, II. 399—401—402
  • physiological action of, II. 404
  • 197antidotes, II. 406
  • test of, II. 408
• PTYALISM, extraordinary case of, II. 461
• PUBERTY, age of, 170—185
  • signs of in males, 185
    • in females, 187
  • premature, 188
  • singular case of, 189
  • how to ascertain, 190
• PUERPERAL insanity, III. 129
• PUERITIA, 184
• PULMONIC test of Infanticide, III. 109
• PULVIS successionis, II. 142
• PUNCTURES, II. 120
• PUNISHMENTS, III. 147
• PUTREFACTION, whether capable of generating contagion, 122
  • nuisances by, 330
  • as a test of death, II. 3
  • in cases of poisoning, II. 155—182
  • signs of in the stomach, II. 181
  • should not prevent dissection, II. 185
• PUTRESCENT animal matter, II. 443
• Q
• QUARANTINE, 104—127
  • origin of, 127
  • laws, 131
    • vexatious application of, 131
    • necessity of, 136
• QUICKSILVER, see Mercury.
• QUO warranto against the President and Censors of the College of Physicians, 46
• QUICK or not, question of, III. 142
• R
• RANUNCULI, II. 207
• RAPE, 416
  • accusation of, should be immediate, 416
  • appeal of abolished, 417
  • in Scotland, 417
  • immediate medical examination necessary, 417—424
  • signs of, 417
  • accuser and accused to be medically examined, 417
  • 198false accusation of, 418—426
  • general observations, 419—424
  • on the person of an infant, 419
    • cases of, 420
    • evidence of infant, 421
  • male infant under 14 deemed incapable of—sed q., 422
  • penetration, whether necessary, 427—433
  • emissio seminis, 427—433
  • whether Eunuchs can commit, 433
  • evidence on, 434—439
• REALGAR, II. 259
• RECOVERY of drowned persons, II. 78
• RECTUM, poison inserted into, II. 222—230
  • examination of the, III. 64
• RESEMBLANCE, personal, 220
  • animal, 221
• RESPIRATION, II. 18
  • artificial, II. 21—78
  • cessation of, II. 33
  • utmost suspension of, II. 33
  • of infants, III. 113
  • in utero, 224
• RESPONSIBILITY, criminal, III. 131
• RHEUMATISM, feigned, 358
• RICINUS, II. 203
• ROYAL Letters, 3
• RYE, spurred, poison of, II. 204
• S
• SAFETY lamp, II. 100
• SAFFRON, meadow, II. 207
• SALIVATION by sublimate, II. 261
• SALT, spirit of, see muriatic acid.
• SALT Tax, impolicy of, 90
• SANDARACH, mistake of, II. 210
• SATURNINE medicines, danger of, II. 359
• SAUSAGES, danger of, II. 445
• SAVINE, II. 207—378
  • administering, III. 86—94
• SCAMMONY, II. 203
• SCHOOLS, diseases in, 90
• SCROFULA, hereditary, 173
• SEARCHERS, duty of, 144
  • inadequacy of, 144
• 199SENECTUS, 194
• SEPTIC poisons, II. 204—440
• SEX, mistaken, 285—286—288
• SEXES, equal births of both, 259
• SHEEP skins, steeping, a nuisance, 351
• SICKNESS, the sweating, 124
• SIGAULTIAN operation, 274—280
• SIGHT, defective, feigned, 372
• SILVER and its compounds, II. 202
  • nitrate of, II. 207—299
  • poisoning by, II. 300
  • tests of, II. 300
• SKELETON, examination of the, III. 73
  • sex of, III. 76
• SKULL, examination of, III. 36
• SLAUGHTERING in cities, 92
• SLAUGHTER houses, nuisance of, 344
• SLOW poisoning, II. 145
• SMALL pox, exposure of persons with, 86
  • contagion of, 98
  • effect of fresh air on, II. 5
• SMELTING houses, when nuisances, 338—341
  • importance of, 342
  • evidence on, 348
• SMOKE, nuisances by, 331—333
  • modes of diminishing, 335
• SMOTHERING, death by, II. 48
• SNUFF, dangerous abuse of, II. 419
• SOAP boilers, a nuisance, 338
• SODA, poisoning by, II. 202—323
  • tests of, II. 321
• SOLEIL, coup de, III. 24—38
• SOMNOLENCY, feigned, 359
• SPINE, fracture of, III. 44
• SPINAL marrow, functions of, II. 20—24
• SPIRITS, effects of, II. 434
• SPLEEN, ruptured, II. 123—III. 66
• SPONTANEOUS combustion (see combustion), 402
• SPORADIC fever, 117
• SPURRED rye, II. 204
• SQUILL, II. 203—207
• STABBING, statute of, II. 2
• STARCH, manufactories, 332
• 200STARVATION, death by, II. 67—110
  • cases of, II. 68
  • voluntary, II. 69
• STATUTES, 51. Hen. 3., 375
  • 17. Edw. 2. c. 9., 291
  • 12. Rich. 2. c. 13., 350
  • 9. Hen. 5., 12
  • 3. Hen. 8., 3
  • 5. Hen. 8., 54
  • 14 & 15. Hen. 8., 12—72
  • 21. Hen. 8. c. 1., 402
  • 22. Hen. 8., II. 128
  • 22. Hen. 8. c. 1., 402
  • 23. Hen. 8., II. 468
  • 32. Hen. 8. c. 38., 18—54—72—169—II. 466
  • 34. & 35. Hen. 8., 19—30
  • 37. Hen. 8. c. 26., 402
  • 1. Mary. c. 9., 18—20—26—31
  • 1. & 2. Ph. & Ma. c. 8., 169
  • 4. & 5. Ph. & Ma. c. 4., 402
  • 1. Edw. 6. c. 12., 402—II. 128
  • 2. Edw. 6. c. 8., 297
  • 2. & 3. Edw. 6. c. 23., 169
  • 5. & 6. Edw. 6. c. 12., 171
  • 1. Eliz. c. 1., 169
  • 5. Eliz. c. 10., 154
  • 43. Eliz. c. 13., 402
  • 1. Ja. 1. c. 31., 86
  • 1. Ja. 1. c. 8., II. 2
  • 9. Ja. 1. c. 5., 15
  • 21. Ja. 1. c. 21., III. 85
  • 21. Ja. 1. c. 27., III. ib.
  • 22. & 23. Car. 2. c. 7., 402
  • 2. Wm. & Ma. sess. 2. c. 8., 336
  • 7. & 8. Wm. 3. c. 35., 171
  • 8. Ann. c. 18., 375
  • 10. Ann. c. 19., 171
  • 1. Geo. 1. c. 48., 402
  • 9. Geo. 1. c. 22., 402
  • 10. Geo. 1., 21—40
  • 12. Geo. 1. c. 61., 352
  • 13. Geo. 1., 21
  • 4. Geo. 2. c. 10., 290
  • 20118. Geo. 2. c. 15., 54
  • 10. Geo. 2. c. 32., 402
  • 15. Geo. 2. c. 30., 171
  • 22. Geo. 2. c. 2., 155
  • 28. Geo. 2. c. 19., 402
  • 31. Geo. 2. c. 29., 375
  • 31. Geo. 2. c. 42., 402
  • 9. Geo. 3. c. 29., 402
  • 14. Geo. 3. c. 48., 381
  • 14. Geo. 3. c. 49., 304—305
  • 18. Geo. 3. c. 19., 156
  • 26. Geo, 3. c. 60., 131
  • 40. Geo. 3. c. 79., 136
  • 43. Geo. 3. c. 58., III. 58
  • 44. Geo. 3. c. 98., 135
  • 45. Geo. 3. c. 10., 131
  • 45. Geo. 3. c. 92., 156
  • 48. Geo. 3. c. 96., 306
  • 55. Geo. 3., 62
  • 56. Geo. 3. c. 69., 306
  • 57. Geo. 3. c. 22., 345
  • 57. Geo. 3. c. 106., 306
  • 58. Geo. 3. c. 28., 379
  • 58. Geo. 3. c. 56., 379
  • 58. Geo. 3. c. 65., 379
  • 59. Geo. 3. c. 41., 85
  • 59. Geo. 3. c. 127., 306
  • 1. Geo. 4. c. 98., 306
  • 1. & 2. Geo. 4. c. 33., 306
• STEAM engines, number of, 334
• STEEL not blackened by arsenic, II. 250
  • blackened by corrosive sublimate, II. 250—270
• STENCH, noxious, nuisances by, 346
  • need not be unwholesome, 348
  • death by, II. 111
• STERILITY, 197—212
  • organic, 212
  • functional, 214
  • sympathetic, 215—217
• STIFFNESS, cadaverous, II. 13—III. 23
• STOMACH, injuries of, by poison, II. 163
  • changes in, after death, II. 164
  • solution or digestion of, II. 166—171
  • 202vascular appearance of, II. 173
  • red colour, not always to be attributed to poison, II. 230
  • suspected to contain arsenic, examination of, II. 254
  • examination of, for sublimate, II. 274
    • copper, II. 295
    • lead, II. 357—365
  • of infants, examination of, III. 120
  • examination of the, III. 61
  • ruptured, III. 63
  • appearance of, in cases of sudden death, II. 393
• STONE, feigned, 366
• STRAMONIUM, II. 203—413
  • poisoning by, II. 414
• STRANGULATION, II. 21—24—26—42
  • death by, II. 46
• STRYCHNIA, II. 422
• SUBLIMATE, corrosive, II. 141—207
  • Suleyman, the taker of, II. 151
  • absorption of, II. 187
  • effect of on dough, II. 250
  • blackens steel, II. 250—270
  • properties of, II. 259
  • smell of vapour, ib.
  • poisoning by, ib.
    • symptoms of a large dose, II. 260
    • symptoms of small doses, II. 260
  • salivation by, II. 261
  • physiological action of, II. 262
  • antidotes and treatment of, II. 263
  • action of albumen on, II. 264
    • gluten on, II. 265
  • tests for, II. 267
  • galvanic test, Sylvester’s, II. 268
    • Archdeacon Wollaston’s, ib.
  • test by precipitation, II. 269
    • carbonate of potass, II. 271
    • subcarbonate of potass, ib.
    • ammonia, ib.
    • lime water, ib.
    • nitrate of tin, II. 272
    • iodine, II. 272
    • sublimation, II. 273
  • 203mode of detecting, when mixed, II. 273
  • converted into calomel, II. 273
  • examination of the stomach for, II. 273
  • effect of tartarized antimony, II. 274
• SUBPŒNA ad testificandum, 154
• SUCCESSION, Poudres de, II. 355
• SUFFOCATION, II. 32—III. 21—24—36
  • death by, how produced, II. 32
  • cases of, II. 49—50—55
  • by compression, II. 55
  • by obstruction, II. 57
  • voluntary, fable of, II. 56
  • during intoxication, II. 58
• SUICIDE, II. 1—104
  • disputed, III. 20
  • by idiots or lunatics, II. 105
  • by an infant, II. 195
  • forfeiture, II. 106
  • burial of, II. 108
  • questions on, III. 32
  • by drowning, III. 41
• SUGILLATIONS to be distinguished from ecchymoses, III. 104
• SULEYMAN Yeyen, II. 151
• SULPHURIC acid, II. 202—302
  • poisoning by, II. 303
  • antidotes to, II. 304
  • tests of, II. 305
• SULPHUROUS acid gas, II. 465
• SULPHURETTED hydrogen gas, II. 462
• SULPHATE of copper, effect on arsenic, II. 245—291
• SULPHURETS of arsenic, II. 257
  • tests of, II. 258
  • of mercury, II. 276
• SUPERFŒTATION, 247—260
  • cases of, 261
  • modern case of, 262
  • in animals, 266
  • questions on, 268
  • circumstances essential to, 269
• SUPPOSITITIOUS children, 219
• SURGEONS of London, 3
  • College of, 54
  • 204their Charters, 55—57
  • military and naval, 56
  • actions against for mala praxis, 88
• SURVIVORSHIP, 388
  • according to the Code Napoleon, 392
  • case of, chemically determined, III. 25
• SUSPENDED animation (see animation), II. 9
• SWINE keeping in London a nuisance, 336
• SYMPATHY, extraordinary effects of, 363
• SYNCOPE, II. 25
  • from hemorrhage, II. 26
  • feigned, II. 360
• SYNOPSIS of objects of enquiry in cases of sudden death, III. 1
• T
• TALLOW MELTERS, nuisance of, 944—346
• TAN YARDS, when nuisances, 332
• TANNIN effect of on arsenic tests, II. 248
• TARTAR emetic, II. 204—207—274—279—280
• TENANT by the courtesy, 225
• TESTICLES necessary to puberty, 192
  • use of, 197
  • want of, 198
  • concealed, ib.
  • defective, 201—202
  • wasting of, 202
• TESTS, chemical, of arsenic, II. 232
  • sublimate, II. 267
  • lead, II. 361
  • copper, II. 292
  • nitre, II. 382
• THORAX, dissection of, III. 52
• TIN and its compounds, II. 202
  • muriate and oxide of, II. 207
  • nitrate of, effect on sublimate, II. 272
  • important use of, II. 290—348
  • muriate of, poisonous, II. 295
• TIPPLE, case of Thomas, II. 117
• TOAD, poison of the, II. 139
• TOBACCO, II. 414
  • essential oil of, II. 416
  • prejudices against, II. 415—416
  • 205poisoning by, II. 418
  • injection of, dangerous, II. ib.
  • physiological action of, II. 419
  • difference between the essential oil and infusion of, II. 420
  • abuse of, II. 88
  • poison, II. 203—207
• TOPHANA, poisons of, II. 134—141
• TOXICOLOGY, see Poisons, II. 131
• TRADES dangerous, II. 457—III. 8
• TRANCES or apparent death, II. 4—6—25
• TRAVERSE, right of, in lunacy, 296
  • by idiot in person, 297
  • by lunatic, by attorney, ib.
• TREAD MILL, III. 147
• TREATMENT of persons poisoned by opium, II. 390
• TRIUMPH, H. M. S., case on board, II. 460
• TURNER and family, case of, II. 216—250—III. 94
• TWINS, united, 227
• TYPHUS, generation of, 98
  • causes of, 123
  • danger of in populous places, 352
• U
• UMBILICAL cord, see Navel string.
• ULCERS, feigned, 372
• UNIVERSITIES, 3—5—13—23—24—28—68
• UPAS Antiar, II. 207
• URINE, vomiting, feigned, 365
  • bloody, feigned, ib.
  • incontinence of, feigned, 366
• UTERUS examination of the, III. 67
  • absence of, 192—212
  • imperforate, 212
  • polypus in, 213
  • during gestation, 231
  • gravid, examination of, 237
  • double, 265
  • prolapsus of, 287
  • necessity of inspecting in doubtful cases of sudden death, II. 181
• UTERINUS vagitus, 224
• 206V
• VAGINA, adhesions in, 206
  • imperforate, ib.
  • obstructed, ib.
  • malformation of, 207
  • double, 265—266
  • state of in virgins, 431
  • poison introduced into, II. 221
  • examination of the, III. 72
• VAGITUS Uterinus, 224
• VAPOUR, noxious, nuisances by, 331
• VAPOURS, mercurial, II. 458
  • noxious, III. 36
• VARNISH manufactories, nuisances, 338
• VEGETABLE fermentation, a source of nuisance, 332—345
  • poisons, II. 138—182—366
• VENEREAL disease, 88
• VENOMOUS animals, II. 440
• VENTILATION in jails, importance of, 125
• VERATRIA, II. 374
• VERDEGRIS, II. 207—288—290
• VERMILION, detection of, II. 277
• VESALIUS, a Spanish physician, case of, II. 6
• VESPA, II. 443
• VIABILITE, 243
• VIABILITY of infant, III. 100—108
• VILLOUS coat of the stomach, separation of, II. 163
• VINEGAR, action of on opium, II. 392
  • on prussic acid, II. 406
• VIPERS, II. 440
  • bite of, II. 441
• VIRGINITY, signs of, 424
• VIRGINS, corpora lutea in, III. 71
• VITERBI case of, II. 69
• VITRIOL, white, see Sulphate of Zinc.
  • oil of, see Sulphuric Acid.
• VOMITING blood, feigned, 365
  • urine feigned, ib.
  • difficult to excite in cases of poisoning by opium, II. 389—393
• W
• WADDING, murder detected by the examination of, III. 39
• 207WATCH and WARD, physicians exempt, 18—72
  • surgeons and apothecaries exempt, 54
• WATER, in the stomach or lungs of bodies supposed to have been drowned, II. 38
  • boiling, death by, II. 202—316
  • stagnant, 91
  • tainting, 330—350—351
• WHITING, case of Michael, II. 265
• WHITEWASHING infected chambers should be enforced, 142
• WILL, incapacity of making a, 293
• WINE, action of, II. 434
• WINES adulterated with lead, II. 344—345
  • test of, II. 363
• WITNESSES, medical, 153
  • expenses of, 154
  • examination of, 158
  • not privileged, 160
  • observations on, 161
• WOMB and its appendages, III. 69
• WOUNDS, classification of, II. 116
  • examination of, II. 118—III. 45
  • direction of, II. 119—126
  • incised, II. 119
  • gun-shot, II. 124
  • whether inflicted during life, II. 127—III. 31
  • whether mortal, III. 30
• WOUNDING, murder by, II. 116
• Y
• YELLOW fever, 109—116—135
• Z
• ZINC and its compounds, II. 202
  • sulphate of, II. 207
    • poisoning by, II. 297
    • tests of, II. 299

APPENDIX TO PART I.

STATUTE. 9 Hen. 5. — Lordinance encontre les entremettours de fysyk et de Surgerie.

STATUTE. 3. Hen. 8. c. 11. An Act for the appointing Physicians and Surgeons.

STATUTE. 5. Hen. 8. c. 6. An Act concerning Surgeons to be discharged of Quests and other things.

STATUTE. 14 and 15 Hen. 8. c. 5. The Privileges and Authority of Physicians in London . — [ The Charter of Incorporation ]. — 32. Hen. 8. c. 40. For Physicians and their Privilege.

‘In the most humble wise shew unto your Highness, your true and faithful Subjects and liege Men John Chambre, Thomas Linacre, Ferdinandus de Victoria, your Physicians, and Nicholas Halsewell, John Frances, and Robert Yaxley, and all other men of the same Faculty within the City of London, and Seven Miles about, that where your Highness (by your most gracious Letters Patent bearing date at Westminster, the xxiii Day of September, in the tenth year of your noble Reign) for the Commonwealth of this your Realm, in due exercising and practising of the Faculty of Physick, and the good Ministration of Medicines to be had, hath incorporate and made of us, and of our Company aforesaid one Body and Perpetual Commonalty or Fellowship of the Faculty of Physick, and to have perpetual Succession and common Seal, and to choose yearly a President of the same Fellowship and Commonalty, to oversee, rule and govern the said Fellowship and Commonalty, and all men of the same Faculty, with divers other Liberties and Privileges by your Highness to be granted for the Common Wealth of this your Realm, as in your said most gracious Letters Patents more at large is specified and contained, the Tenour whereof followeth in these Words:—

“Henricus Dei Gratia Rex Angliæ & Franciæ & Dominus Hiberniæ, omnibus ad quos præsentes literæ pervenerint salutem. Cum regii officii nostri a_8munus arbitremur ditionis nostræ hominum fælicitati omni ratione consulere; id autem vel imprimis fore, si improborum conatibus tempestive occuramus, apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum, qui medicinam magis aviritiæ suæ causa, quam ullius bonæ conscientiæ fiducia, profitebuntur, unde rudi & credulæ plebi plurima incommoda oriantur, audaciam compescere: Itaque partim bene institutarum civitatum in Italia, & aliis multis nationibus, exemplum imitati, partim gravium virorum doctorum Joannis Chambre, Thomæ Linacre, Ferdinandi de Victoria, Medicorum nostrorum, Nicholai Halsewel, Joannis Francisci & Rob Yaxley, medicorum, ac præcipuc reverendissmi in Christo patris, ac domini, dom Thomæ tituli Sanctæ Ceciliæ trans Tiberim sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ presbyteri cardinalis, Eboracencis archiepiscopi & regni nostri Angliæ cancellarii clarissimi, precibus inclinati, collegium perpetuum doctorum & gravium virorum, qui medicinam in urbe nostra Londino & suburbis, intraque septem millia passuum ab ea urbe quaqua versus publice exerceant, institui volumus atque imperamus. Quibus tum sui honoris, tum publicæ utilitatis nomine, curæ (ut speramus) erit, malitiosorum quorum meminimus inscientiam temeritatemque, tam suo exemplo gravitateque, suis deterrere, quam per leges nostras nuper editas, ac per constitutiones per idem collegium condendas, punire. Quæ quo facilius rite peragi possint, memoratis doctoribus Joan Chambre, Thomæ Linacre, Ferdinando de Victoria, medicis nostris, Nicholao Halsewel, Joanni Francisco, et Rob Yaxley, medicis, concessimus, quod ipsi, omnesque homines ejusdem facultatis de & in civitate prædicta, sint a_9in re & nomine unum corpus et communitas perpetua sive collogium perpetuum; & quod eadam communitas sive collegium singulis annis in perpetuum eligere possint & facere, de communitate illa aliquem providum virum, & in facultate medicinæ expertum, in præsidentem ejudem collegii sive communitatis, ad supervidend’ recognoscend’ & gabernand’ pro illo anno collegium sive communitatem præd’ & omnes homines ejusdem facultatis & negotia eorundem. Et quod idem præsidens & collegium sive communitas habeant successionem perpetuam & commune sigillum negotiis dict’ communitatis & præsidentis in perpetuum serviturum. Et quod ipsi & successores sui in perpetuum sint personæ habiles & capaces ad perquirendum & possidendum in feodo & perpetuitate terras & tenementa, reditus, & alias possessiones quascunque.”

“Concessimus etiam eis & successoribus suis pro nobis & hæredibus nostris, quod ipsi et successores sui possint perquirere sibi & successoribus suis, tam in dicta urbe quam extra, terras et tenementa quæcunque annuum valorem duodecim librarum non excedent’, Statuto de Alienatione ad manum mortuum non obstante. Et quod ipsi per nomina præsidentis & collegii seu communitatis facultatis medicinæ Lond’ placitari & implaciteri possint coram quibuscunque judicibus in curiis et actionibus quibuscunque. Et quod præd’ præsidens et collegium sive communitas, et corum successores, congregationes licitas & honestas de seipsis, ac stat’ & ordinationes pro salubri qubernatione, supervisu et correctione collegii seu communitatis præd’ & omnium hominum eandem facultatem in dicta civitate, seu per septem milliaria in circuitu a_10ejusdem civitatis exercend’ secundum necessitatis exigentiam, quoties et quanda opus fuerit, facere valeant licite et impune, sine impedimento nostri, hæredum, vel successorum nostrorum, justitiariorum, escaetorum, vicecomitum, & alior’ balivor’ vel ministror’ nostror’ hœred’ vel successor’ nostror’ quorumcunque. Concessimus etiam eisdem præsidenti & collegio, seu communitati, et successoribus suis, quod nemo in dicta civitate aut per septem miliaria in circuitu ejusdem, exerceat dictam facultatem nisi ad hoc per dict’ præsidentem & communitatem, seu successores eorum, qui pro tempore fuerint, admissus sit per ejusdem præsidentis & collegii literas sigillo suo communi sigillatas, sub pœna centum solidorum pro quolibet mense, quo non admissus eandem facultatem exercuit, dimidium inde nobis & hœred’ nostris, & dimidium dicto præsidenti & coll applicandum.”

“Præterea volumus & concedimus pro nobis et successoribus nostris (quantum in nobis) est quod per præsidentem & collegium præd’ communitatis pro tempore existen’ & eorum successores in perpetum, quatuor singulis annis eligantur, qui habeant supervisum & scrutinium, correctionem & qubernat’ omnium & singulor’ dictæ civitatis medicorum utentium facultate medicinæ in eadem civitate, ac aliorum medicorum forinsecorum quorumcunque facultatem illam medicinæ aliquo modo frequentantium & utentium infra eandem civitatem & suburbia ejusdem, sive intra septem miliaria in circuitu ejurd’ civitatis, ac punitionem eorund’ pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo faciendo, & utendo illa; nec non supervisum & scrutinium omnimodarum medicinarum & earum reception’ per dictos medicos, seu aliquem eorum, hujusmodi a_11ligeis nostris pro eorum infirmitatibus curandis & sanandis, dandis, imponendis, & utendis, quoties et quando opus fuerit pro commodo & utilitate eorundem ligeorum nostrorum; ita quod punitio hujusmodi medicorum utentium dicta facultate medicinæ, sic in præmissis delinquent’ per fines, amerciamenta, & imprisonamenta corpor’ suor’ & per alias vias rationab’ & congruas exequatur.

“Volumus etiam & concedimus pro nobis, hæredibus et successoribus nostris (quantum in nobis est,) quod nec præsidens, nec aliquis de collegio præd’ medicorum, nec successores sui, nec eorum aliquis exercens facultatem illam; quoquo modo in futur’ infra civitatem nostram præd’ et suburbia ejusdem, seu alibi, summoneantur aut ponantur neque eorum aliquis summoneatur aut ponatur in aliquibus assisis, juratis, inquestis, inquisitionibus, attinctis, & aliis recognitionibus infra dictam civitatam & suburbia ejusdem, imposterum coram majore ac vicecom’ seu coronatoribus dictæ civitatis nostræ pro tempore existend’ capiendis aut per aliquem officiarium seu ministrum suum, vel officiarios sive ministros suos summonned’, licet eædem juratæ, inquisitiones, seu recognitiones summon’ fuerint super brevi vel brevibus nostris, vel hœredum nostroum, de recto; sed quod dicti magistrati, sive qubernatores, ac communitas facultatis antidictæ & successores sui, & eorum quilibet dictam facultatem exercentes versus nos, hæredes, et successores nostros, ac versus majorem et vicecomites civitatis nostræ præd’ pro tempore existen’ & quoscunque officiarios et ministros suos sint inde quieti, & penitus exonorati in perpetuum per præsentes.”

“Proviso quod litteræ nostræ, seu aliquid in eis a_12content’ non cedent in præjudicium civitatis nostræ Lond’ seu libert’ ejusd’ & hoc absque fine seu feodo pro præmissis, seu sigillat’ præsentium nobis facienda, solvenda, vel aliqualiter reddenda, aliquo statuto, ordinatione, vel actu in contrarium ante hoc tempora facto, edito, ordinato, seu proviso in aliquo non obstante. In cujus rei testimonium has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meipso apud Westmonasterium xxiij. die Sept’ an’ reg’ nostri x.”

‘And forasmuch that the making of the said Corporation is meritorious, and very good for the Common Wealth of this your Realm, it is therefore expedient and necessary to provide, That no Person of the said Politick Body and Commonalty aforesaid, be suffered to exercise and practice Physick, but only those Persons that be profound, sad, and discreet, groundly learned, and deeply studied in Physick.

‘In consideration whereof, and for the further authorising of the same Letters Patents, and also enlarging of further Articles for the said Common Wealth to be had and made:’ Pleaseth it your Highness, with the assent of your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, to enact, ordain, and establish, That the said Corporation of the said Commonalty and Fellowship of the Faculty of Physick aforesaid, and all and every Grant, Article, and other Thing, contained and specified in the said Letters Patents, be approved, granted, ratified, and confirmed in the present Parliament, and clearly authorized and admitted by the same, good, lawful, and available to your said Body Corporate, and their Successors for ever, in as ample and large manner as may be taken, thought, and construed by the a_13same; and that it please your Highness, with the assent of your said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this your present Parliament assembled, further to enact, ordain, and establish, That the Six Persons beforesaid in your said most gracious Letters Patents named as Principals, and first named of the said Commonalty and Fellowship, choosing to them Two more of the said Commonalty, from henceforward to be called and cleaped Elects; and that the same Elects yearly choose One of them to be President of the said Commonalty, and as oft as any of the Rooms and Places of the same Elects shall fortune to be void, by Death or otherwise, then the Survivors of the said Elects (within Thirty or Forty Days next after the Death of them or any of them) shall choose, name and admit One or mo, as need shall require, of the most cunning and expert Men, of and in the said Faculty in London, to supply the said Room and Number of Eight Persons; so that he or they that shall be so chosen, be first by the said Survivors strictly examined after a Form devised by the said Elects, and also by the same Survivors approved.

And where that in Dioceses in England, out of London, it is not light to find alway Men able sufficiently to examine (after the Statute) such as shall be admitted to exercise Physick in them, that it may be enacted in this present Parliament, That no Person from henceforth be suffered to exercise or practice in Physick through England, until such time as he be examined at London, by the said President, and three of the said Elects; and to have from the said President or Elects, Letters Testimonials of their approving and Examination, except he be a Graduate of Oxford or Cambridge, which hath accomplished all things for his Form, without any Grace.

‘In most humble wise sheweth unto your Majesty, your true and faithful Subjects and liege Men, the President of the Corporation of the Commonalty and Fellowship of the Science and Faculty of Physick in your City of London, and the Commons and the Fellows of the same, that whereas divers of them many times having in Cure, as well some of the Lords of your most honourable Council, and divers Times many of the Nobility of this Realm, as many other of your faithful and liege People, cannot give their due Attendance to them, and other their Patients, with such Diligence as their Duty were, and is to do by reason they be many Times compelled, as well within the City of London and Suburbs of the same, as in other Towns and Villages, to keep Watch and Ward, and be chosen to the Office of Constable, and other Offices within the said City and Suburbs of the same, as in other Places within this your Realm, to their great Fatigation and Unquieting, and to the Peril of their Patients, by reason they cannot be conveniently attended:’ It may therefore please your most excellent Majesty, with the Assent of your Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by Authority of the same, to enact, ordain, and establish, That the President of the said Commonalty and Fellowship for the Time being, and the Commons and Fellows of the same, and every Fellow thereof, that now be, or at any time hereafter shall be, their Successors, and the Successors of every of them, at all time and times after the making of this present Act, shall be discharged to keep Watch or Ward in your said City of London, or the Suburbs of the same, or any Part thereof; and that they or any of them shall not be chosen Constable, or any other Officer in the said City or Suburbs; and that if at any time hereafter said President for the time being, or any of the said a_15Commons or Fellows for the time being, by any Ways or Means be appointed or elected to any Watch or Ward Office of Constable, or any other Office, within the said City or Suburbs, the same Appointment or Election to be utterly void and of none Effect; any Order, Custom, or Law to the contrary before this Time used in the said City notwithstanding.

II. And that it may please your most Royal Majesty, by the Authority aforesaid, That it may be further enacted, ordained and established, for the common Wealth and Surety of your loving Subjects of this your Realm, in and for the Administration of Medicines to such of your said Subjects as shall have Need of the same, That from henceforth the said President for the Time being, Commons and Fellows, and their Successors may yearly at such time as they shall think most meet and convenient for the same, elect and choose four Persons of the said Commons and Fellows, of the best learned, wisest and most discreet, such as they shall think convenient, and have Experience of the said Faculty of Physick, and that the said four Persons so elected and chosen, after a corporal Oath to them ministered by the said President or his Deputy, shall and may, by virtue of this present Act, have full Authority and Power, as often as they shall think meet and convenient, to enter into the House or Houses of all and every Apothecary, now or at any time hereafter using the Mystery or Craft of Apothecary within the said City, only to search, view and see such Apothecary Wares, Drugs and Stuffs, as the said Apothecaries or any of them have, or at any time hereafter shall have, in their House or Houses; and all such Wares, Drugs and Stuffs, as the said four Persons shall then find defective, corrupted, and not meet nor convenient to be ministered in any medicines for the Health of Man’s Body, the same four Persons calling to them the Warden of the said Mystery of Apothecaries within the said City for that time being, or one of them, shall cause to be brent or otherwise destroy the same, as they shall think meet by their a_16discretion; and if the said Apothecaries or any of them at any time hereafter do obstinately or willingly refuse or deny the said four Persons yearly elected and chosen, as is before said, to enter into their said House or Houses for the Causes, Intent and Purpose before rehearsed; that then they and every of them so offending contrary to this Act, for every time that he or they do so offend, to forfeit C. s. the one Half to your Majesty and the other Half to him that will sue for the same by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King’s Courts, wherein no Wager of Law, Essoin or Protection shall be allowed; and if the said four Persons or any of them so elected and chosen as before is said, do refuse to be sworn, or after his said Oath to him or them administered, do obstinately refuse to make the said Search and View once in the Year, or at such time as they shall think most convenient by their Discretions, having no lawful impediment by Sickness or otherwise, to the contrary; that then for every such wilful and obstinate Default, every of the said four Persons making Default to forfeit forty Shillings.

III. And forasmuch as the Science of Physic doth comprehend, include and contain the knowledge of Surgery, as a special Member and Part of the same, therefore be it enacted, That any of the said Company or Fellowship of Physicians, being able chosen and admitted by the said President and Fellowship of Physicians, may from time to time, as well within the City of London, as elsewhere within the Realm, practice and exercise the said Science of Physic in all and every his Members and Parts, any Act, Statute, or Provision made to the contrary notwithstanding.

STATUTE. 32. Hen. 8. c. 42. For Barbers and Surgeons. — 34. 35. Hen. 8. c. 8. A Bill that Persons being no common Surgeons, may minister Medicines, notwithstanding the Statute. — 1. Mary , c. 9. An Act touching the Corporation of Physicians in London . — 6th & 7th Will. 3. c. 4. An Act for exempting Apothecaries from serving the Offices of Constable, Scavenger, and other Parish and Ward Offices, and from serving upon Juries. — 10. Geo. 1. c. 20. — 18. Geo. 2. c. 15. An Act for making the Surgeons of London and the Barbers of London two separate and distinct Corporations. — 55. Geo. 3. c. 194. An Act, for better regulating the Practice of Apothecaries throughout England and Wales . — A Royal Charter granted to the Apothecaries of London 30 Maii 13 Jacobii.

‘The King our Sovereign Lord, by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, by all their common Assents, duly pondering among other Things necessary for the Common Wealth of this Realm, that it is very expedient and needful to provide for Men expert in the Science of Physick and Surgery, for the Health of Man’s Body, when Infirmities and Sickness shall happen, for the due Exercise and Maintenance whereof good and necessary Acts be already made and provided; yet nevertheless, forasmuch as within the City of London, where Men of great Experience, as well in Speculation as in Practice of the Science and Faculty of Surgery, be abiding and inhabiting, and have more commonly the daily Exercise and Experience of the same Science of Surgery, than is had or used within other Parts of this Realm; and by occasion thereof many expert Persons be brought up under them as their Servants, Apprentices and others, who by the Exercise and diligent Information of their said Masters, as well now as hereafter, shall exercise the said Science within divers other parts of this Realm, to the great Relief, Comfort and Succour of much People, and to the sure Safeguard of their bodily Health, their Limbs and Lives; and forasmuch as within the said City of London, there be now two several and distinct Companies of Surgeons, occupying and exercising the said Science and Faculty of Surgery, the one Company being called The Barbers of London, and the other Company called The Surgeons of London, which Company of Barbers be incorporated to sue and be sued by the a_18Name of Masters or Governors of the Mystery or Commonalty of the Barbers of London, by Virtue and Authority of the Letters Patents under the Great Seal of the late King of famous Memory, King Edward the Fourth, dated at Westminster the four and twentieth of February, in the first year of his Reign, which afterward, as well by our now most dread Sovereign Lord, as by the right noble and virtuous Prince King Henry the Seventh, Father unto the King’s most excellent Highness now being, were and be confirmed, as by sundry Letters Patents thereof made, amongst other things in the same contained, more at large may appear; and the other Company called the Surgeons, be not incorporate, nor have any manner of Corporation; which two several and distinct Companies of Surgeons were necessary to be united, and made one Body incorporate, to the intent that by their Union and often assembly together, the good and due Order, Exercise, and Knowlege of the said Science or Faculty of Surgery should be as well in Speculation as in Practice, both to themselves, and all other their said Servants and Apprentices, now and hereafter to be brought up under them, and by their Learnings and diligent and ripe Informations, more perfect, speedy and effectual Remedy should be, than it hath been, or should be if the said two Companies of Barbers and Surgeons should continue severed asunder, and not joined together, as they before this time have been, and used themselves not medling together;’ wherefore in consideration of the Premisses, be it enacted by the King our Sovereign Lord, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That the said two several and distinct Companies of Surgeons, that is to say, both the Barbers and the Surgeons and every Person of them, being a Freeman of either of the said Companies after the Custom of the said City of London, and their Successors from henceforth, immediately be united and made one entire and whole body corporate and one Commonalty a_19perpetual, which at all times hereafter shall be called by the name of Masters or Governors of the Mystery and Commonalty of Barbers and Surgeons of London, for evermore, and by none other name; and by the same name to implead and be impleaded before all manner of Justices, in all courts, in all manner of Actions and Suits, and also to purchase, enjoy, and to take to them and to their Successors, all manner of Lands, Tenements, Rents, and other Possessions, whatsoever they be; and also shall have a Common Seal, to serve the business of the said Company and Corporation for ever, and by the same name peaceably, quietly, and indefeasably shall have, possess and enjoy to them and to their Successors for ever all such Lands and Tenements, and other Hereditaments whatsoever, which the said Company or Commonalty of Barbers have and enjoy to the Use of the said Mystery and Commonalty of Barbers of London; and also shall peaceably and quietly have and enjoy all and singular Benefices, Grants, Liberties, Privileges, Franchises and free Customs, and also all manner of other Things at any time given or granted unto the said Companies of Barbers or Surgeons by whatsoever name or names they or any of them were called, and which they or any of them now have, or any of their Predecessors have had, by Act of Parliament, Letters Patents, of the King’s Highness, or other his most noble Progenitors, or otherwise by any lawful means have had at any time afore this present Act, in as large and ample Manner and Form as they or any of them have, had, might or should enjoy the same, this Union or Conjunction of the said Companies together notwithstanding; and as largely to have and enjoy the Premisses, as if the same were and had been specially and particularly expressed and declared with the best and most clearest Words and Terms in the Law, to all Intents and Purposes, and that all persons of the said Company now incorporate by this present Act, and their Successors, shall be lawfully admitted and approved to occupy Surgery, after the form of the Statute in that case ordained and provided a_20shall be exempt from bearing of Armor, or to be put in any Watches or Inquests; and that they and their Successors shall have the Search, Oversight, Punishment, and Correction, as well of Freemen as of Foreigners for such Offences as they or any of them shall commit or do against the good Order of Barbery or Surgery, as afore this Time among the said Mystery and Company of Barbers of London hath been used and accustomed, according to the good and politick Rules and Ordinances by them made, and approved by the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer and two chief Justices of either Bench, or any three of them after the Form of the Statute in that case ordained and provided.

II. And further be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the said Masters or Governors of the Mystery and Commonalty of Barbers and Surgeons of London and their Successors yearly for ever, after their said Discretions, at their free Liberty and Pleasure, shall and may have and take without Contradiction four persons condemned, adjudged, and put to death for Felony by the due Order of the King’s Laws of this Realm for Anatomies, without any further Suit or Labour to be made to the King’s Highness, his Heirs or Successors of the same; and to make Incision of the same dead bodies, or otherwise to order the same after their said Discretions at their Pleasures for their further and better Knowledge, Instruction, Insight, Learning and Experience in the said Science or Faculty of Surgery; saving unto all Persons their Heirs and Successors all such Right, Title, Interest and demand which they or any of them might lawfully claim or have in or to any of the Lands and Tenements with the Appurtenances belonging unto the said Company of Barbers and Surgeons, or any of them, at any time afore the making of this Act, in as ample Manner and Form as they or any of them had or ought to have had heretofore; any Thing in this present Act comprised to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding.

III. And forasmuch as such Persons using the Mystery or Faculty of Surgery, oftentimes meddle and take unto a_21their Cures and houses such sick and diseased Persons as been infected with the Pestilence Great Pox, and such other contagious Infirmities do use or exercise Barbery, as washing, or shaving or other Feats thereunto belonging which is very perilous for infecting the King’s liege People resorting to their Shops and houses there being washed or shaven: Wherefore it is now inacted, ordained and provided by the Authority aforesaid, That no manner of Person within the City of London, Suburbs of the same and one Mile Compass of the said City of London, after the feast of the Nativity of our Lord God next coming, using Barbery or Shaving or that hereafter shall use any Barbery or Shaving within the said City of London, Suburbs or one mile Circuit of the same City of London, he nor they nor none other for them, to his or their Use, shall occupy any Surgery, letting of blood, or any other thing belonging to Surgery; drawing of teeth only except. And furthermore in like manner whosoever that useth the Mystery or Craft of Surgery within the Circuit aforesaid as long as he shall fortune to use the said Mystery or Craft of Surgery, shall in no wise occupy nor exercise the Feat or Craft of Barbery or Shaving, neither by himself, nor by none other for him, to his use or their use: And moreover, that all manner of Persons using Surgery for the time being, as well Freemen as Foreigners, Aliens and Strangers within the said City of London, the Suburbs thereof, and one Mile compass of the said City of London, before the Feast of St. Michael, the Archangel next coming, shall have an open Sign on the Street side where they shall fortune to dwell, that all the King’s liege People there passing by may know at all times, whither to resort for Remedies in Time of necessity.

IV. And further be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no manner of Person after the said Feast of St. Michael the Archangel next coming, presume to keep any Shop of Barbery or Shaving within the City of London, except he be a Freeman of the same Corporation and Company.

a_22V. And furthermore at such Times heretofore accustomed, there shall be chosen by the same Company four Masters or Governors of the same Corporation or Company, of the which four, two of them shall be expert in Surgery, and the other two in Barbery; which four Masters, and every of them, shall have full Power and Authority from Time to Time, during their said Office, to have the Oversight, Search, Punishment and Correction of all such Defaults and Inconveniences as shall be found among the said Company using Barbery or Surgery, as well of Freemen as Foreigners, Aliens or Strangers, within the City of London and the Circuits aforesaid, after their said Discretions; And if any Person or Persons using any Barbery or Surgery at any Time hereafter offend in any of these Articles aforesaid, that then for every Month the said Persons so offending shall lose, forfeit and pay v. li. the one Moiety thereof to the King our Sovereign Lord, and the other Moiety to any Person that will or shall sue therefore by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint or Information in any of the King’s Courts, where no Wager of Law, Essoin or Protection shall be admitted or allowed in the same.

VI. Provided that the said Barbers and Surgeons, and every of them, shall bear and pay Lot and Scot, and such other Charges as they and their Predecessors have been accustomed to pay within the said City of London; this Act nor any thing therein contained to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding.

VII. Provided alway, and be it enacted by Authority aforesaid, That it shall be lawful to any of the King’s Subjects, not being Barber or Surgeon, to retain have and keep in his House as his Servant any Person being a Barber or Surgeon, which shall and may use and exercise those Arts and Faculties of Barbery or Surgery, or either of them in his Master’s House, or elsewhere by his Master’s Licence or Commandment; any Thing in this Act above written to the contrary notwithstanding.

‘Where in the Parliament holden at Westminster, in the third year of the King’s most gracious reign, amongst other things, for the avoiding Sorceries, Witchcraft, and other inconveniencies; it was enacted, That no Person within the City of London, nor within seven miles of the same, should take upon him to exercise and occupy as Physician or Surgeon, except he be first examined, approved and admitted by the Bishop of London, and others, under and upon certain Pains and Penalties, in the same Act mentioned: since the making of which Act, the Company and Fellowship of Surgeons of London, minding only their own lucres, and nothing the profit or ease of the Diseased or Patient, have sued, troubled, and vexed divers honest Persons, as well Men as Women, whom God hath endued with the knowledge of the nature, kind and operation of certain herbs, roots and waters, and the using and ministering of them to such as been pained with customable Diseases, as Women’s Breasts being Sore, a Pin and the Web in the eye, Uncomes of Hands, Burnings, Scaldings, Sore Mouths, the Stone, Stranguary, Saucelim, and Morphew, and such other like Diseases; and yet the said Persons have not taken any thing for their Pains or Cunning, but have ministered the same to poor People only, for Neighbourhood and God’s sake, and of Pity and Charity; and it is well known, that the Surgeons admitted will do no cure to any Person, but where they shall know to be rewarded with a greater sum or reward than the cure extendeth unto; for in case they would minister their cunning unto sore People unrewarded, there should not so many rot, and perish to Death for lack or help of Surgery, a_24as daily do; but the greatest part of Surgeons admitted been much more to be blamed, than those Persons that they trouble.’

‘For although the most part of the Persons of the said Craft of Surgeons, have small cunning, yet they will take great Sums of Money, and do little therefore; and by reason thereof, they do oftentimes impair and hurt their Patients, rather than do them good.’ In consideration whereof, and for the Ease, Comfort, Succour, Help, Relief, and Health of the King’s poor Subjects, Inhabitants of this Realm, now pained or diseased, or that hereafter shall be pained or diseased.

Be it ordained, established, and enacted, by the Authority of this present Parliament, that at all time from henceforth, it shall be lawful to every Person being the King’s Subject, having knowledge and experience of the nature of Herbs, Roots, and Waters, or of the operation of the same, by Speculation or Practice, within any part of the Realm of England, or within any other of the King’s Dominions, to practise, use, and minister in and to any outward Sore, Uncome, Wound, Apostemations, outward Swellings or Disease, any Herb or Herbs, Ointments, Baths, Pultess, and Emplasters, according to their Cunning, Experience and Knowledge, in any of the Diseases, Sores, and Maladies beforesaid, and all other like to the same, or Drinks for the Stone, Stranguary or Agues, without Suit, Vexation, Trouble, Penalty, or loss of their Goods; the foresaid Statute in the foresaid third Year of the King’s Most Gracious Reign, or any other Act, Ordinance, or Statute to the contrary heretofore made in anywise notwithstanding.

‘Whereas in the Parliament holden at London, the fifteenth Day of April, in the fourteenth year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Lord, King Henry the Eighth, and from thence adjourned to Westminster, the last day of July, in the fifteenth year of the Reign of the same king, and there holden, it was enacted, That a certain Grant of Letters Patents of Incorporation, made and granted by our said late king to the Physicians of London, and all Clauses and Articles contained in the same Grant, should be approved, granted, ratified and confirmed by the same Parliament.’

For the consideration thereof, be it enacted, by the Authority of this present Parliament, That the said Statute or Act of Parliament, with every Article and Clause therein contained, shall from henceforth stand and continue in full Strength, Force and Effect; any Act, Statute, Law, Custom, or any other thing made had or used to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

III. And for the better Reformation of divers Enormities happening to the Commonwealth, by the evil using and undue Administration of Physick, and for the enlarging of further Articles for the better Execution of the things contained in the said Grant enacted;

IV. Be it therefore now enacted, That whensoever the President of the College, or Communalty of the Faculty of Physick of London, for the time being, or such as the said President and College shall yearly, according to the Tenor and Meaning of the said Act, authorise to search, examine, correct and punish all Offenders and Transgressors in the said Faculty, within the same City and Precinct in the said Act expressed, shall send or commit any such a_26Offender or Offenders for his or their Offences or Disobedience, contrary to any Article or Clause contained in the said Grant or Act, to any Ward, Gaol or Prison, within the same City and Precinct (the Tower of London, except) That then from time to time, the Warden, Gaoler or Keeper, Wardens, Gaolers, or Keepers of the Wards, Gaols and Prisons within the City or Precinct aforesaid, (except before excepted) shall receive into his or their Prisons all and every such Person and Persons so offending, as shall be so sent or committed, to him or them, as is aforesaid; and there shall safely keep the person or persons so committed, in any of their Prisons, at the proper Costs and Charges of the said Person or Persons so committed, without Bail or Mainprise, until such time as such Offender or Offenders or Disobedient be discharged of the said Imprisonment by the said President, and such Persons as by the said College shall be thereto authorised; upon Pain that all and every such Warden, Gaoler and Keeper, doing the contrary, shall lose and forfeit double of such Fine and Amerciament as such Offender and Offenders or Disobedients, shall be assessed to pay, by such as the said President and College shall authorise as aforesaid, so that the same Fine and Amerciament be not at any one time above the sum of xx li. the Moiety thereof to be employed to the use of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Heirs and Successors, the other Moiety unto the said President and College: all which forfeitures to be recovered by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, in any of the Queen’s, her Heirs and Successor’s Courts of Record, against any such Warden, Gaoler or Keeper so offending; in which Suit no Essoin, Wager of Law, nor Protection shall be allowed nor admitted for the Defendant.

V. And further, be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, for the better Execution of the Search and view of Poticary Wares, Drugs and Compositions, according to the Tenor of a Statute made in the xxxii Year of the Reign of the said late King Henry the Eighth, That it shall be lawful for the a_27Wardens of the Grocers, or one of them, to go with the said Physicians in their View and Search, that if the said Warden or Wardens do refuse his or their coming thereunto, forthwith and immediately, when the said President or four of his College elect, as aforesaid, do call upon him or them, that then the said Physicians may and shall execute that Search and View, and the due Punishment of the Poticaries for any their evil and faulty Stuff, according to the Statute last before mentioned, without the Assistance of any of the said Wardens; any Clause in the aforenamed Statute to the contrary hereof notwithstanding. And every such Person or Persons as will or shall resist such Search, shall forfeit for every such resistance Ten Pound; the same Penalty to be recovered in Form aforesaid, without any of the delays aforesaid, to be had in suit thereof.

VI. And further, be it enacted, That all Justices, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Constables, and other Ministers and Officers, within the City and Precincts above written, upon Request to them made, shall help and assist the President of the said College, and all Persons by them from time to time authorised for the due Execution of the said Acts or Statutes, upon Pain for not giving of such Aid, Help, and Assistance, to run in Contempt of the Queen’s Majesty, her Heirs and Successors.

‘Whereas the Act of the Apothecary is of great and general Use and Benefit, by reason of their constant and a_28necessary Assistance of his Majesty’s Subjects, which should oblige them solely to attend the Duty of their Professions; yet by reason that they are compelled to serve several Parish, Ward, and Leet Offices, in the Places where they live, and are frequently summoned to serve on Juries and Inquests, which take up great Part of their Time, they cannot perform the Trusts reposed in them as they ought, nor attend the Sick with such Diligence as is required: And whereas, King James the First, by His Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, did incorporate the Apothecaries exercising that Art within London, and seven Miles Compass, by the Name of The Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of the Apothecaries of the City of London:’

II. Be it therefore enacted, by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That all and every Person and Persons, using and exercising, or that hereafter shall use and exercise, the Art of an Apothecary within the said City of London, and seven Miles thereof, being Free of the said Society, and who already have been, or hereafter shall be duly examined of his Skill in the said Mystery, and shall be approved of for the same, and every of them, for so long as he or they shall use and exercise the said Art, and no longer, shall and may at all Times hereafter be freed and exempted from the several Offices of Constable, Scavenger, Overseer of the Poor, and all other Parish, Ward, and Leet Offices, and of and from the being put into or serving upon Juries or Inquests; and if at any Time hereafter any such Person or Persons using the said Art, and being qualified as aforesaid, shall be chosen or elected into any of the said Offices, or returned, required, or appointed to serve in any Jury, Leet, or Inquest, or be disquieted or disturbed by reason thereof, that then such Person or Persons, producing a Testimonial under the common Seal of the said Corporation, of such his a_29Examination, Approbation, and Freedom, to the Person or Persons by whom he shall be so elected or appointed, or by or before whom he shall be so summoned, returned, or required to serve or hold any of the said Offices or Duties, shall be absolutely discharged from the same, and such Nomination, Election, Return, and Appointment, shall be utterly void, and of none Effect; any Order, Custom, Law, or Statute, to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

III. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Persons using and exercising, or that hereafter shall use and exercise the said Art of an Apothecary, within any other Parts of this Kingdom, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and who have been brought up and served, or hereafter shall be brought up and serve in the said Art as an Apprentice, by the Space of seven years, according to the Statute of the fifth of Queen Elizabeth, shall likewise from henceforth be freed and exempted from all and singular the Offices and Duties aforesaid, within the several Counties, Cities, and Places, where they live and inhabit, for so long as he or they shall use and exercise the said Art, and no longer; and if any Person or Persons so qualified shall be elected or chosen into any of the said Offices, or returned to serve in any Jury, Leet, or Inquest, such Nomination, Election, Return, and Appointment, shall be void, unless such Person or Persons shall voluntarily consent and agree to hold such Office, or serve upon such Jury, Leet, or Inquest. Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt or excuse any Apothecary that is or shall, before the commencement of this Act, be elected or appointed to Serve any of the said Offices, from serving in the said Offices for the usual Time, for which he was so elected and appointed. Provided always, That this Act shall continue for the Space of seven Years, and from thence to the End of the next Session of Parliament, and no longer.

An Act for the better viewing, searching and examining of all Drugs, Medicines, Waters, Oils, Compositions, used or to be used for Medicines in all places where the same shall be exposed to sale or kept for that Purpose, within the City of London and Suburbs thereof, or within seven Miles Circuit of the said City.

‘Whereas in and by certain Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of England, bearing Date the twenty-fourth Day of February in the first Year of the Reign of his then Majesty King Edward the Fourth, after reciting, That the Freemen of the Mystery of Barbers of the City of London, using the Mystery or Faculty of Surgery, had for a long Time, exercised and sustained, and still continued to exercise and sustain great Application and Labour, as well about the curing and healing Wounds, Blows and other Infirmities, as in the letting of Blood, and drawing of Teeth; and that by the Ignorance and Unskilfulness of some of the said Barbers, as well Freemen of the said City as of others, being foreign Surgeons, many misfortunes had happened to divers People, by the a_31Unskilfulness of such Barbers and Surgeons, in healing and curing Wounds, Blows, Hurts and other Infirmities; and that it was to be feared, that the like or worse Evils might thereafter ensue, unless a suitable Remedy was speedily provided in the Premisses; his said then Majesty did therefore, at the Supplication of the Freemen of the said Mystery of Barbers, in the said City of London, grant to them, amongst other Things, that the said Mystery, and all the Men of the said Mystery of the said City, should be one Body, and one perpetual Community; and that two Principals of the same Commonalty, of the most expert Men in the Mystery of Surgery, might with the Assent of twelve, or eight Persons at the least, of the same Community, every Year elect and make out of the Community two Masters or Governors, being the most expert in the Mystery of Surgery, to oversee, rule and govern the Mystery and Commonalty aforesaid, and all Men of the same Mystery and the Affairs of the same; and that the aforesaid Masters or Governors, and Commonalty, and their Successors, might make Statutes and Ordinances for the Government of the said Mysteries; and that the Masters or Governors for the Time being, and their Successors, should have the Survey, Search, Correction and Government of all the Freemen of the said City, being Surgeons, using the Mystery of Barbers in the same City, and of other Surgeons whatsoever, being Foreigners, practising and using the Mystery of Surgery, within the same City and Suburbs of the same, and the Punishment of them, as well Freemen as Foreigners, for their Offences in not perfectly executing, performing and using that Mystery; and should also have the Survey and Search of all Manner of Instruments, Plaisters and other Medicines, and the Receipts to be given, applied and used by the said Barbers and Surgeons, for the curing and healing of Sores, Wounds, Hurts and such like Infirmities; and that no Barber using the said Mystery of Surgery, within the said City, or Suburbs thereof, or other foreign Surgeon a_32whatsoever, should be in any Manner thereafter admitted to execute, perform and exercise the same Mystery of Surgery, unless he had first been approved of, as well instructed in that Mystery, by the said Masters or Governors, or their Successors, sufficiently qualified in that Behalf; and his said Majesty did further grant, that the said Masters or Governors of the Commonalty of the said Mystery of Barbers, and their Successors, nor any of them, should in any Manner thereafter be summoned or put upon any Assizes, Juries, Inquests, Inquisitions, Attaints or other Recognizances, to be taken within the said City and Suburbs thereof, before the Mayor or Sheriffs, or Coroners of the same City for the Time being, or summoned by any of his Officer or Officers, Minister or Ministers, although such Juries, Inquisitions, or Recognizances, should be summoned upon a Writ or Writs of Right; but that the said Masters or Governors, and Commonalty of the aforesaid Mystery, and their Successors, and every of them, should be thereof acquitted, and wholly discharged for ever; and his said then Majesty thereby further granted unto the aforesaid Masters or Governors, and Commonalty of the said Mystery of Barbers, and to their Successors the following Liberty; to wit, That they at all Times thereafter should and might admit Persons able and sufficiently learned and instructed in the said Mystery of Surgery, and by them approved of in Form, and presented to the Mayor of the said City for the Time being, and no other Persons, or in any other Manner, into the said Mystery of Barber Surgeons, and Liberty of the said City: And whereas by an Act of Parliament made and passed in the thirty-second Year of the Reign of the late King Henry the Eighth, intituled, For Barbers and Surgeons, after taking Notice that it was very expedient and needful to provide for Men expert in the Science of Physick and Surgery for the Health of Man’s Body, when Infirmities and Sickness should happen; for the due Exercise and Maintenance whereof, good and a_33necessary Acts had theretofore been made and provided, and that within the City of London, Men of great Experience, as well in Speculation as in Practice of the Science and Faculty of Surgery, were abiding and inhabiting, and had more commonly the daily Exercise and Experience of the same Science of Surgery than was had and used within any Parts of the Realm; and by Occasion thereof, many expert Persons were brought up under them as their Servants, Apprentices and others, who by the Exercise and diligent Information of their Masters, might exercise the said Science within divers other Parts of the Realm; to the great Relief, Comfort and Succour of much People, and to the Safeguard of their bodily Health, Limbs and Lives; and reciting, That within the said City of London there were then two several and distinct Companies of Surgeons occupying and exercising the Science and Faculty of Surgery, the one Company being commonly called The Barbers of London, and the other Company called The Surgeons of London; and that the said Company of Barbers were incorporated to sue and be sued by the Name of Masters or Governors of the Mystery or Commonalty of the Barbers of London, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of King Edward the Fourth, dated the twenty-fourth Day of February in the first Year of his Reign, and which were confirmed by several subsequent Letters Patents in the said Act mentioned and referred to; and that the other Company, called The Surgeons, had not any Manner of Corporation; and that the said two several and distinct Companies of Surgeons were necessary to be united and made one Body Corporate, to the Intent that by their Union and often Assembly together, the good and due Order, Exercise and Knowledge in the said Science or Faculty of Surgery, should be, as well in Speculation as in Practice, both to themselves and their Servants and Apprentices, and by their Learning and diligent and ripe Informations, more perfect, speedy and effectual; it was therefore enacted, That the said two a_34several and distinct Companies of Surgeons, that is to say, both the Barbers and the Surgeons, and every Person of them, being a Freeman of either of the said Companies, after the Custom of the said City of London, and their Successors, should from thenceforth be immediately united and made one entire and whole Body Corporate, and one Commonalty perpetual, which at all Times thereafter should be called by the Name of Masters or Governors of the Mystery or Commonalty of Barbers and Surgeons of London, and by the same Name to implead and be impleaded before all Manner of Justices in all Courts, in all Manner of Actions and Suits; and also to purchase, enjoy, and take to them and their Successors, Lands, Tenements, Rents and other Possessions whatsoever: And it was also thereby enacted, That they should have a Common Seal to serve for the Business of the said Company and Corporation; and that they should by the same Name, peaceably, quietly and indefeazibly, have, possess, and enjoy, to them and their Successors for ever, all such Lands and Tenements, and other Hereditaments whatsoever, which the said Company or Commonalty of Barbers then had and enjoyed, to the Use of the said Mystery and Commonalty of Barbers of London; and should also peaceably and quietly have and enjoy all and singular Benefits, Grants, Liberties, Privileges, Franchises and Free Customs, and also all Manner of other Things at any Time given or granted unto the said Companies of Barbers or Surgeons, by whatsoever Name or Names they or any of them were called, or which they or any of them, or any of their Predecessors, then or theretofore had by Acts of Parliament, Letters Patents or otherwise, by any lawful Means at any Time before the said Act, in as large and ample Manner and Form, as they or any of them, had, might or should enjoy the same, notwithstanding the said Union or Conjunction of the said Companies, and as if the same were and had been specially and particularly expressed and declared, with the best and most clearest Words and a_35Terms of Law, to all Intents and Purposes: And it was thereby also enacted, That all Persons of the said Company incorporated by the said Act, and their Successors, that should be lawfully admitted and approved to occupy Surgery after the Form of the Statute in that case made and provided, should be exempt from bearing of Armour, or to be put in any Watches or Inquests; and that they and their Successors, should have the Search, Oversight, Punishment and Correction, as well of Freemen as of Foreign, for such Offences as they or any of them, should commit against the good Order of Barbery and Surgery, as theretofore among the said Company of Barbers of London had been used and accustomed, according to the Rules and Ordinances by them made and approved of, pursuant to the Statute in that Behalf ordained and provided: And it was thereby further enacted, That no Person within the City of London, Suburbs of the same, and one Mile Compass of the said City, using any Barbery or Shaving, should occupy any Surgery, letting of Blood, or any other Thing belonging to Surgery, except Drawing of Teeth only: and that whosoever should use the Mystery or Craft of Surgery within the Circuit aforesaid, should, as long as he should use the said Mystery or Craft, in no wise occupy or exercise the Feat or Craft of Barbery or Shaving: And whereas in and by certain Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, bearing Date the fifteenth Day of August in the fifth Year of the Reign of his late Majesty King Charles the First, reciting the said Act of Parliament of the thirty-second Year of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth; and that the Men of the same Societies, as well from the Time of their said Union and Incorporation as before, respectively had, held, used and enjoyed divers Liberties, Franchises, Immunities, Customs and Preheminences, within the City of London, the Suburbs and Liberties thereof, and certain Villages, and Places thereto adjacent, as well on account of the said Act of Parliament, and other Acts of Parliament, as by a_36virtue and on account of divers Charters and Letters Patents made and granted by the late King James the First, and other Kings and Queens of England, his said Majesty King Charles the First did thereby grant, ratify and confirm unto the said Masters and Governors of the Mystery and Commonalty aforesaid, and their Successors, all and singular the Manors, Messuages, Lands, Tenements, Customs, Liberties, Franchises, Immunities, Jurisdictions and Hereditaments whatsoever, as well within the City of London, the Liberties and Suburbs thereof, as within the Liberties and Precincts therein after mentioned, which the Men of the aforesaid Societies of Barbers and Surgeons, or either of them, then lawfully had, held, used and enjoyed, by reason of any Letters Patents of any the former Kings and Queens of England, or by Colour of any lawful Prescription, Use, or Custom, or by any other lawful Means, Rights or Title theretofore had, used or accustomed: And his said late Majesty King Charles the First did thereby give Power to the said Company and Corporation to make Bye-laws for the good Order and Government of the said Society, in such Manner, and under such Restrictions, as is therein mentioned; and to make annual Elections of Masters or Governors of the said Commonalty, whereof two to be Professors in the Art and Science of Surgery; and also to elect and constitute ten of the Freemen of that Society to be Examiners of the Surgeons of London, during their Lives: And it was thereby further granted, That no Person or Persons whatsoever, whether a Freeman of the said Society, or a Foreigner, or a Native of England, or an Alien, should use or exercise the said Art or Science of Surgery within the said Cities of London and Westminster, or either of them, or within the Distance of seven Miles of the said City of London, for his or their private Lucre or Profit, (except such Physicians as are therein mentioned) unless the said Person or Persons were first tried and examined in the Presence of two or more of the Masters or Governors a_37of the Mystery and Commonalty aforesaid for the Time being, by four or more of the said Examiners so to be elected and constituted as aforesaid, and by the publick Letters Testimonial of the same Masters or Governors under their Common Seal approved of, and admitted to exercise the said Art Or Science of Surgery, according to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom of England, under the Penalty in the said Letters Patents mentioned; and that all and every of the said Freemen and Surgeons so examined, approved of, and admitted as aforesaid, might lawfully use and exercise the same Art and Science of Surgery, as well within the Cities of London and Westminster, the Liberties and Suburbs thereof, as in any other Cities, Towns, Boroughs and Places whatsoever of the Kingdom of England: And it was thereby further granted and provided, That the said Masters and Governors of the Mystery and Commonalty aforesaid, and their Successors, might appoint and have a publick Lecture for the Art and Science of Surgery in their common Hall, or other convenient Place, every Week or otherwise, at the Discretion of the said Masters or Governors and their Assistants, or the major Part of them for the Time being, to be held for the better Instruction and Information in the Principles and Rudiments of the Art and Science of Chirurgery of all and singular as well Freemen as Foreigners, whether native Subjects of England or Aliens, to be entered and admitted as is therein mentioned: And it was thereby also constituted and ordained, That no one, whether a Freeman of the Mystery or Commonalty aforesaid, or a Foreigner, whether a Native of England, or an Alien, exercising the Art of Surgery within the Cities of London and Westminster, or the Suburbs or Liberties thereof, or within seven Miles of the said City of London, should go out from the Port of London, or send out any Apprentice, Servant or other Person whomsoever, from the same Port, to execute or undertake the Place or Office of a Surgeon for any Ship, whether in the Service of the Crown, or of a_38any Merchant or others, unless they and their Medicines, Instruments and Chests respectively, were first examined, inspected and allowed by two such Masters or Governors of the Mystery and Commonalty aforesaid for the Time being, as were skilled, knowing and Professors in the same Art of Surgery, under the Penalty therein mentioned: And whereas, since the said Act for Incorporation of the said two Companies, those of the said Company practising Surgery, have from their sole and constant Study of and Application to the said Science, rendered the Profession and Practice thereof of great Benefit to this Kingdom: And whereas the Barbers belonging to the said Corporation are now, and for many Years have been engaged and employed in a Business foreign to, and independent of the Practice of Surgery; and the Surgeons belonging to the same Corporation being now become a numerous and considerable Body, and finding their Union with the Barbers inconvenient in many Respects, and in no Degree conducive to the Progress or Improvement of the Art of Surgery; and that a Separation of the Corporation of Barbers and Surgeons, and making two Corporations of the present united Company of Barbers and Surgeons, will contribute much to the Improvement of Surgery, and thereby become a Matter of publick Utility, are therefore desirous that the Surgeons being Freemen of the said Company, may be made a Corporation separate and distinct from and Independent of the Barbers of and belonging to the said Company;’ May it therefore please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That the said Union and Incorporation of the Barbers and Surgeons of London, made and effected by the said recital Act of the thirty-second Year of King Henry the Eighth, shall from and after the twenty-fourth Day of June one thousand seven a_39hundred and forty-five, be, and the same is hereby dissolved, vacated and declared to be void and of no Effect, and that such of the Members of the said united Company or Corporation, who are Freemen of the said Company, and admitted and approved Surgeons within the Rules of the said Company and Corporation, and their Successors, shall from thenceforth be made, and they are hereby made and constituted a separate and distinct Body Corporate, and Commonalty perpetual, which, at all Times thereafter, shall be called by the Name of Masters, Governors and Commonalty of the Art and Science of Surgeons of London; and by the same Name, shall and may implead and be impleaded before all Manner of Justices in all Courts and in all Manner of Actions and Suits, and purchase, enjoy and take to them, and their Successors, any Lands, Tenements, Rents or Hereditaments, not exceeding the yearly Rent or Value of two hundred Pounds in the whole, without incurring any of the Penalties or Forfeitures of the Statutes of Mortmain.

II. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Company or Corporation herein before established and incorporated, from time to time, in the Manner herein after mentioned, to elect, choose, and appoint one principal Master or Governor, two other Governors or Wardens, ten Examiners of Surgeons, and twenty-one Persons to be the Court of Assistants of the said Company or Corporation, to be respectively qualified and admitted in such Manner, and to continue in the said Offices respectively, for such Time and Times respectively, as by the By-laws, Rules, Ordinances, and Constitutions of the said Company or Corporation, shall be, from time to time, ordered, directed, provided and appointed.

III. And it is hereby further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Master and Governors of the said Company or Corporation for the Time being, or any two of them, with nine or more of the Members of the said Court of Assistants of the same Company for the Time a_40being, when and as often as to two of the said Master and Governors shall seem meet, to hold Courts and Assemblies, in order to treat and consult about and concerning the Rule, Order, State, and Government of the said Company or Corporation herein before established and incorporated as aforesaid; and also that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Master and Governors and Court of Assistants so assembled, or the major Part of them, to make, ordain, constitute, establish, ratify, confirm, annul, revoke, or abrogate, from time to time, such By-laws, Ordinances, Rules, and Constitutions, as to them shall seem requisite, profitable, and convenient for the Regulation, Government, and Advantage of the said Company or Corporation; so as such By-laws, Ordinances, Rules, and Constitutions be examined, approved of, and allowed, as by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm is provided and required.

IV. Provided always, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the several By-laws, Ordinances, Rules, and Constitutions, made and established for the Regulation and Government of the said United Company or Corporation, so far as the same relate to, or concern the Art and Science of Surgery only, and which, on the twenty-third day of June one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, shall be subsisting, and in Force, and shall not be repealed, annulled, or abrogated by virtue of this present Act, shall continue and be in Force; and shall be exercised, observed, and executed by the said Company of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act, until such Time and Times respectively as the same By-laws, Ordinances, Rules, and Constitutions shall respectively be repealed, annulled, and made void, by virtue and under the Authority of this present Act.

V. Provided also, and it is hereby further enacted and declared, That John Ranby Esquire, Principal Serjeant Surgeon to his Majesty, shall be, and he is hereby constituted and appointed Principal Master or Governor; and that Master Joseph Sandford and William Cheselden Esquire, two of the present Wardens of the said United a_41Company shall be, and they are hereby constituted and appointed, the two other Governors or Wardens of the Company of Surgeons made, established, and incorporated by this Act; and that they shall continue in, and hold, enjoy and exercise the said Offices respectively from the said twenty-fourth Day of June, until others shall be elected and appointed to the said Offices respectively, as herein after is mentioned: And also that Ambrose Dickins Esquire, Principal Serjeant Surgeon to his Majesty, William Petty Esquire, John Shipton Esquire, the said William Cheselden, John Freke, William Pyle, Legard Sparham, James Hickes, and Peter Sainthill, who are the present Examiners of Surgeons, together with the said John Ranby, shall be, and they are hereby constituted and appointed Examiners of Surgeons for the said Company of Surgeons made, established, and incorporated by this Act; and that they shall respectively continue in, and hold, enjoy, and exercise the said Office of Examiners for and during their natural Lives respectively, or until they shall be respectively removed out of the said Office, pursuant, and according to the By-laws, Rules, and Constitutions of the said Company of Surgeons, established and incorporated by this Act; And also that the said John Ranby, Joseph Sandford, William Cheselden, Ambrose Dickins, William Petty, and John Shipton, John Hayward, the said John Freke, William Pyle, Legard Sparham, James Hickes, and Peter Sainthill, Noah Roul, John Westbrook, William Singleton, and James Phillips, and such five other Persons as shall hereafter be elected and appointed for that Purpose, in pursuance of this Act, and as is herein after mentioned, shall be, and they are hereby constituted and appointed the Court of Assistants of the Company of Surgeons made, established and incorporated by this Act; and that they shall continue in, and hold, enjoy, and exercise the said Office during their natural Lives respectively, or until they shall respectively be removed out of the said Office, pursuant and according to the By-laws, Rules, and Constitutions of the same Company.

a_42VI. And it is hereby further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said John Ranby, Joseph Sandford, William Cheselden, Ambrose Dickins, William Petty, John Shipton, John Hayward, John Freke, William Pyle, Legard Sparham, James Hickes, Peter Sainthill, Noah Roul, John Westbrook, William Singleton, and James Phillips, to meet at or in such Place as the said John Ranby, Joseph Sandford, and William Cheselden, or any two of them, shall appoint, on the first Day of July one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, between the Hours of ten and two of the Clock of the same Day; and then and there to elect, choose, and appoint, out of the Freemen of the said Company or Corporation of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act, by the Majority of Votes of such of the said sixteen Persons herein before appointed to be of the Court of Assistants, who shall be present at such Meeting, so many other Persons to be of the Court of Assistants of the same Company or Corporation, as will make the Number twenty-one, to continue in the said Office for and during their natural Lives respectively, or until they shall be respectively removed out of the said Office.

VII. And it is further enacted, That the Master, Governors, and Court of Assistants for the Time being, of the said Company of Surgeons made; established, and incorporated by this Act, shall, upon the first Thursday in the Month of July in the Year one thousand seven hundred and forty-six; and on the first Thursday in the Month of July in every succeeding Year, meet at such Place as the Master and Governors of the same Company for the Time being, or any two of them shall appoint; and then and there elect, choose, and appoint, out of their Body, by the Majority of Votes of such of the said Master, Governors, and Court of Assistants, who shall be then present, one Person to be Principal Master or Governor, and two other Persons to be Governors or Wardens of the said Company or Corporation of Surgeons, established and incorporated by this Act, for the then succeeding Year; and then and there also, in like a_43manner, elect, choose, and appoint, out of their own Body, such other Person or Persons, to be Examiner or Examiners of Surgeons, for the same Company, in the Place or Stead of such Examiner or Examiners, as shall have happened to die, or have been removed from the said Office of Examiner, in the then next preceding Year; and also in like manner, elect, choose, and appoint, out of the Freemen of the said Company or Corporation of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act, such Person or Persons to be of the Court of Assistants of the same Company or Corporation, in the Place and Stead of such Person or Persons who shall have happened to die in, or have been removed from, the said Office of Court of Assistants, in the then next preceding Year.

VIII. And it is hereby further enacted, That the said Company of Surgeons made, established, and incorporated by this Act, and their Successors, and all Persons who shall be Freemen of the same Company or Corporation, shall and may, from time to time, and at all Times for ever hereafter, have, hold, and enjoy all and every such and the same Liberties, Privileges, Franchises, Powers, and Authorities, as the Members of the said United Company or Corporation, being Freemen of the said Company, and admitted and approved Surgeons, within the Rules of the said Company and Corporation, could or might respectively have had, held, and enjoyed, by virtue of the said recited Act of Union or Incorporation, and the said Letters Patent of his said late Majesty King Charles the First respectively, and other the Royal Grants, Charters, and Patents, therein mentioned and referred to, so far as the same relate to the Art or Science of Surgery only, and not otherwise; and that in as full, ample, and beneficial Manner, to all Intents and Purposes, as if the same had in and by this present Act been expressly repeated and re-enacted; and that they, and all such who already have been, or hereafter shall be, examined and approved, pursuant to the Rules of the said Company, shall be entitled to practice freely, and without a_44Restraint, the Art and Science of Surgery, throughout all and every his Majesty’s Dominions; any Law or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

IX. And it is hereby further enacted, That from and after the said first Day of July one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, the Examiners of the Company of Surgeons established by this Act shall, and they are hereby required, from time to time, upon Request to them made, to examine every Person who shall be a Candidate to be appointed to serve as a Surgeon, a Surgeon’s Mate, of any Regiment, Troop, Company, Hospital, or Garrison of Soldiers in the Service of his Majesty, his Heirs, or Successors, in like Manner as they do or shall examine any Surgeon or Surgeons to be appointed to serve on Board any Ship or Vessel in the Service of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors.

X. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all and every Person and Persons, being Freemen of the said Company and Corporation of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act, and who already have been, or hereafter shall be, examined and approved pursuant to the Rules and Orders of the said Company, and every of them, for so long Time as he and they shall use and exercise the said Art or Science of Surgery, and no longer, shall and may, at all Times hereafter, be freed and exempted from the several Offices of Constable, Scavenger, Overseer of the Poor, and all other Parish, Ward, and Leet Offices, and of and from the being put into or serving upon any Jury or Inquest: And if at any Time hereafter any such Person or Persons, using and Practising the said Art or Science of Surgery, and being qualified as aforesaid, shall be chosen and elected into any of the said Offices, or returned, required, or appointed to serve on any Jury, Leet, or Inquest, or be disquieted or disturbed by reason thereof; that then such Person or Persons, producing a Testimonial, under the Common Seal of the said Corporation, of such his Examination, Approbation, and Freedom, to the Person or Persons by whom he shall be so elected or appointed, or by or a_45before whom he shall be summoned, returned, or required to serve or hold any of the said Offices or Duties, shall be absolutely discharged from the same; and such Nomination, Election, Return, and Appointment, shall be utterly void, and of no Effect; any Order, Custom, Law, or Statute to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

XI. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That this Act, or any Thing therein contained, shall not extend, or be construed or taken to prejudice, abridge, or infringe any of the Privileges, Authorities, Powers, Rights, Liberties, or Franchises heretofore granted by any Act or Acts of Parliament, or by any Letters Patents, Charters or Charter of any of his Majesty’s Royal Predecessors, Kings or Queens of England, to the President and College, or Commonalty of the Faculty of Physick in London.

XII. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That such of the Members of the said United Company or Corporation, who are Freemen of the said Company, and are not admitted or approved Surgeons, and their Successors, shall, from and after the said twenty-fourth Day of June one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, be, and they are hereby made and constituted, a Body Corporate, and Commonalty Perpetual, which, at all Times hereafter shall be called by the Name of The Master, Governors, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of London; and by the same Name shall plead and be impleaded before all manner of Justices, in all Courts, and in all manner of Actions and Suits; and also purchase, enjoy, and take to them, and their Successors, any Lands, Tenements, Rents, or Hereditaments, not exceeding the yearly Rent or Value of two hundred Pounds in the whole, without incurring any of the Penalties or Forfeitures of the Statute of Mortmain.

XIII. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That Master Jonathan Medley, the present first Master or Governor of the said United Company or Corporation, and Master Humphrey Negus, the present third a_46Master or Governor of the said United Company, and such two other Persons as shall hereafter be elected and appointed for that purpose in pursuance of this Act, and as is herein after mentioned, shall be and they are hereby respectively established and confirmed the Master and Governors of the Company or Corporation of Barbers of London, established and incorporated by this Act; and shall continue in, and hold, exercise and enjoy the said Offices respectively, until others shall be chosen, elected and appointed in and to the same Offices respectively, pursuant and according to the By-laws, Rules, Orders and Constitutions of the same Company; and also that the said Jonathan Medley, Humphrey Negus, and William Parker, Luke Maurice, John Barnwell, John Truelove, William Haddon, John Negus, Edward Boxley, Samuel Rutter, Robert Scrooby, Richard Swithin, Edward Colebeck, Togarmah Jones, and John Guerney, being fifteen of the present Court of Assistants of the said United Company, and such nine other Persons as shall hereafter be elected and appointed for that Purpose in pursuance of this Act, and as is herein after mentioned, shall be and they are hereby constituted and appointed the Court of Assistants of the Company of Barbers, made, established, and incorporated by this Act; and shall continue in, and hold, enjoy and exercise the said Office during their natural Lives respectively, or until they shall be respectively removed out of the said Office, pursuant and according to the said By-laws, Rules, Ordinances and Constitutions of the said Company of Barbers of London.

XIV. And it is hereby further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Jonathan Medley, Humphrey Negus, William Parker, Luke Maurice, John Barnwell, John Truelove, William Haddon, John Negus, Edward Boxley, Samuel Rutter, Robert Scrooby, Richard Swithin, Edward Colebeck, Togarmah Jones, and John Guerney, or the major Part of them, to meet at or in the Hall now belonging to the said United Company, situate in Monkwell-street in the City of London, on the twenty-fifth a_47Day of June one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, between the Hours of Nine in the Morning and One in the Afternoon of the same Day, and then and there to elect, choose and appoint out of the Freedom of the said Company or Corporation of the Barbers of London, established and incorporated by this Act, by the Majority of the Votes of such of the said fifteen Persons last mentioned, who shall be present at such Meeting, so many other Persons to be of the said Court of Assistants of the said Company or Corporation of the Barbers of London, as will make the Number twenty-four, to continue in the said Office respectively for and during their natural Lives, or until they shall be respectively removed out of the said Office; and also that immediately after such Court of Assistants shall be made up the said Number of twenty-four Persons, the said Court of Assistants shall then and there, by the Majority of Votes of such of the said Court of Assistants as shall be then present, elect, choose and appoint from among themselves, two Persons, to be the third and fourth Governors of the said Company or Corporation of the Barbers of London, to continue in, hold, exercise and enjoy the said Offices respectively as aforesaid.

XV. And it is hereby further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the Master and Governors for the Time being of the said Company or Corporation of Barbers, or any two or more of them, with eleven or more of the Members of the said Court of Assistants for the Time being, when and as often as to two or more of the said Master and Governors shall seem meet, to hold Courts or Assemblies at or in the Hall of the said Company for the Time being, in order to treat and consult about the Rule, State, Order and Government of the said Company or Corporation of Barbers; and also that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Master and Governors, and Court of Assistants so assembled, or the major Part of them, to make, constitute, ordain, establish, ratify and confirm all or any such By-laws, Ordinances, Rules and Constitutions, as to them shall seem a_48requisite, proper or convenient for the Regulation, Government, Profit or Advantage of the said Company or Corporation of the Barbers of London, and the Members thereof, and the same, from time to time, to alter or repeal; so as the By-laws, Ordinances, Rules and Constitutions so to be made and established, shall be examined, approved and allowed, as by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm is provided and required.

XVI. Provided always, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That the several By-laws, Ordinances, Rules and Constitutions, made and established for the Regulation and Government of the said United Company or Corporation, so far as the same do not relate to or concern the Art or Science of Surgery, and which on the said twenty-third Day of June shall be subsisting and in Force, and shall not be repealed, annulled or abrogated by virtue of this present Act, shall continue and be in Force, and shall be exercised, observed and executed by the said Company of Barbers established and incorporated by this Act, until such Time and Times respectively as the same By-laws, Ordinances, Rules and Constitutions shall respectively be repealed, annulled and made void, by Virtue and under the Authority of this present Act.

XVII. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Master and Governors of the said Company or Corporation of Barbers of London shall be yearly elected and chosen on the second Thursday in August, by the Court of Assistants, or the major Part of them, or in such Manner as by the By-laws, Rules, Orders and Constitutions of the same Company or Corporation shall be ordained or provided; and that when and as often as any Member of the said Court of Assistants of the said Company of Barbers shall happen to die or be removed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the surviving Members of the said Court of Assistants, or the major Part of them, to nominate and elect one other Person, being a Freeman of the same Company, to be a Member of the said Court of Assistants, in the Room a_49of the Person so deceased or removed; and the Person so nominated or elected shall continue in, hold and exercise the said Office for and during his natural Life, or until he shall be removed out of the same.

XVIII. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Master, Governors and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of London, hereby made, established and incorporated as aforesaid, and their Successors, and all Persons who shall be free of the same Company or Corporation, shall and may from time to time, and at all Times for ever hereafter, have, hold and enjoy all and every such and the same Liberties, Privileges, Franchises, Powers and Authorities, as the said United Company or Corporation, with respect to every Thing but Surgery, and the Members of the said United Company, occupying the Feat or Craft of Barbery or Shaving, could or might respectively have had, held and enjoyed by virtue of the said recited Act of Union or Incorporation, and Letters Patents of his late Majesty King Charles the First, and other the Royal Grants, Charters and Patents therein respectively mentioned and referred to, so far as the same do not concern or relate to the Art and Science of Surgery; and that in as full, ample and beneficial Manner, to all Intents and Purposes, as if the same had been expressly repeated, set down, and enacted in and by this present Act.

XIX. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Sum of five hundred and ten Pounds now vested in the said United Company, and which was given and paid to the said United Company by Edward Arris, for the Use of the publick Anatomy Lectures on the Muscles, and also the Annuity or yearly Rent-charge of sixteen Pounds given to the said United Company by the Will of John Gale Gentleman, for one Anatomy Lecture, by the name of Gale’s Anatomy, and charged upon certain Messuages and Tenements at Snow Hill, in the Parish of Saint Sepulchre, without Newgate, London, shall from and after the said twenty-fourth Day of June one thousand seven a_50hundred and forty-five, be vested in, and be deemed the sole Property, Estate and Effects of the said Company and Corporation of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act; and that the said Sum of five hundred and ten Pounds be accordingly paid by the said Company or Corporation of Barbers of London, out of the Estate and Effects of and now belonging to the said United Company or Corporation, within three Months next after the said twenty-fourth Day of June; and that the said Sum of five hundred and ten Pounds, and the said Annuity or yearly Rent-charge of sixteen Pounds per Annum, shall be held and enjoyed by the Purposes intended by the Donors thereof respectively; and that from and after the Payment of the said five hundred and ten Pounds by the said Company of Barbers to the said Company of Surgeons, they the said Master, Governors and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of London, and their Successors, shall for ever be discharged of and from the said Sum or Gift of five hundred and ten Pounds, and every Part thereof, and of and from the said Annuity or Gift of sixteen Pounds per Annum, and every Part thereof, and of and from all Duties and Trusts in respect of the said Gifts, or either of them; and shall, from time to time, be saved harmless and kept indemnified by the said Company of Surgeons, of, from and against the same, and all Actions, Suits, Charges and Expenses which they the said Master, Governors and Commonalty of the Mystery of Barbers of London, or their Successors, shall or may, from time to time, be put unto or sustain on account thereof; and all the Rest and Residue of the Real and Personal Estate and Effects of and belonging to the said United Company or Corporation, and the Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the same Company or Corporation, shall from and after the said twenty-fourth Day of June one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, be vested in, and the same are hereby from thenceforth vested in the said Company or Corporation of Barbers of London, and their Successors, to and for their own sole and separate Use and Benefit for ever.

a_51XX. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That such of the Books, Papers and Writings which now belong to the said United Company of Barbers and Surgeons, and relate to or concern the Surgeons or Surgery only, shall immediately after the said first Day of July one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, be delivered by the said Company of Barbers, established and incorporated by this Act, to the Master and Governors, and Court of Assistants, of the said Company of Surgeons established and incorporated by this Act, or such other Person or Persons as they, or the major Part of them shall, by Writing under their Hands appoint to receive the same, for the use and Benefit of the said Company of Surgeons: And that the Master, Governors, and Courts of Assistants of the same Company of Surgeons, or any of them, or such other Person or Persons as they, or the major Part of them shall, by Writing under their Hands appoint, shall and may, from time to time, and at all seasonable Times, upon reasonable Notice, from and after the first Day of July one thousand seven hundred and forty-five have free Access to, and Liberty to inspect and peruse, in the Hands of such Person or Persons as the said Company of Barbers shall appoint to have the Care and Custody thereof, all the rest of the Books, Papers and Writings, and also all the Charters and Deeds which now belong to the said United Company of Barbers and Surgeons; and from time to time to take such Copies or Extracts of or from the same, or any of them, as the said Master, Governors, and Court of Assistants of the said Company of Surgeons, or the major Part of them, or such other Person or Persons so to be appointed as aforesaid, shall from time to time desire or require; and also that the said Company of Barbers shall, from time to time, and at all Times, upon reasonable Notice, from and after the said first Day of July, produce the said last mentioned Books, Papers, Writings, Charters and Deeds, or any of them, at the Expense of the said Company of Surgeons, upon any Trial at Law, or Hearing in Equity, or Examination of Witnesses, a_52or otherwise, where the said Company of Surgeons shall have Occasion to make use thereof, or of any of them, and permit the said Company of Surgeons to make use of the same accordingly.

XXI. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every Person who hath been bound Apprentice to any Member of the said United Company, and by the Laws or Custom of the City of London, or otherwise, is or would be intitled to his Freedom of the said United Company, and to the Freedom of the said City, in case this present Act had never been made, shall be intitled and admitted to his Freedom in the said Company or Corporation of Surgeons, if his Master is or was an examined Surgeon, or else to his Freedom in the said Company of Barbers; and in either Case shall be intitled and admitted to his Freedom in the said City of London; any Law, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.

XXII. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That this Act shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a Publick Act; and be judicially taken Notice of as such by all Judges, Justices, and other Persons whatsoever, without specially pleading the same.

Whereas His Majesty King James the First, by Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of Great Britain, bearing date the Sixth Day of December, in the Fifteenth Year of His Reign, did for himself, his Heirs and Successors, grant unto William Beese, and divers other Persons therein named, a_53and to all and singular other Persons whomsoever, brought up and skilful ¡n the Art, Mystery, or Faculty of Apothecaries, and exercising the same Art, Mystery, or Faculty then, being Freemen of the Mystery of Grocers of the City of London, or being Freemen of any other Art, Mystery, or Faculty in the said City of London (so as they had been brought up and were expert in the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries), that they, and all such Men of the said Art or Mystery of Apothecaries of and in the said City of London and Suburbs of the same, and within Seven Miles of the said City, might and should be one Body Corporate and Politic, in Substance, Deed, and Name, by the Name of the Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of the City of London; and did ordain and declare, that by the same name they might have perpetual Succession, and have, purchase, possess, enjoy, and retain Manors, Messuages, Lands, Tenements, Liberties, Privileges, Franchises, Jurisdictions, and Hereditaments to them and their Successors, in fee simple and perpetuity, or for term of year or years, or otherwise, howsoever. And also Goods and Chattels, and all other things soever, of what name, nature, kind, quality, or sort soever they should be. And also, that they might grant, demise, alien, assign, and dispose of Manors, Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, and do and execute all and singular other Acts and things by the said name. And that by the said name of Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of the City of London, they should and might be able to plead and be impleaded, and might have for ever a common Seal; and the same Seal at their pleasure from time to time might break, change, alter, and new make, as to them should seem best. And his said Majesty did, by his said Letters Patent, ordain and grant unto the said Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries aforesaid, certain Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, to be observed, kept, and maintained by them, as in the said Charter are more fully expressed.

a_54And whereas some of the Clauses and Provisions contained in the said recited Charter, so far as the same regard the said Society of Apothecaries, have been found inadequate for the purposes thereby intended, and it is therefore expedient that the same should be altered, varied, and enlarged, and further and other Provisions made;

May it therefore please Your MAJESTY,

That it may be enacted; And be it Enacted by the KING’S Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, that the said recited Charter of the Fifteenth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King James the First, and all and every the Powers, Provisions, Penalties, Forfeitures, Regulations, Clauses, matters and things therein contained (save and except such part or parts thereof as are hereby altered, varied, or repealed), shall be, and the same is and are hereby declared to be in full force and virtue, and shall be as good, valid, and effectual, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as if this Act had not been made.

And be it further Enacted, That so much of the said recited Charter as directs, That the said Master and Wardens, and their Successors, or some or one of them, or some Assistants by the Master and Wardens to be appointed and assigned, at fit and convenient times, and in manner and form convenient and lawful, from time to time, as often as to the said Master and Wardens shall seem expedient, shall and may go and enter into any Shop or Shops, House or Houses, Cellar or Cellars, of any Persons whomsoever, using or exercising the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, or any Part thereof, within the City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Seven Miles of the same City, as well within the Liberty as without, where any Medicines, simple or compound, Wares, Drugs, Receipts, Distilled Waters, Chemical Oils, Syrups, Conserves, Lohocks, Electuaries, Pills, Powders, Lozenges, Oils, Ointments, a_55Plaisters, or any other things whatsoever, which belong or appertain to the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries as is aforesaid, are likely to be found; and to search, survey, and prove if the same Medicines, simple or compound, Wares, Drugs, Receipts, Distilled Waters, Chemical Oils, Syrups, Conserves, Lohocks, Electuaries, Pills, Powders, Lozenges, Oils, Ointments, Plaisters, or any thing or things whatsoever belonging to the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries aforesaid, be and shall be wholesome, medicinable, meet and fit for the cure, health, and ease of His Majesty’s Subjects;

And also so much of the said recited Charter as directs, That the aforesaid Master and Wardens of the Mystery aforesaid, and the said Assistants for the time being, thereunto nominated and appointed by the Master and Wardens, and their Successors from time to time, may have, and by virtue of these Presents, shall have full power and authority to examine and try all and singular Persons professing, using, or exercising, or which hereafter shall profess, use, or exercise the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, or any part thereof, within the aforesaid City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Seven Miles of the same City, as well within Liberties as without, touching or concerning their and every of their knowledge, skill, and science, in the aforesaid Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, and to remove and prohibit all those from the exercise, use, or practice of the said Art or Mystery, whom hereafter they shall find either unskilful, ignorant, or insufficient, or obstinate, or refusing to be examined by virtue of these Presents, in the Art or Mystery aforesaid. And also all and singular Medicines, Wares, Drugs, Receipts, Distilled Waters, Oils, Chemical Preparations, Syrups, Conserves, Lohocks, Electuaries, Pills, Powders, Lozenges, Oils, Ointments, and Plaisters, and all other things belonging to the aforesaid Art, which they shall find unlawful, deceitful, stale, out of use, unwholesome, corrupt, unmedicinable, pernicious, or hurtful, to burn before the Offender’s Doors. a_56And also to lay, impose, and exact Mulcts, and other Pains and Penalties, by Fines and Amerciaments, upon such Offenders, according to their sound discretions, and the Ordinances by them and their Successors so as aforesaid to be made and appointed, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.

And be it further Enacted, That in lieu and stead thereof, the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries for the time being, and their Successors, or any of the Assistants, or any other person or persons properly qualified, as hereinafter is mentioned, to be by the Master and Wardens nominated and assigned, not being fewer in number than Two Persons at the least, shall and may from time to time, and at all seasonable and convenient times, in the day time, as often as to the said Master and Wardens it shall seem expedient, go and enter into any Shop or Shops, of any person or persons whatever, using or exercising the Art or Mystery of an Apothecary in any part of England or Wales; and shall and may search, survey, prove, and determine, if the Medicines, simple or compound, Wares, Drugs, or any thing or things whatsoever therein contained, and belonging to the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries aforesaid, be wholesome, meet, and fit for the cure, health, and ease of His Majesty’s Subjects; and all and every such Medicines, Wares, Drugs, and all other things belonging to the aforesaid Art, which they shall find false, unlawful, deceitful, stale, unwholesome, corrupt, pernicious or hurtful, shall and may burn, or otherwise destroy; and also shall and may report to the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the said Society, the Name or Names of such person or persons as shall be found to have the same in their possession; and the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants, shall and may impose and levy the following Fines and Penalties upon each and every person whose Name shall be so reported to them, as hereinafter mentioned: For the first offence the Sum of Five Pounds; for the second offence the Sum of Ten Pounds; and for the third, and every other offence, the Sum of Twenty Pounds.

a_57Provided always, and be it Enacted, That no person to be by the Master, Wardens, and Assistants for the time being, chosen and appointed a Member of the Court of Examiners, or to be by the Master and Wardens nominated and assigned to go and enter into any Shop or Shops, for the purposes aforesaid, within the City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Thirty Miles of the same, shall be deemed to be properly qualified, unless he shall be a Member of the Society of Apothecaries aforesaid, of not less than Ten Years standing; nor shall any person be deemed to be properly qualified to be nominated and assigned to go and enter into any Shop or Shops in any other part of England and Wales for the purposes aforesaid, or to be appointed one of the Five Apothecaries hereinafter mentioned, and directed to be appointed for the purpose of examining Assistants to Apothecaries in compounding and dispensing Medicines, as hereinafter is mentioned, except he shall have been an Apothecary in actual practice for not less than Ten Years at least, previously to his being so nominated, or assigned, or appointed.

And whereas it is the duty of every Person using or exercising the Art and Mystery of an Apothecary, to prepare with exactness, and to dispense such Medicines as may be directed for the sick by any Physician lawfully licensed to practise Physic by the President and Commonalty of the Faculty of Physic in London, or by either of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; therefore, for the further protection, security, and benefit of His Majesty’s Subjects, and for the better regulation of the practice of Physic throughout England and Wales, Be it Enacted, That if any Person using or exercising the Art and Mystery of an Apothecary, shall at any time knowingly, wilfully, and contumaciously refuse to make, mix, compound, prepare, give, apply, or administer, or any way to sell, set on sale, put forth, or put to sale to any Person or Persons whatever, any Medicines, compound Medicines, or medicinable Compositions, or shall deliberately or negligently, falsely, unfaithfully, a_58fraudulently, or unduly make, mix, compound, prepare, give, apply or administer, or any way sell, set on sale, put forth, or put to sale to any Person or Persons whatever, any Medicines, Compound Medicines, or Medicinable Compositions, as directed by any Prescription, Order or Receipt, signed with the initials in his own hand-writing, of any Physician so lawfully licensed to practise Physic, such person or persons so offending, shall, upon complaint made within Twenty-one Days by such Physician, and upon conviction of such offence before any of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace, unless such Offender can shew some satisfactory reason, excuse, or justification in this behalf, forfeit, for the first offence the Sum of Five Pounds; for the second offence the Sum of Ten Pounds; and for the third offence he shall forfeit his Certificate, and be rendered incapable in future of using or exercising the Art and Mystery of an Apothecary, and be liable to the Penalty inflicted by this Act upon all who practise as such without a Certificate, in the same manner as if such party so convicted had never been furnished with a Certificate enabling him to practise as an Apothecary; and such Offender so deprived of his Certificate, shall be rendered and deemed incapable in future of receiving and holding any fresh Certificate, unless the said party so applying for a renewal of his Certificate, shall faithfully promise and undertake, and give good and sufficient Security, that he will not in future be guilty of the like offence.

And be it further Enacted, That each and every of them the said Master and Wardens for the time being, may, and they are hereby respectively empowered, by writing under his or their hands, to appoint any one or more of the said Court of Assistants to act as Deputy Master, or as Deputy Wardens, as the case may be, in all matters and things done, or authorized to be done, by the said Master, or the said Wardens, under and by virtue of the said recited Charter, or of this Act, and to remove such Deputy Master, or Deputy Wardens so to be appointed from time to time, as a_59the said Master, or the said Wardens, shall respectively think proper; and all acts, matters, and things which shall be lawfully done by the said Deputy Master or Deputy Wardens so to be appointed as aforesaid, as the case may be, shall be as good, valid, and effectual, as if the same were done and performed by the said Master and Wardens respectively.

And whereas much mischief and inconvenience has arisen, from great numbers of persons in many parts of England and Wales exercising the functions of an Apothecary, who are wholly ignorant, and utterly incompetent to the exercise of such functions, whereby the Health and Lives of the Community are greatly endangered; and it is become necessary that provision should be made for remedying such evils; Be it therefore further Enacted, That the said Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of the City of London, incorporated by the said recited Charter of His Majesty King James the First, and their Successors, shall be, and they are hereby appointed and constituted, directed and empowered, for ever to superintend the execution of the provisions of this Act, and to enforce and carry the several regulations and provisions thereof, in relation to the several persons practising the Art or Mystery or Profession of an Apothecary throughout England and Wales, and all other the purposes of this Act, into full execution.

And be it further Enacted, That no Act of the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries, incorporated as aforesaid, for the carrying any of the powers and provisions of this Act into execution, shall be, or be deemed to be good or valid (save and except as to such Acts as shall be done by the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants, or others appointed by them, or any of them, as hereinbefore is provided, in pursuance of the Powers and Authorities hereinbefore given to them to enter into Shops to search for, examine and destroy unwholesome Drugs or Medicines, and also save and except as to such acts as shall be done by the a_60said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them present, or by the Five Apothecaries hereinafter mentioned, or the major part of them present, in pursuance of the authorities hereinafter given to them), unless the same be done at some Assembly or Meeting to be holden by the said Master, Wardens, and Society, in the Hall of the said Society. And that all the Powers and Authorities by this Act granted to, or vested in, the said Master, Wardens, and Society as aforesaid, shall and may from time to time be exercised by the Master, Wardens, and Assistants of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries aforesaid for the time being, or by the major part of them present, who shall attend at any such Assembly or meeting to be holden as aforesaid (the number present at such Assemblies or Meetings not being less than Thirteen, of which the said Master for the time being shall always be one), and all the Orders and Proceedings of the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants for the time being, or of such major part as aforesaid, shall have the same force and effect, as if the same were made or done by the said Master, Wardens and Society of Apothecaries incorporated as aforesaid.

And be it further Enacted, That for the purposes of this Act, so far as the same regards the Examination of Apothecaries, and Assistants to Apothecaries, Twelve Persons properly qualified, as hereinbefore is mentioned, shall be chosen and appointed by the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants for the time being, (who are hereby authorized and empowered to choose and appoint such Persons, and to remove or displace them from time to time, as they the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants for the time being, shall deem adviseable), and such Persons, when so chosen and appointed, or any Seven of them, shall be, and be called the Court of Examiners of the Society of Apothecaries; and such Court of Examiners, or the major part of them present at any meeting, shall have full power and authority, and are hereby authorized and empowered to examine all Apothecaries, and Assistants to Apothecaries, throughout England and Wales, and to grant or refuse such Certificate, as hereinafter a_61is mentioned. And such Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, shall, and they are hereby required to meet and assemble in some convenient Room in the Hall of the said Society, once at least in every week, for the purpose of such Examination, and then and there to examine all Persons applying to be examined, and duly qualified so to be by virtue of this Act.

And be it further Enacted, That at any such Meetings of the said Examiners, a Chairman shall and may be appointed; and when and so often as it shall so happen that there shall be an equal number of Votes upon any one question (including the Vote of the said Chairman), then and in such case, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Chairman to give the casting or decisive Vote.

And be it further Enacted, That no person shall be capable of acting as an Examiner, under and by virtue of this Act, until he shall have taken and subscribed the following Oath:

“I, A. B. do solemnly promise and swear (or, being one of the people called Quakers, do solemnly affirm) that I will faithfully, impartially, and honestly, according to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the trust reposed in me by the Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of the City of London, as an Examiner, in the Examination of every person who shall come before me to be examined, as to his fitness or qualification to act as an Apothecary, or Assistant to an Apothecary, as the case may be, and that without favour, affection, prejudice, or malice.

which Oath, or Affirmation, the said Master, Wardens, or Court of Assistants, or the major part of them, are hereby authorized and required to administer.

And be it further Enacted, That all Persons so to be chosen and appointed Examiners as aforesaid, shall continue in a_62Office for the space of One Year from the time of their Appointment, (except in case of Death, or being removed or displaced by the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants as aforesaid). Provided always, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants, to choose and appoint any such Person or Persons going out of Office, again to be an Examiner or Examiners, as aforesaid, if they the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants, shall deem it adviseable so to do.

And be it further Enacted, That in case any Person or Persons so to be chosen, and appointed, shall happen to die during the time he or they shall continue to be an Examiner or Examiners, or be removed or displaced as aforesaid, then it shall and may be lawful for the said Master, Wardens, and Assistants, to choose and appoint any other Person or Persons properly qualified, to be an Examiner or Examiners as aforesaid, in the room of the Person or Persons so dying, or removed, or displaced as aforesaid; and every Person or Persons so chosen and appointed, shall continue in Office for such time and no longer, as the Person or Persons in whose room or stead he or they shall be so chosen and appointed, would have continued in Office.

And to prevent any Person or Persons from practising as an Apothecary, without being properly qualified to practise as such, Be it further Enacted, That from and after the First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, it shall not be lawful for any Person or Persons (except persons already in practice as such), to practise as an Apothecary in any part of England or Wales, unless he or they shall have been Examined by the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, and have received a Certificate of his or their being duly qualified to practise as such, from the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, as aforesaid; who are hereby authorized and required to examine all Person and Persons applying to them, for the purpose of ascertaining the skill and abilities of such person or persons in the Science and Practice a_63of Medicine, and his or their fitness and qualification to practise as an Apothecary; and the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, are hereby empowered either to reject such Person or Persons, or to grant a Certificate of such Examination, and of his or their qualification to practise as an Apothecary as aforesaid: Provided always, That no Person shall be admitted to such Examination until he shall have attained, the full age of Twenty-one Years.

Provided always, and be it Enacted, That no Person shall be admitted to any such Examination for a Certificate to practise as an Apothecary, unless he shall have served an Apprenticeship of not less than Five Years to an Apothecary, and unless he shall produce Testimonials to the satisfaction of the said Court of Examiners, of a sufficient Medical Education, and of a good moral conduct.

And be it further Enacted, That every Person intending to qualify himself under the regulations of this Act to practise as an Apothecary, in any part of England or Wales, shall give notice to the Clerk of the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries as aforesaid, of his intention so to do, who shall notify the same to the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries as aforesaid; and the Person so intending to qualify himself, shall present himself at the Meeting held by the said Court of Examiners next succeeding such Notice, and shall undergo such Examination by the said Court of Examiners as aforesaid, or at some other Meeting, as shall or may be appointed and fixed upon by the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries, or by the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, as aforesaid, for that purpose.

And be it further Enacted, That from and after the First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, it shall not be lawful for any Person or Persons (except the Persons then acting as Assistants to any Apothecaries as aforesaid, and excepting Persons who have actually served an Apprenticeship of Five Years to an Apothecary) a_64to act as an Assistant to any Apothecary, in compounding or dispensing Medicines, without undergoing an Examination by the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, or by Five Apothecaries, so to be appointed as hereinafter is mentioned, and obtaining a Certificate of his or their qualification to act as such Assistant, from the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, or from the said Five Apothecaries, who are hereby authorized and empowered to examine all persons applying to them for that purpose, and to grant a Certificate of such fitness and qualification.

And be it further Enacted, That for the purposes of this Act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Master and Wardens for the time being, or to and for the said Court of Examiners, by writing under their hands, from time to time to appoint Five Apothecaries in any County or Counties respectively throughout England and Wales (except within the said City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Thirty Miles of the same), to act for such County or Counties, or any other County or Counties near or adjoining, and to remove or displace them from time to time, as they the said Master and Wardens, or the said Court of Examiners, shall deem adviseable; and such Five Apothecaries so to be appointed respectively, as aforesaid, at any Meeting to be held by them as hereinafter mentioned, shall have full power and authority, and are hereby authorized and empowered to examine, all Assistants to Apothecaries throughout the County or Counties in regard of which such Apothecaries shall have been so appointed as aforesaid, and to grant or refuse such Certificate to every such Assistant to Apothecaries, as hereinbefore is authorized in that behalf; and a Meeting of the said Apothecaries, for the purposes aforesaid, shall be held monthly in the County Town of some one of the Counties for which they shall have been appointed to act as aforesaid; and that no act of such Apothecaries shall be, or be deemed to be good or valid, unless the same be done at some such Meeting; and that all a_65the Powers and Authorities by this Act granted to or vested in such Five Apothecaries, shall and may from time to time be exercised by the major part of them, who shall attend at any Meeting to be holden as above directed, the number of such Apothecaries present at any such Meeting not being less than Three; and all the Orders, Directions, and Certificates of the major part of such Apothecaries present at any such Meeting, shall have the same force and effect as if the same were made, done, or signed by all the said Five Apothecaries for the time being; and at every such Meeting of the said Apothecaries, a Chairman shall and may be appointed, and when, and so often as it shall so happen that there shall be an equal number of Votes upon any one question (including the Vote of the said Chairman) then and in such case, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Chairman to give the casting, or decisive Vote.

And be it further Enacted, That the Sum of Ten Pounds Ten Shillings shall be paid to the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries, for every such Certificate as aforesaid, on obtaining the same, by every person intending to practise as an Apothecary within the City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Ten Miles of the same City; and the Sum of Six Pounds Six Shillings by every person intending to practise as an Apothecary in any other part of England or Wales (except the said City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Ten Miles of the said City:) and no person having obtained a Certificate to practise as an Apothecary in any other part of England or Wales (except the said City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Ten Miles of the said City as aforesaid), shall be entitled to practise within the said City of London, the Liberties or Suburbs thereof, or within Ten Miles of the said City, unless and until he shall have paid to the said Master, Wardens, and Society, the further Sum of Four Pounds Four Shillings, in addition to the said Sum of Six Pounds Six Shillings so paid by him as aforesaid, and shall have had endorsed on his said Certificate, a Receipt a_66from the said Master, Wardens, and Society, for such additional Sum of Four Pounds Four Shillings; and the Sum of Two Pounds Two Shillings by every Assistant; and the several Sums of Money arising from the granting of such Certificates, shall be applied in manner hereinafter directed.

And be it further Enacted, That if any person (except such as are then actually practising as such) shall, after the said First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, act or practise as an Apothecary in any part of England or Wales, without having obtained such Certificate as aforesaid, every person so offending shall for every such Offence, forfeit and pay the Sum of Twenty Pounds; and if any person (except such as are then acting as such, and excepting persons who have actually served an Apprenticeship as aforesaid) shall, after the said First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, act as an Assistant to any Apothecary, to compound and dispense Medicines, without having obtained such Certificate as aforesaid, every person so offending, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the Sum of Five Pounds.

And be it further Enacted, That no Apothecary shall be allowed to recover any Charges claimed by him in any Court of Law, unless such Apothecary shall prove on the Trial, that he was in practice as an Apothecary prior to, or on the said First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, or that he has obtained a Certificate to practise as an Apothecary, from the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries as aforesaid.

Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That if the said Court of Examiners, or the major part of them, having examined any Person or Persons applying to qualify himself or themselves to practise as an Apothecary, or if they, or the said Five Apothecaries so to be appointed for any County or Counties as aforesaid, having examined any Person or Persons applying to qualify himself or themselves to practise as an Assistant to an Apothecary, in compounding and dispensing Medicines, shall see cause to refuse such Certificate a_67as aforesaid, to any such Person or Persons so applying to qualify himself or themselves as an Apothecary or Assistant as aforesaid; yet it shall and may be lawful for such Person or Persons who shall be so refused, to apply at any future time to be again examined, so that such second application by any Person or Persons applying to qualify himself or themselves as an Apothecary, be not within Six Months of such first Examination; and so that such second application by any person or persons applying to qualify himself or themselves as an Assistant, be not within Three Months of such first Examination; and if on such re-examination he or they shall appear to the persons examining, to be then properly qualified, it shall and may be lawful for the said Court of Examiners, or to and for the said Five Apothecaries in any County or Counties as aforesaid, to grant such person or persons so applying, such Certificate as aforesaid.

Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries, do make annually, and cause to be printed, an exact List of all and every person who shall in that year have obtained a Certificate to practise as an Apothecary, with their respective residences attached to their respective Names.

And be it further Enacted, That all and every Sum or Sums of Money which shall be received or arise from the granting of the Certificate of Examination hereinbefore required, shall belong to, and be appropriated and disposed of by the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries as aforesaid, in such manner as they shall from time to time direct and deem most expedient.

And be it further Enacted, That all Sum and Sums of Money arising from Conviction and recovery of Penalties for Offences committed against the Authorities and Provisions of this Act, shall be applied and disposed of in manner following, (viz.) One Half thereof to the Informer or Informers, and One Half thereof to the said Master, Wardens, and Society of Apothecaries as aforesaid, to be appropriated a_68and disposed of by them in such manner as they shall deem most expedient.

And be it further Enacted, That all Penalties and Forfeitures by virtue of this Act imposed, (the manner of levying and recovering whereof is not otherwise hereby particularly directed, shall, if such Penalties and Forfeitures shall exceed the Sum of Five Pounds, be recovered by Action or Suit at Law, in the Name of the Master, Wardens, and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of the City of London, in any of His Majesty’s Courts of Record in England or Wales, wherein no Essoign, Protection, or Wager at Law, or more than one Imparlance shall be allowed); and if such Penalty or Forfeiture shall amount to less than the Sum of Five Pounds, then the same shall be levied and recovered by Distress and Sale of the Goods and Chattels of the Offender, by Warrant under the Hand and Seal of any Justice of the Peace acting for any County, City, Town, or Place where the Offence shall be committed (which Warrant such Justice is hereby empowered and required to grant upon the confession of the Party, or upon the Evidence of any credible Witness upon Oath; and which Oath such Justice is hereby empowered to administer); and the overplus (if any), of the Money arising by such Distress and Sale, shall be returned upon demand to the Owner of such Goods and Chattles, after deducting the Costs and Charges of making, keeping, and selling the Distress; and in case sufficient Distress shall not be found, or such Forfeitures and Penalties shall not be paid forthwith, it shall be lawful for such Justice, and he is hereby authorized and required, by Warrant under his Hand and Seal, to cause the Offender to be committed to the Common Gaol for the County, City, Town, or Place, where the Offence shall be committed, there to remain without Bail or Mainprize for any time not exceeding One Calendar Month, unless such Penalties, and Forfeitures, and Costs, shall be sooner fully paid and satisfied.

And be it further Enacted, That where any Distress shall a_69be made for any Sum of Money to be levied by virtue of this Act, the Distress itself shall not be deemed unlawful, nor the Party or Parties making the same be deemed a Trespasser or Trespassers, on account of any defect or want of Form in the Notice or Information, Summons, Conviction, Warrant, or Distress, or other proceeding relating thereto; nor shall the Party or Parties distraining be deemed a Trespasser or Trespassers ab initio, on account of any irregularity which shall be afterwards done by the Party or Parties so distraining; but the person or persons aggrieved by such irregularity, may recover full satisfaction for the special damage in an Action upon the Case.

Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prejudice, or in any way to affect the trade or business of a Chemist and Druggist, in the buying, preparing, compounding, dispensing, and vending Drugs, Medicines, and Medicinable Compounds, wholesale and retail; but all persons using or exercising the said trade or business, or who shall or may hereafter use or exercise the same, shall and may use, exercise, and carry on the same trade or business in such manner, and as fully and amply to all intents and purposes, as the same trade or business was used, exercised, or carried on by Chemists and Druggists before the passing of this Act.

Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That nothing in this Act contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to lessen, prejudice, or defeat, or in any wise to interfere with any of the Rights, Authorities, Privileges, and Immunities heretofore vested in, and exercised and enjoyed by either of the Two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, or the said Society of Apothecaries respectively, other than and except such as shall or may have been altered, varied, or amended in and by this Act, or of any Person or Persons practising as an Apothecary previously to the First Day of August, One Thousand Eight Hundred a_70and Fifteen; but the said Universities, Royal Colleges, and the said Society, and all such Persons or Person, shall have, use, exercise, and enjoy all such Rights, Authorities, Privileges, and Immunities, save and except as aforesaid, in as full, ample, and beneficial a manner to all intents and purposes, as they might have done before the passing of this Act, and in case the same had never been passed.

Provided always, and be it further Enacted, That no Action or suit shall be brought or prosecuted against any Person or Persons, Body or Bodies Politic, Corporate or Collegiate, for any thing done in pursuance of this Act, after Six Calendar Months next after the fact committed; or in case there shall be a continuation of Damages, then after Six Calendar Months next after the doing or committing such Damage shall have ceased, and not afterwards. And every such Action or Suit shall be laid and brought in the County where the matter in dispute shall arise, and not elsewhere; and the Defendant and Defendants in every such Action or Suit, shall or may, at his, her, or their election, plead specially the General Issue, and give this Act, and the Special Matter, in Evidence, at any Trial to be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance, and by the authority of this Act. And if it shall appear to have been so done, or if any such Action or Suit shall have been brought before Twenty-one Days’ Notice shall have been given, or sufficient satisfaction made or tendered, as aforesaid, or shall be brought in any other County or Place than as aforesaid, then, and in every such case, the Jury shall find for the Defendant or Defendants; and upon such Verdict, or if the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs shall become Nonsuit, or suffer a discontinuance of his, her, or their Action or Suit, after the Defendant or Defendants shall have appeared, or if a Verdict shall pass against the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs, or if upon Demurrer or otherwise, Judgment shall be given against the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs, then the Defendant or Defendants shall have Double Costs, and shall have such remedy for recovering the same, as any Defendant a_71hath for recovering Costs of Suit in any other Cases by Law.

And be it further Enacted, That this Act shall be deemed and taken to be a Public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such, by all Judges, Justices, and others, without being specially pleaded.

Rex omnibus ad quos &c. salutem. Cum antehac per Letteras nostras Paten’ sub magno sigillo nostro Anglie confect’ geren’ dat apud Westm’ nono die Aprilis Anno regni nostri Anglie Francie et Hibernie quarto & Scocie de gratia nostra speciali voluerimus ordinaverimus & concesserimus quod omnes et singuli liberi homines mysterii Grocer’ & Pharmacopol’ civitat’ London & Successores sui deinceps in perpetuum pro meliori ordine gubernatione et regimine hominum myster’ Grocer’ & Pharmacopol’ Civitatis London ac pro utilitate commodo et relevamine bonorum et proborum ac formidine et correctione malorum dolorosorum et improborum forent et essent vigore earundem Litterarum Paten’ unum corpus corporatum et politicum in re facto et nomine per nomen Custod’ & Communitatis myster’ Grocer’ Civitat’ London et eosdem per nomen Custod’ et Communitat’ myster’ Grocer’ Civitat’ London unum corpus corporatum & politicum in re facto et nomine realiter & ad plenum pro nobis heredibus & successoribus nostris per easdem Litteras nostras paten’ adtunc exereximus fecerimus ordinaverimus constituerimus & declaraverimus & quod per idem nomen successionem h’erent perpetuam prout per easdem Litteras nostras Patent’ (inter a_72alia) plenius liquet et apparet. Jam vero quum nobis sit demonstratum ex parte dilectorum subditorum Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ nostre London necnon nobis adfirmatum & approbatum per dilectos nobis Theodorum de Mayerne & Henricum Atkins in Medicinis Doctores Medicos Nostros discretos et fideles Quod hiisce proximis annis quamplurimi empyrici et homines ignari & inexperti in Civitate nostra London ac ejusdem Suburbiis inhabitant et commorantes qui in Pharmacopoli arte & mysterio hand instituti sed in eadem imperiti & rudes quamplurima insalubria nociva falsa corrupta perniciosa faciunt & componunt medicamenta eademque in plurimis hujus regni nostri Anglie partes vendunt & assidue transmittunt in convitium et opprobrium non solum Medicine scientie illius colende Medicorumque hujus regui nostri Anglie literat’ eandem profitentium necnon Pharmacopœiorum Civitat’ nostre London in eadem arte & mysterio educat’ & expert verum eciam in subditor’ nostror’ pericula et assidua vite discrimina. Cumque ad jura nostra regia & regimen supremum pro universos subdit’ nostros singulasque regni nostri partes membra et societates temperamus & complectimur spectat ut pro bono publico & temporum ratione novas Societates atque nova Corpora corporat’ et politica creare erigere instituere & superinducere ad beneplacitum nostrum possumus tam ex personis que prius plane seperat’ & in null’ corpus redact’ & collect’ fuerunt quam ex membris Corporum corporat’ veter’ ubi hoc ad melius regimen populi nostri videbitur expedire. Nos igitur considerantes officii nostri Regii munus esse subditorum nostrorum saluti et bono publico omnibus viis & modis providere & consulere ac nobiscum perpendentes quomodo improborum istorum hominum conatibus tempestive occurramus (de advisament’ Consilii nostri in legibus eruditi) apprime necessarium duximus Pharmacopæios Civitat’ nostra London ab hominibus liberis myster’ Grocer’ ejusdem disunire disgungere separare & dissociare ac easdem Pharmacopœios per seipsos solum et divisum ac ab hominibus liberis myster’ Grocer’ predict’ ad omnes intentiones & proposit’ a_73disunitos & separatos in unum Corpus corporat’ & Politicum erigere creare & constituere ad quos omni futuro tempore incommodorum istorum cura & correctio demandata & commissa foret. Ita tamen ut superior’ ac general’ regimen’ Civitat’ nostre London & Magistrat’ ejusdem in modum aliarum Societat’ subjiciantur. Sciatis igitur quod nos dilectorum & fidelium Medicor’ nostror’ Theodori de Mayerne & Henrici Atkins necnon Pharmacopœiorum predict’ precibus inclinati potissimum verò ex Regali nostra cura & solicitudine Statum Reipublice promovendi ac bonum publicum procurandi ut Empiricorum & hominum ignor’ & inexpert’ predictor’ inscitia temeritasque compiscatur unde plurima incommoda et pericula rudi & credule plebi assidue oriantur. Ac ut Pharmacopœi inferius nominati tam a predicto Corpore politico liberorum hominum myster’ Grocer’ Civitat’ London quam a quibuscunque aliis corporibus Politicis Societat’ sive Communitat’ quarumcunque aliar’ artium facultat’ sive myster’ in eadem Civitate nostra London disuniantur separentur & disjungantur ac in Corpus unum Politicum & Corporatum per seipsos per nos facti constituti & creari imposterum perpetuis futuris temporibus ad omnia proposita & intentiones sint et remaneant quam pro aliis causis urgentibus nos specialiter moventibus de gra’ nostra speciali ac ex certa scientia & mero motu nostris volumus ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris Willielmo Besse, Edmundo Philips (et 114 aliis nominatis) ac omnibus aliis personis quibuscunque subditis nostris naturalibus in arte facultate sive mysterio Pharmacopœior’ educat’ & perit’ eandemque artem facultatem sive mysterium hoc tempore exercen’ sive existen’ liberis hominibus myster’ Grocer’ Civitat’ London ac cum eisdem conjunctim & promiscue in unum Corpus corporatum & Communitat’ antehac per nos seu per aliquem vel aliquos Progenitor’ nostrorum fact’ incorporat’ sive constitut’. Quod ipsi et eorum unusquisque una cum omnibus et singulis eorum Apprenticiis qui ante dat’ Presencium coram Custod’ myster’ Grocer’ predict’ seu coram Custod’ sive Magistris aliquar’ a_74aliar’ artium facultat’ sive myster’ in Civitat’ London alicui Pharmacopœio sive aliquibus Pharmacopœiis posuerunt seipsos Apprenticios tam a predicto Corpore Politico & Communitat’ liberorum hominum myster’ Grocer’ predict’ quam ab omnibus aliis Corpor’ Politicis Communitat’ sive Societat’ aliquar’ aliar’ artium facultat’ sive myster’ in Civitat London quibuscunque disuniantur separentur divellantur disjungantur ac dissociantur eosdemque Pharmacopœios & eorum quemlibet ante nominat’ sive mencionat’ una cum omnibus & singulis eorum Apprenticiis predict’ ex regali nostra prerogativa & Jure regio disunimus separamus divellimus disjungimus & dissociamus & eosdem Pharmacopœios una cum omnibus & singulis eorum Apprenticiis predict’ virtute harum Literarum nostrarum Paten’ immunes liberos acquietat’ exoneratos & penitus exemptos (ad omnia proposita et intentiones) quam de et ab omnibus jurament’ Jurisdictionibus Potestat’ Authoritat’ Statut’ Ordinationibus Constitution’ Supervis’ Scrutin’ Summonition’ Convocationibus Conventionibus Regim’ Gubernationibus Correction Impositionibus Taxation’ Collection’ denarion’ solutionibus & Oneribus Finibus amerciament’ imprisonament’ districtionibus penis & penilitat’ quibuscunque Custod’ & Communitat myster’ Grocer’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ aut eorum successor’ quam alior’ quorumcunque Corpor’ Politicor’ Communitat’ sive Societat’ in Civitat’ nostra London & successor’ suorum per presentes volumus esse & remanere deinceps imperpetuum aliquibus Statut’ Act’ Parliament’ Ordination’ Provisionibus Consuet’ Concession’ Confirmation’ Privileg’ Chart’ aut Litteris paten’ nostri vel aliquorum Progenitor’ nostrorum Custod’ & Communitat’ myster’ Grocer’ London predict’ fact’ in contrarium inde non obstant’. Et ulterius de ampliori gra’ nostra speciali & ex certa scientia et mero motu nostris ut ars myster’ sive facultat’ Pharmacopœie jam diu collapsa & despecta melius ad amplitudinem dignam promoveatur pro nobis hered’ & successoribus nostris concedimus per presentes prefatis Willielmo Besse, Edmundo Phillips (&^ci * * * ) ac omnibus & singulis aliis personis a_75quibuscunque in arte myster’ sive facultat’ Pharmacopol’ educat’ & perit’ eandemque artem myster’ seu facultatem exercentibus modo existen’ liberis hominibus myster’ Grocer’ predict’ aut existen’ liberis hominibus aliquar’ aliarum artium myster’ sive facultat’ in Civitat’ London (dummodo in arte & facultate Pharmacopol’ educat’ & expert’ fuerint) quod ipsi omnesque hujusmodi liberi homines ejusdem artis myster’ sive facultat’ Pharmacopol’ de et in Civitat predict’ & in suburbiis ejusdem & infra septem miliar’ Civitat’ predict’ sint & erunt unum Corpus corporatum & Politicum in re facto & nomine per nomen Magistr’ Custod’ & Societat’ artis & myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London. Ac eos per nomen Magistri Custodum & Societatis artis et myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London in unum Corpus corporatum & Politicum in re facto et nomine realiter et ad plenum pro nobis & successor’ nostris erigimus facimus ordinamus constituimus creamus & declaramus per presentes. Et quod per idem nomen successionem habeant perpetuam. Et quod ipsi & successores sui per nomen Magistri Custod’ & Societatis artis mysterii Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London sint & erunt perpetuis futuris temporibus persone habiles & in lege capaces ac Corpus Corporatum & Politicum & in lege capax ad habend’ perquirend’ possidend’ gaudend’ & retinend’ Maner’ Messuagia terras tenementa libertat’ privileg’ Franches’ Jurisdiction’ & Hereditamenta quecunque cujuscunque generis nominis natur’ qualitat’ vel speciei fuerint sibi & successor’ suis in feodo simplici & perpetuitat’ sive pro termino anni vel annorum aut aliter quocunque modo. Ac etiam bona & Catalla & quascunque alias res cujuscunque nominis nature generis qualitat’ sive speciei fuerint. Necnon ad concedend’ dimittend’ alienand’ assignand’ & disponend’ maner’ terr’ tenementa & hereditamenta & ad omnia & singula al’ fact’ & res faciend’ & exequend’ per nomen predict’. Et quod per idem nomen Magistri Custod’ & Societat’ artis & myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ myster’ London placitare & implacitari respondere & responderi defendere & defendi valeant & possint in quibuscunque Curiis. Placit’ & locis ac coram quibuscunque Judicibus a_76& Justiciariis ac aliis personis & officiar’ nostris ac heredum & successor’ nostrorum in omnibus & singulis actionibus placitis sect’ querel’ causis mater’ & demand’ quibuscunque cujuscunque sint aut erint generis qualitat’ aut speciei eisdem modo & forma prout aliqui alii ligei nostri Anglie persone habiles & capaces in lege sive aliquod aliud Corpus corporatum et Politicum infra Regnum nostrum Anglie habere perquirere recipere possidere & gaudere retinere dare concedere dimittere alienare assignare & disponere placitare & implacitari respondere & responderi defendere & defendi facere permittere sive exequi possint aut valeant. Et quod iidem Magister Custod’ & Societas artis & mysterii Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ habeant imperpetuum Commune Sigillum pro causis & negotiis suis ac successor’ suor’ quibuscunque agend’ deservitur’. Et quod bene liceat & licebit eisdem Magistro Custod’ & Societat’ artis & mysterii Pharmacopol’ London predict’ & successor’ suis sigillum illud ad libitum suum de tempore in tempus frangere mutare & de novo facere prout eis melius fieri videbitur. Et ulterius volumus & ordinamus ac per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societat’ artis & mysterii Pharmacopol’ predict’ & successor’ suis quod de cetero imperpetuum perpetuis futuris temporibus sit & erit unus de Societatis artis & myster’ Pharmacopol’ predict’ in forma in hiis presentibus mencionat’ eligend’ & nominand’ qui nominabitur & vocabitur Magister artis & Societatis predict’ Ac quod similiter sint & erunt duo de Societate artis & myster’ predict’ in forma in his presentibus express’ eligend’ & nominand’ qui erunt & nominabunter Custodes Artis myster’ & societat’ predict’. Ac eciam quod similiter sint & erunt viginti & unus de Societate predict’ in forma in hiis presentibus inferius similiter mencionat’ eligend’ qui erunt & nominabuntur Assistantes Artis & Societatis Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London ac de tempore in tempus erunt assistentes & auxiliantes Magistro & Custod’ Mysterii & Societat’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ in omnibus causis rebus & materiis dict’ Magr’ & Societat’ a_77tangen’ sive concernen.’ Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successoribus nostris concedimus prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societat’ artis & myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ & successor’ suis quod bene liceat & licebit eisdem Magistro Custod’ & Societat’ & Successor’ suis habere perquirere retinere & appuntare quandam Aulam sive Domum Conciliar’ infra Civitat nostram London Quodque idem Magr’ Custod’ myster’ predict’ vel aliqui duo eorum quorum Magistrum pro tempore existenti unum esse volumus quoties eis opportunum & necessarium fore videbitur convocare & tenere infra eandem Aulam sive domum quandam Curiam sive Convocationem de eisdem Magistro Custod’ & Assistent’ predict’ ad numerum tredecem personarum vel plurium (quorum Magistrum & unum Custod’ myster’ & societat’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ ut prefertur duos esse volumus) ad libitum & licite possint & valeant perpetuis futuris temporibus. Quodque in eadem Curia sive Convocatione tractare referre consultare consulere & decernere valeant & possint de Statutis Legibus Articulis Ordinationibus & Constitutionibus myster’ & societat’ predict’ ac bonum regimen statum & gubernationem eorundem tangen’ & concernen’ juxta eorum sanas discretiones vel juxta sanas discretiones majoris partis eorundem (quoram magistrum & unum Custod’ myster’ & societat’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ duos esse volumus) sic ut prefertur congregat’. Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati artis sive mysterii Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London & successoribus suis quod Magister Custodes & Assistantes myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad numerum tredecem personarum vel plurium (quorum predict’ Magistrum pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus) super Summonitionem publicam inde fiend’ ad hoc congregat’ in Aula sive domo societatis predict’ habeant & habebunt plenam potestatem facultatem & authoritatem condend’ constituend’ ordinand’ & faciend’ de tempore in tempus Leges Statuta Constitutiones Decreta & Ordinationes a_78rationabiliter inscript’ quecunque que eis aut majori parti eorundem (quorum Magistrum myster’ & societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus) bona salubria utilia honesta & necessaria juxta eorum sanas discretiones fore videbuntur pro bono regimine & gubernatione eorundem Magisti Custod’ Assisten’ & societatis myster’ Pharmacopol’ predict’ ac omnium & singulorum aliar’ personar’ artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ infra Civitat’ London predict’ libertates & suburbia ejusdem ac infra septem Miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ exercent’ & occupant’ ac pro declaratione quo modo & ordine iidem Magister Custodes & Societas ac omnes & singuli Apprenticii Officiar’ & Ministri myster’ & societat’ predict’ in officiis functionibus minister’ Tyrociniis artific’ & negotiis suis infra Civitat’ predict’ ac libertates & suburbia ejusdem ac infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ sese habebunt gerent & utentur pro uberiori bono publico communi utilitate & bono regimine myster’ & societat’ predict’ ac gubernatione earundem ac rebus & causis aliis quibuscunque myster’ & societat’ predict’ tangen’ seu quoquo modo concernen.’ Proviso semper quod pro tot & tal’ Ordinationibus que medicamenta aut compositiones & usum earundem concernent’ advocabunt de tempore in tempus President’ & quatuor Censores seu Gubernat’ Colleg’ & Communitat’ Medicorum London aut alios Medicos per Presidentem predict’ nominand’ pro avisamento in hac parte. Quodque iidem Magister et Custodes & Assistantes myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad numerum tredecim personarum vel plurium (quorum Magistrum myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus) quotiescunque hujusmodi Leges institutiones Jura Ordinationes & Constitutiones fecerint condidirint ordinaverint vel stabiliverint hujusmodi & tales penas punitiones & penelitat’ per fines & amerciamenta vel per eorum utrumque erga & super omnes delinquentes contra hujusmodi Leges Institutiones Jura Ordinationes & Constitutiones sive eorum aliquod sive aliqua qual’ & que eisdem Magistro Custod’ & Assisten myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ vel majori parte eorundem (quorum a_79Magistrum myster’ & societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus) necessor’ requisit’ & opportun’ pro observatione earum legum ordinationum & constitutionum melius fore videbitur facere ordinare limitare & providere possint. Ac quod iidem Magister Custodes & societas myster’ predict’ & successores sui eadem fines et amerciamenta per ministros proprios eorundem Magistri Custod’ & Societatis pro tempore existem’ per discretionem vel aliter secundum leges & consuetudines regni nostri Anglie levare habere & capere possint & valeant ad usum Magistri Custodum & societat’ predict’ & successor’ suorum absque impedimento nostri heredum & successor’ nostrorum aut alicujus vel aliquorum Officiar’ vel Ministror’ nostror’ heredum vel sucessor’ nostrorum & absque aliquo computo nobis heredibus vel successor’ nostris inde reddend’ seu faciend’. Que omnia & singula Ordinationes Jura & Constitutiones sic (ut prefertur) fiend’ observari volumus sub penis in iisdem continend’. Ita tamen quod leges constitutiones fines & americamenta hujusmodi sint rationabilia & non sint repugnan’ nec contrarian’ legibus Statut’ consuetudinibus sive Juribus regni nostri Anglie. Et pro meliori executione voluntatis & concessionis nostri in hac parte assignavimus nominavimus creavimus & constituimus dilectos nobis predictum Edmund’ Phillips fore & esse primum & modern’ Magistrum artis sive myster’ & societat’ predict’ ac etiam predict’ Stephanum Higgins & Thomam Jones fore & esse primos & modernos Custodes mysterii & societatis predict’ continuand’ in eisdem officiis a dat’ presentium usque ad vicessimum diem Augusti proxim’ sequen’ & deinde quousque tres alii ad officia illa Magistri & Custodum artis sive mysterii & societatis predict’ debito modo electi & perfecti fuerint juxta ordinationes & provisiones in hiis presentibus express’ & declarat’ si iidem Edmundus Phillips, Stephanus Higgins & Thomas Jones tam diu vixerint (nisi interim pro mala gubernatione aut male se gerend’ in ea parte aut pro aliqua alia causa rationabili ab officiis illis amoti erunt aut eorum aliquis amotus erit.) Et assignavimus eciam ac nominavimus creavimus constituimus a_80& fecimus ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successoribus nostris assignamus creamus nominamus constituimus & facimus dilectos nobis predict Johannem Wolfgangfumler * * &^ci * * in arte & mysterio Pharmacopol’ edoct’ educat’ & expert’ fore’ & esse primos et modernos Assistentes ejusdem mysterii & societatis Pharmacopol’ continuand’ in eisdem officiis & locis durant’ vitis suis naturalibus nisi interim pro mala qubernatione seu male se gerend’ in ea parte aut pro aliqua alia causa rationabili amoti fuerint aut eorum aliqui vel aliquis amotus erit vel amoti erunt. Qui quidem Assistentes mysterii & societat’ predict’ sacrimenta sua corporalia coram Francisco Bacon Milite Attornat’ nostro General’ Henrico Yelverton Milite Solicit’ nostro generali Theodoro de Mayerne & Henrico Atkins in Medicinis Doctoribus & Johanne Towneley Armigero vel coram duobus eorum Quibus quinque vel eorum duobus plenam potestatem & authoritatem sacramenta predict’ Assisten’ myster’ predict’ dare & administrare damus & concedimus per presentes infra quadraginta dies post dat’ presentium ad officia sua predict’ bene & fideliter exequend’ prestabunt. Ac eciam predict’ Magister myster’ predict’ & Custodes myster’ & societat’ predict’ sacramenta sua corporalia coram Assisten’ myster’ predict’ vel majore parte eorundem infra quinquaginta dies post dat’ presentium bene & fideliter ad dictum officium Magistri & Custod’ myster’ & societat’ predict’ exequend’ in omnibus eisdem Officiis tangen’ seu concernen’ prestabunt. Et sic de tempore in tempus toties quoties Magister & Custodes Myster’ & Societatis predict’ elect’ & perfect’ fuer’ antequam ad executionem predict’ Officii admittantur seu eorum aliquis admittatur.

Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati mysterii Pharmacopol’ predict’ & successor’ suis quod Magister Custodes & Assistentes Mysterii & Societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ & successor’ sui ad numerum tredecim personar’ vel plurium (si tot convenienter congregari possint) de tempore in tempus perpetuis futuris temporibus a_81potestatem & authoritatem habeant & habebunt annuatim & quolibet anno imperpetuum in & super vicessimum diem Augusti vel infra octo dies proxim’ post dictum vicessimum diem Augusti eligend’ & nominand’ Et quod eligere & nominare possint & valeant tres de probioribus & discretioribus hominibus Societatis predict’ quorum unus erit Magister & alteri duo erunt Custodes Mysterii & Societatis predict’ pro uno anno integro tunc proxim’ sequen’ & deinde quosque tres alii probi & discreti homines myster’ predict’ elect’ & prefect’ fuerint juxta Ordinationes & Provisiones in hiis presentibus express’ & declarat’.

Et ulterius volumus & per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris concedimus prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societati Myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ & Successor’ suis Quod si contigerit Magistrum & Custodes myster’ & Societat’ predict’ aut eorum aliquos vel aliquem aliquo tempore infra unum annum postquam ad Officia Magistri & Custod’ Myster’ & Societatis predict’ sic ut prefertur elect’ & prefect’ fuerint aut eorum aliquis vel aliqui fuerit vel fuerint obire aut ab officiis amoveri (quos quidem Magistrum & Custodes ac eorum quemlibet pro mala gubernatione aut pro aliqua causa rationabili per reliquos Magist’ et Custod’ non offenden’ vel delinquentes & Assistentes myster’ & societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad numerum tredecim personar’ vel plurium de tempore in tempus amobiles esse volumus) quod tunc & toties bene liceat & licebit tantis & tot eorundem Magist’ Custod’ & Assistent’ qui adtunc supervixerint vel remanserint ad numerum tredecim personarum vel plurium ad libitum suum unum alium vel plures alios in Magistrum & Custodem vel Custodes Myster’ & Societatis predict’ eligere & preficere secundum ordinationem & provisionem in hiis presentibus declarat’ ad exequend’ & exercend’ prefat’ officia Magistri & Custod’ myster’ & societatis predict’ usque ad vicessimum diem Augusti tunc proxim’ sequen’ vel infra octo dies ante vicessimum diem Augusti & exinde quousque tres alii probi & discreti homines myster’ & societatis predict’ elect’ & nominat’ a_82erunt juxta ordinationes & provisiones in hiis presentibus declarat’ & express’ & sic toties quoties casus sic acciderit.

Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris ordinamus & concedimus prefat’ Magist’ Custod’ & societati mysterii predicti & suceessor’ suis quod quandocunque contigerit aliquem vel aliquos de predict’ viginti & uno Assisten’ pro tempore existen’ myster’ & societatis predict’ obire aut pro aliqua causa rationabili ab officiis suis Assisten’ myster’ & societatis predict’ amoveri (quos quidem Assistentes & eorum quemlibet se non bene gerentes aut gerentem in officiis illis aut pro aliqua alia causa rationabili de tempore in tempus per Magistrum Custod’ & Assisten’ ad numerum tredecim personar’ vel plurium qui adtunc remanserint vel supervixerint amobiles esse volumus) ad libitum suum de tempore in tempus unum alium vel plures alios de probioribus & dignioribus personis existen’ de myster’ & societat predict’ in locum sive loca ipsius Assistentis vel ipsorum assistentium myster’ & societatis predict’ sic mori vel amoveri contingen’ vel contingent’ eligere nominare & preficere ad supplend’ predictum numerum viginti & unius Assistentium predict’. Quodque ille sive illi posquam sic (ut prefertur) elect’ & nominat’ fuerit vel electi & nominati fuerint antequam ad executionem predict’ officii Assistentis vel Assistentium myster’ & societat’ predict’ admittantur sive eorum aliquis admittatur Sacrimentum Corporale super sacrosanct’ Evangel’ coram Magistro & Custod’ Myster’ & Societat’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad officia illa recte bene fideliter & honeste exequend’ & ad ea omnia secreta tenend’ que in Cur’ Assisten’ presentia ipsius vel ipsorum erunt communicat’ vel colloquut’ prestabit & prestabunt & sic toties quoties casus acciderit.

Damus insuper ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris concedimus prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societat’ artis & myster’ Pharmacopolar’ predict’ & successor’ suis quod Magister & Custodes myster’ & societat’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ habeant & habebunt plenam potestatem & authoritatem de tempore in tempus ad tradend’ & ministrand’ Sacramentum Corporale super sacrosanct’ a_83Evangelium tam omnibus Magistris Custod’ & Assisten’ myster’ & societat’ predict’ imposterum eligend’ & in eadem officia sive loca ut prefertur admittend’ ac omnibus Offician’ myster’ & societat’ predict’ pro debit’ executione officior’ suor’ recte bene & fideliter in omnibus separatim officia sua tangen’ sive concernen’ quam omnibus Apprenticiis ac aliis liberis hominibus myster’ predict’ quibuscunque.

Et ulterius ut nos subditor’ nostror’ saluti ac bono publico quantum in nobis est consulamus ac ut pericula & incommoda illa assidue accidentia per imperitos & inexpertos dolosos & improbos homines artem Pharmacopol’ predict’ exercen’ melius devitentur volumus & de gratia nostra speciali certa scientia & mero motu nostris per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ suis quod non liceat aut licebit deinceps imposterum alicui persone vel aliquibus personis quibuscunque jam existen’ aut imposterum futuris liberis hominibus myster’ Grocer’ predict’ aut aliquar’ aliar’ artium facultat’ sive myster’ in civitate London ac in eisdem arte facultate sive myster’ educat’ vel educand’ officinam vel shoppam Pharmacopol’ instruere tenere vel habere aut medicamenta quecunque facere miscere condere componere preparare propinare applicare aut administrare aut ulla medicamenta composita aut compositiones medicinales viz aquas distillatas compositas, vel olea chymica, apozemeta, syrapos conservas eclegma, electuaria, condita medicinabilia, pilulas, pulveres, trochiscos, olea, unguenta, emplastra ullo modo divendere propalare edere exercere aut venditioni aliqui personæ vel aliquibus personis quibuscunque exponere aliter quocunque modo arte facultate sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ aut aliqua ejus parte uti aut exercere infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ sub pena quinque librarum pro quolibet mense quo hujusmodi persona sive persone artem & myster’ Pharmacopol’ (ut prefertur) exerceat aut exerceant contra veram intentionem harum Litter’ Paten’. Que quidem forisfactur’ & penalit’ per districtionem vel per actionem debiti in nomine Custodis Junioris pro tempore existen’ prosequi aut aliter in aliquibus Curiis nostris apud Westm’ de tempore in tempus leventur a_84& recuperentur dimidium inde ad usum predict’ Magistri Custod’ & Societatis myster’ Pharmacopol’ capiend’ & applicand’.

Volumus eciam ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successoribus nostris concedimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ & successor’ suis quod nulla persona sive persone quecunque officinam aut shopam Pharmacopol’ habeat teneat aut instruat habeant instruant aut artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ exerceat aut exerceant aut quecunque medicamenta faciat misceat condat componat preparet propinet applicat administret ant ulla medicamenta composita aut compositiones ullo modo divendere propalare edere exercere aut venundare alicui persone vel aliquibus personis quibuscunque infra Civitatem London & libertat’ ejusdem aut infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ nisi hujusmodi persona & persone per spatium septem annorum ad minus ut Apprenticius vel Apprenticii cum aliquo vel aliquibus Pharmacopol’ eandem artem exercen’ & libero homine ejusdem mysterii existen’ educat’ instruat’ & edoct’ fuit vel fuerint. Et postquam hujusmodi septem anni servicii sive Tyrocinii (ut prefertur) fuerint elapsi & extract’ Quod tunc unusquisque talis Apprenticius coram Magistro & Custod’ pro tempore existen’ appareat & presentetur. Ac per eosdem Magistrum & Custod’ (advocat’ sibi Presdent’ Collegii seu Communitat’ facultat’ medicine London pro tempore existen’ aut aliquo medico aut aliquibus medicis per dictum Presidentem nominand’ & ad hoc de tempore in tempus assignand’ si super monitionem inde fact’ tal pred’ medicus vel tal’ predicti Medici adesse voluerint vel voluerit & advisament’ cum eodem vel eisdem habit’) circa cognitionem & electionem Simplicium & circa medicament’ preparationem dispensationem tractationem commixtionem & compositionem examenetur probetur tentetur ac per eosdem Medicos Magistrum & Custodes spectatus & approbatus fuerit priusquam officinam Pharmacopol’ habere tenere instruere aut medicamenta quecunque preparare facere permiscere condere componere propinare a_85administrare propalare edere exercere divendere aut venditioni exponere aut aliter quocunque modo artem Pharmacopoli aut aliquem ejusdem partem exercere infra Civitatem London & libertat’ ejusdem aut infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ presumat.

Ac ulterius de uberiori gratia nostra speciali & ex certa sciencia & mero motu nostris pro meliori regimine & gubernatione omnium & singular’ personarum que modo exercent aut imposterum exercebunt artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London seu suburbia ejusdem vel infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitatis dedimus & concessimus ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successoribus nostris damus & concessimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ & successor’ suis Quod Magist’ & Custod’ myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ & successores sui de cetero imperpetuum plenam potestatem & authoritatem habeant & habebunt de tempore in tempus capere & habere supervis’ scrutinium examinationem gubernationem & correctionem omnium & omnimod’ tam liberorum hominum quam alior’ quorumcunque uten’ sive exercen’ artem myster’ sive facultat’ Pharmacopol’ aut aliquam (ut prefertur) ejusdem partem infra dictam Civitat’ nostram London libertat’ & suburbia ejusdem Civitat’ tam infra libertates quam extra ubi aliqua persona uten’ sive exercen’ artem mysterium sive facultatem Pharmacopœie aut aliquam ejusdem partem inhabitabit aut commorabit seu inhabitare & commorare contigerit Quodque iidem Magist’ & Custod’ & eorum successores aut eorum aliqui vel aliquis aut aliqui Assisten’ per Magistrum & Custod’ nominand’ & assignand’ temporibus congruis & convenien’ ac modo & forma convenien’ & legitim’ de tempore in tempus quoties iisdem Magistro & Custodibus videbitur expedire ingredi & intrare possint & valeant in aliquam vel aliquis officinam vel officinas shopam vel shopas domum vel domos aliquar’ personar’ sive alicujus persone cujuscunque uten’ sive exercen’ artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ aut aliquam ejusdem partem infra Civitat’ a_86London Suburbia & ejusdem libertat’ predict’ aut infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ tam infra libertat’ quam extra ubi aliqua medicamenta simplicia vel composita merces drogma recept’ aque distillat’ olea chymica syrupi conserve eclegmata electuar’ pilule pulveres trochisci olea unguenta emplastra aut aliqua alia quecunque que ad artem sive mysterium Pharmacopol’ (ut prefertur) pertinent sive spectant probabiliter sive verisimiliter inveniri poterint Et ad supervidend’ scrutinand’ & proband’ si eadem medicamenta simplicia vel composita merces drogma recept’ aque distillat’ olea chymica syrupi conserve eclegmata electuaria pilule pulveres trochisci olea unguenta emplastra aut aliqua alia quecunque ad artem sive mysterium Pharmacopol’ predict’ pertinent’ sint aut erunt bona salubria medicinabilia apta & idonea ad Curam salutem & relevamen subditor’ nostror’ Ac eciam quod prefat’ Magister & Custod’ myster’ predict’ & Assisten’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad hoc per Magistrum & Custod’ nominand’ & assignand’ & successores sui de tempore in tempus plenam potestatem & authoritatem habeant & virtute presentium habebunt ad examinand’ & proband’ omnes & singulas personas profiten’ uten’ sive exercen’ aut qui imposterum profitebuntur utentur aut exercebunt artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ aut aliquam ejusdem partem infra predict’ Civitat’ London suburbia aut libertates ejusdem aut infra septem miliaria ejusdem Civitat’ tam infra libertates quam extra de & concernen’ eorum cujuslibet cognitione & scientia in predit’ arte sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ Et ad omnes illos quos imposter’ aut imperit’ inscient’ & insufficientes vel ad examinand’ vigore presentium obstinatos & repugnant’ in arte & myster’ predicto invenient ab exercitio usu & pract’ myster’ sive artis predict’ amovend’ & prohibend’ Nec non ad omnia & singula medicamenta merces drogma recept’ aquas distillat’ olea chymica syrupos conservas eclegmata electuaria pilulas pulveres trochiscos olea unguenta & emplastra ceteraque omnia & singula ad artem predict’ pertinentia que falsa illegitima adulterat’ inveterat’ exoleta insalubria corrupta immedicinabilia perniciosa aut a_87nociva inveniunt ante delinquentium fores comburend’ mulctamque eciam ac al’ penas & penalitat’ per fines & amerciamenta in tales delinquentes statuant exponant & exequantur secundum eorum sanas discretiones & ordinationes per ipsos & successores suos sic (ut prefertur) fiend’ & constituend.’

Volentes ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris firmiter injungend’ precipientes & mandentes omnibus & singulis Majoribus Justiciar’ Ballivis Constabular’ & omnibus aliis officiar’ ministris & subditis nostris quibuscunque quod sint assistentes auxiliantes & confortantes prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Assistan’ myster’ & societates Pharmacopol’ predict’ & eorum cuilibet & successor’ suis ad faciend’ gaudend’ habend’ & exequend’ ea omnia & singula per nos prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati & Successor’ suis per has literas nostras Paten’ concess’ & quamlibet sive aliquam inde partem & parcell’.

Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes de ampliori gratia nostra speciali certa scientia & mero motu nostris pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ & successor’ suis Quod ipsi prefati Magist’ Custodes & Societas myster’ Pharmacopol’ predict’ habeant teneant retineant & gaudeant ac habere retinere & gaudere valeant & possint tot tanta talia eadem hujusmodi & consimil’ Franches’ privilegia consuetudines immunitates acquietan’ profima commoditates increment’ advantag’ & emolumenta quecunque in aromatibus Pharmacis Drogmis & aliis rebus & materiis quibuscunque ad artem sive myster’ Pharmacopol’ spectan’ & pertinen’ emend’ mercand’ seu comparan’ quot’ quant’ qual’ & que ac in tam amplis modo & forma prout antehac unquam habuerunt tenuerunt & gavisi fuerunt aut habere gaudere & tenere aliquo modo debuerunt quando cum predict’ liberis hominibus myster’ Grocer’ remanser’ ac unum Corpus corporatum & Politicum promiscue & indivisim cum eisdem fecerunt & fuerunt.

Et ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris concedimus & licentiam specialem liberamque a_88& licitam facultat’ potestatem & authoritatem damus prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati mysterii sive artis Pharmacopol’ predict’ & successor’ suis habend’ recipiend’ & perquirand’ sibi & successor’ suis imperpetuum’ maner’ messuag’ terr’ tenementa prata pascua pastur’ boscos subboscos Rectorias Decim’ reddit’ reversiones & alia hereditamenta quecunque infra regnum nostrum Anglie seu alibi infra dominia nostra tam de nobis heredibus & successor’ nostris quam de aliqua alia persona sive aliquibus aliis personis quicunque (que de nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris non tenentur immediate in Capite vel per servicium militare) dummodo eadem maner’ messuag’ terr’ tenementa prat’ pasc’ pastur’ bosc’ subbosc’ Rector’ decim’ reddit’ reversion’ servic’ & hereditamenta sic per ipsos habend’ recipiend’ & perquirend’ non excedant in toto clarum annuum valorem quadragint’ librarum per ann’ ultra omnia onera & repris’ Statut’ de terr’ & tenementis ad manum mortuam non ponend’ aut aliquo Statuto Actu Ordinatione vel Provisione antehac fact’ ordinat’ sive provis’ aut aliqua alia re causa vel materia quacunque in contrarium inde in aliquo modo non obstan’.

Damus eciam & per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus cuicunque subdito nostro sive aliquibus subditis nostris hered’ & successor’ nostrorum licentiam specialem liberamque & licitam potestatem facultatem & authoritat’ Quod ipsi sive eorum aliquis sive aliqui maner’ messuag’ terr’ tenementa prat’ pasc’ pastur’ bosc’ subbosc’ Rect’ decim’ reddit’ reversiones servicia & alia hereditamenta quecunque que non tenentur de nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris immediate in Capite vel aliter per servic’ militare prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societati mysterii predict’ & successor’ suis dare concedere vendere legare vel alienare possint & valeant. Ita quod omnia predict’ Maner’ Messuag’ terr’ tenementa prat’ pasc’ pastur’ bosc’ subbosc’ Rector’ decim’ reddit’ reversiones servicia & alia hereditamenta sic eisdem Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ & artis predict’ & successor’ suis virtute presentium dand’ a_89concedend’ legand’ vel alienaud’ non excedant in toto clarum annuum valorem quadragint’ librarum per ann’ ultra omnia onera & repris’ Statut’ de terr’ & tenement’ ad manum mortuam non ponend’ aut aliqua alia re causa vel materia quacunque antehac habit’ fact’ edit’ ordinat’ sive provis’ in contrarium inde in aliquo non obstant’.

Volumus eciam & per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ sive artis Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London’ predict’ & successor’ suis Quod prefat’ Magist’ Custod’ & Assisten’ pro tempore existen’ vel eorum successor’ vel major pars eorundem de cetero imperpetuum nominare & eligere possint unum probum & idoneum virum qui erit & nominabitur Communis Clericus Societatis predict’ Quodque talis Clericus antequam ad officium illud exequend’ admittatur Sacramentum Corporale coram Magistro & Custod’ Societatis predicte pro tempore existen’ ad officium illud predictum secundum ejus scienciam in omnibus illud tangen’ recte & fideliter exequend’ prestabit. Et quod post hujusmodi Sacramentum sic prestitum officium illud exerceat & utatur durante beneplacito Magistri Custod’ & Assisten’ societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ aut majoris partis eorundem quorum Magist’ artis & myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus.

Ac ulterius volumus ac per presentes pro nobis hered’ & successor’ nostris concedimus prefatis Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ Pharmacopol’ predict’ & successor’ suis quod prefat’ Magist’ Custodes & Assistentes pro tempore existen’ & eorum successores vel major pars eorundem de tempore in tempus de cetero nominare & eligere possint & valeant unum aptem & idoneum hominem qui erit & nominabitur Bedell’ societatis predict’. Quodque talis Bedell’ sic (ut prefertur) electus & nominat’ antequam ad officium illud exequend’ admittatur Sacramentum Corporale coram Magistro & Custod’ Societatis predict’ pro tempore existen’ ad officium illud predictum in omnibus illud tangen’ recte & fideliter exequend’ prestabit. Et quod post hujusmodi Sacramentum a_90sic prestitum officium illud exerceat & teneat duran’ beneplacito Magistri Custod’ & Assisten’ predict’ & Successor’ suor’ pro tempore existen’ (quorum Magistrum artis & myster’ predict’ pro tempore existen’ unum esse volumus.)

Et denique volumus ac regiam nostram intentionem esse per presentes declaramus quod he Litere nostre paten’ seu aliquod in eis non cedent in prejudicium Presidentis & Collegii sive Communitatis Medicor’ Civitat’ London nec ad eorum Presidentis & Collegii sive Communitatis & Successor’ suor’ Jurisdictionem authoritatem supervis’ aut correctionem in Pharmac’ Civitat’ London tollend’ infringend’ aut dirimend’. Sed quod iidem Presidens & Communitas Medicor’ omnesque & singuli medici de eodem Collegio sive Communitate & Successores sui sicut & Medici Regis Regine & Principum imposserum debeant & pro arbitrio suo possint artem medicam in omnibus suis partibus exercere & insuper gaudebunt utentur & fruentur & gaudere uti & frui valeant & possint eisdem & consimil’ Jurisdictionibus authoritat’ supervis’ & Correctionibus ac omnibus aliis potestatibus privileg’ & libertat’ qualibus unquam antehac Pharmacopol’ usi & gavisi fuerunt & preterea generaliter omnibus aliis authoritatibus privilegiis & potestatabus ipsis quandocunque vel quacunque de causa antehac concess’ ratione vel pretextu aliquar’ Literar’ Paten’ per nos seu per aliquos vel aliquem progenitor’ nostror’ aut ratione vel pretextu alicujus Actus Parliament’ vel aliquor’ Actuum Parliamentor’ aut aliquo alio regali modo quocunque eisdem President’ & Collegio sive Communitat’ Medicor’ & Successor’ suis dat’ concess’ seu confirmat’ Volumus nihilominus & ordinamus per presentes quod in quocunque casu Presidens & Colleg’ habebunt gaudebunt & exercebunt consimilem potestatem & authoritatem advocandi sibi Magistrum & Custodes Pharmacopol’ predict’ Absque eo quod omnino licebit imposterum eisdem Medicis aliquos myster’ Grocer’ predict’ advocare ad hujusmodi scrutinium Aliquo in hujusmodi Statut’ in contrarium in aliquo non obstant’. Proviso a_91eciam quod he Litere nostre Patentes seu aliquod in eisdem concess’ aut content’ non cedent in prejudicium Civitat’ nostre London seu libertat’ ejusdem neque ullo modo derogabunt libertat’ Franches’ Regimin’ Jurisdiction’ aut consuetud’ ejusdem Civitatis.

Et denique volumus & intentionem nostram esse declaramus quod Chirurgi experti & approbati eorum artem facultatem exercere possint omnesque & singuli eorum practica sibi propria uti & frui valeant quantum ad compositionem & applicationem medicamentor’ externor’ solumodo pertinet & spectat. Ita tamen ut ea medicamenta minime vendant aut venditioni aliis exponant secundum morem vulgarem Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ nostre London Eo quod expressa mentio de vero valore annuo aut de certitudine premissor’ sive eorum alicujus aut de aliis donis sive concessionibus per nos seu per aliquem Progenitor’ vel Antecessor’ nostror’ prefat’ Magistro Custod’ & Societati myster’ Pharmacopol’ Civitat’ London predict’ ante hec tempore fact’ in presentibus minime fact’ exist’ seu aliquo Statuto Actu Ordinatione Provisione Proclamatione sive Restrictione in contrarium inde antehac habit’ fact’ edit’ ordinat’ seu provis’ aut aliqua alia re causa vel materia quacunque in aliquo non obstant’. In cujus rei testimonium has Literas nostras fieri facimus Patentes. Teste meipso apud Westm’ Tricessimo die Maii Anno Regni Nostri Anglie Franc’ & Hibernie tertio decimo & Scocie quadragesimo octavo.

Royal Letter to the College of Physicians.

Charles R

Trusty & welbeloved wee greet you well

Whereas we have been informed That there are several pretended Physicians & Doctors graduated in the Universitys beyond the Seas who by indirect means endeavour to be received into that our Royal Colledge as Honorary Fellows, without incorporation into either of our Universities or previous Examination & approbation, according as it is expressly required by y^e Statutes to y^e great prejudice of y^e ffellows of or said Colledge & their Successors & of the Priveledges & immunityes granted to them by or Royal predicessors & orself. Wee having taken the same into or Royal Consideration have thought fit to signifye or pleasure to you, & doe accordingly direct you not to admit any person whatever as a Fellowe of the Society & to enjoy y^e priviledges of or s^d Colledge that hath not had his Education in either of or Universityes of Oxford or Cambridge kept his Act for D^r in Physick & don his Exercises accordingly, or that is not encorporated & licenced there haveing first taken the Oathes of Allegiance & Supremacy, & haveing been by you afterward examined & approved of according to the Statutes. And to the Intent this or pleasure may be the better observed wee doe likewise hereby require you to cause these or Letters to be entered upon the Registe of or said Colledge & so wee bid you ffarewell, Given at or Court at Whitehall Febr. 12^th 1674 in the 26^th year of or Reighn.

To our trusty and well beloved the Lord Mayor of our City of London for the time being and to the Deputy Lieutenants and Commissioners of the Militia of London and Westminster that now are and hereafter shall be, and to all other Officers and Ministers whom it may concern.

Charles R

Whereas in conformity to several Grants and Charters made by our Royal Progenitors Kings of England unto the College of Physicians in our City of London, We have been pleased of our especial Grace and favour to confirm all their ancient Privileges and humanities (with the addition of some further Powers and Clauses for the regulation of that faculty) by our Letters Patent bearing date the 26th of March in the 15th year of our Reign; Wherein amongst other things it is expresly provided and by us granted that every Physician who is or shall be a Member of the said College be free and exempt and discharged of and from all Watch and Ward, and of and from bearing and providing Arms within our Cities of London and Westminster or of either of them or within 7 miles compass thereof: We have thought fit hereby to acquaint you therewith and with our pleasure thereupon; Willing and Requiring you in your several Places and Stations to give effectual orders from time to time that the said exemption from Watch and Ward and from bearing and providing Arms be now and hereafter punctually observed in favour of the Members of the said College within the limits aforesaid; And that you suffer them not to be any wise molested on that behalf And for so doing this shall be your Warrant. Given at our Court at Whitehall the 28th day of June 1665 in the seventeenth year of our Reign.

College Questions resolved by the Lord Chancellor and Judges in the fifth of King James his Reign An. Dom. 1607 — Concerning Punishment & Correction against Offenders.

The Kings most Excellent Majesty having directed his Letters to the Right honourable Thomas Lord Ellesmere, Lord Chancellor of England, and to Sir John Popham Knight, Lord Chief Justice of England and one of his Highnesses most honourable Privy Council, They the said Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice by virtue of the same Letters called unto them Sir Thomas Fleminge Knight, then Lord Chief Baron of his Majesty’s Court of Exchequer, Sir Thomas Walmesley & Sir Peter Warburton, Knights, two of his Majesty’s Justices of the Court of Common Pleas, and Sir David Williams and Sir Laurence Tanfield Knights two of his Majesties Justices of the King’s Bench, and after due consideration had both of the Charter of King Henry the eighth made unto the said President and College of Physicians in the tenth year of his Reign, and several Acts of Parliament thereof made, one in the fourteenth year of the same King, and the other in the first year of Queen Mary, for the ordering and governing of the said College and of all the Practisers in London and seven miles compass, did on the first of May 1607 at the house of the said Lord Chancellor called York House, resolve the several questions hereafter mentioned, as is expressed under every Question.

Quest. 1. Whether Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge may practise in London or seven miles compass of the same without licence under the said College Seal, by virtue of the clause in the end of the Statute of 14. H. 8. and whether that clause hath not relation to the Statute of 3. H. 8. onely, or how far it doth extend?

Resp. All resolved, that no Graduate that is not admitted and licenced by the President and College of Physicians a_95under their Common Seal, could practise in London or within 7 miles compass of the same.

Quest. 2. Whether, by Graduates, Graduates in Physick onely are to be understood?——

Resp. They resolved That the exception in the Statute of 14. H. 8. cap. 5. of Graduates in the two Universities, is to be understood onely of Graduates of Physick and of no others. And all resolved, That by that exception those Graduates may practise in all other places of England out of London and 7 miles of the same without examination; But not in London nor within the said Circuit of 7 miles.

Quest. 3. If Graduates not admitted to practise in London practise there, whether, for evil practice or misdemeanor therein, they be not subject to the Corporation and Government of the College?

Resp. They all agreed, That they are subject to the Government and correction of the College by an express Clause of the said Charter enacted which giveth to the President and College Supervisionem Scrutinium, Correctionem & Gubernationem as well of all persons using the practise of Medicine within the City &c.

Quest. 4. If they may not practise without admission of the College (as their Letters Patents plainly import) Then whether such Graduates are not subject to the examination, without which there were never any admitted; and without which the admission cannot be approved; because every Graduate is not absolutely good ipso facto?

Resp. It was resolved by all That all that practised or should practise Physick either in London or within the compass of seven miles of the same, must submit themselves to the examination of the President and College if they be required thereunto by their authority notwithstanding any licence, allowance or privilege given them in Oxford or Cambridge either by their degree or otherwise.

Quest. 1. Whether the President and four Censors together, or the Censors alone may not commit to Prison without bail or mainprize all Offenders in the Practice of Physick according to the Statute of primo Mariæ and how long, whether till he have paid such Fine as shall be assessed upon him, or have submitted himself to their Order, and in what manner?——

Resp. They all resolved, That for not well doing using or practising the faculty or Art or Physick or for disobedience or contempts done and committed against any Ordinance made by the College, by virtue and according to the power and authority to them granted, they may commit the Offenders without bail or mainprize, as the words of the Statute are. Which they all resolved, would not be altered or interpreted otherwise than the express words of the Statute are.

Quest. 2. Whether they may not commit to prison for disobedience and contempt of the private Statutes and Ordinances of the College made for the better Government thereof, and for not payment of such reasonable fines as shall be imposed by the President and Censors for maintenance of the said College, among the Members of the same College?

Resp. They all resolved, That the President and College might commit to prison for offences and disobedience done and committed against any lawfull Ordinance made by the said College, and might impose reasonable fines for the breach thereof, and detain the parties committed till these fines were satisfied.

Quest. 3. Whether they may not justly take upon every admission a reasonable sum of money for the better maintenance and defraying of necessary expences, as in other Corporations?

a_97Resp. They all held That they might take such reasonable sums.

Quest. 4. Whether those onely are to be committed that are Offenders in Non bene exequendo, faciendo & utendo facultate Medicinæ, as in the Letters Patents; and such as are sufficient and not admitted, are to be sued for 5 li. a month and not be committed?

Resp. They all held That by the Charter and Acts of Parliament they might commit Offenders and Practisers that offended in non bene exequendo faciendo et utendo facultate: But for the committing to prison of such as practise (not being admitted by the College) they held it doubtful, for that the Charter and Statute do in that case inflict a punishment of 5 li. a month against such practiser without admittance by the College. But they all resolved, That if the President and College made an Ordinance to prohibit the practising of all without admittance under the common Seal of the said College, That for breach and contempt of this Ordinance, the President and College might both impose a reasonable fine upon the Offender and commit him without bail or mainprize.

Quest. 5. Whether refusal to come to be examined upon warning given be not a sufficient cause of Commitment?

Resp. They all resolved, That if the College do make an Ordinance, That if any Practiser of Physick in London or within 7 miles of the same shall obstinately refuse to be examined by the Censors of the College in non bene exequendo faciendo & utendo the Art of Physick in his Medicines or Receipts that the said President or Censors may commit him to prison, there to remain without bail or mainprize, untill he be delivered by the President and Censors and to forfeit and pay to the said College some reasonable sum of money, That the same Ordinance will be good and lawfull. And if any after shall offend contrary to the said Ordinance, the President and Censors may lawfully commit such Offender to prison, there to remain without a_98bail or mainprize untill he shall be delivered by the said President and Censors.

1 Quest. Whether the party committed for unskilful or temerarious practice may have an action of false imprisonment against them, and thereby draw in question or issue the goodness or badness of the Physick?

Resp. All resolved, That the Party so committed was concluded by the sentence and judgement of the 4 Censors of the College of Physicians.

2 Quest. Whether if any not admitted do practise Physick within London or 7 miles of the same but once twice or thrice in one month, be an Offender against the Charter and Statutes of the College?

Resp. All resolved it was, if he be a professed Physician.

These I conceive to be the resolutions of their Lordships and the Judges upon the Questions which I humbly refer to themselves to affirm or disaffirm

(from Goodall’s Collection, p. 276).

CASES. — Dr. BONHAM’S CASE. [111] ( From 8 Co. Rep. 114.) Hil. 7 Jac. 1. — Dr. Groenvelt vers. Dr. Burwell and others, Censors of the College of Physicians (from 1 Comyns Rep. p. 75) — William Rose’s Case — The King against the President and College of Physicians. (From 7 Term Rep. p. 282) — Return to a Habeas Corpus. (Goodall. 467) — Doctor Burgess’ Case. (Goodall’s Proceedings 376) — Doctor Winterton’s Letter to the President. — LILLY’S DIPLOMA. The License of Dr. Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury, granted to William Lilly, the Astrologer, to practise Physic. Dated A. D. 1670. — 33 Geo. 2.— Burrow’s Reports. Rex vers. Master and Wardens of the Company of Surgeons in London. — MIDWIFE’S OATH. The Oath to be administered to a Midwife by the Bishop or his Chancellor, when she is licensed to that office, is said to have been as followeth. 2 Burn Ecc. Law 469. — Certificate of the College of Physicians concerning the Midwives of London. — 59 Geo. 3. c. 41. An Act to establish Regulations for preventing Contagious Diseases in Ireland . 14th June 1819. — 14 Geo. 3. c. 49. An Act for regulating Mad-Houses. — REPORT. The Select Committee appointed to consider the validity of the doctrine of Contagion in the Plague; and to report their observations thereupon, together with the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the House: Have considered the matters to them preferred, and have agreed upon the following Report. — Chorley, M. D. v. Bolcot, executor. (From 4 T. R. p. 317.) — Lipscombe v. Holmes, esq. (From Campbell.) — Slater v. Baker and Stapleton, C. B. (From 2 Wils. R. 359.) — Seare against Prentice. From 8 East.

Thomas Bonham, doctor in philosophy and physic, brought an action of false imprisonment against Henry Atkins, George Turner, Thomas Moundford, and John Argent, doctors in physic, and John Taylor, and Wm. Bowden yeomen; for that the defendants, the 10 Nov. anno 4 Jacobi, did imprison him, and detain him in prison seven days. The defendants pleaded the letters patent of King H. 8. bearing date the 23 Septemb. anno 10 of his reign, by which he recites, ^[112]Quod cum Regii officii sui, &c. (quod vide ante p. 7.) But the case at bar doth principally consist on two clauses in the charter. The first, concessimus etiam eisdem presidenti, &c. (quod vide ante p. 10). The second clause is, which immediately follows in these words, præterea voluit, &c. (quod vide ante p. 10.) And afterwards, by act of Parliament made anno ^[113]14 H. 8. it was enacted, that the said corporation, and every grant, article, and other things in the said letters patent a_100contained and specified, should be approved, granted, ratified, and confirmed, &c. in tam amplo & largo modo prout poterit acceptari, cogitari, et construi per easdem literas patentes. And further it was enacted, that the said six persons named in the said letters patent, as principal of the said college, should elect to them two other of the said college, who should be named electi, and that the said elects should chose one of them to be president, as by the said act appears: and further, they pleaded the act of ^[114]1 Mariæ, by which it is enacted, Quod quædam concessio, &c. And further it was enacted, “That whensoever the president of the college, or commonalty of the faculty of physic at London for the time being, or such as the said president and college shall yearly, according to the tenor and meaning of the said act, authorize to search, examine, correct, and punish all offenders and transgressors in the said faculty, &c. shall send or commit any such offender or offenders for his or their offence or disobedience, contrary to any article or clause contained in the said grant or act, to any ward, gaol, or prison, &c.” (see p. 26.) And further pleaded, that the said Thomas Bonham, 10 April, 1606, within London, against the form of the said letters patent, and the said acts, exercebat artem medicinæ, non admissus per literas præd’ presidentis & collegii sigillo eorum communi sigillat’ ubi revera præd’ Tho. Bonham fuit minus sufficiens ad artem medicinæ exercend’. By force of which, the said Thomas Bonham, 30 Aprilis 1606, was summoned in London by the censors or governors of the college, ad comparend’ coram præsiden’ & censor’ sive gubernatorib’ collegii præd’ at the college, &c. the 14th day of April next following, super præmissis examinand’. At which day the said Tho. Bonham came before the president and censors, and was examined by the censors de scientiâ suâ in facultate suâ in medicin’ administrand’. a_101Et quia præd’ Thomas Bonham sic examinatus minus apte & insufficienter in præd’ arte medicinæ respondebat, & inventus fuit super examinationem præd’ per præed’ præsident’ censores minus insufficiens & inexpert’ ad artem medicinæ administrand’ ac pro eo quod præd’ Tho. Bonham multoties ante tunc examinatus, & interdictus per præsident’ & censores, de causis præd’ ad artem medicinæ administrand’ per unum mensem et amplius post talem interdictionem facultatem illam in Lond’ præd’ sine licentia, &c. ideo adtunc & ibid’ consideratum fuit per præd’ præsident’ censores, quod præd’ Thomas Bonham pro inobedientia et contempt’ suis præd’ amerciaretur to 100s. in proximis comitiis præd’ præsident’ et collegii persolvend’ et deinceps abstineret, &c. quousque inventus fuerit sufficiens, &c. sub pœna conjiciendi in carcerem si in præmissis delinqueret. And that the said T. Bonham, 20 Octo. 1606, within London did practice physic, and the same day he was summoned by the censors to appear before the president and them, 22 Octob. then next following, at which day Bonham made default: ideo consideratum fuit per præd’ censores, that for his disobedience and contempt he should be amerced to 10l. and that he should be arrested and committed to custody; and afterward, 7 Nov. 1606, the said T. Bonham, at their assembly came before the president and censors, and they asked him if he would satisfy the college for his disobedience and contempt, and submit himself to be examined, and obey the censure of the college, who answered, that he had practised and would practise physic within London, nulla a collegio petita venia, and that he would not submit himself to the president and censors, and affirmed, that the president and censors, had no authority over those who were doctors in the university; for which cause, the said four censors, sc. Dr. Turner, Dr. Moundford, Dr. Argent, and Dr. Dun, then being censors or governors, pro offensis et inobedientia præd’ adtunc & ib’ ordinaverunt & decreverunt, quod præd’ T. Bonham in carcerem mandaretur ib’ remansur’ quousque abinde per præsident’ & censores, seu a_102gubernatores collegii præd’ pro tempore existen’ deliberaretur, and there then by their warrant in writing, under their common seal, did commit the plaintiff to the prison of the Compter of London, &c. absque ballio sive manucapt’ ad custagia & onera ipsius T. Bonham, donec præd’ T. Bonham per præcept’ præsiden’ & censor’ collegii præd’ sive successor’ suor’ liberatus esset; and Dr. Atkins then president, and the censors, and Bowden and Taylor as their servants and by the commandment of the said president and censors, did carry the plaintiff with the warrant, to the gaol, &c. which is the same imprisonment. The plaintiff replied and said, that by the said act of 14 H. 8. it was further enacted, “And where that in the dioceses of England, out of London, it is not like to find alway men able sufficiently to examine (after the statute) such as shall be admitted to exercise physic in them, that it may be enacted in this present Parliament, that no person from henceforth be suffered to exercise or practise physic through England, until such time that he be examined at London by the said president and three of the said elects, and to have from them letters testimonial of their approving and examination, except he be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge, which have accomplished all things for his form without any grace;” and that the plaintiff, anno Dom. 1595, was a graduate, sc. a doctor in the university of Cambridge, and had accomplished all things concerning his degree for his form without ^[115]grace, by force whereof he had exercised and practised physic within the city of London until the defendants had imprisoned him, &c. upon which the defendant demurred in law. And this case was often argued by the Serjeants at bar in divers several terms; and now this term the case was argued by the Justices, and the effect of their arguments who argued against the plaintiff (which was divided into three parts) shall be first reported. The first was, whether a doctor of physic of the one university or the other, be by a_103the letters patent, and by the body of the act of 14 H. 8. restrained from practising physic within the City of London, &c. The second was, if the exception in the said act of ^[116]14 H. 8. has excepted him or not. The third was, that his imprisonment was lawful for his said disobedience. And as to the first, they relied upon the letter of the grant, ratified by the said act of 14 H. 8. which is in the negative, sc. nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. exerceat dictam facultatem nisi ad hoc per prædict’ præsidentem & communitatem, &c. admissus sit, &c. And this proposition is a general negative, but ^[117]generale dictum est generaliter intelligendum; and nemo excludes all; and therefore a doctor of the one university or the other, is prohibited within this negative word nemo. And many cases were put where negative statutes shall be taken stricte et exclusive, which I do not think necessary to be recited here. Also they said, that the statute of ^[118]3 H. 8. c. 11. which in effect is repealed by this act of ^[119]14 H. 8. has a special proviso for the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, which being here left out, doth declare the intention of the makers of the act, that they did intend to include them within this general prohibition, nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. As to the second point they strongly held, that the said latter clause, “and where that in the dioceses of England, out of London,” &c. this clause, according to the words, extends only to places out of London, and so much the rather, because they provided for London before, nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. Also the makers of the act put a distinction betwixt those who shall be licensed to practise physic in London, &c. for they ought to have the admittance and allowance of the president and a_104college in writing, under their common seal; but he who shall be allowed to practise physic throughout England, out of London, ought to be examined and admitted by the president and three of the elects, and so they said, that it was lately adjudged in the King’s Bench, in an information exhibited against the said Dr. Bonham for practising physic in London for divers months. As to the third point they said, that for his contempt and disobedience before them at their assembly in their college, they might well commit him to prison for they have authority by the letters patent and act of Parliament, and therefore for a contempt or misdemeanor before them they may commit him. Also the act of ^[120]1 M. has given them power to commit them for every offence or disob. contrary to any article or clause contained in the said grant or act. But there is an express negative article in the said grant, and ratif. by the act of 14 H. 8. Quod nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. exerceat, &c. and the defendants have pleaded, that the plaintiff had practised physic in London by the space of one month, &c. and therefore the act of 1 Mariæ has authorised them to imprison him in this case; wherefore they concluded against the plaintiff. But it was argued by Coke Chief Justice, Warburton and Daniel Justices of the Common Pleas, to the contrary. And Daniel Justice conceived, that a doctor of physic, of the one university or the other, &c. was not within the body of the act, and if he was within the body of the act, that he was excepted by the said latter clause; but Warburton argued against him for both the points; and the Chief Justice did not speak to those two points, because he and Warburton and Daniel agreed, that this action was clearly maintainable for two other points, and therefore in this action the Chief Justice omitted to speak to the said two points; but to two other points, he and the said two other Justices, Warburton and Daniel, did speak, sc. 1. a_105Whether the censors have power, for the causes alledged in their bar, to fine and imprison the plaintiff. 2. Admitting that they have power to do it, if they had pursued their power. But the Chief Justice, before he argued the points in law, because much was said in commendation of the doctors of physic of the college in London, and somewhat (as he conceived) in derogation of the dignity of the doctors of the universities, he first attributed much to the doctors of the said college in London, and confessed that nothing was spoke in their commendation which was not due to their merits: but yet that no comparison was to be made between that private college, and either of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, no more than between the father and his children, or between the fountain and the small rivers which descend from it; the university is alma ^[121]mater, from whose breasts those of that private college have sucked all their science and knowledge (which I acknowledge to be great and profound) but the law saith, erubescit lex filios castigare parentes: the university is the fountain, and that and the like private colleges are tanquam rivuli, which flow from the mountain, et melius est petere fontes quam sectari rivulos. Briefly, Academiæ ^[122]Cantabrigiæ & Oxoniæ sunt Athenæ nostræ nobilissimæ, regni soles, oculi & animæ regni, unde religio, humanitas, et doctrina in omnes regni partes uberrimè diffunduntur: but it is true, nunquam sufficiet copia laudatoris, quia nunquam deficiet materia laudis; and therefore these universities exceed and excel all private colleges, quantum inter virburna cupressus. And it was observed that K. H. 8. in his said letters patent and the K. and the Parliam. in the act of 14 H. 8. in making of a law concern. physicians, for the more safety and health of men, therein follow the order of a good physician (Rex ^[123]enim omn’ artes censetur habere in scrinio pect’ sui) for, medicina est duplex, removens, ^[124]& promovens; removens morbum, & promovens ad salutem: and therefore five manner a_106of persons (who more hurt the body of man than the disease itself, one of which said of one of their patients, fugiens morbum incidit in medicum) are to be removed; 1. Improbi. 2. Avari, qui medicinam magis ^[125]avaritiæ suæ causa quam ullius bonæ conscientiæ fiducia profitentur. 3. Malitiosi. 4. Temerarii. 5. Inscii. And of the other part five manner of persons were to be promoted, as appears by the said act, sc. those who were, 1. profound. 2. sad. 3. discreet. 4. groundly learned. 5. profoundly studied. And it was well ordained, that the professors of physic should be profound, sad, discreet, &c. and not youths, who have no gravity and experience; for as one saith, ^[126]In juvene theologo conscientiæ detrimentum, in juvene legista bursæ detrimentum in juvene medico cœmiterii incrementum. And it ought to be presumed, every doctor of any of the universities to be within the statutes, sc. to be profound, sad, discreet, groundly learned, and profoundly studied, for none can there be master of arts (who is a doctor of philosophy) under the study of seven years, and cannot be doctor in physic under seven years more in the study of physic; and that is the reason that the plaintiff is named in the declaration doctor of Philosophy, and doctor of physic; quia oportet medicum esse philosophum, ^[127]ubi enim philosophus desinit, medicus incipit: as to the two points upon which the Chief Justice, Warburton and Daniel, gave judgment. 1. It was resolved by them, that the said censors had not power to commit the plaintiff for any of the causes mentioned in the bar; and the cause and reason thereof shortly was, that the said clause, which gives power to the said censors to fine and imprison, doth not extend to the said clause, sc. quod nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. exerceat dictam facultatem, &c. which prohibits every one from practising physic in London, &c. without licence from the president and college; but extends only to punish those who practise physic in London, pro delictis suis in non bene ^[128]exequendo, a_107faciendo & utendo facultate medicinæ, by fine and imprisonment: so that the censors have not power by the letters patent, and the act, to fine and imprison any for practising physic in London, but only pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo, &c. sc. for ill, and not good use and practice of physic. And that was made manifest by five reasons, which were called vividæ rationes, because they had their vigour and life from the letters patent, and the act itself; and the best ^[129]expositor of all letters patent, and acts of Parliament, are the letters patent and the acts of Parliament themselves, by construction, and conferring ^[130]all the parts of them together, ^[131]Optima statuti interpretatrix est (omnibus particulis ejusdem inspectis) ipsum statutum; and ^[132]injustum est nisi tota lege inspecta una aliqua ejus particula proposita judicare vel respondere. The first reason was, that these two were two absolute, perfect, and distinct clauses, and as parallels, and therefore the one did not extend to the other; for the second begins, præterea voluit et concessit, &c. and the branch concerning fine and imprisonment is parcel of the 2d clause. 2. The first clause prohibiting the practice of physic, &c. comprehends four certainties: 1. Certainty of the thing prohibited, sc. practice of physic. 2. Certainty of the time, sc. practice for one month. 3. Certainty of penalty, sc. 5l. 4. Certainty in distribution, sc. one moiety to the King, and the other moiety to the college, and this penalty he who practises physic in London incurs, although he practises and uses physic well, and profitable for the body of man; and on this branch the information was exhibited in the King’s Bench. But the clause to punish delicta in non bene exequendo, &c. on which branch the case at bar stands, is altogether uncertain, for the hurt which may come thereby may be little or great, leve vel grave, excessive or small, &c. and therefore a_108the King and the makers of the act could not, for an offence so uncertain, impose a certainty of the fine, or time of imprisonment, but leave it to the censors to punish such offences, secundum quantitatem delicti, which is included in these words, per fines, amerciamenta, imprisonamenta corporum suorum, et per alias vias rationibiles et congruas. 2. The harm which accrues by non bene exequendo, &c. concerns the body of man; and therefore it is reasonable that the offender should be punished in his body, sc. by imprisonment; but he who practises physic in London in a good manner, although he doth it without licence, yet it is not any prejudice to the body of man. 3. He who practises physic in Lon. doth not offend the statute by his practice, unless he practises it by the space of a month. But the clause of non bene exequendo, &c. doth not prescribe any certain time, but at what time soever he ministers physic non bene, &c. he shall be punished by the said second branch: and the law hath great reason in making this distinction, for divers nobles, ^[133]gentlemen, and others, come upon divers occasions to London, and when they are here they become subject to diseases, and thereupon they send for their physicians in the country, who know their bodies, and the cause of their diseases; now it was never the meaning of the act to bar any one of his own physician; and when he is here he may practise and minister to another by two or ^[134]three weeks, &c. without any forfeiture; for any one who practises physic bene, &c. in London (although he has not taken any degree in any of the universities) shall forfeit nothing, unless he practises it by the space of a month; and that was the reason that the time of a month was put in the act. 4. The censors cannot be ^[135]judges, ministers, and parties; judges to give sentence or judgment; ministers to make summons; and parties to have the moiety a_109of the forfeiture, quia ^[136]aliquis non debet esse Judex in propriâ causâ, imo iniquum est aliquem suæ rei esse judicem; and one cannot be judge and attorney for any of the parties, Dyer 3 E. 6. 65. 38 E. 3. 15. 8 H. 6. 19. b. 20. a. 21 E. 4. 47. a. &c. And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will ^[137]controul acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such act to be void: and therefore in 8 E. 3. 30. a. b. Thomas Tregor’s case on the statute of W. 2. c. 38. & artic’ super chartas, c. 9. Herle ^[138]saith, some statutes are made against law and right, which those who made them perceiving, would not put them in execution: the stat. of W. 2. ^[139]c. 21 gives a writ of Cessavit hæredi petenti super hæredem tenent’ & super eos quibus alienatum fuerit hujusmodi tenementum: and yet it is adjudged in 33 E. 3. ^[140]Cessavit 42. where the case was, two coparceners lords, and tenant by fealty and certain rent, one coparcener had issue and died, the aunt and the niece shall not join in a Cessavit, because the heir ^[141]shall not have a Cessavit for the cesser in the time of his ancestor, F. N. B. 209. F. and therewith agrees Plow. Com. 110. a. and the reason is, because in a Cessavit the tenant before judgment may render the arrearages and damages, &c. and retain his land, and that he cannot do when the heir brings a Cessavit for the cesser in the time of his ancestor, for the arrearages incurred in the life of the ancestor do not belong to the heir: and because it would be against common right and reason, the common law adjudges the said act of Parliament a_110as to that point void. The statute of ^[142]Carlisle, made anno 35 E. 1. enacts, that the order of the Cistercians and Augustines, who have a convent and common seal, that the common seal shall be in the keeping of the Prior, who is under the Abbot, and four others of the most grave of the house, and that any deed sealed with the common seal, which is not so in keeping shall be void: and the opinion of the court (in an. 27 H. 6. Annuity 41.) was, that this statute was ^[143]void, for it is impertinent to be observed, for the seal being in their keeping, the Abbot cannot seal any thing with it, and when it is in the Abbot’s hands, it is out of their keeping ipso facto; and if the statute should be ^[144]observed, every common seal shall be defeated upon a simple surmise, which cannot be tried. Note reader the words of the said statute at Carlisle, anno 35 E. 1. (which is called Statutum religiosorum) are, Et insuper ordinavit dominus Rex & statuit, quod Abbates Cisterc’ & Præmonstraten’ ordin’ religiosorum, &c. de cætero habeant sigillum commune, et illud in custodia Prioris monasterii seu domus, et quatuor de dignioribus et discretioribus ejusdem loci conventus sub privato sigillo Abbatis ipsius loci custod’ depo, &c. Et si forsan aliqua scripta obligationum, donationum, emptionum, venditionum, alienationum, seu aliorum quorumcunque, contractuum alio sigillo quam tali sigillo, communi sicut præmittit’ custodit inveniant’ a modo sigillat’, pro nullo penitus habeantur omnique careant firmitate. So the statute of 1 E. 6. c. 14. gives chauntries, &c. to the King, saving to the donor, &c. all such rents, services, &c. and the common law controuls it, and adjudges it void as to services, and the donor shall have the rent, as a rentseck, distrainable of common right, for it would be against common right and reason that the ^[145]King should hold of any, or do service to any of his subjects, 14 Eliz. Dyer 313. and a_111so it was adjudged Mich. 16 & 17 Eliz. in Com’ Banco in ^[146]Strowd’s case. So if any act of Parliament gives to any to hold, or to have conusans of all manner of pleas arising before him within his manor of D. yet he shall hold no plea, to which he himself is party; for, as hath been said, iniquum est aliquem suæ rei esse judicem. 5. If he should forfeit 5l. for one moiety by the first clause, and should be punished for practising at any time by the second clause, two absurdities should follow, 1. That one should be punished not only twice but many times for one and the same offence. And the divine saith, Quod ^[147]Deus non agit bis in idipsum; and the law saith, Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto. 2. It would be absurd, by the first clause, to punish practising for a month, and not for a lesser time, and by the second to punish practising not only for a day, but at any time, so he shall be punished by the first branch for one month by the forfeit of 5l. and by the second by fine and imprisonment, without limitation for every time of the month in which he practises physic. ^[148]And all these reasons were proved by two grounds, or maxims in law; 1. ^[149]Generalis clausula non porrigitur ad ea quæ specialiter sunt comprehensa: and the case between Carter and ^[150]Ringstead, Hil. 34 Eliz. Rot. 120. in Communi Banco, was cited to this purpose, where the case in effect was, that A. seized of the manor of Staple in Odiham in the county of Southampton in fee, and also of other lands in Odiham aforesaid in fee, suffered a common recovery of all and declared the use by indenture, that the recoverer should stand seised of all the lands and tenements in a_112Odiham, to the use of A. and his wife, and to the heirs of his body begotten; and further, that the recoverer should stand seised to the use of him, and to the heirs of his body, and died, and the wife survived, and entered into the said manor by force of the said general words; but it was adjudged, that they did not extend to the said manor which was specially named: and if it be so in a deed, a fortiori, it shall be so in an act of Parliament, which (as a will) is to be expounded according to the intention of the makers. 2. ^[151]Verba posteriora propter certitudinem addita ad priora quæ certitudine indigent sunt referenda. 6 E. ^[152]3. 12. a. b. Sir Adam de Clydrow Knight, brought a Præcipe quod reddat against John de Clydrow, and the writ was, Quod juste, &c. reddat manerium de Wicomb et duas carucatas terræ cum pertinentiis in Clydrow, in that case the town of Clydrow shall not relate to the manor, quia non indiget, for a manor may be demanded without mentioning that it lies in any town, but cum pertinentiis, although it comes after the town, shall relate to the manor, quia indiget. Vide 3 E. 4. 10. the like case. But it was objected, that where by the second clause it was granted, that the censors should have supervisum et scrutinium, correctionem et gubernationem omnium et singulorum medicorum, &c. they had power to fine and imprison. To that it was answered, 1. That that is but part of the sentence, for by the entire sentence it appears in what manner they shall have power to punish, for the words are, ac punitionem eorum pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo, faciendo, vel utendo illa facultate; so that without question all their power to correct and punish the physicians by this clause is only limited to these three cases, sc. in non bene exequendo, faciendo, vel utendo, &c. Also this word punitionem, is limited and restrained by these words, ita quod punitio eorundem medicorum, &c. sic in præmissis delinquentium, &c. which words, sic in præmissis delinquentium, limit the former words in the first a_113part of this sentence, ac punitionem eorum pro delictis suis in non bene exequendo, &c. 2. it would be absurd, that in one and the same sentence the makers of the act should give them a general power to punish without limitation; and a special manner how they shall punish, in one and the same sentence. 3dly, Hil. 38 Eliz. in a Quo warranto against the Mayor and Commonalty of London, it was held, that where a grant is made to the Mayor and Commonalty, that the Mayor for the time being should have ^[153]plenum et integrum scrutinium, gubernationem, et correctionem omnium et singulorum mysteriorum, &c. without granting them any court, in which should be legal proceedings, that it is good for search, whereby a discovery may be made of offences and defects, which may be punished by the law in any court, but it doth not give, nor can give them any irregular or absolute power to correct or punish any of the subjects of the kingdom at their pleasure. 2. It was objected, that it is incident to every court created by letters patent, or act of Parliament, and other courts of record, to punish any misdemeanor done in court, in disturbance or contempt of the court, by imprisonment. To which it was answered, that neither the letters patent nor the act of Parliament has granted them any court, but only an ^[154]authority, which they ought to pursue, as it shall be afterwards said. 2. If any court had been granted them, they could not by any incident authority implicitè granted them, for any misdemeanor done in court, commit him to prison without bail or mainprize, until he should be by the commandment of the president and censors, or their successors, delivered, as the censors have done in this case. 3. There was not any such misdemeanor for which any court might imprison him, for he only shewed his case to them, which, he was advised by his counsel, he might justify, which is not any offence worthy of imprisonment. The second point was, admitting that the censors had power by the act, if they had pursued their authority, or not? And it was a_114resolved by the Chief Justice, Warburton and Daniel, that they had not pursued it for six reasons. 1. By the act, the censors only have power to impose a fine, or amerciament; and the president and censors imposed the amerciament of 5l. upon the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff was summoned to appear coram presidente et censoribus, &c. et non comparuit, and therefore he was fined 10l. whereas the president had no authority in that case. 3. The fines or amerciaments to be imposed by them, by force of the act, do not belong to them, but to the King, for the King had not granted the fines or amerciaments to them, and yet the fine is appointed to be paid to them, in proximis comitiis, and they have imprisoned the plaintiff for non-payment thereof. 4. They ought to have committed the plaintiff presently, by construction of law, although that no time be limited in the act, as in the statute of W. 2. cap. 11 ^[155]De servientibus, ballivis, &. qui ad compotum reddend’ tenentur, &c. cum dom’ hujusmodi servientium dederit eis auditores compoti, et contingat ipsos in arrearagiis super compotum suum omnibus allocatis et allocandis, arrestentur corpora eorum, et per testimonium auditorum ejusdem compoti mittantur et liberentur proximæ gaolæ domini Regis in partibus illis, etc. In that case, although no time be limited when the accomptant shall be imprisoned, yet it ought to be done ^[156]presently, as it is held in 27 H. 6. 8. a. and the reason thereof is given in Fogassa’s case, Plowd. Com. 17. b. that the generality of the time shall be restrained to the present time, for the benefit of him upon whom the pain shall be inflicted, and therewith agrees Plow. Com. 206. b. in Stradling’s case. And a Justice ^[157]of Peace upon view of the force, ought to commit the offender presently. a_1155. Forasmuch as the censors had their authority by the letters patent and act of Parliament, which are high matters of record, their proceedings ought not to be by parol, & eo potius, because they claim authority to fine and imprison, and therefore, if judgment be given against one in the Common Pleas in a writ of ^[158]recaption, he shall be fined and imprisoned, but if the writ be vicontiel in the county, there he shall not be fined nor imprisoned, because a writ of the court is not of record, F. N. B. in Recaption; so in F. N. B. 47. a. a plea of trespass vi et armis doth not lie in the county court, hundred court, &c. for they cannot make a record of fine and imprisonment; and regularly they who cannot make ^[159]a record, cannot fine and imprison. And therewith agrees 27 H. 6. 8. Book of Entries, tit. Account, fol. —. The auditors make a record when they commit the defendant to prison; a Justice of Peace upon view of the force may commit, but he ought to make a record of it. 6. Forasmuch as the act of 14 H. 8. has given power to imprison till he shall be delivered by the president and the censors, or their successors, reason requires that it should be taken strictly, for the liberty of the subject (as they pretend) is at their pleasure: and this is well proved by a judgment in Parliament in this very case; for when this act of 14 H. 8. had given the censors power to imprison, yet it was taken so literally, that the gaoler was not bound to receive such as they should commit to him, and the reason thereof was, because they had authority to do it without any court: and thereupon the statute of 1 Ma. ^[160]cap 9. was made, that the gaoler should receive them upon a penalty, and yet none can commit any to prison, unless the gaoler receives him: but the first act, for the cause a_116aforesaid, was taken so literally, that no necessary incident was implied. And where it was objected, that this very act of 1 Mar. cap. 9. has enlarged the power of the censors, and they urged it upon the words of the act; it was clearly resolved, that the said act of 1. Mar. did not enlarge the power of the censors to fine or imprison any person for any cause for which he ought not to be fined and imprisoned by the said act of ^[161]14. H. 8. For the words of the act of Queen Mary are, “according to the tenor and meaning of the said act:” also “shall send or commit any offender or offenders for his or their offence or disobedience, contrary to any article or clause contained in the said grant or act, to any ward, gaol, &c.” But in this case Bonham has not done any thing which appears within this record, contrary to any article or clause contained within the grant or act of 14 H. 8. Also the gaoler who refuses shall forfeit the double value of the fines and amerciaments that any offender or disobedient shall be assessed to pay; which proves that none shall be received by any gaoler by force of the act of 14 H. 8. but he who may be lawfully fined or amerced by the act of 14 H. 8. and that was not Bonham, as by the reasons and causes aforesaid appears. And admitting that the replication be not material, and the defendants have demurred upon it; yet forasmuch as the defendants have confessed in the bar, that they have imprisoned the plaintiff without cause, the plaintiff shall have judgment: and the difference is, when the plaintiff ^[162]replies, and by his replication it appears that he has no cause of action, there he shall never have judgment: but when the ^[163]bar a_117is sufficient in matter, or amounts (as the case is) to a confession of the point of the action, and the plaintiff replies, and shews the truth of the matter to enforce his case, and in judgment of law it is not material, yet the plaintiff shall have judgment, for it is true that sometimes the declaration shall be made good by the bar, and sometimes the bar by the replication, and sometimes the replication by the rejoinder, &c. but the difference is, when the declaration wants time, place, or other ^[164]circumstance, it may be made good by the bar, so of the bar, replication, &c. as appears in 18 E. 4. 16. b. But when the declaration wants substance, no bar can make it good; so of the bar, replication, &c. and therewith agrees 6. E. 4. 2. a good case, and nota there dictum Coke. Vide 18 E. 3. 34. b. 44 E. 3. 7, a. 12 E. 4. 6. 6 H. 7. 10. 7 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 4. 24. &c. But when the plaintiff makes replication, sur-rejoinder, &c. and thereby it appears, that upon the ^[165]whole record the pl. has no cause of action, he shall never have judgment, although the bar or rejoinder, &c. be insufficient in matter; for the court ought to judge upon the whole record, and every one shall be intended to make the best of his own case. Vide ^[166]Ridgeway’s case, in the Third Part of my Reports 52. b. and so these differences were resolved and adjudged between ^[167]Kendal and Helyer, Mich. 25 & 26 Eliz. in the K.’s Bench, and Mich. 29 & 30 Eliz. in the same court, between ^[168]Gallys and Burbry. And Coke Ch. Just. in the conclusion of his argument observed seven things for the better direction of the president and commonalty of the said college for the future. 1. That none can be punished for practising physic in London, but by forfeiture of 5l. by the month, which is to be recovered by the law. 2. If any practise physic there a_118for a less time than a month, that he shall forfeit nothing. 3. If any person prohibited by the statute offends in non bene exeq’ &c. they may punish him according to the stat. within the month. 4. Those who they may commit to prison by the stat. ought to be commit. ^[169]presently. 5. The fines which they set, according to the statute, belong to the King. 6. They cannot impose a fine, or imprisonment without a record of it. 7. The cause for which they impose fine and imprisonment ought to be certain, for it is ^[170]traversable: for although they have letters patent, and an act of Parliament, yet because the party grieved has no other remedy, neither by writ of error, or otherwise, and they are not made Judges, nor a court given them, but have an ^[171]authority only to do it, the cause of their commitment is traversable in an action of false imprisonment brought against them; as upon the statute of ^[172]bankrupts, their warrant is under the great seal, and by act of Parliament; yet because the party grieved has no other remedy, if the commissioners do not pursue the act and their commission, he shall traverse, that he was not a bankrupt, although the commissioners affirm him to be one; as this term it was resolved in this court, in trespass between Cutt ^[173]and Delabarre, where the issue was, whether Will. Cheyney was a bankrupt or not, who was found by the commissioners to be a bankrupt; a fortiori in the case at bar, the cause of the imprisonment is traversable; for otherwise the party grieved may be perpetually, without just cause, imprisoned by them; but the record of a force made by a Justice of Peace is not traversable, a_119because he doth it as Judge, by the statutes of ^[174]15 R. 2. and 8 H. 6. and so there is a difference when one makes a record as a Judge, and when he doth a thing by special authority, (as they did in the case at bar) and not as a Judge. And afterwards, for the said two last points, judgment was given for the plaintiff, nullo contradicente, as to them. And I acquainted Sir Thomas Fleming, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, with this judgment, and with the reasons and causes of it, and he well approved of the judgment which we had given: and this is the first judgment on the said branch concerning fine and imprisonment which has been given since the making of the said charter and acts of Parliament, and therefore I thought it worthy to be reported and published.

This was an action of trespass for an assault, battery, wounding and false imprisonment. The defendants as to the beating and wounding, plead not guilty, and as to the residue of the trespass they justify; for that by letters patent dated the 23 of September 10 H. 8 the king granted, that they, viz. the doctors of physick in London, should be a body and perpetual community, per nomen præsidentis & collegii five communitat’ facultat’ medicin’ London’, &c. and that they might make By-Laws; & quod quatour singulis a_120annis eligerentur qui haberent scrutinium correctionem & gubernationem omnium & singulorum dictæ civitatis medicorum & aliorum medicorum forinsecorum facultate illa utentium infra eandem civitatem & suburbia, ac infra septem milliaria in circuitu ejusdem, ac punitionem eorundem pro delictis suis in non bene exercendo, &c. per fines amerciamenta & imprisonamentum corporum suorum; and that these letters patent were confirmed by an act of parliament of 14 H. 8. And that on the 1st of January 8 W. 3. the plaintiff exercised the art of physick in London, and that he administered bad and unwholesome physick to one woman and that the said woman and her husband complained to the defendants, being the censors of the said college; upon which complaint the plaintiff was summoned before them, and upon examination they found him guilty of administering unwholesome physick, by means of which the said woman languished; and thereupon they fined the plaintiff 20l. and made a warrant under their hands and seals to —— —— who was also a defendant, to take the plaintiff; who took him pursuant to such warrant and conveyed him to prison; which is the residue of the trespass of which the plaintiff complains. The plaintiff replies protestando, that there are no such letters patent, and no such act of parliament; and protestando, that the plaintiff did not administer such unwholesome physick; that the defendants of their own wrong committed the trespass; absque hoc quod, that the plaintiff was taken and committed by force of the said warrant: and to this it was demurred. And this case was divers times argued, and many exceptions were taken to the plea and to the replication; and now this term judgment was given for the defendants. And Holt C. J. delivered the opinion of the court; and said, that the rest of the Judges were agreed, that the replication of the plaintiff was ill, and that the plea of the defendants was good. The plaintiff in his replication traverses the taking by the warrant mentioned in the plea of the defendants; and this is ill both in substance and in form; for in point of form he ought not to a_121traverse the taking by force of the warrant, but that there was not any such warrant; for if it were necessary that the arrest of the plaintiff should be by the same warrant that was mentioned before in the pleading that if the defendants had shewn in their plea another warrant than that which was shewn at the time of the arrest, the plaintiff ought not to have said, that he was not taken by this warrant but that there was not any such warrant. But the replication is not good in point of substance; for the plaintiff seems to intend, that the warrant by which he was arrested was unlawful, yet the plaintiff shall not have advantage of it, if there was another warrant which was lawful to take him at the same time; for if there are two warrants, the one lawful and the other unlawful, and the party is taken upon the illegal warrant, yet he who apprehends him may justify himself by the authority of the legal warrant; and this appears by the case Mich 34 Ed. 1 Fitz. Avowry, 232 cited 3 Co. 26. a. If a man takes a distress for a thing for which he has not good cause of distress, but had good cause of distress for another thing; if a replevin is brought, and he comes into court, he may avow for which thing he pleases. Then it was considered whether the plea of the defendants was good; to which it had been objected that it was ill for the uncertainty; for the cause of the commitment being traversable ought to be alleged with certainty. Secondly, That by the plea it appears, that the plaintiff was fined and imprisoned also; the censors (of the college of Physicians the defendants) have authority to impose a fine, and to imprison for non-payment of that fine, or they may imprison for the offence; but they cannot both fine and imprison for the same offence, as in this case; for it does not appear that the imprisonment was for non-payment of the fine but the plaintiff was both fined and imprisoned, and so was twice punished for one offence. Thirdly, the plea does not shew that the plaintiff was one of the college. Fourthly, The plea makes no answer to the assault; it does not shew that there was any assault, or set forth any justification of it. a_122But Holt C. J. said that the Court held the plea to be good, for it goes to the whole declaration; as to the battery and wounding the defendants plead not guilty, as to the residue of the trespass they justify; and the residue of the trespass comprehends the assault, and every other part of the declaration to which the plea (of not guilty) does not extend: and there is no need that the plaintiff should be of the college; for it appears that he exercised his faculty within London and the censors have jurisdiction within London and the suburbs, and seven miles in circumference; and it appears by the words of the Charter, that the censors have power to punish by fine and imprisonment; and how they exercise that authority we do not enquire, as it will be apparent afterwards in the answer to the first objection, and which is the most material one. In answer to the first objection, then, we say, First that the cause of the commitment is not traversable. Secondly if it were traversable, it is set forth with certainty enough. That the cause of commitment is not traversable appears by the authority which the censors have by the act of parliament; for by it they are constituted judges of fact, what is a mal-administration (of medicines) and what is not: and they are judges of record for they have authority to impose fine and imprisonment; and when a new authority is constituted, with power to fine and imprison, the persons invested with such authority are judges of record; for that every thing proves a court to be a court of record, viz. the power of fining and imprisoning; for courts which are not of record can neither set a fine nor commit any one to prison. 8 Co. 38. b. And there it is proved, that the leet can impose a fine, because it is a court of record; and forasmuch as the statute W. 2. c. 11 impowers the auditors to commit the accountant to prison the auditors are thereby made judges of record; as is observed 10 Co. 103. a. 2. Inst. 218. Then the censors being constituted judges of the matter, that which they have done as such they shall not be answerable for; and that a judge shall not be answerable for an act done by him as a judge, appears a_123by 12 Co. 24. and the cases there cited. True it is, that if a justice of(a) peace issue his warrant to imprison the party, or to arrest him until such time as he can be brought before him, or if the commissioners of bankrupts commit a witness for refusing to be examined(a) it may be determined in an action, whether they have pursued their authority or not; for their act in this respect is only ministerial;(b) and the commitment is not intended as a punishment, but only as a mesne process to bring the party to justice, or to make him do his duty. My Lord Coke, it is true, says in Dr. Bonham’s case, 8 Co. 121 a. that the cause of commitment was traversable; but this opinion was there given obiter, and was not essential to the case in judgment; for there the question was, for practising without the licence of the college, for which the party could not be imprisoned; and Dr. Bonham being a graduate in the university, my Lord Coke was carried away by his affection to his Alma Mater so far as to make a resolution in the present point, which was not in the case before him: but my Lord Coke says, that upon a conviction by the censors, they ought to make a record of it, which admits they are judges of record; and then by his own rule there in the case of a justice of peace who made a conviction of a force, and the cases in his other works, their acts (the acts of the justices of the peace) cannot be traversed; and my Lord Coke does not cite any authority in support of his opinion (as to the point now before us). The reason which he gives why the party has no remedy by writ of error or otherwise is of no weight: I grant that a writ of error lies not; for the censors having a new authority by a special act of parliament and their proceedings being directed to be in a summary way there is no need for them to pursue the forms and methods of others courts; and it is sufficient for them to make such summary proceeding as justices of the peace in many cases may do; yet the party is not without remedy for he may have a Certiorari to remove the record of conviction, and then it may be examined and reviewed, to see whether it be a_124pursuant to their authority; for in every case where a new jurisdiction is set up for a special purpose this court by virtue of its original power may award a Mandamus to make them put their authority in execution, and a Certiorari to look into their proceeding whether it be conformable to their authority or not. Thus a Certiorari lies to remove an indictment for felony before the justices of the peace (bro. Eliz. 489. Long’s case) to remove orders before commissioners of sewers, or by justices of the peace who have authority to make conviction of a force in their presence, or for deer-stealing, but although no Certiorari did lie (in the present case) it is not consequential that the cause of their commitment is traversable; for if the parliament intrusts them with a power so great that no act of theirs shall be reversed or reviewed, there is the less reason that their proceeding should be examined or traversed in an action; a jury is not finable for giving a verdict against evidence; and though there are many cases where jurymen have been fined (1) yet Bushel’s case, in which all the others are cited, is sufficient to controul all the rest. Vauq. 135 (a) and if a juror shall not be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished for refusing to find a man guilty upon apparent and plain evidence, much less shall a judge be liable to censure. In the case (b) of Hammond and Powell, P. 29 Car. 2 an action for false-imprisonment was brought after the resolution in Bushel’s case for his imprisonment (for Hammond was one of the same jury with Bushel and fined 40l. and imprisoned for it at the same time,) and notwithstanding that the fine and imprisonment were illegal yet it was adjudged that the action did not lie for false-imprisonment against the judge or the officer; so a fine imposed by a judge of a court is not traversable as an amercement is. 7 H. 6. 13. a. As to the case between Terry and Huntington Hard. 480 which may be objected; that is good law; for there an action was brought against the commissioners of excise, who had charged a man for the duty upon strong waters, where the liquor made by him was low wine of the a_125first extraction, and the action well lay, for they had exceeded their jurisdiction; for low wines of the first extraction were not chargeable within the act of parliament; and if they had charged a duty upon a liquor not chargeable with it, they were not to be excused for having named it strong waters. If a justice of the peace commits a man for being the Father of a bastard child no action lies against the justice if the man was the father of a bastard otherwise if he had no bastard at all. So the case between Nickols and Walker, Cro. Car. 394, (a) is good law, for there an inhabitant of Tottridge was charged to the poor of Hatfield; and the justices of the peace have power to award a distress, where a person is assessed to the poor of the parish where he hath land or is an inhabitant; but where he is charged to the relief of another parish there the case is beyond their jurisdiction. But if the cause of the commitment were traversable yet the plea of the defendants here is good, for it shews with certainty in what the ill-administration of the physic consisted viz in the use of unwholesome drugs: and although it is not said what drugs he used, it is no matter, for how shall we be informed whether he has shewn them. In an action against a surgeon for an inartificial cure the plaintiff does not shew what plaisters the defendant used. As to what hath been said that the plea does not shew for what malady the medicines were given; it was answered that it would be so much the worse if the medicines were given when the party had not any malady at all. And although it is not said that the witnesses upon whose testimony the fine was imposed were upon oath, yet the plea is sufficient; for it may be that it was not necessary that they should be sworn or if it were needful the omission of it is not such as will make their proceedings void. In such a special jurisdiction in which the proceeding is to be in a summary manner it is not needful to observe all the circumstances which are necessary in other legal proceedings.—Judgment for the defendants.

The Question was, whether a Man, that had taken his Degree of Doctor of Physick, in either of the Universities, might not practise in London, and within seven miles of the same, without a Licence from the College of Physicians.

The Court clear of Opinion, that a Licence from the College was necessary; and that by reason of the Charter of Incorporation, confirmed by 14 & 15 Hen. 8. cap. 5. penn’d in very strong and negative words.

As to the Testimonials granted by the Universities upon a Person’s taking the Doctors Degree; the Court was of Opinion, That these Testimonials might have the Nature of a Recommendation; they might give a Man a fair Reputation, but conferr’d no Right; and consequently all those Statutes, which have confirmed the Privileges of the Universities, could revive or confirm nothing but the Reputation, that this Testimonial might give such Graduates.

And whereas it has been insisted, That by the last Clause of the Statute, it is said, That none shall practise in the Country without a licence from the President and three Elects, unless he be a Graduate of one of the Universities, it was said all the inference from that would be, That possibly two Licences may be necessary where a person is not a Graduate.

In the Case of Dr. Levet, Lord Chief Justice Holt did not think this a Question worth being found specially.

The College of Physicians are without doubt more competent Judges of the Qualifications of a Physician than the Universities, and there may be many good Reasons for taking a particular care of those, that practise Physick in London.

15^th March, 1703.

In the 10^th year of Hen. 8. the defendants were incorporated; and, in the letters patent granted for that purpose, which were confirmed by stat. 14 and 15 Hen. 8. c. 5. is, inter alia, the following clause: “Concessimus, etiam eisdem præsidenti et collegio, seu communitati, et successoribus suis, quod nemo in dicta civitate, aut per septem milliaria in circuitu ejusdem, exerceat dictum facultatem, nisi ad hoc perdict, præsidentem et communitatem, seu successores eorum qui pro tempore fuerint, admissus sit per ejudem præsidents et collegii literas sigillo suo communi sigillatas, sub pœna centum solidorum pro quolibet mense, quo non admissus eandem facultatem exercit, dimidium inde nobis et hæred. nostris, et dimidium dicto præsidenti et coll. applicandum.”

The plaintiff, who was an apothecary, and freeman of London, attended one Seale, a butcher, in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields, and made up and administered proper medicines to him; but, without any licence from the faculty, and also without the direction of any physician, and without taking or demanding any fee for his advice.

The defendants apprehending this conduct to be an infringement of their privileges, brought their action against the plaintiff, to recover the penalty of 5l. per month, under the above clause in their charter; and, on the trial, the jury found a special verdict, stating the charter, the confirmatory statute, and the facts of the case; and submitted to the Court, whether the defendant Rose did practice physic, within the intent of the letters patent and act of Parliament.—And, after this verdict had been three several times argued in the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Judges were unanimously of opinion, that the facts found did amount a_128to the practising physic, within the meaning of the act of Parliament; and gave judgment accordingly.

Hereupon, a writ of error in Parliament, was brought to reverse this judgment; and on behalf of the Plaintiff in error, it was argued, that the consequences of it would not only ruin him, but all other apothecaries; as, in case of the affirmance of this judgment, they could not exercise their profession, without the licence of a physician. That the constant usage and practice, which had always been with the apothecary, was conceived to be the best expounder of this charter; and, that therefore, the selling a few lozenges, or a small electuary, to any person asking a remedy for a cold, or in other ordinary or common cases, where the medicines had a known and certain effect, could not be deemed unlawful; or practising as a physician, when no fee was taken or demanded for the same. That the physicians by straining an act made so long ago, endeavoured to monopolize all manner of physic solely to themselves; and if they should succeed in this attempt, it would be attended with many mischievous consequences: For, in the first place, it would be laying a heavy tax on the nobility and gentry, who, in the slightest cases, and even for their common servants, could not have any kind of medicine, without consulting and giving a fee, to a member of the college: It would also be a great oppression upon poor families, who, not being able to bear the charge of a fee, would be deprived of all kind of assistance in their necessities: And, it would prove extremely prejudicial to all sick persons, who, in case of sudden accidents, or new symptoms, happening in the night-time, generally send for the apothecary; but who should not dare to apply the least remedy, without running the hazard of being ruined.

On the other side, it was contended, that by several orders of the college, its members were enjoined to give their advice to the poor gratis; and that not only to such as could come to them for it; but every physician, in his neighbourhood, was obliged to visit the sick poor, at their a_129own lodgings; and therefore the objection, that, if the apothecaries could not administer physic but by the prescript of a physician, the poorer sort of people would be lost for want of proper remedies, had not the least foundation. And, when these orders were observed not to have their full intended effect, on account of the high prices which the apothecaries generally demanded for the remedies prescribed, whereby the poor were deterred from consulting the physician, for fear of the charge of the physic; the college, by a joint stock, erected several dispensaries in town, where, after the physicians had given their advice gratis, the patients might have the physic prescribed, for a third, and generally less, of what the apothecaries used to exact for it; by which expedient, many hundred persons of mean condition, received their cures at a very small expense, and without one farthing profit arising to the physicians. That in cases of sudden and immediate necessity, not only apothecaries, but any other person, might do his best to relieve his neighbour, without incurring the penalty of the law; but there was no reason why the apothecaries, under that pretence, should be permitted to undertake, at leisure, all dangerous diseases; and especially where, as in this city at least, a skilful physician may be as soon had as an apothecary. That, in common or trifling indispositions, the patients themselves were generally their own physicians; and would of course, send for any medicine, of which there had been common experience, for their cure, and which the apothecary might lawfully make up and sell; but, for the apothecary to be permitted to judge of diseases in their beginning, whether slight or not, and to order medicines for the same, would prove both dangerous, and more chargeable. Dangerous, because the most malignant distempers usually begin with apparently inconsiderable symptoms, and are many days before they appear in their proper colours; and, as apothecaries are not bred to have suitable skill, the management thereof ought not to be left to their judgment. And more chargeable, because, be the disease a_130ever so slight, the apothecary will be sure to prescribe largely enough; and should he chance to mistake, then that distemper, which, by the discreet advice of a physician, might, by one proper medicine, have been eradicated at the beginning, runs out into great length, to the extreme hazard and great expense of the patient.

But, after hearing counsel on this writ of error, it was Ordered and Adjudged, that the judgment given in the Queen’s Bench, for the President and College, or Commonalty of the faculty of Physic, London, against the said Wm. Rose, should be reversed.

This was a rule calling on the president and College or commonalty of physic in London to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to examine C. Stanger, M.D. as to his qualification and fitness to be admitted into the said Corporation as a member or fellow thereof.

Doctor Stanger, after referring to the above statutes (3 Hen. 8: 14 & 15 Hen. 8) and Charter, stated in his affidavit that in 1783 he took a degree of doctor of physic at Edinburgh after a residence there for three years, and after having studied physic there and at other places for many years; that afterwards he went abroad to France, Italy, and Germany, and studied physic there for several years more. That in 1789 he obtained a licence from the college of physicians here in the usual way to practise in London and within seven miles thereof, and that he has a_131practised ever since. That in June 1796 he applied to the president and college at their general meeting to be admitted by them to be a member of their corporation, submitting himself to be previously examined by them concerning his qualification and fitness to be admitted a member of the corporation, which the college refused. Dr. Stanger also added in his affidavit that he was duly qualified and fit to be admitted a member of the college.

The affidavits in answer to the rule disclosed the following (among other) facts. For two hundred years past there have been three classes of persons practising physic in London and seven miles round; the fellows; candidates, persons desirous of becoming members and who have been examined and approved by the president and censors to be candidates for election into the society or fellowship; and the licentiates, who may practise as fully in all respects as fellows and have the same benefits and advantages. Various bye-laws have been made by the college respecting the qualifications of persons to be admitted fellows, one of them so long ago as 1637, by which it was ordained that no person should be admitted a fellow unless he had performed all his exercises and disputations in one of our universities without dispensation, and which has continued ever since with some little alterations. To prevent any mistakes arising from the words “aliquâ Britanniæ Academiâ” in some of the bye-laws respecting this qualification, an explanatory bye-law was made in 1751, in which it was declared that the meaning of the words was that no person should be admitted who was not a Doctor of Physic of Oxford or Cambridge. The bye-laws of the college have been revised and altered since the year 1768. By those now in existence no person can be admitted a fellow unless he has been a candidate for a year, except in certain cases hereafter mentioned. No person can be admitted into the class of candidates unless he has been created a Doctor of Physic in the university of Oxford or Cambridge, or unless he has obtained the same degree in the university of Dublin and has been incorporated a_132into one of the universities of Oxford or Cambridge; nor can any such person be admitted into the class of candidates until after he has been examined as to his knowledge of physic in three of the greater or lesser meetings (called the comitia majora and comitia minora) of the college. After a person has been a candidate for a year, he may be proposed by the president at one of the greater meetings and admitted a fellow, if the majority of fellows consent, without further examination. But by two other bye-laws persons not having the above qualifications may be proposed in one of two ways; by one, the president is enabled once in every other year at the comitia minora to propose one licentiate of ten years standing, who may (if the major part of the comitia minora consent) be proposed by the president at the next comitia majora to be elected a fellow, and if the majority of fellows then present consent, he may then be admitted a fellow. By the other, any one of the fellows may propose any licentiate, of seven years standing and of the age of 36, in the comitia majora to be examined; if the major part of the fellows consent, such licentiate may be examined by the president or vice-president and censors, and if approved by the major part of the fellows then present, he may be proposed at the next comitia majora to be a fellow, and admitted if the majority of the fellows then present consent. The ordinary greater meetings (comitia majora) are holden four times a year, and consist of the president or vice-president and ten fellows at the least. The ordinary lesser meetings (comitia minora) consisting of the president or vice-president registar and censors of the college, are holden once a month. A letter was also inserted in the affidavits written by King Charles the Second to the college not to admit any person who had not had his education in either of our universities of Oxford or Cambridge: but it was admitted in the argument that no notice could legally be taken of this letter. It was also stated in the affidavits that Dr. Stanger, when he was licensed; gave his a_133faith or promise to the college that he would observe the statutes of the college &c. in the usual mode.

Adair Serjt. Law, Chambre, and Christian, argued in support of the rule; and

Erskine, Gibbs, Dampier, and Warren, against it.

The case was argued very much at length on three several days: but it is unnecessary to give a detail of the arguments, as the Court in giving their opinions went into them. The points insisted upon by the counsel in support of the rule were these; 1st. That under the general words of the charter “omnes homines ejusdem facultatis” &c. Dr. Stanger, who came within that description by his license, had an inchoate right, which authorised him to tender himself to the college for examination in order that he might be admitted, if on examination the president and college thought him qualified; though they admitted that the president and college were the sole judges of his fitness. And they referred to the several dicta of Lord Mansfield and Aston J. in R. v. Dr. Askew and others, 4 Burr. 2169; 2202; 2193; 2202. Secondly, That the bye-laws requiring an education at either of our universities or at Dublin were illegal and void, on grounds of public policy, and also on the ground that they superadded a qualification not required by the Charter, 4 Burr. 2198, 9; 2203, 4; and that it narrowed the number of the eligible; R. v. Spencer, 3 Burr. 1827; and R. v. Cutbush, 4 Burr. 2204.

On the other hand it was insisted, 1st. That Dr. Stanger had no right to be examined in order to be a fellow, either as a licentiate, Dr. Archer’s case, 4 Burr. 2203; or as coming within the description “omnes homines ejusdem facultatis” &c.; but that the election into that body was a mere matter of grant or favor, for that the charter evidently marked out two descriptions of persons, the members of the college (the fellows) and all those who practised physic in London or within seven miles thereof, that the former were to superintend the latter; and that if the latter had also a a_134right to be admitted fellows the distinction between the governors and the governed would be destroyed, and the very object of the charter and act of parliament, in giving to the fellows the superintendance of the others practising physic in and about London, would be defeated;—observing that the usage for a long period was in favour of this construction. 2dly, That Dr. Stanger, by giving his faith when he received his licence in 1789, was estopped to object to the bye-laws. But this point was abandoned in the course of the argument; it being considered that he was only bound to observe the bye-laws of the college that were not illegal. 3dly, That the bye-laws were neither against sound policy or law; and instances were alluded to of degrees taken in either of our universities giving privileges to the persons taking them in the other professions. And the counsel observed that the not having taken a degree in one of our universities was not an absolute bar to any person becoming a fellow of the college, there being two modes by which he might gain admission without that qualification.

Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. If in deciding this question it were necessary for us to answer all the arguments that have been urged at the bar, I should have desired further time to consider of the subject; but as the grounds on which I am warranted to determine the case lie in a very narrow compass, and I have formed my opinion upon it, I wish to put the question at rest now. By what fatality it has happened that almost ever since this charter was granted this learned body have been in a state of litigation I know not; and I cannot but lament that the learned Judges in deciding the cases reported in Burrow did not confine themselves to the points immediately before them, and dropped hints that perhaps have invited litigation; though indeed I cannot see what these parties are contending for that is worth the expense and anxiety attending this litigation. The public already have the benefit of the assistance of the licentiates; and their emoluments, the fair fruits of their education and advice, are just the same as those that the fellows of the college a_135receive. We have however been pressed with the authority of those who have preceded us here: no person can have a greater veneration for those characters than I have, and if this point had been decided by them, I should have thought myself bound by their decision. But the cases are unlike. The principal ground on which it was said in 4 Burr. 2199. that the bye-laws of the college were bad was, that “they interfered with their exercising their own judgment, and prevented them from receiving into their body persons known or thought by them to be really fit and qualified;” and if I had found that objection existed in this case, I should have thought it fatal: but in the very sentence in which Lord Mansfield expressed himself as above, he added “such of them indeed as only require a proper education and a sufficient degree of skill and qualification may be still retained.” Two universities have been founded in this country, amply endowed and furnished with professors in the different sciences; and I should be sorry that those who have been educated at either of them should undervalue the benefits of such an education.

In this case it is admitted that a licentiate does not de facto become a fellow of the college: it is admitted that he must be first examined, and that those who are called the College of Physicians are to judge of his fitness. It seems that the appeal here is rather made ad verecundiam, and that Dr. Stanger could not be rejected if he were examined. If the college are not judges of the fitness of the person examined, I do not know who is. Then is this a reasonable test of the fitness of the party? possibly they might have framed a better, though I do not say that they could; but the question here is whether this is a reasonable bye-law? According to the concurrent opinions of all mankind it is. The Legislature have considered that persons who have taken their degrees in our universities are entitled to certain privileges in the church. So if we look into our own profession, those who have been educated at our universities have particular privileges; and though the inns of court are not a_136corporations, yet their regulations shew that this has been considered as reasonable. It is not that a person becomes qualified from keeping his commons within the walls of the inns of court or the universities, but living with those of the profession will probably advance him in the knowledge of that profession for which he is a candidate. Again in the civil law; however competent any particular individual may be from extraordinary endowments or the exertion of superior talents, he must first take his degrees at one of our universities, and afterwards continue a year in a state of probation before he can practise. Those regulations that are adapted to the common race of men are the best: it does not follow that all institutions calculated for the ordinary classes are to be prostrated merely because they stand in the way of some few individuals of superior talents. Then the question is whether this is a reasonable bye-law that requires a degree to be taken at one of our universities, which in general is supposed to be conferred as a reward for talents and learning. If indeed this had been a sine qua non, and it had operated as a total exclusion of every other mode of gaining access to the college, it would have been a bad bye-law: but these bye-laws point out other modes of gaining admission into the college. If Dr. Stanger has all those requisites that qualify a person for that high station, any one of the fellows may now propose him; he may apply to the honourable feelings of the college, to the very same tribunal to which this mandamus (if it were granted) would refer him; for in all events he must submit to their examination and determination. In the profession of the church, we find that the bishops insist on having a testimonial of the person to be ordained signed by a certain number of clergymen; and though the bishops themselves may have the power of judging of the fitness of the person to be ordained it was never doubted but that this was one reasonable test of fitness, even before examination: it is a test to regulate their own conduct. So here I think this is a reasonable test. Therefore on this short ground, without entering a_137into any of the other topics that have been argued, I am of opinion that these are good and reasonable bye-laws, and that we are bound to refuse the writ.

Ashhurst, J. Though this matter has taken a considerable time in the argument, it is now reduced to a narrow compass. The counsel who have argued for the issuing of the mandamus do not contend that a licentiate, as such, does ipso facto become a member or a fellow of the college: they only say that any man who is fit in learning and morals has a right to offer himself for examination, without any superadded qualification; and therefore that the bye-law requiring “that every licentiate, in order to entitle him to offer himself for examination, shall be a doctor of one of the two universities in England or that of Dublin,” is a void bye-law. It is not denied by counsel who have argued for the rule that the corporation have the right of making bye-laws for the regulation of their own body. And Lord Mansfield, on whose authority they ground themselves as in their favour, said in 4 Burr. 2199, “that such bye-laws as only require a proper education and a sufficient degree of skill and qualification may be still retained; that there can be no objection to cautions of this sort; and the rather if it be true that there are some amongst the licentiates unfit to be received into any society.” This brings it then to the question, whether the bye-law now under discussion is or is not to be considered as a bye-law of regulation. It does appear to me that in order to ensure a proper education and a competence in a learning, there cannot be a more likely method than the having spent fourteen years in one of our learned universities, and, after having been examined by persons competent to the subject, having been admitted to a doctor’s degree. This it should seem would prevent in limine the danger of that happening, which Lord Mansfield complains of, namely, of persons being admitted amongst the licentiates unfit to be received into that society. Indeed the Legislature so long ago as the passing of the act of the 14 and 15 Henry 8. seemed to shew their own opinion how a_138much stress ought to be laid on such a kind of test; for there, in speaking of country physicians, the act says, “that no person shall be suffered to exercise or practise in physic through England until such time as he be examined in London by the president and three elects, and have from them letters testimonial of their approving and examination:” but then the act goes on with this exception (viz.) “unless he be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge, which hath accomplished all things for his form without any grace.” This shews the opinion of the legislative body of that day; and the college might think it a very fit model for their imitation in the formation of the bye-law now under discussion, and that it would prevent them from having their time too much broken in upon by improper applications for examination. I would not be thought to infer that the gentleman now applying is in any degree deficient either in learning or education: but general laws cannot give way to particular cases; and as this law has been of some standing, we must suppose it has been found to be attended with general convenience, and therefore it should be abided by. I therefore concur in the opinion that the rule for a mandamus should be discharged.

Grose, J. This being a motion for a mandamus to a body incorporated by charter, we must see that we are authorised by the charter or the bye-laws to grant the application. On examining the charter, which was confirmed by act of parliament, we find that there was a select body of eight including the president, and an indefinite number of the commonalty. The election of the president is to be made annually by the college; so also is the election of the four censors. The intention of the crown was to put an end to the mischiefs occasioned by the ignorance of the unskilful practitioners; and for that purpose this corporation was created, with power of making bye-laws, of admitting skilful persons to practise physic, and of preventing all others practising: the great object was to admit only those to practise physic who were (to use the language of the act) a_139“profound sad and discreet, groundedly learned and deeply studied in physic.” How or when the fellows are to be chosen or admitted is not directed by the charter: it is left to the discretion of the persons named in the charter under the general power given to them of perpetuating themselves and of making bye-laws. The charter is therefore silent both as to the election of fellows, and as to the examination of them before election: but the examination is incident to the power of election. The charter being silent on these heads, and the college having the power of making bye-laws, they have made bye-laws to ascertain a criterion of fitness of future candidates, by pointing out in some cases the mode of their education, in others the persons by whom they were to be proposed as candidates. One of these bye-laws is objected to as illegal, because it requires a degree to be taken at one of our universities, which (it is contended) is superadding a qualification to those required by the charter: but I think it is only ascertaining a criterion of fitness as has been done most properly in other professions in cases alluded to both at the bar and bench. Then it is said that a licenciate has an inchoate right: if by that Dr. Stanger’s counsel mean that he has one qualification which when added to others may give him a right of admission, I agree with them; but the college are to judge of the other qualifications: if by this inchoate right they mean any thing more, I dissent from them. It is admitted by this application that the college have a right to insist on an examination: and upon what ground? as a test of fitness—but though this right is not expressly given to them by the charter, nor is there a word denoting any obligation either to admit or examine, it is incident to their power of judging who is fit to be admitted. That Lord Mansfield thought that they have such a right incidently is clear from what fell from him in Dr. Askew’s case, in which he said, “It is true that the judgment and discretion of determining upon this skill ability learning and sufficiency to exercise and practise this profession is trusted to the college of physicians: and this a_140Court will not take it from them in the due and proper exercise of it.” The same power that authorises them to judge of fitness also authorises them to regulate the mode by which they shall judge. They think, of which they are much better judges than we can be, that every man who is to be a candidate ought either to have taken his degree at one of our universities or in Dublin, or shall be proposed by one fellow, or by the president. The bye-laws requiring this do not appear to me unreasonable or inconsistent with the character any more than requiring a particular mode of education, and in the case so often alluded to Lord Mansfield thought such bye-laws were good; for when he recommended it to the college to revise their bye-laws, he said “Such of them indeed as only required a proper education and a sufficient degree of skill and qualification may be still retained.” In consequence of that opinion the college have reviewed and altered their bye-laws, requiring in some cases an education at either of our universities or at Dublin, in others permitting a nomination of persons as fit to be examined by men whom they deem worthy of such a trust, considering such degree and nomination merely as tests of the person taking it or named having skill and learning and being fit to be examined. And in making these bye-laws I think that the college have shewn a due attention to discharge their duty to the public and to attain the ends of their institution. Therefore I concur in the opinion already given that this rule ought to be discharged.

Lawrence, J. This is an application for a mandamus to compel the College of Physicians to examine Dr. Stanger in order that he may be admitted a fellow; and the foundation of the application is that he has been admitted to the practise of physic and is one of the homines facultatis within the meaning of the charter; which (it is said) gives him a right to admission, if on examination he shall be found fit; and that all the bye-laws militating against such right are illegal. His counsel have been under the necessity of insisting on the licence giving him a right to examination; for if the a_141being admitted a member of the body be matter of election, it is immaterial whether the bye-laws be good or bad. It seems to me that the insufficiency of the provisions of the statute 3 Hen. 8. probably gave rise to this charter; the object of which was to establish a better mode of determining who were proper persons to be licensed to practise physic, and to prevent the practice of ignorant empirics; and if so, it was not necessary that all men of the faculty should be members of the body. All that was necessary was that it should be composed of a sufficient number of learned and discrete practisers of physic, who should have a power of continuing the succession in such persons as themselves, and that they should license proper persons and restrain unfit persons from the practice of it. If this were the object, is it natural to construe the charter as giving a right to all men of the faculty to become members of this body, when the charter speaks of men of the faculty in a sense contradistinguished from the members of the body; or to suppose that the Crown meant to incorporate all, when the charter was made for the government of some, who, if all were incorporated, could not exist? It is admitted that there were two distinct classes under the charter, and according to Dr. Stanger’s construction one class, that of the governed, would be extinguished. Another mode of construing the charter in the argument was by considering the words omnes homines ejudem facultatis to mean the individual members of the corporation: but if so, there would be no power given to make bye-laws to affect the licentiates; and the clause in the charter that gives the exemption from serving on juries speaks of the person exercising the faculty as contradistinguished from the members of the college; “nec presidens nec aliquis de collegio prædicto medicorum, nec successores sui, nec eorum aliquis exercens facultatem illam.” Therefore it seems to me that the homines facultatis are not the individual members of the college. Then it was said that there might be some persons who might not choose to become corporators, and that this would make a a_142class to be governed: but that is improbable; it is not to be supposed that, as the principal object of the charter was to incorporate those who were skilled in physic and to prevent those from practising who were unfit, they to whom the charter was offered would refuse the advantages of this corporation, especially as the obvious means of constituting a body to consist of all would be to make it compulsory on the physicians to become members, as in the case with companies in some city and corporate towns, of which persons carrying on certain trades are obliged to be free. But seeing that there is in some degree an uncertainty as to the words “homnes ejusdem facultatis,” the usage that has prevailed ought to govern us in the construction of them, especially as the usage perfectly accords with the design of the incorporation. It is said indeed that the usage is in favour of Dr. Stanger’s claim: but that is not so; for there is no proof that before these bye-laws were made any persons were admitted into the body as a matter of right, and we must therefore take it that they came in by election. If Dr. Stanger claim as a matter of right, it must be under the words of the charter “quod ipsi omnesque homines ejusdem facultatis &c.” but if this gave him a right, the college could not resist his claim though he would not submit to examination. And if every homo ejusdem facultatis came within this description of claim, Dr. Archer would have had a right to be admitted. The charter does not say that all the men of the faculty, who on examination shall be found fit, shall be admitted; if it has said any thing in their favor, it has given them the right as soon as they become men of the faculty; it has directed no examination. Suppose by a charter all the weavers of a town were incorporated, they would all have a right to be admitted without any examination. If then all the men of the faculty within the limited district have a right from being men of the faculty, they possess all the fitness that the charter requires. This seems to me to be only a contrivance to get out of Dr. Archer’s case, and to set up a right on the ground of being a licentiate. a_143In the course of the argument it was said that only those were to be admitted who were “profound sad and discrete, groundedly learned and deeply studied in physic:” but if so, it destroys the argument arising from the words “omnes homines ejusdem facultatis.” An argument has also been drawn from the statute 3 Hen. 8:, and it has been said that the persons licensed by that act were the only persons who at the time of the charter were men of the faculty, and that they and the six persons named were meant to be incorporated. But the words of the charter do not extend to all those persons; they are confined to the “homines de et in civitate prædictâ,” that is, to all men of and in the city of London practising physic: but this does not extend to persons practising in other places. Now if that construction had been adopted, it would have excluded the greater part of those who have been members of the college practising physic in Oxford, 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 a_144as 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.

London. ss. Nos Johannes Warner & Thomas Adams Vic’ Civitat’ London, Serenissimo Domino Regi in brevi huic schedul’ annex’ nominat’ ad diem & locum in eodem brevi content’ Certificamus, quod ante adventum nobis praedict’ brevis scil’ duodecimo die Septembris Anno regni dicti domini Regis nunc Anglie &c. decimo quinto Christoferus Barton in dicto brev’ nominat’ commissus fuit Prisone dom’ Regis scil’ Computator’ scituat’ in Wood Street London prædict’ & in eadem Prisona sub custodia Isaaci Pennington & Johannis Woollaston tunc vic’ Civitat’ praedict’ & in eorum exit’ ab officio suo sub custodia nostra detent’ virtute cujusdam Warranti Otwelli Meverell, Laurentii Wright, Edmund Smith, & Willielmi Goddard in Medicinis Doctor’ & Collegii Medicor’ in London praedict’ custodi praedict’ Computatorii London praedict’ vel ejus deputat’ direct’ Cujus quidem Warranti tenor sequitur in hæc verba.

“ss. We Otwell Meverell, Lawrence Wright, Edmund Smith and William Goddard Doctors in Physick and Censors of the Collage of Physicians in London, being chosen by the President and Collage of Physicians aforesaid to govern and punish for this present year all offenders in the faculty of Physick within the City of London and the Suburbs thereof and seven miles compass of the said City, according to the authority in that behalf duly given by certain Letters Patents under the great Seal of England made and granted to the said Collage and Comminalty by the late King of famous memory King Henry the Eighth, bearing the date the 28th day of September in the Tenth year of his Raigne, And one Act of Parliament made in the 14th year of the said late King Henry the Eighth concerning Physicians Whereby the Letters Patents aforesaid and every thing therein are granted and confirmed: a_146And by virtue of the said Act of Parliament and Letters Patents aforesaid and one other Act of Parliament made in the first year of the Raigne of our late Soveraigne Lady Queen Mary intituled An Act touching the Corporation of Physicians in London, did cause to be brought before us the sixth day of this instant September at our Collage house in Pater noster Rowe in London one Christofer Barton; and we have examined the said Christofer Barton, and upon his examination and other due proofs we have found that the said Christofer Barton hath unskilfully practised the Art of Physick within the City of London and Precinct aforesaid upon the bodies of Richard Ballady of Aldermary Parish London, Michael Knight of St. Buttolphs Parish Aldgate London and the child of one Jane Brigge and some others in the month of January in the year 1638, contrary to the Laws in that behalf made and provided; whereupon we have imposed upon the said Christofer Barton a fine of 20l. for his evil practice in Physick aforesaid; and we have also for the same cause sent you the body of the said Christofer Barton, Willing and requiring you in the King’s Majesties name to receive and keep him in safe custody as Prisoner, there to remain at his own costs and charges without bail or mainprize untill he shall be discharged of the said imprisonment by the President of the said Collage, and by such persons as by the said Collage shall be thereunto authorised according to the Statute in that behalf made, And this our warrant shall be your discharge. Given at the said Collage the eleventh day of September in the 16th year of the Raigne of our Soveraigne Lord King Charles.”

Note. This Christopher Barton, like James Leverett a Gardener (whose case and the reference of it by the Court of Star Chamber to the College, are recited in Goodall p. 447) and the more celebrated Valentine Greatrex, was one of those Empirics, half enthusiasts and half imposters, who pretended to perform cures by touching or stroaking.

Doctor Burgess having been in Orders and now practising Physick in London, was summoned before the President and Censors to give an account by what authority he practised in this City contrary to the Statute Law of this Kingdom. He ingenuously confessed; Not by any authority, but by the indulgence of the College; and told them he had formerly offered himself to examination, though he had not yet been examined. The President replied, that by a Statute of the College (which was read by the Register) they could not examine admit or permit any to the practice of Physick, who had been in Holy Orders. Besides if the Statutes of the College would allow it He told him an admission to a person that had been so qualified was repugnant to the Statute Laws of the Kingdom and Canons Ecclesiastical. He replied with great temper and candour, that he would not contradict either the one or the other, but lay down practice in London. After this he was convened a second time before the President and Censors and interdicted the practice of Physick within the College Liberties, to which he submitted and promised that he would speedily betake himself to the Country. Some of the Fellows of the College were complained of for consulting with him.

My service and best respects remembered.

Master President and my much honoured friend

Whereas I am given to understand that you have heard that the last year I would not give way to two or three for the obtaining a Licence to practise Physick, nor to a Doctor of Leyden to be incorporated with us without giving publick a_148testimony of his abilities, and I further understand that yourself and the whole College are well pleased therewith, I have cause to rejoice: and further thought fit at this time to acquaint you with my real intentions, which I shall eagerly prosecute, if I may have countenance and assistance. I have observed and have grieved to see sometimes a Serving-man sometimes an Apothecary oftentimes Masters of Arts (whereof some have afterwards assumed holy Orders) admitted to a Licence to practice in Physick, or to be incorporated to a Degree without giving any publique testimony of their learning and skill in the Profession. And what hath followed hereupon? The Minister hath neglected his own calling and trespassed upon another’s, not without endangering the Souls of the people of God, and the losse of the Lives of many of the King’s Subjects. The Serving-man and Apothecary upon a Licence obtained have been presently made Doctors by the breath of the people, and Doctors indeed undervalued. Masters of Arts after Licence obtained have taken as I said holy Orders, that if one Profession did faile them another might supply them. And Incorporation being in an instant obtained by a little summe of money which by orderly proceeding (I speake concerning the Doctor’s Degree) would cost 12 years study in the University besides performance of exercises and much expence; It is come to passe, that in the University at this time I doe protest I doe not know any one that intends the study of Physick, and practice thereof according to the Statutes. Chirurgeons and Apothecaries are sought into, and Physicians seldome but in a desperate case are consulted with, when the Patient is ready to dye and in this kind we have too many examples. The consideration of these mischiefs redounding to the Church, Commonwealth, University, and our Profession, hath often troubled me, when I had no power to prevent them. But now seeing it hath pleased God and the King to conferre such power upon me, that without me neither Licence nor Degree in Physick can be obtained at Cambridge (for I have solicited Dr. Nichols a_149and Dr. Allet to joyne with me; and I have prevailed soe farre with them that they will doe nothing without me) I doe intend by the grace of God to give way unto noe man to obtain a Licence or Degree without keeping an Act at the least, &c. unless it shall happen that with some one particular man it shall be dispenced withall by supreme Authority or in some extraordinary case. But all this will be to little purpose, unlesse yourselfe and the College will solicite Dr. Clayton, his Majesties Professor at Oxford, and others of the faculty there, to doe the like; or rather Petition to my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury, who out of his innate goodnesse, and zeale for the good of the Church and Commonwealth, and the honour of the Universities, I am fully perswaded, will grant what you desire, against Apothecaries and Chirurgeons, and all others which without Licence and authority do practise Physick, I could wish there were some course taken; I know there be already good Lawes, if they were put in execution. This much in haste (as you may perceive by my writing) I thought good to signify unto you, out of the grateful respect which I beare unto yourself and the whole College, tending the honour of our common Profession, which I will maintain as much as in me lyes, and vindicate from the invasions of Usurpers and Intruders. I have exceeded I feare the bounds of a Letter, but that you will pardon I hope considering the occasion. And soe with a gratefull acknowledgment of your love and favour towards me and an ingenuous profession of much service I owe unto you, I take my leave, as one that will be ready, upon the least signification, to embrace your commands, and execute them with all alacrity.

“Gilbertus providentia divina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus totius Angliæ Primas et Metropolitanus, dilecto nobis in Christo Gulielmo Lilly in Medicinis professori, salutem, gratiam, et benedictionem. Cum ex fide digna relatione acceperimus te in arte, sive facultate medicinæ per non modicum tempus versatum fuisse, multisque de salute et sanitate corporis verè desperatis (Deo omnipotente adjuvante) subvenisse, eosque sanasse, nec non in arte predicta multorum peritorum laudabili testimonio pro experientia, fidelitate, diligentia et industria circa curas quas susceperis, peragendas in hujusmodi arte Medicinæ merito commendatum esse, ad practicandum igitur, et exercendum dictam artem Medicinæ in et per totam Provinciam nostram Cant: (Civitate Lond’ et circuitu septem millarum eidem prox’ adjacen’ tantummodo exceptis,) ex causis prædictis et aliis nos in hoc per te juste moventibus, præstito primitus per te juramento de agnoscendo Regium supremam potestatem in causis ecclesiasticis et temporalibus ac de renunciando, refutando, et recusando omni, et omni modo jurisdictioni, Potestati, Authontati, et Superioritati, foraneis juxta vim formam et effectum Statui Parlamenti hujus inclyti regni Angliæ liceat et non aliter neque alio modo te admittimus, et approbamus tibique licentiam et facultatem nostras in hac parte, Tenore præsentium quamdiu te bene et laudabiliter gesseris benignè concedimus et elargimur. In cujus rei testimorium sigillum (quo in hac parte utimur) a_151presentibus apponi fecimus. Dat. Undecimo Die Mensis Octobris, Anno Domini 1670 Nostræque Translationis Anno Octavo.”

Vicarii in Spiritualibus Generalis per provinciam Cantuariensem.

It does not appear in the memoirs of Lilly, as written by himself, that he ever made an attempt to acquire the elements of medical science, but was directed in his prescriptions by his astrological art only: but having procured the above license he began to practise more openly, and every Saturday rode to Kingston, where the poorer sort flocked to him from several parts, and received much benefit by his prescriptions, which he gave them freely, and without money; from those that were more able he now and then received a shilling, and sometimes an half-crown, if they offered it to him, otherwise he demanded nothing.

At the Court at the Queen’s Palace, the 26th of July, 1809. Present,

• Archbishop of Canterbury.
• Lord Chancellor.
• Lord President.
• Earl of Liverpool.
• Earl of Harrowby.
• Lord Mulgrave.
• Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
• Mr. Secretary Canning.
• Sir David Dundas, K. B.
• Mr. Ryder.

Whereas there was this day read at the Board, the humble memorial of Sir Lucas Pepys, baronet, Physician to His a_152Majesty, and President of the College or Commonality of the Faculty of Physic in London, setting forth, that the said President and College have, with great care, pains, and industry, revised, corrected, and reformed a book by them formerly published, intituled Pharmacopœia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis, prescribing and directing the manner of preparing all sorts of medicines therein contained, together with the true weights and measures by which they ought to be made: which book is now perfected and ready to be published, and, it is conceived, will contribute to the public good of His Majesty’s subjects, by preventing all deceits, differences, and uncertainties in making or compounding of medicines, if, for the future, the manner and form prescribed therein should be practised by Apothecaries and others in their compositions of medicines: the Memorialist therefore most humbly prays, that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to enforce the observance thereof in such manner as to His Majesty shall seem meet:—His Majesty this day took the said memorial into His Royal consideration, and being desirous to provide in all cases for the common good of his people, and being persuaded that the establishing of the general use of the said book may tend to the prevention of such deceits in the making and compounding of medicines, wherein the lives and health of His Majesty’s subjects are so highly concerned, hath therefore thought fit, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, hereby to notify to all Apothecaries and others concerned, to the intent they may not pretend ignorance thereof, that the said book, called Pharmacopœia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis, is perfected and ready to be published: and His Majesty doth therefore strictly require, charge and command all singular Apothecaries and others, whose business it is to compound medicines, or distil oils or waters, or make other extracts, within any part of His Majesty’s kingdom of Great Britain called England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, that they, and every of them, immediately after the said Pharmacopœia Collegii Regalis a_153Medicorum Londinensis shall be printed and published, do not compound or make any medicine or medicinal receipt or prescription, or distil any oil or waters, or make other extracts that are or shall be in the said Pharmacopœia Collegii Regalis Medicorum Londinensis mentioned or named, or in any other manner or form than is or shall be directed, prescribed, and set down in the said book, and according to the weights and measures that are or shall be therein limited, except it shall be by the special direction or prescription of some learned Physician in that behalf. And His Majesty doth hereby declare, that the offenders to the contrary, shall not only incur His Majesty’s just displeasure, but be proceeded against for such their contempt and offences, according to the utmost severity of law.

This was a cause that stood in the Crown-Paper, upon a Return to a Mandamus directed to the Master and Wardens of the Company of Surgeons of London: Reciting a Custom in the said City, “That every Freeman of the said City, using and exercising the Art, Science, or Mystery of Surgery within the said City, hath a Right, in respect thereof, to have and take Apprentices, of the age of 14 years or upwards, to be educated and instructed in the said Art, Science, or Mystery, for the space of 7 years; which said Apprentices have been used and accustomed to be ADMITTED and BOUND in the presence or with the consent of the Master and Wardens or some of them;” And reciting that a_154Richard Guy, a Freeman of the said City, and also one of the Freemen of the said Company of Surgeons of the said City, being desirous of taking Melmoth Guy, his son, aged 15 years, to be his Apprentice for the Term of 7 years, to be educated and instructed in the said Art, Science, or Mystery of Surgery, had often offered the said Melmoth Guy to be admitted and bound, before the said Master and Wardens or some of them, his said Apprentice for the Term of 7 years, in the said Art, Science, or Mystery, according to the said custom; and that the said Melmoth Guy had also often offered himself to them or some of them, to be admitted and bound before them or some of them, an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy for the said Term, in the said Art, Science, or Mystery; and that the said Master and Wardens had not permitted the said Melmoth Guy to be bound Apprentice to the said Richard Guy, for the Term of 7 years, before them or any of them, but have altogether refused and still refuse so to do; and commanding them, immediately and without delay, in due manner to permit the said Melmoth Guy to be ADMITTED and BOUND, before them or some of them, an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy, for the Term aforesaid, in the said Art, Science, or Mystery according to the said custom, or signify cause to the contrary.

The Return of the Master and Wardens admits the whole of the custom and facts, to be as they are alledged in the Writ. But they further certify and return, That long before the said Richard Guy offered his said son Melmoth, or the said Melmoth offered himself to them or any of them, to be admitted and bound before them or any of them, an Apprentice for the said Term of 7 years, in the said Art, Science, or Mystery of Surgery, according to the custom aforesaid; and after the making of a certain Act of Parliament intitled “An Act for making the Surgeons of London, and the Barbers of London, two separate and distinct Corporations;” to wit, on the 7th day of April in the Year of our Lord 1748, at Stationers-hall in London aforesaid; a_155John Freke, then and there being Master of the said Company of Surgeons, and William Pyle and Legard Sparham, then being two of the Governors of the said Company of Surgeons, before that time duly elected chosen appointed and sworn into their said respective offices; and also John Ranby esq. Cæsar Hawkins esq. William Petty esq. Joseph Sandford, William Cheseldon esq. James Hicks, Peter Sainthill, Noah Roul, John Westbrook, William Singleton, James Phillips, Joseph Webb, Mark Hawkins, Christopher Fullagar, Edward Nourse, John Girle esq. and John Townsend, being then and there Nine and more of the Members of the Court of Assistants of the said Company of Surgeons before that time duly elected chosen appointed and sworn to be of the said Court of Assistants, did hold a Court and Assembly, at Stationers-hall London aforesaid, in order to treat and consult about and concerning the Rule Order State and Government of the said Company of Surgeons; and that the said John Freke, so being then and there Master of the said Company of Surgeons, and the said William Pyle and Legard Sparham, so being then and there two of the said Governors of the said Company of Surgeons, and the said John Ranby esq. Cæsar Hawkins esq. &c. &c. &c. so being then and there nine and more of the Members of the said Court of Assistants of that Company, being all then and there duly assembled as aforesaid, did then and there, according to the Form of the Statute in that case made and provided, make ordain constitute and establish a certain Bye-Law and Ordinance, for the Regulation Government and Advantage of the said Company of Surgeons, in the words following. To wit, Item, It is Ordained “That no Member of the said Company shall take any Person into his Service, as his Apprentice, to be instructed in the Art or Science of Surgery, for any shorter time than 7 years; which person SHALL UNDERSTAND the Latin Tongue; his Ability wherein shall, BEFORE his being bound, be tried by the Governors or one of them. And every Freeman of this Company or Foreign brother shall, a_156within one month next after his entertainment of any Person in order to being his Apprentice, Present such Person before the Governors or two of them, at a Court to be by them held; and there bind such Person to him before the said Governors, by Indenture; upon pain of forfeiting 20l. of lawful money: And the Clerk of the said Company SHALL NOT BIND any Person who has not been so presented and examined, upon pain of forfeiting the sum of 10l. of lawful money and being liable to be removed from his said Office. And no Apprentice shall be turned over from one Master to another, but at a Court in the Presence of the Master and Wardens or one of them: And One Guinea, and no more, shall be paid for the same.”

Which said Ordinance or By-Law, so made as aforesaid, after the making thereof as aforesaid, and long before the said Richard Guy had offered the said Melmoth, or the said Melmoth had offered himself to be admitted and bound before them or any of them, an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy, for the Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery, according to the Custom aforesaid, to wit, on the 9th day of the same April in the said year of our Lord 1748, was examined approved and allowed by the Right Honourable Philip Lord Hardwicke the then Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and by Sir William Lee Knt. the then Lord Chief Justice of His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench, and Sir John Willes Knt. the then Lord Chief Justice of His Majesty’s Court of Common Bench, according to the Form of the Statute in that Case made and provided.

They further return That the said Ordinance or By-Law, so made examined approved and allowed as aforesaid, hath ever since the making examination approbation and allowance thereof as aforesaid, been, and now is in full force and effect, and in no wise annulled revoked and vacated.

They then return That after the making examination approbation and allowance of the said Ordinance or By-Law as aforesaid, and before the Issuing of this Writ, to wit, on a_157the 3d of May in the Year of our Lord 1759, at a certain Court then holden at Surgeons Hall in the Old Bailey London, by Mark Hawkins then Master, and Christopher Fullagar and Edward Nourse then Governors of the said Company of Surgeons, (They the said Mark Hawkins, Christopher Fullagar and Edward Nourse, having before that Time been duly elected chosen appointed and sworn into their said respective Offices, according to the Form of the Statute in that Case made and provided,) came the said Richard Guy before the said Court, and offered and presented his said Son Melmoth; And the said Melmoth did then and there offer himself to the said Master and Governors then being at that Court, to be admitted and bound, before them, an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy, for the Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery; And that the said Melmoth Guy, being so offered and presented as aforesaid, was then and there examined touching his knowledge in the Latin tongue; And his ability therein, in Pursuance of the Ordinance or By-Law aforesaid, was then and there fairly, candidly, and impartially TRIED by the said Edward Nourse, he the said Edward being then and there one of the Governors of the said Company of Surgeons: And that the said Melmoth Guy, UPON such his Examination, and upon his Ability in the Latin Tongue being so as aforesaid tried by the said Edward Nourse (so being one of the Governors or Wardens of the said Company as aforesaid) was found, NOT to understand the Latin Tongue, but to be WHOLLY IGNORANT thereof; and was then and there so ADJUDGED and declared to be, by the said Edward Nourse, on such Trial.—Wherefore the said Court could not consent, but did then and there refuse to permit the said Melmoth Guy to be admitted and bound an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy, for the Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery, according to the Custom aforesaid, Until such Time as the said Melmoth should understand the Latin Tongue, as by the aforesaid Ordinance or By-Law is in that behalf required.

a_158They further return expressly and positively, That the said Melmoth Guy, when he was so presented and offered as aforesaid, before the aforesaid Master and Governors or Wardens of the said Company of Surgeons, at the said Court, by them held for the purpose herein before in that behalf mentioned, DID NOT understand the Latin Tongue: but WAS UTTERLY IGNORANT of the same: And that the said Melmoth Guy hath NOT, at any Time before or since his being so examined and tried as to his Ability in the Latin Tongue as aforesaid, offered himself or been presented to the said Company or Governors thereof, or any one of them for the Time being, to be tried as to his ability in the Latin Tongue.

And therefore they cannot permit the said Melmoth Guy to be admitted and bound before them an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy for the said Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery, according to the Custom aforesaid, as by the Writ they are commanded.

Mr. Field pro Rege objected and argued “That this was an insufficient Return:” For that the By-Law is a bad one, being made in Restraint of a natural general and common Right.

The first Restriction of the common Right that every Person has of learning and exercising any Art in any Place, except where it happens to be restrained by Custom, is the Act of 5 Eliz. c. 4.

The City of London have indeed, by Custom, a Power over the Youth of their City, and a Power of excluding Foreigners from exercising Trades within their City.

11 Rep. 53. Taylors of Ipswich Case, shews the general Law to be, that a person ought not to be restrained in his lawful Mystery.

Private Companies can not make Laws contrary to the General Law or to the Customs of great Cities: though great Cities and Towns may do so. This distinction is mentioned in 6 Mod. 120.^[176] Cuddon v. Estwick. And he cited a_159the Case of the City of London v. Vanacker, in 1 Ld. Raym. 496. where Holt Ch. J. said that “if the By-Law was for the Benefit of the City, it would be good.”

This By-Law, therefore, is not good, without a particular Custom to support it: for it restrains a Common-Law Right.

The Return does not aver that the understanding the Latin Tongue is a necessary qualification of a Surgeon: And their Art may certainly be performed without it. At least, ’tis no objection to a young Person’s being put out to learn the Art; whatever it might be to the Admission of a Man to practise it.

Besides, “Understanding the Latin Tongue,” is a very indefinite and vague expression: And a very different idea of it would be conceived by different persons; as by Dr. Bentley (for instance) and by a^[177] Warden of the Surgeons Company.

Bad consequences too, may arise from this By-Law: And if so, it shall not prevail. Godbolt 254. S. C. with that of the Taylors of Ipswich, (there called The Cloth-workers of Ipswich Case.)

If the By-Law is bad, this young man’s not understanding Latin will not cure or help it. However, the By-Law does not expressly forbid such a Person to be admitted: It is not mandatory, but only directory.

Mr. Serjeant Hewit contra, was rising up, to speak in support of the Return,

But Lord Mansfield said it was too plain to argue.

“You shall swear, first, that you shall be diligent and faithful and ready to help every woman labouring with child, as well the poor as the rich; and that in time of necessity you shall not forsake the poor woman to go to the rich.

“Item. You shall neither cause nor suffer any woman to name or put any other father to the child but only him which is the very true father thereof indeed.

“Item. You shall not suffer any woman to pretend, feign, or surmise herself to be delivered of a child, who is not indeed; neither to claim any other woman’s child for her own.

“Item. You shall not suffer any woman’s child to be murdered, maimed, or otherwise hurt, as much as you may: and so often as you shall perceive any peril or jeopardy, either in the woman, or in the child, in any such wise as you shall be in doubt what shall chance thereof, you shall thenceforth in due time send for other midwives and expert women in that faculty, and use their advice and counsel in that behalf.

“Item. You shall not in any wise use or exercise any manner of witchcraft, charm, or sorcery, invocation, or other prayers, than may stand with God’s laws and the King’s.

“Item. You shall not give any counsel or minister any herb, medicine, or potion, or any other thing to any woman being with child, whereby she should destroy or cast out that she goeth withal before her time.

“Item. You shall not enforce any woman being with child, by any pain or by any ungodly ways or means, a_161to give you any more for your pains or labour in bringing her to bed, than they would otherwise do.

“Item. You shall not consent, agree, give, or keep counsel, that any woman be delivered secretly of that which she goeth with, but in the presence of two or three lights ready.

“Item. You shall be secret, and not open any matter appertaining to your office, in the presence of any man, unless necessity, or great urgent cause do constrain you so to do.

“Item. If any child be dead born you yourself shall see it buried in such secret place, as neither hog, or dog, nor any other beast may come unto it; and in such sort done, as it be not found or perceived, as much as you may: and that you shall not suffer any such child to be cast into the jaques or any other inconvenient place.

“Item. If you shall know any midwife using or doing any thing contrary to any of the premises, or in any otherwise than shall be seemly or convenient, you shall forthwith detect, open, or shew the same to me or my Chancellor for the time being.

“Item. You shall use yourself in honest behaviour unto the woman, being lawfully admitted to the room and office of Midwife, in all things accordingly.

“Item. That you shall truly present to myself or my Chancellor, all such women as you shall know from time to time to occupy and exercise the room of a midwife within my aforesaid diocese and jurisdiction of —— without any licence and admission.

“Item. You shall not make or assign any deputy or deputies, to exercise or occupy under you in your absence the office or room of a Midwife, but such as you shall perfectly know to be of right honest and discreet behaviour; and also apt, able, and having sufficient knowledge and experience to exercise the said room and office.

“Item. You shall not be privy, or consent, that any priest or other party shall in your absence, or in your a_162company, or of your knowledge or sufferance, baptize any child by any mass, latin service, or prayers, than such as are appointed by the laws of the Church of England; neither shall you consent that any child born by any woman who shall be delivered by you shall be carried away without being baptized in the parish by the ordinary minister where the said child is born, unless it be in case of necessity baptized privately according to the Book of Common Prayer: but you shall forthwith, upon understanding thereof, either give knowledge to me the said Bishop, or my Chancellor for the time being.

“All which articles and charge you shall faithfully observe and keep: So help you God, and by the contents of this book.”

May it please your Lordships,

Upon consideration taken of this petition hereunto annexed, presented unto the President and College of Physicians by the Midwives, We, the College of Physicians, conceiving the said complaint to be grounded upon just grievance, and to conduce to a general good, in the timely prevention of so growing an inconvenience, have particularly informed ourselves concerning the said business, and do certify that the like project was formerly attempted by another, which is now intended by the doctour, and therefore was referred by K. James, of blessed memory, to the Lords of the Council, and by their Lordships to the College of Physicians, to certify their opinion thereof; who upon mature deliberation made report to their Lordships of the unfitness of the said proposition, there being no such custom ever a_163used either here or in any other kingdom, Wherefore the same was rejected and died. And whereas we understand that the said Doctour doth ground his complaint upon the insufficiency of Midwives, whom he would undertake to teach, though licensed by your Lordship’s officers, whom we do believe to be as careful in admitting of Midwives as they are in other kingdoms; only we are informed that divers do practise without licence, and some are deputies to others, through whom we probably conceive some abuses to grow, because their abilities and honesty of lives and conversation are not testified upon oath as others are who are licenced. But for adding sufficiently to them by the Doctour’s instruction, he is not otherwise able to instruct them than any other the meanest Fellow of our College, unless he understand it by the use of iron instruments, which Physicians and Chirurgeons may practice if they please; and some do and have done with as good success and dexterity as himself, and therefore there is no necessity of a sole dependance upon him. And it being true that is reported by the Midwives, the Doctour doth often refuse to come to the poor, they being not able to pay him according to his demands; and for the rich he denies them his help until he hath first bargained for great rewards; which besides that they are in themselves dishonest, covetous, and unconscionable courses, they are also contrary to the laws and statutes of our College, to which by oath he is bound. We therefore for this and other reasons we can alledge, conceive his suit to be unreasonable and inconvenient. And so do humbly leave the same to your Lordships’ grave judgments, unto whom his Majesty referred the consideration thereof.

Whereas it has become highly expedient to provide for and secure constant attention to the health and comforts of the inhabitants of Ireland, and for the prevention of contagious disease, more especially in the cities and great towns thereof; and that for that purpose officers of health should be annually appointed in all cities and large towns, and that such officers should also be appointed in such towns, parishes, and villages in the country, as shall think it proper or necessary to adopt such a measure; be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That within one calendar month next after the passing of this Act, and within one calendar month after the twenty-fifth day of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and in every subsequent year, in every city and town in Ireland, which shall contain one thousand inhabitants, or upwards; and in every city and large town where the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, shall think fit to direct that this Act shall be carried into effect, the inhabitant householders of each and every parish in such city or town, assembled in vestry, shall and they are hereby required to elect and appoint any number of persons not less than two, and not more than five, to be officers of health for such parish, for the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March next after such election, and until new officers of health shall be in like manner appointed for such parish for the year ensuing.

II. And be it further enacted, That such officers of health, so to be elected and appointed, shall act in the execution a_165of this Act without any salary, fee, or reward whatsoever; and that the expenses to be incurred by such officers in the execution of their Duties under this Act, not exceeding such sums as shall be specified and determined on, and limited and directed at the vestry to be assembled for the choice of such officers, or at any subsequent vestry to be called by the said officers, shall be raised and levied on the inhabitants of such parish, in such manner and form as other parochial assessments are raised and levied, and shall by the said officers of health be applied to the purposes of this Act; and the expenditure thereof shall be accounted for by the said officers in such manner as other parochial assessments are accounted for, and either at such times as other assessments are accounted for according to law, or at such other times and periods of the year, and as often from time to time as shall be directed at the vestry to be assembled for the appointment of such officers, or at any other vestry to be called by two inhabitants of such parish; and that copies of all such accounts shall once in every year, before the twenty-fifth day of April in each year, be transmitted by such officers of health to such public officer, or office or place in Dublin, as shall be from time to time directed by the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being, or his or their Chief Secretary.

III. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the inhabitant householders of any parish, town, or place whatever, in vestry assembled, in any part of Ireland, to appoint such officers of health for such parish, in case they shall think fit and expedient so to do; and to raise such sum or sums of money, to be levied and accounted as directed by this Act, in like manner as by this Act is required to be done in cities and large towns as aforesaid.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That no person shall be compelled or compellable to act or serve as such officer of health, in any parish or place, for any longer term than one year, nor to act or serve as such officer for any a_166year commencing within three years after the end of any year for which he shall have served as aforesaid.

V. Provided also, and be it enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the inhabitant householders of any parish in any county, city, town, or place in Ireland, to elect the churchwardens of such parish for the time being to be officers of health under this Act, in case they shall think fit so to do; and it shall be lawful for such churchwardens, and they are hereby authorized and required, to act as such officers of health accordingly, under the present provisions of this Act.

VI. Provided also, and be it enacted, That where any city or town as aforesaid, containing one thousand inhabitants, or where the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland shall direct this Act to be carried into execution, in case the inhabitant householders in any parish or parishes in such city or town shall neglect or refuse to elect and appoint such officers of health, within such time as is required by this Act, or as shall be required by any order of such Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors, it shall and may be lawful for the Justices of the Peace assembled at the Quarter Sessions, or any adjournment thereof, for the county, city, or town within which such parish shall be situate, and the said Justices are hereby authorized and required, to appoint such officers of health in and for such parish, and also at the same time to appoint and limit what sum shall be raised by assessment on such parish for the purposes of this Act, and such sum shall and may be raised and levied accordingly, in like manner as any other parish assessments, and as if the same had been authorised by the vestries of such parishes, and shall be applied and accounted for in the manner herein before directed.

VII. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for any one or more of the persons so to be appointed officers of health, and he and they is and are hereby authorized, empowered, and required to cause and direct all streets and lanes, and all yards and courts adjoining thereto, a_167and all houses let in several tenements and room-keepers, and the yards, gardens, or places belonging to such houses, to be cleansed and purified, and all nuisances prejudicial to health to be removed therefrom; and all public sewers to be cleansed, and where necessary, to be covered over, and all lodgments of standing water to be filled up or drained off; and also to cause and direct all other matters and things to be done for the ventilation, fumigation, and cleansing of any house whatever, in which fever or other contagious distemper shall have occurred, and for the washing and purifying the persons and clothes of the inhabitants of every such house, as shall appear to any such officer of health to be indispensably necessary for the preservation and security of the inhabitants of such parish against the danger of contagion, unless due precautions shall have previously been taken for such purposes by the inhabitants of such house; and it shall be lawful for all constables and peace officers, and they are hereby authorized, empowered, and required, to be aiding and assisting to such officers of health in the doing all matters and things whatsoever in the execution of this Act.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That in any parish or parishes in any city or town where any such officers of health shall be appointed as aforesaid, and where no power or authority is or shall be vested in or given to Magistrates or Corporation of such city or town, to regulate the sweeping and cleansing of the streets therein, and the collecting and disposing of the dirt, dung, and filth of the said streets, and also in any city or town whatever, where the scavengers or other persons who shall be entrusted with or contract for the cleansing and sweeping of the streets, under the direction of the Magistrates or Corporation or not, shall neglect or omit to cleanse and sweep the streets and lanes of such city or town, twice at least in every week, it shall and may be lawful for such officers of health to cause and direct such streets to be swept and cleansed, and the dirt, dung, and filth collected from the same to be sold and disposed of, and the produce thereof to be applied for the purposes of this a_168Act, and in diminution of the charge on the parish for which such officers shall be appointed: provided always, that in all cases where the Magistrates or Corporation of any city or town have or shall have power and authority to regulate the sweeping or cleansing of the streets, or where any scavenger or other person shall be appointed or shall have contracted for that purpose, the said officers of health shall give twenty-four hours notice to the chief magistrate of such city or town, and to the scavenger or other person contracting for the cleansing of such streets, of the neglect or omission to sweep and cleanse the same; and that at the expiration of such twenty-four hours, in case the said streets shall not be duly swept and cleansed, it shall be lawful for the said officers of health to cause the same to be swept and cleansed, and the produce thereof to be disposed of as aforesaid, any act, charter, law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

IX. And for the preventing the danger of contagion and other evils, from the unrestrained intercourse of strolling beggars, vagabonds, and idle poor persons seeking relief; be it enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful for any one Justice of Peace within his jurisdiction, or any churchwarden of any parish in any city, town, or place in Ireland, or for any officer of health appointed in any parish in pursuance of this Act, and they are hereby respectively empowered and required, to apprehend all idle poor persons, men, women, or children, and all persons who may be found begging or seeking relief, or strolling or wandering as vagabonds within any parish or place, and to direct and cause all such idle persons, beggars, and vagabonds to be removed and conveyed out of and from such parish and place, in such manner and to such place as the nature of the case may require; and it shall and may be lawful for any such Justice of the Peace, upon his own view, or upon the complaint of any churchwarden or officer of health to commit any such strolling beggar or vagabond, or idle poor person, to any Bridewell or House a_169of Correction, or other public place of confinement, for any time not exceeding twenty-four hours previous to their removal or departure out of such parish; and it shall and may be lawful for any churchwarden or officer of health in such parish, during such period of twenty-four hours, to cause the persons and clothes of such idle poor persons, beggars, or vagabonds so committed, to be washed and cleansed; and it shall be lawful for the Justices of any county, city, or town assembled at any Quarter Sessions or adjournment thereof, to constitute and appoint any suitable unoccupied building to be a Bridewell or place of confinement for such idle persons, beggars, and vagabonds, with the consent and approbation of the owner of such house or building, and to apply to and agree with such owner for such purpose accordingly; and every beadle, constable, and peace officer within their respective districts or jurisdictions, shall be and are hereby required to be assistant to the said Justices of Peace, churchwardens, and officers of health, in such apprehension, and confinement, and treatment of such idle poor persons, beggars, and vagabonds, pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

X. And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons shall resist or oppose any Justice of Peace, churchwarden, or officer of health, in the execution of the powers of this Act, or in the doing or performing of any matter or thing in the execution of this Act, every such person or persons so guilty of resisting or opposing shall, on conviction thereof before any two Justices of Peace or Magistrates within their jurisdiction, on the oath or affirmation of any one or more credible witness, or on the confession of the party so offending, incur such penalty, not less than ten shillings nor more than five pounds, as such Justices of Peace or Magistrates shall in their discretion think proper to adjudge and inflict; or in failure of making payment of such fine, such offenders shall and may be committed to the Common Gaol or House of Correction for any time not exceeding three calendar months; and no such conviction shall a_170be quashed for informality, nor shall be removed or removable by certiorari or otherwise, nor subject to any appeal whatever.

XI. And be it further enacted, That if any action shall be brought against any person or persons for any thing done in the execution of any of the powers or duties by this act given or required, the defendant or defendants may in every such suit plead the general issue, and give this act and the special matter in evidence; and in every case where the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such suit shall fail, the court in which such suit shall be carried on shall award costs to the defendant or defendants.

Whereas, many great and dangerous abuses frequently arise from the present state of Houses kept for the reception of Lunaticks, for want of regulations with respect to the persons keeping such houses, the admission of Patients into them, and the Visitation by proper persons of the said Houses and Patients: And whereas the law, as it now stands, is insufficient for preventing or discovering such abuses; may it therefore please your Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That, from and after the Twentieth day of November One thousand seven hundred and seventy-four, if any person or persons, in that part of Great Britain called England, the dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall, upon any pretence whatsoever, conceal, harbour, entertain, or confine, in any house or place, kept for the reception of Lunaticks, more than one Lunatick, at any one time, without having such Licence for that purpose as is herein-after a_171directed, (except such Lunaticks as are committed by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, or Lord Keeper, or Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal for the time being), every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of Five hundred Pounds.

And, in order that proper persons may be appointed for visiting such houses as shall be licenced and kept for the reception of Lunaticks, within the cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles of the same, and within the county of Middlesex, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the President and Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians in London for the time being, at a general meeting of the said College, to be held upon the last day of September, or if that day falls upon Sunday, then upon the first day of October, in every year, shall elect Five Fellows of the said College for granting such Licences as aforesaid, within the said cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles of the same, and within the said county of Middlesex, according to the directions of this act; and the said Five Fellows, so elected, shall be and are hereby declared to be, Commissioners for granting such Licences within the limits aforesaid, for the year then next ensuing; provided that two, at least, of the said Fellows, to be so elected, shall be persons who have not acted as Commissioners for the preceding year; and that no person whatsoever shall be capable of being elected, or of acting as a Commissioner, for more than three years successively.

And be it further enacted, That in case, at any time of election there shall not be found a sufficient number of Fellows qualified or willing to act as Commissioners, the said President and Fellows are hereby required, upon every such deficiency, to elect one or more from among the Licenciates to supply the same.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That as often as any of the Commissioners, to be elected as aforesaid, shall die, or refuse to act, the said President is a_172hereby required to call a meeting of the said Fellows, within fourteen days next after such death or refusal shall be known to the said President, in order to elect a Commissioner in the room of every Commissioner who shall so die, or refuse to act; and every Commissioner so to be elected, shall be, and is hereby vested with the same power and authority, in all respects whatsoever, as the Commissioner in whose place he shall be chosen was vested with.

And be it further enacted, That every person who shall be elected a Commissioner to act within the cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles of the same, and within the county of Middlesex, as aforesaid, shall, within ten days after such election, take the following Oath; (that is to say),

I A. B. do swear, That I will faithfully and impartially execute all the trusts committed unto me, by virtue of an Act of Parliament, made in the Fourteenth year of the reign of King George the Third, intituled, An Act for regulating Mad-houses; and that I will not, directly or indirectly, give notice, or cause notice to be given to the Keeper, or person having the care of any house or place licensed for the reception of Lunaticks, of the time of visitation of such house or place.

Which Oath it shall and may be lawful for the President of the College of Physicians for the time being to administer to every such Commissioner, so to be elected as aforesaid, upon the day he shall be so elected, or within ten days afterwards: And in case any person who shall be elected a Commissioner as aforesaid, and who shall be summoned by the President of the said College to attend the said President to take the said oath, at such time as shall be mentioned in such summons, shall refuse or neglect to attend, or attending, shall refuse to take the said oath, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of Five Pounds, to be applied to the use of the said College.

a_173And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the said Commissioners, so to be elected as aforesaid, or any three or more of them, shall meet in the hall, or some other convenient place in the said College, as often as they shall think fit, so as such meetings do not interfere with the meetings of the Board of Censors, nor with any other general meeting of the College of Physicians; and that at all meetings of the said Commissioners to be holden for the purposes of this act, the Commissioner who is of the longest standing in the College shall be Chairman.

And be it further enacted, That the Treasurer of the said College for the time being shall be the Treasurer for the purposes of this act; and that the said Commissioners, or any three or more of them, shall at some meeting, to be holden within fourteen days next after they shall be elected as aforesaid, chuse and appoint a proper person to be their Secretary for the year then ensuing; and such Secretary shall be paid such salary or gratuity, for his trouble and attendance in the execution of his office, by the said Treasurer, as the said Commissioners, or any three or more of them, shall order and direct; and every such Secretary shall, at the next meeting of the said Commissioners after he shall be so appointed, take the following Oath:

I A. B. do swear, That I will faithfully execute all such trusts as shall be committed to my charge, as Secretary to the Commissioners for executing an Act of Parliament, made in the fourteenth Year of the reign of King George the Third, intituled, An Act for regulating Mad-houses; and that I will keep secret all such matters as shall come to my knowledge, in the execution of my office, (except when required to divulge the same by legal authority).

And be it further enacted, That the said Commissioners, or any three or more of them, shall meet annually on the third Wednesday in the month of October, or within ten a_174days afterwards, in order to grant Licences to persons for keeping houses for the reception of Lunaticks for one year, from the twentieth day of November then next ensuing, within the said cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles of the same, and within the said county of Middlesex; but notice of the place, and of the day and hour of every meeting for granting such Licences, shall always be published three several times in the London Gazette, before the day of meeting for granting any such Licences, (which Licences they are hereby required to grant to all persons who shall desire the same); and all Licences to be granted by the said commissioners shall be duly stamped with a five shillings stamp, and shall be under the hands and seals of three or more of the said commissioners, for each of which Licences there shall be paid to the said secretary, by the person applying to take out the same, the sums following; (that is to say), for each and every house wherein there shall be kept any number of Lunaticks, not exceeding ten, the sum of ten pounds; and for each and every house wherein there shall be kept above ten, the sum of fifteen pounds, and no more, over and above what shall have been paid for the said stamp; which money shall be paid over by the said secretary to the treasurer; and the further sum of six shillings and eightpence, and no more shall be paid on every such licence to the said secretary for his fee.

Provided always, That no one Licence shall authorise any person or persons to keep more houses than one for the reception of Lunaticks; nor shall any Licence, to be granted by virtue of this act, continue in force for any longer time than for one year.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no commissioner, to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, directly or indirectly, during the time he shall be a commissioner, be interested in keeping any house for the reception of Lunaticks, upon pain of forfeiting, for such offence, the sum of fifty pounds.

a_175And be it further enacted, That the president of the said College of Physicians for the time being shall, and is hereby required to cause summons to be sent to the said several commissioners, requiring them to attend at the first meeting after they shall be appointed commissioners, as aforesaid; all which summons shall be sent by the beadle, or such other person belonging to the said College, as the said president shall think proper; and shall be left at the respective houses, or usual places of abode, of each commissioner.

Provided nevertheless, That in case any two commissioners shall, at any time or times, think proper to call a meeting of the said commissioners, such two commissioners may themselves cause the like notice to be given, and to be sent, in manner aforesaid, to the other commissioners, requiring their attendance at such time and place as shall be expressed in such notice.

Provided always, That at all meetings of the said commissioners in the execution of this act, in case of an equality of votes, the chairman shall have the casting vote.

And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners, or any three or more of them, either by themselves or with their secretary, as they shall think fit, shall, and they are hereby required, once at least in every year, and whenever required by the Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or Commissioners for the custody of the Great Seal, or by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, or by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, for the time being, to visit and inspect all such houses as shall have been licensed by them, as aforesaid, between the hours of eight and five in the day-time; and may, in like manner, at any other time or times, within the hours aforesaid, visit and inspect all such houses as often as they, or any three or more of them, shall think necessary, and shall have, at all such times, liberty and power to continue in such house, and to examine the persons confined as Lunaticks therein, for such time as they shall think proper.

a_176And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners, or their secretary, shall, at every such visitation, make minutes, in writing, of the state and condition of all such houses which they shall so visit, as to the care of the patients therein, and all such other particulars as they shall think deserve their notice, together with their observations thereupon; all which minutes shall, within one week next after such visitation, be by the said secretary entered, by way of report, in a register to be kept by him in the said College of Physicians for that purpose, and the same shall be read to, and signed by, the said commissioners, or any three or more of them, at their next meeting: but no minute which tends to impeach the character of any house shall be so entered, unless such minute shall have been previously signed by three or more of the said commissioners who shall have been present at such visitation; and in case the commissioners, upon their visitation, shall discover any thing that, in their opinion, shall deserve censure or animadversion, they shall, in that case, report the same: and such part of their report, and no more, shall be hung up in Censor’s room of the College, to be perused and inspected by any person who shall apply for that purpose.

And be it further enacted, That in case the keeper of any house or place for the reception of Lunaticks, within the cities of London or Westminster, or within seven miles distance thereof, or within the county of Middlesex, shall refuse all or any of the said commissioners, at the time of their visitation, admittance into such house or place as aforesaid, with or without their secretary, the master or keeper of such house or place shall, for such offence, forfeit his licence.

And be it further enacted, That the said commissioners, or any three or more of them, shall, from time to time, cause an exact account to be kept of all their proceedings; and all such accounts shall be entered in the same register as the minutes taken at their visitations are directed to be entered as aforesaid; and the said register shall be lodged in a_177the College of Physicians in a strong chest or box, which said chest or box shall be under the care of the beadle or house-keeper belonging to the said College, and shall be carefully locked up, from time to time, by the secretary to the said commissioners, and the key thereof kept by such secretary; which said register shall be deemed to belong to the said commissioners, and the key of the said chest or box shall be delivered over to every succeeding secretary, whenever the former secretary shall go out of office, and be kept by such succeeding secretary in manner aforesaid, for the use of the said commissioners.

Provided always, That the president of the said College shall have liberty to inspect the said register, from time to time, as often as he shall think proper, provided such inspection be made at the College, and in the presence of the secretary to the said commissioners.

And be it further enacted, That if any person shall apply to one of the commissioners, in order to be informed whether any particular person or persons have been confined in any of the said licensed houses, and the said commissioners shall think it reasonable to permit such inquiry to be made, and shall sign an order, directed to the secretary for that purpose; he, the said secretary, is hereby required, upon the receipt of such order, to make search upon his papers: and if it shall appear upon such search, that the person or persons so enquired after have been confined in any of the said houses, the said secretary shall immediately acquaint the persons so applying with the name of the keeper in whose house, and also the names of those by whose direction and advice, such person or persons have been so confined.

And be it further enacted, That the said treasurer shall, and is hereby required to pay to each of the commissioners for every time they shall, in obedience to this act, or any requisition therein contained, visit and inspect any such licensed house or place, as aforesaid, within the limits aforesaid, the sum of one guinea; and shall also pay and discharge all such reasonable expenses of the said commissioners as a_178they shall, from time to time, incur in the execution of this act; and the said treasurer is hereby required, from time to time, to keep an exact and true account of all monies by him received and disbursed in relation to this act, and shall enter such account in a book to be kept for that purpose; which book shall be lodged in the box or chest where the register of the proceedings of the said commissioners is directed to be kept, as aforesaid: which accounts shall be produced to the president of the said college, when required by the said president and elects, to be examined and settled by them; and if, upon such examination, the said accounts shall appear to be just and reasonable, the same shall be allowed and signed by the said president, and at least four of the elects, and shall be by the said president reported, together with the other accounts, at the next General Meeting of the said college; and the said account, being so allowed, signed, and reported, shall be a full discharge to the said treasurer for so much money as shall in such account appear to have been disbursed by him, on account of the execution of this act.

And, in order that the said commissioners may know when any patient is received into any such licensed house or place, as aforesaid, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the keeper of every such licensed house or place within the said cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles of the same, and within the said county of Middlesex, is hereby required, within the space of three days after any patient shall be received into any such licensed house or place, (except such pauper lunaticks as shall happen to be sent there by parish officers), to cause notice thereof to be given to the secretary to the said commissioners, which notice shall contain the name of every such person received as a lunatick into such house or place, the name or names, and place or places of abode, of the person or persons by whose direction such lunatick was sent to such house or place, and also the name and place of abode of the physician, surgeon, or apothecary, by whose advice such direction was given; all which notices shall be sent sealed a_179up, directed To the Secretary to the Commissioners for licensing Houses for the Reception of Lunaticks, to be left with the Beadle of the College of Physicians in London; all which notices the said beadle is hereby directed to receive, and to deliver to the said secretary, within two days after the same shall come to his hands; and the secretary is hereby required to file and preserve all such notices, and also to enter, or cause a copy or extract thereof to be entered, in the register, within two days after the receipt of such notices; and every keeper of any such licensed house or place, who shall admit, harbour, entertain, or confine, any person as a lunatick, without having an order, in writing, under the hand and seal of some physician, surgeon, or apothecary, that such person is proper to be received into such house or place as a lunatick, or shall receive any lunatick into any such house or place, having such order, and shall not give notice thereof to the secretary of the said commissioners, within the time, and in the manner aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay the sum of One hundred pounds.

And, in order that such houses or places for the reception of lunaticks as are not situated within the limits aforesaid may be put under some regulation, be it further enacted, That no house, which is not within the said city of London, or within seven miles of the same, or within the said county of Middlesex, shall be kept for the reception of more than one lunatick, unless such house or place shall be licensed by the Justices of the Peace, at some Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be holden for the county or place wherein such house or place shall be situated.

And be it further enacted, That the Justices of the Peace, at any General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden for any such County or Place, are hereby authorised and required to grant Licenses to such person and persons as shall apply for that purpose, such person or persons paying for each License the sums following; (that is to say), for each and every house, wherein there shall be kept any number of lunaticks, not exceeding ten, the sum of Ten Pounds, and no more; and for each and every house, wherein there a_180shall be kept above the number of ten lunaticks, the sum of Fifteen Pounds, and no more; and that no one License shall authorise any person or persons to keep more houses than one for the reception of lunaticks, nor shall any such License be granted for any longer term than for one year; and the said Justices shall, at the time of granting such Licenses as aforesaid, nominate and appoint two Justices of the Peace for the said County, and also one Physician, to visit and inspect all such houses as shall be licensed by such Justices as aforesaid; and the said Justices and Physicians, so nominated and appointed, or any two of them, whereof the Physician to be one, may, and are hereby authorised and impowered to visit, in the day-time, every house so licensed, within the County where such house or place shall be so licensed, as often as they shall think fit.

And be it further enacted, That the said Justices and Physicians, so nominated, or such of them as shall visit any licensed house as aforesaid, may, at every visitation, if they think necessary, make, or cause to be made, minutes, in writing, of the state and condition of every house which they shall visit, as to the care of the patients therein, and all such other particulars as they shall think deserve their notice, together with their observations thereupon; all which minutes shall be entered, by way of report, in a Register to be kept for that purpose, by the Clerk of the Peace for the County where such house or houses shall be licensed as aforesaid, a copy whereof shall, from time to time, be sent by the said Clerk of the Peace to the Secretary to the said Commissioners, to be by him inserted in a separate Register; which Register shall be kept in the same box, and in the same manner, as the Register belonging to the said Commissioners is herein-before directed to be kept; and the said Clerk of the Peace shall be paid such sum and sums of money for his trouble in the execution of this Act as the said Justices shall order and direct; and all money to be paid for such Licenses as shall be granted by the said Justices of the Peace, as aforesaid, shall be paid to the Clerk of the a_181Peace, as aforesaid, who shall keep an account thereof, in a book or books to be kept for that purpose, and shall account for the same to the said Justices, as often as he shall be required so to do; and all expenses attending the execution of this Act, (except within the cities of London and Westminster, and within seven miles thereof, and also except within the said County of Middlesex), shall be defrayed out of such money as aforesaid, in such manner as the said Justices shall, from time to time, within their respective Counties, order and direct.

And be it further enacted, That at such General Quarter Session, when such Justices and Physician shall be appointed as aforesaid, the Clerk of the Peace shall take the like Oath as is appointed by this Act to be taken by the Secretary of the Commissioners.

And be it further enacted, That in case the keeper of any house or place for the reception of lunaticks, not being within the said city of London or Westminster, or within seven miles of the same, or within the said County of Middlesex, shall, in the day-time, refuse the said Justices and Physician, on such visitation, admittance, at any time or times, into such house or place as aforesaid, the master or keeper of such house or place shall, for such offence, forfeit his License.

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the keeper of any house or place for the reception of lunaticks, not being within the said city of London or Westminster, or within seven miles of the same, or within the said County of Middlesex, shall, and is hereby required, to give such notice, as aforesaid, of the receipt of every such lunatick (except such pauper lunaticks as shall happen to be sent there by parish officers) to the Secretary to the Commissioners, at the College of Physicians aforesaid, within the space of fourteen days from the time of such lunatick’s being received into any such house or place; and every keeper of any such licensed house or place, who shall admit, harbour, entertain, or confine, any person as a lunatick, without a_182having an order in writing, under the hand and seal of some Physician, Surgeon, or Apothecary, that such person is proper to be received into such house or place as a lunatick, or shall receive any lunatick into any such house or place, having such order, and shall not give notice thereof to the Secretary of the said Commissioners, within the time, and in the manner aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay the sum of One hundred pounds.

And be it further enacted, That no such License shall be granted as aforesaid, either by the said Commissioners or Justices of the Peace, as aforesaid, unless upon granting such License, the person to whom such License is granted shall enter into recognizance to the king’s Majesty, his heirs and successors, in the sum of One hundred pounds, with two sufficient securities, each in the sum of Fifty pounds, or one sufficient security in the sum of One hundred pounds, under the usual conditions, for the good behaviour of such person during the time for which such License shall be granted.

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, or Lord Keeper, or the Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, or the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, or the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, for the time being, may, at any time or times, by any written order, directed to the Commissioners appointed by this Act, or to the Justices of the Peace and Physician, appointed Visitors, at any General Quarter Session, require the said Commissioners, or any three or more of them, or the said Visitors, or any two of them, to visit or inspect any house or houses so licensed; and also to make a report to him or them, touching such matters as they shall, in such orders, be directed to inquire into, or as they shall think deserving his or their Lordships notice; and the said Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, or Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, or the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, may also, at any time or times, by a_183a like order, send for, and inspect the Register or Registers so to be kept as aforesaid; and may summon and examine all or any of the persons concerned in the execution of this Act, as often as shall be thought necessary and proper; and in case they, or any of them, shall not obey all such orders as aforesaid, within two days after the receipt of the same, and shall not shew sufficient cause to the contrary, every person, so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of the Court of Chancery, Court of King’s Bench, or Court of Common Pleas, as the case may be.

Provided always, and it is hereby declared, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any of the publick hospitals within this kingdom.

And whereas it is not intended by this Act to give the keepers of any house or houses, so to be licensed as aforesaid, or any other person concerned in confining any of his Majesty’s subjects therein, any new justification from their being able to prove that the persons so confined have been sent there by such direction and advice as are required by this Act; be it therefore declared and enacted, That in all proceedings that shall be had under His Majesty’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, and in all indictments, informations, and actions, that shall be preferred and brought against any person or persons, for confining or ill-treating any of His Majesty’s subjects, in any of the said houses, the parties complained of shall be obliged to justify their proceedings according to the course of the common law, in the same manner as if this Act had not been made.

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all penalties and forfeitures which shall be incurred within the said cities of London or Westminster, or within seven miles of the same, or within the said County of Middlesex, for offences against this Act, shall and may be sued for and recovered in any of the Courts of Record at Westminster, by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, by the President of the said College for the time being, in the name of the Treasurer belonging to the said College, at any a_184time within six calendar months after the offence committed; and all such penalties and forfeitures, when recovered, shall and are hereby directed to be paid to the said Treasurer; and shall be applied (except such penalties and forfeitures as are otherwise directed to be applied by this Act) in manner following; (that is to say), one moiety of all such penalties and forfeitures shall go to the informer, and the other moiety towards defraying the expenses attending the execution of this Act: And all penalties and forfeitures which shall be incurred for offences against this Act, not within the said cities of London or Westminster, or within seven miles of the same, or within the said County of Middlesex, shall and may be sued for and recovered by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information, by and in the name of the Clerk of the Peace for the County where any such offence shall be committed; and all such penalties and forfeitures, when recovered, shall be applied, one moiety to the informer, and the other moiety for defraying the expenses attending the execution of this Act, within such County.

And be it further enacted, That if any Action or Suit shall be commenced or brought against any person or persons, for any thing done in pursuance of this Act, the same shall be commenced within six calendar months next after the fact committed; and shall be laid or brought in the county, city, or place, where the cause of Action shall have arisen, and not elsewhere; and the defendant or defendants, in every such Action or Suit, shall and may, at his election, plead specially, or the general issue, Not Guilty; and give this Act, and the special matter, in evidence, at any trial to be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance and by the authority of this Act: And if the same shall appear to be so done, or that such Action or Suit shall be brought in any other county, city, or place, or shall not have been commenced within the time before limited for bringing the same; that then the jury shall find a verdict for the defendant or defendants; and, upon a verdict being so found, or if the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall be nonsuited, or discontinue a_185his, her, or their Action or Suit, after the defendant or defendants shall have appeared; or if, upon demurrer, judgment shall be given against the plaintiff or plaintiffs, then the defendant or defendants shall recover treble costs, and have such remedy for recovering the same as any defendant or defendants hath or have in any other cases by law.

And be it further enacted, That this Act shall be deemed and taken to be a Public Act; and be judicially taken notice of as such, by all Judges, Justices, and other persons whomsoever, without specially pleading the same.

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That this Act shall continue in force for the term of Five Years, and from thence to the end of the then next Session of Parliament.

Your Committee being appointed to consider the validity of the received doctrines concerning the nature of contagious and infectious diseases, as distinguished from other epidemics, have proceeded to examine a number of medical gentlemen, whose practical experience or general knowledge of the subject appeared to your Committee most likely to furnish the means of acquiring the most satisfactory information. They have also had the evidence of a number of persons whose residence in infected countries, or whose a_186commercial or official employments enabled them to communicate information as to facts, and on the principle and efficacy of the laws of Quarantine; all the opinions of the medical men whom your Committee have examined, with the exception of two, are in favour of the received doctrine, that the Plague is a disease communicable by contact only, and different in that respect from Epidemic fever; nor do your Committee see any thing in the rest of the evidence they have collected, which would induce them to dissent from that opinion. It appears from some of the evidence, that the extension and virulence of the disorder is considerably modified by atmospheric influence; and a doubt has prevailed whether under any circumstance, the disease could be received and propagated in the climate of Great Britain. No fact whatever has been stated to show, that any instance of the disorder has occurred, or that it has ever been known to have been brought into the Lazarettos for many years: but your Committee do not think themselves warranted to infer from thence, that the disease cannot exist in England; because in the first place, a disease resembling, in most respects, the Plague, is well known to have prevailed here in many periods of our history, particularly in 1665-6: and further, it appears that in many places, and in climates of various nature, the Plague has prevailed after intervals of very considerable duration.

Your Committee would also observe, down to the year 1800, Regulations were adopted, which must have had the effect of preventing goods infected with the Plague from being shipped directly for Britain; and they abstain from giving any opinion on the nature and application of the Quarantine regulations, as not falling within the scope of enquiry to which they have been directed; but they see no reason to question the validity of the principles upon which such regulations appear to have been adopted.

14th June, 1819.

The plaintiff, who was a physician living at Doncaster, brought this action for fees, for attending a considerable time on the defendant’s testator, who lived at some little distance from the town; and the evidence was, that at Doncaster and its neighbourhood there was no certain rule about fees, but the general practice was for a physician to receive two guineas a week for his attendance. The plaintiff obtained a verdict at the last assizes at York; to set aside which Wood obtained a rule nisi last term, on the ground that no action lay for a physician’s fees any more than for a barristers.

Cockell, Serj. and Chambre, now shewed cause; observing that though this point had been ruled several times at nisi prius against such a claim, yet it had never been solemnly decided, nor was there any authority in the books for putting the claim of a physician’s fees upon the same footing as those of a barrister. In the latter case it might originally have been proper that no temptation should be held out to countenance injustice: but in the former it would be equally impolitic that those who are frequently put to expense in attending patients at a distance, and who are liable to make reparation to those who may suffer by their want of skill, should not be certain of a just and honourable reward. The regulation with regard to barristers is founded on grounds of public policy, as appears by the passage in Tacitus, to which Mr. J. Blackstone refers; but they are totally inapplicable to the case of physicians. And in that very passage in Tacitus it is taken for granted that the latter were entitled to a remuneration, because their situation was dissimilar to that of advocates. Besides in this case there is an additional reason why the plaintiff should recover, as there is understood to be a general stipulated a_188acknowledgment for a physician’s attendance at the place where this transaction arose.

Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. I remember a learned controversy some years ago as to what description of persons were intended by the Medici at Rome; and it seemed to have been clearly established by Dr. Mead, that by those were not meant physicians, but an inferior degree amongst the professors of that art, such as answer rather the description of surgeons amongst us. But at all events it has been understood in this country that the fees of a physician are honorary, and not demandable of right. And it is much more for the credit and rank of that honorable body, and perhaps for their benefit also, that they should be so considered. It never was yet heard of that it was necessary to take a receipt upon such an occasion. And I much doubt whether they themselves would not altogether disclaim such a right as would place them upon a less respectable footing in society than that which they at present hold.

Per Curiam.

This was an action for work and labour as a surgeon, and for curing the defendant and several persons of his family, of divers diseases and maladies, under which they had respectively laboured and languished. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and paid 3l 13s 6d into court.

The first defence set up was, that the plaintiff was a physician, and therefore could not maintain an action for his fees. It appeared that he wrote prescriptions, was called “Doctor,” and signed himself M. D.

Park said he should shew, that at the time when the visits were paid, for which the action was brought, the plaintiff was only a surgeon; and that he had not taken out his diploma as a physician till long after.

a_189Lord Ellenborough.—If a person passes himself off as a physician, he must take the character cum onere. When he brings an action for visits paid by him as a physician, I will give him credit for being so, and tell him he must trust to the honour of his patients. Whether the plaintiff had or had not a diploma when he attended the defendant, is immaterial. Whatever he was, if he at that time wrote prescriptions and added M. D. to his name, he must be nonsuited.

Park then produced the rule for paying money into court, which his lordship thought removed the objection, and admitted the plaintiff’s right to sue as a surgeon.

It was afterwards agreed to withdraw a juror.

Special action upon the case, wherein the plaintiff declares that the defendant Baker being a surgeon, and Stapleton an apothecary, he employed them to cure his leg which had been broken and set, and the callous of the fracture formed; that in consideration of being paid for their skill and labour, &c. they undertook and promised, &c. but the defendants not regarding their promise and undertaking, and the duty of their business and employment, so ignorantly and unskilfully treated the plaintiff, that they ignorantly and unskilfully broke and disunited the callous of the plaintiff’s leg after it was set, and the callous formed, whereby he is damaged. The defendants pleaded not guilty, whereupon issue was joined, which was tried before the Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, damages £500. The substance of the evidence for the plaintiff at the trial was, first a surgeon was called, who swore that the plaintiff having broken both the bones of one of his legs, this witness set the same, that the plaintiff was a_190under his hands nine weeks, that in a month’s time after the leg was set, he found the leg was healing and in a good way; the callous was formed, there was a little protuberance, but not more than usual; upon cross examination he said he was instructed in surgery by his father, that the callous was the uniting the bones, and that it was very dangerous to break or disunite the callous after it was formed.

John Latham an apothecary swore he attended the plaintiff nine weeks, who was then well enough to go home, that the bones were well united, that he was present with the plaintiff and defendants, and at first the defendants said the plaintiff had fallen into good hands; the second time he saw them all together the defendants said the same, but when he saw them together a third time there was some alteration, he said the plaintiff was then in a passion, and was unwilling to let the defendants do any thing to his leg; he said he had known such a thing done as disuniting the callous, but that had been only when a leg was set very crooked; but not where it was straight.

A woman called as a witness, swore that when the plaintiff came home he could walk with crutches, that the defendant Baker put on to the plaintiff’s leg an heavy steel thing that had teeth, and would stretch or lengthen the leg, that the defendants broke the leg again, and three or four months afterwards the plaintiff was still very ill and bad of it.

The daughter of the plaintiff swore, that the defendant Stapleton was first sent for to take off the bandage from the plaintiff’s leg; when he came he declined to do it himself, and desired the other defendant Baker might be called in to assist; when Baker came he sent for the machine that was mentioned; plaintiff offered to give Baker a guinea, but Stapleton advised him not to take it then, but said they might be paid all together when the business was done; that the third time the defendants came to the plaintiff, Baker took up the plaintiff’s foot in both his hands and nodded to Stapleton, and then Stapleton took the plaintiff’s leg upon his knee, and the leg gave a crack when the a_191plaintiff cried out to them and said, “you have broke what nature had formed;” Baker then said to the plaintiff You must go through the operation of extension, and Stapleton said we have consulted and done for the best.

Another surgeon was called and swore, that in cases of crooked legs after they have been set, the way of making them straight is by compression and not by extension, and said he had not the least idea of the instrument spoken of for extension; he gave Baker a good character, as having been the first surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s hospital for twenty years, and said he had never known a case where the callous had deossified.

Another surgeon was called who swore, that when the callous is formed to any degree, it is difficult to break it, and the callous in this case must have been formed, or it would not have given a crack, and said extension was improper, and if the patient himself had asked him to do it, he would have declined it, and if the callous had not been hard he would not have done it without the consent of the plaintiff, that compression was the proper way, and the instrument improper; he said the defendant Baker was eminent in his profession. Another surgeon was called who swore, that if the plaintiff was capable of bearing his foot upon the ground, he would not have disunited the callous if he had been desired by him, but in no case whatever without consent of the patient; if the callous was loose it was proper to make the extension to bring the leg into a right line. A servant of the plaintiff swore the plaintiff had put his foot upon the ground three or four weeks before this was done.

The counsel for the defendants at the trial, for Baker, relied upon the good character which was given him, and objected there was no evidence to affect the other defendant Stapleton the apothecary; but the Lord Chief Justice thought there was such evidence against both the defendants as ought to be left to the jury, as the nodding, the advising Baker not to take the guinea offered to him by the plaintiff, a_192besides the apothecary first proposed sending for Baker; the plaintiff was in no pain before they extended his leg, and he only sent to Stapleton to have the bandage taken off: the Lord Chief Justice asked the Jury whether they intended to find the damages against both the defendants, and they found £500 against them jointly, and he said he was well satisfied with the verdict.

It was now moved that the verdict ought to be set aside because the action is upon a joint contract, and there is no evidence of a joint undertaking by both defendants; the plaintiff sends for Stapleton to take off the bandage who declines doing it, and says, I do not understand this matter, you must send for a surgeon; accordingly Mr. Baker is sent for, who enters upon the business as a surgeon unconnected with Stapleton, who, it does not appear, ever undertook for any skill about the leg, so the jury have found him guilty without any evidence. That Baker has been above twenty years the first surgeon in St. Bartholomew’s hospital, reads lectures in surgery and anatomy, and is celebrated for his knowledge in his profession as well as his humanity; and to charge such a man with ignorance and unskilfulness upon the records of this court is most dreadful; all the witnesses agreed Mr. Baker doth not want knowledge, therefore this verdict ought not to stand. 2dly, It was objected that the evidence given does not apply to this action, which is upon a joint contract; the evidence is that the callous of the leg was broke without the plaintiff’s consent; but there is no evidence of ignorance or want of skill, and therefore the action ought to have been trespass vi & armis for breaking the plaintiff’s leg without his consent; all the surgeons said they never do any thing of this kind without consent, and if the plaintiff should not be content with the present damages, but bring another action of trespass vi & armis, could this verdict be pleaded in bar? the court without hearing the counsel for the plaintiff gave judgment for him.

Curia: 1st, It is objected that this is laid to be a joint undertaking, and therefore it ought to be proved, and we a_193are of opinion that it ought; the question therefore is, whether there is any evidence of a joint undertaking; we are of opinion there is; Mr. Stapleton declines acting alone, but in concurrence with Mr. Baker attends the plaintiff every time any thing is done, and assists jointly with Mr. Baker; this appears in evidence, and is sufficient, for there is no occasion to prove an express joint contract, promise or undertaking; when an offer is made to Baker of a guinea, Stapleton says, you had better be paid all at last; they both attended plaintiff together every time, and Stapleton said, we have consulted and done for the best; when the plaintiff complained of what they had done, Stapleton considered himself as one of the persons to join in the cure of the leg, for he put his hand on the knee when Baker nodded, and then the bone cracked; he is the original person aiding in this matter, and there is no ground for this objection. When we consider the good character of Baker, we cannot well conceive why he acted in the manner he did; but many men very skilful in their profession have frequently acted out of the common way for the sake of trying experiments; several of the witnesses proved that the callous was formed, and that it was proper to remove the plaintiff home; that he was free from pain and able to walk with crutches; we cannot conceive what the nature of the instrument made use of is; why did Baker put it on when he said that plaintiff had fallen into good hands, and when plaintiff only sent for him to take off the bandage, it seems as if Mr. Baker wanted to try an expedient with this new instrument.

2dly, It is objected that this is not the proper action, and that it ought to have been trespass vi & armis; in answer to this, it appears from the evidence of the surgeons that it was improper to disunite the callous without consent; this is the usage and law of surgeons; then it was ignorance and unskilfulness in that very particular, to do contrary to the rule of the profession, what no surgeon ought to have done; and indeed it is reasonable that a patient should be told what is about to be done to him, that he may take courage and put a_194himself in such a situation as to enable him to undergo the operation; it was objected this verdict and recovery cannot be pleaded in bar to an action of trespass vi & armis to be brought for the same damage; but we are clear of opinion it may be pleaded in bar. That the plaintiff ought to receive a satisfaction for the injury, seems to be admitted; but then it is said the defendants ought to have been charged as trespassers vi & armis; the court will not look with eagle’s eyes to see whether the evidence applies exactly or not to the case, when they can see the plaintiff has obtained a verdict for such damages as he deserves, they will establish such verdict if it be possible. For any thing that appears to the court this was the first experiment made with this new instrument, and if it was, it was a rash action, and he who acts rashly acts ignorantly; and although the defendants in general may be as skilful in their respective professions as any two gentlemen in England, yet the court cannot help saying that in this particular case they have acted ignorantly and unskilfully, contrary to the known rule and usage of surgeons.

Judgment for the plaintiff per totam curiam.

This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, a shoemaker, against the defendant, whom he employed as a surgeon, for negligently, ignorantly, and unskilfully reducing a dislocated elbow and fractured arm of the plaintiff, of which he had undertaken the cure. The cause was tried before Heath J. at the last assizes at Hertford; and a verdict having been given for the defendant under the direction of the learned Judge; that direction was now impeached, and a rule nisi for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial was moved for by Gurney, upon the ground that there was evidence laid before the jury of the unskilful treatment a_195of the plaintiff by the defendant; but that they were told by the learned Judge, that unless negligence were proved, they could not examine into the want of skill: and the evidence, he now admitted, did not substantiate the charge of negligence, though it proved the want of skill. And he referred to Slater v. Baker^[178], to shew that an action lay against a surgeon for ignorance and unskilfulness in his profession: and to Bull, N. P. 73. where the general rule is laid down, that in all cases where a damage accrues to another by the negligence, ignorance, or misbehaviour of a person in the duty of his trade or calling, an action on the case will lie: as if a farrier kill my horse by bad medicines, or refuse to shoe, or prick him in the shoeing.

The Court granted a rule nisi. And now, upon the Judge’s Report being read, the case appeared to be this:

The plaintiff’s brother-in-law proved, on his behalf, that on the 2d of April 1805, the defendant attended the plaintiff, who had fallen from a horse, and told the defendant that his arm was broken: the defendant said that he thought the arm, which was swollen, was not broken, and applied vinegar to it, and bound it with tape. That the plaintiff was under the defendant’s care for ten weeks without being cured: he could not bend his arm or work at his trade. That he then applied to Mr. Kingston, another surgeon, and after some time could work, and put his arm to his head. On cross-examination the same witness proved that the defendant was first sent for at night, and came directly; that he regularly attended the plaintiff every day but one till the latter applied to Mr. Pidcock, another surgeon, who, about nine or ten days after the accident, attended and assisted with the defendant in setting the elbow. Mr. Kingston, the surgeon, then proved that in July 1805 the plaintiff was brought to him a cripple in his arm, one bone of which was broken obliquely below the elbow. That the plaintiff’s arm was almost straight; he could not turn his wrist, and a_196had no motion in his elbow. That the witness broke the callous and set it again, and made (what the witness himself described as) a very fine cure, which was spoken of about the country. He imputed the failure of the defendant in his attempt to cure the plaintiff to negligence and carelessness: an apprentice boy (he said) might have known better: that the bone might have been set within five hours after the accident; though he admitted that the swelling, if much, must first be reduced, which might take a fortnight. And he recommended the plaintiff to bring an action. He also spoke to a conversation with the defendant, who considered it as a very difficult dislocation to reduce; and said that he would make a compensation to the plaintiff. The learned Judge told the jury that the gist of the action was negligence; of which direct evidence might be given; or it might be inferred by the jury, if the defendant had proceeded without any regard to the common ordinary rules of his profession, That unskilfulness alone, without negligence, would not maintain the action. And that he was at a loss to state to the jury what degree of skill ought to be required of a village surgeon. But that, whether or not his direction were accurate in this respect, at any rate the witness Kingston imputed only negligence and carelessness to the defendant and Pidcock, in not discovering the fracture of the bone of the arm when they reduced the dislocated elbow; which there was no doubt was properly reduced: and that considering all the circumstances of the case, he did not think that such gross negligence was imputable to the defendant as to make him liable in damages to the plaintiff. The report concluded by stating that the jury found a verdict for the defendant, much to the Judge’s satisfaction; who intimated that the vaunting language of the witness Kingston must have diminished his credit with the jury.

Shepherd Serjt. and Espinasse were now to have shewn cause: but though all the Court seemed to be satisfied, as well now as when the rule was moved for, that the action a_197well lay for unskilfulness in the profession of a surgeon; yet upon a revision of the evidence as reported, they asked of the plaintiff’s counsel what evidence there was of want of skill in the defendant; Kingston, the surgeon, only imputing to him negligence and carelessness; which the learned Judge had stated to be a ground of action, and had left to the jury for their consideration; but which the jury had negatived; as indeed the evidence well warranted them in doing.

Gurney, in support of the rule, said, that it was to be collected from the whole of Kingston’s evidence that he imputed want of skill to the defendant; and that was shewn by the expression used by him, that an apprentice boy might have known better. That so much skill at least was required of a surgeon as to be able to tell whether or not an arm was broken, or an elbow dislocated. But it was enough that the question of want of skill was wholly withdrawn from the consideration of the jury.

Lord Ellenborough C. J. The surgeon who was examined specifically imputed the failure of the cure to negligence and carelessness, whatever other expression he may have used in the manner of giving his evidence, upon which the learned Judge has commented. Therefore, however we may differ from the learned Judge, as I certainly do, in thinking that an ordinary degree of skill is necessary for a surgeon who undertakes to perform surgical operations; which is proved by the case in Wilson, and indeed by all analogous authorities; in the same manner as it is necessary for every other man to have it in the course of his employment; as the farrier who undertakes to cure any horse must have common skill at least in his business, and that is implied in his undertaking: and although I am ready to admit that a surgeon would be liable for crassa ignorantia, and would be justly responsible in damages for having rashly adventured upon the exercise of a profession, without the ordinary qualification of skill, to the injury of a patient: yet the question did not arise upon the evidence in this case; a_198for no want of skill was imputed to the defendant: and therefore the opinion of the learned Judge upon that point does not affect the merits of the verdict upon the evidence in the cause.

The other Judges concurred; and Grose J. referred to 3 Blac. Com. (ch. 9. p. 163, 4.) as confirming the general doctrine.

APPENDIX. PART II. — Mich. Term. 1821, C. B. Severn v. Olive.

Mr. Serjeant Lens appeared to show cause against a rule obtained in this case. The case arose out of the well-known one of Messrs. Severn, King, and Co., sugar-refiners, against some of the Insurance Companies, for losses sustained in the destruction of their extensive premises, near Whitechapel. It will be recollected, that in the two trials which arose out of that event, a great number of scientific men were examined on both sides as to the result of experiments made by them in the process of boiling sugar by means of heated oil. The verdict in both cases, as is known, was for the plaintiffs. In the bill of costs, sent in to the defendants, charge was made for the attendance of the learned chymists, who gave evidence for the plaintiffs, and also for their loss of time and trouble in making those experiments. Other charges were made for the expense of the experiments themselves. The prothonotary who taxed the costs allowed both the charges in principle, though not to the extent set down in the bill. It was in consequence of having made those allowances that a rule had been granted to show cause why he should not review his taxation of costs.

a_202Mr. Sergeant Lens, in showing cause against the rule, contended that the allowance for loss of time to Dr. Thomson was a very natural and just one. Dr. Thomson was Professor of Chymistry in the University of Glasgow, and had been obliged to come up to London three times, at considerable inconvenience and expense, to give evidence in the case. He had been at great trouble in making and superintending experiments, and the prothonotary, in taking the costs, had allowed a reasonable sum for the whole. It was the same in the cases of the other scientific gentlemen who attended.

The Prothonotary here observed, that he considered the allowance for expenses and loss of time of Dr. Thomson and other gentlemen as very just. It was usual to allow for loss of time in such cases.

The Chief Justice said, that in certain cases allowances were made for loss of time, and the question here was, how far the present case came within the rules of those allowances. As a general principle, allowances to witnesses for loss of time could not be maintained. No doubt it was a great inconvenience, that individuals whose business required their whole time should be obliged to devote part of that time to the concerns of others without reward; but it was an inconvenience to which all were equally subject in turn; and as it was to answer the ends of public justice, it ought to be borne. As to allowance for loss of time, he considered the thing decided by the case of Willis v. Peckkan (4th Moore). An action had been brought in that case to recover 3l. for loss of time whilst giving evidence in a case. It was contended for the defendants that no such action could be maintained, except by medical men and attornies. The court was of the same opinion; but the jury, nevertheless, found a verdict for the plaintiff. In the following term a motion was made to have the verdict set aside and a nonsuit entered. The court, after hearing the arguments on both sides, decided that a nonsuit must be entered; and further held, that only medical men and attornies could a_203charge for loss of time, as witnesses. The matter was settled, before, in the Court of King’s Bench, in the case of “Moore v. Adam.” The court were therefore of opinion, that as far as this allowance for loss of time, the taxation should be reviewed.

Mr. Sergeant Lens then proceeded to other parts of the rule, and contended that the apportioning of the costs between the Phœnix and Imperial Insurance was the fairest mode which could be adopted, as each had two actions, though they were not all tried, and the evidence in each was the same.

The Chief Justice asked how much the expense of the experiments made amounted to.

The Prothonotary said that all the items were so mixed up, that it would be impossible to ascertain at that moment.

The Chief Justice—It is important that the charge for experiments should be known. The opinion of men of science is received as evidence, because it arises from pre-existing science; but surely, as in the present case, they ought not to acquire their knowledge at the expense of the parties against whom their evidence is to weigh.

Mr. Sergeant Vaughan, on the same side with Sergeant Lens, submitted that it could never have been intended that men should not be allowed some recompense for loss of time. It would be not only an injustice, but a cruelty in many cases, if such a principle were to be adopted. Indeed, the principle was constantly departed from, in cases where the time of individuals had been a good deal engaged. In the case of Lopez v. De Tastet, the evidence of a Spanish captain of a ship was taken, and it caused him to delay a considerable time in town, and in the taxing of the costs a round sum was very properly allowed by the prothonotary, which, no doubt, was meant not merely to cover his expenses in town, but to compensate him for the loss of time.

The Chief Justice.—We had a consultation, not long since, in a well-known case, and in another place, whether the profits of a voyage should not be allowed for, and as to a_204whether a certain sum given to a captain of a ship should be looked upon as compensation for loss of time, or in the light of a bribe.

Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said he knew the case to which his lordship alluded. He went on to say, that the prothonotary had not made any specific allowance for loss of time as such, but had mentioned one sum for trouble, expense, and loss of time. As to the costs of the experiments which had been made, he submitted that in a case where the subject was quite new, and as they were not made wantonly or with a view to put a party to unnecessary expense, the costs of them ought to be allowed. They were made bona fide for this case; the materials and apparatus were also provided with reference to the present case alone. Under such circumstances, he submitted that they ought to be allowed; and he ought to add, that their affidavits set forth, that the experiments were made in consequence of its being known that similar experiments were made on the other side.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy followed on the same side, and observed, that while he admitted the general principle that expenses were not allowed for loss of time, except to physicians and attornies, he could not see why scientific men, such as chymists, should not be brought under the same rule as physicians.

The Chief Justice.—For this reason, that to a physician loss of time is considered as loss of profit. A physician cannot visit a patient by deputy, as the patient might not have the same confidence in that person as in that physician, and this I take to be the reason why the loss of time is allowed. For reasons similar in principle the loss is also compensated in the attorney.

Mr. Justice Park.—Suppose a clergyman, living in Cumberland, were summoned to give evidence in a case in London, and that being delayed here for two or three weeks, he was obliged to employ a curate to officiate in his absence, have you any case where that expense would be allowed?

a_205The Prothonotary.—Invariably the expenses would be allowed, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Park.—I am glad to know it, for I was not aware how the case was.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy then proceeded to contend, that with respect to the cost of the experiments, as they were not made for the purposes of general science, but had reference to this case alone, they ought to be allowed. Indeed, they were made by a sort of compact with the other side. They (the defendants) themselves seemed anxious that such experiments should be made. They declared that they would make them, and they invited the plaintiffs to make them also.

The Chief Justice.—How much was the amount of the property insured?

Mr. Sergeant Lens replied that it was upwards of 70,000l.

The Chief Justice.—I think (whether the cost of experiments be allowed or not) it was right, in a case of such importance, that they should have been made; but I wish it could be shewn to me whether there was any compact between the parties for making them.

Mr. Sergeant Hullock, who appeared for the defendants, here observed that he knew of no compact of that nature.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy.—I do not say, my lords, that there was a positive compact; but I remember that, when the motion for a new trial was argued before your lordships, one of the arguments used in support of the motion by the defendants’ counsel was, that a sufficient number of experiments had not then been made. Surely, then, it will not be contended that there was not an inducement to the plaintiffs to make those additional experiments for which they now claim to be allowed.

Mr. Justice Burrough.—There was no contract.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy.—None, my lord; but they challenged us to make the experiments. We have done so; and I submit to your lordships that the verdict being for us, we ought to charge them with the full costs.

Mr. Sergeant Hullock, in support of the rule, contended a_206that the case of Lopez and de Tastet, which had been quoted by his learned brother (Vaughan), was not in point, nor did it bear the interpretation which had been given to it. As to physicians, he had some doubt whether in strict law even they ought to be allowed for loss of time as such, for how was the rule of expenses to be settled? One physician whose practice was extensive, might charge fifty guineas a day, while another might be satisfied to go to Guildhall for five; so that there could be no settled rule. He thought also, though he did not at all mean it invidiously, that the plaintiffs need not have sent to the great distance they had done for witnesses, while they could have got others of equal skill nearer home. If the principle were to be admitted, a man might send to Calcutta for witnesses for scientific purposes, and charge the expenses of the voyage here and back. At the same time he did not mean to object to Dr. Thomson, who he had no doubt was an extremely clever man. The learned Sergeant then went through various items in the bill, several of which, he contended, his clients ought not to be called upon to pay. There was one item of 205l. for a model of the premises. Why, if, as had been suggested, they had built a model of exactly the same size as the original, they might as well charge the price of it, as 250l. for a model. There was another item of 213l. for loss of time, trouble, and expenses, in making experiments, to S. Parkes, esq. Of this the prothonotary had deducted 99l., but then it was not stated what sum was for loss of time, what for the trouble, and what for the expenses. It was the same with the charges to several other gentlemen. Now he objected to any thing being allowed for loss of time, and in that case he was satisfied the case ought to be reviewed. With respect to the costs of the experiments, he apprehended that the best answer had been given by the court. In no case that he heard of before this were they charged.

The Chief Justice asked what was the rule in patent cases.

The Prothonotary said that in all such cases a reasonable sum was allowed.

a_207Mr. Sergeant Hullock proceeded. There was another ground on which he thought the experiments ought not to be charged. Either there had been several experiments made before the new method was adopted, or there had not. If there had, no additional experiments were necessary on the late trials. If there had not, the plaintiffs had rashly made the risk, and ought not to recover now.

The Chief Justice.—You forgot, brother Hullock, that this was a patent.

Mr. Sergeant Hullock.—That, my lord, strengthens my argument, for in that case it must have been so well known, as not to need any additional experiments. The learned Sergeant was proceeding to contend that the division of the costs equally between the two insurance companies was not the most proper one; but the court thought that such an arrangement would best meet the justice of the case. There were two insurance companies in the case, in each of which two policies had been effected, and two actions commenced; and though all the actions were not tried, yet as the same evidence went to all, it was but just that each office should bear a moiety of the costs.

The arguments being closed on both sides, the Chief Justice asked whether physicians were allowed for loss of time as witnesses?

The Prothonotary replied, that they were always allowed.

The Court then wished to be informed, whether there was a particular scale of allowance, for it was not to be supposed that such an eminent physician as Dr. Baillie would be allowed according to the extent of his practice.

The prothonotary said certainly not. There was an average allowance, and by that the most eminent physician received only the same sum as the physician who had got his diploma but the day before.

The Chief Justice.—What sum would you allow?

The Prothonotary.—My lord, since the allowance has been raised to barristers, we have raised physicians to the same rank, and they are allowed the same—two guineas per day.

a_208The Chief Justice.—But do barristers take the allowance?

The Prothonotary.—In some cases, my lord, it is allowed.

The Chief Justice (after consulting for a short time with the other Judges) said we shall not say any thing more upon this, than that it must be referred back to the master to revise the costs, and that the experiments are not to be allowed: nor is allowance to be made for loss of time as such; but let it be understood that physicians are to be allowed as usual.

The Prothonotary begged to know how he was to reckon physicians, was it by diploma?

The Court said by practice. It was not to be expected that a physician was to take his diploma about in his pocket.

The Prothonotary again begged to trouble their lordships. There was another class of persons who were frequently allowed much more than any professional men—he meant surveyors. Sometimes very high charges were made for them. For instance, the late Mr. Rennie, who was summoned as a witness in the present case: his time was of the utmost value, as was that of others of eminence in that branch of science. He wished to know how they were to be allowed.

The Chief Justice.—We can know no distinction here. The time of such gentlemen as the late Mr. Rennie must no doubt be extremely valuable to them, but that of a poor man is equally valuable to him, and perhaps more so; for though the amount might not be as great, yet the support of his family might be depending on it.

Rule made absolute; and it was further ordered, that a moiety of the taxed costs should be paid by each of the Insurance Offices in question.

There was another case of “Severn v. Slade,” turning exactly on the same point, which was not argued, as of course the same decision will apply to it.

Two Notes on the Legal Time for Human Birth. (From Hargrave’s Jurisconsult Exercitations) — TWO NOTES, &c. — I. Note as to Lord Coke’s cited Legitimacy Case of Radwell, in 18 E. 1. — II. Note on Lord Coke’s Doctrine as to the latest time with Women for Parturition.

[Lord Coke, in his Commentary upon Littleton, fol. 8. a. considers, who may inherit lands or tenements; and about the close of his remarks on that head, introduces the case of a woman brought to bed of a child, so as to raise a question whether the child was by her deceased first husband or by her second husband. His words are, “If a man hath a wife and dieth; and within a very short time after the wife marries again, and within nine months hath a child, so that it may be the child of the one or the other, some have said that in this case the child may choose his father, quia in hoc casu filiatio non potest probari; and so is the book to be intended: for avoiding of which question and other inconveniencies, this was the law before the conquest, sit omnis vidua sine marito duodecim mensibus, et si maritaverit perdat dotem.” In the margin also of the same book, he thus refers to authorities, “21 E. 8. 39 Pancirollus Nova Rep. 485, &c. Opus eximium, 48. b. Lambard de priscis Anglorum Legibus, 120. 72, &c.” and as to the year-book of E. 3. so cited, it shews, that the doctrine, of allowing the infant to choose which of the two husbands should be his father in the case so put, was attributed to Sir William de Bereford, who was made chief justice of the common pleas early in 2 E. 2.

So far Lord Coke only puts a special case barely involving a consideration of the legal time for a woman’s going with child.

But in a subsequent part of his commentary, Lord Coke brings forward an adjudged case of 18 E. 1. which materially involved considering what was the limit to the time for a woman’s parturition, and for which he refers to Trin. 18 E. 1. Rot. 61. Bedford coram rege; and so Lord Coke was led to giving his own idea of the latest legitimate time pariendi for women. The passages here meant to be adverted a_210to are in Co. Litt. 123. b. and are in these words. “It was found by verdict, that Henry the son of Beatrice, which was the wife of Robert Radwell deceased, was born per undecim dies post ultimum tempus legitimum mulieribus constitutum. And therefore it was adjudged, quòd dictus Henricus dici non debet filius prædicti Roberti secundùm legem et consuetudinem Angliæ constitutus. Now legitimum tempus in that case appointed by law at the furthest is nine months or forty weeks: but she may be delivered before that time. Which judgment I thought good to mention. And this agreeth with that in Esdras: Vade et interroga prægnantem si quando impleverit novem menses suos, adhuc poterit matrix ejus retinere partum in semetipsâ? et dixi non potest, Domine.” In the margin of the last passage of this extract from Co. Litt. 123. b. there is a reference to 4 Esdras 4. 41. and Panciroll. Nova Reporta, pag. 485, &c.

These two extracts from Co. Litt. 8. a. and 123. b. are here given as an introduction to the following article, which consists of two notes by the author in the first part of the 13th edition of the Coke upon Littleton, being the author’s part of that edition, and the first attempt at editing that ever to be valued work with notes.—Both the notes are on the second of the two preceding extracts from the Coke upon Littleton.—The first of the two notes chiefly relates, to the special case of a widow’s marrying a second husband, and being delivered of a child so soon after the death of her first husband, as to raise a doubt, which of the two husbands should be considered as the father: and so far such note applies as well to the case so put in Co. Litt. 8. a. from the year-book of 21 E. 3. 39. as to the case in 18 E. 1. so stated in Co. Litt. 123. b. from the king’s bench record of that year.—The second of the two notes relates to the general point as to the ultimate legitimate time for a woman’s parturition.

Further as to the following article, it is proper to apprize the reader, that, exclusively of what is now added by a_211note at the bottom of the page, it was first published about 30 years ago.]

Lord Hale, in a manuscript note about legitimacy in Co. Litt. fol. 8. a. gives a fuller extract of this case of 18. E. 1. from the record than is here expressed. His words are these.

“Trin. 18 E. 1. Coram rege, rot. 13. Bedford, et M. 22, 23 E. 1. rot. 2. In assise by John Radwell against Henry son of Beatrice, who was wife of Robert Radwell, quia compertum est, quòd dictus Henricus fuit natus per 11 dies post 40 septimanas, quod tempus est usitatum mulieribus pariendi, ex quo prædictus Robertus non habuit accessum ad prædictam Beatricem per unum mensem ante mortem suam, præsumitur dictum Henricum esse bastardum, ideo judgment for the plaintiff.”

If this state of the case is correct, Lord Coke’s is erroneous in several particulars of consequence.—1. He is short in not expressing, that the record mentions forty weeks, and so leaving it to be deemed an inference of his own, as which it hath been accordingly treated.—2. He exceeds the record, by representing it to stile that time the latest for a woman’s going with child, when the record only calls it the usual period.—3. He wholly omits the husband’s having had no access to his wife for one month before his death; a fact very material, it being very easy to allow eleven days after the usual time, but requiring a strong case to warrant extending such liberality to nearly six weeks.—4. The word præsumitur, which Lord Coke passes over, is of importance; for it indicates, that, notwithstanding the great excess of time, it was conceived to create only a presumption for the bastardy, and consequently, if very cogent circumstances to a_212account for the protraction of the birth, and in favour of the wife’s chastity, had occurred, the judgment might have been for the legitimacy.

So far we had advanced, when on looking into Rolle’s Abridgment, 536. we found the same ancient case of Radwell more at large, than either in Lord Coke or Lord Hale.

But Rolle agrees with Lord Coke, as well in respect to the record’s not mentioning the forty weeks, as to its stating the birth to be eleven days after the latest time in law for a woman’s going with child; and as from Rolle’s particularity he seems to have most minutely attended to the record, his authority, till the whole record appears, seems most decisive.

However the two last particulars, in which Lord Coke differs from Lord Hale, still remain, to which Rolle adds these further circumstances: namely,—that the husband languished of a fever a long time before his death;—that on the taking of an inquisition afterwards in the court of a lord, of whom he held lands by knight’s service, the wife swore she was not pregnant, and to prove it uncovered herself in open court;—and that, in consequence of all this, the lord received a collateral relation as heir. The words describing the wife’s exposure of her person are remarkable; for the record states, that she, being interrogated, juramento asserebat, se non esse prægnantem; et, ut hoc omnibus manifestè liqueret, vestes suas ad tunicam exuebat, et in plená curiá sic se videri permisit. 1 Ro. Abr. 356. pl. 3. and 18 E. 1. rot. 13. in B. R. there cited. It reflects great discredit, on the lord’s court, which permitted such a gross indecency; and still more on the king’s judges, who suffered it to be recorded as one of the grounds for a verdict before them. How laudably contrariant is the proceeding on the writ de ventre inspiciendo? This remedy for the heir against the pretence of pregnancy, so well known to be of earlier date than the reign of Edward the first, as it was framed in the times of Bracton, Britton, and Fleta, delicately requires the widow to be inspected by a jury of her own sex; and though in subsequent times the sheriff was ordered to summon a_213a jury composed both of men and women, yet still the search was to be made by the latter only. Bract. 69. a. Brit. 165. b. Flet. lib 1. c. 15. Reg. Br. Orig. 227. a. What harsh ideas of the times might we be led to adopt, if the early introduction of the writ de ventre inspiciendo did not demonstrate, that the unseemly record we are observing upon was a singularity, and so many other testimonies of a more advanced refinement in judicial proceedings did not concur to rescue the age of our English Justinian from the suspicion of a general practice of such barbarism!

Let us then suppose the record to be as it is in Rolle; which is the more probable to be the truth, because a contemporary judge, who reports its having been produced on a trial of legitimacy, represents it much in the same way. Cro. Jam. 541. But still it will not warrant Lord Coke’s inferring from it, that forty weeks constitute the latest time the law allows for a woman’s going with child. On the contrary, no particular time being mentioned, what period was meant, must be found out through some other medium; and as the record states other unfavourable circumstances besides the excess of time, and that the jury presumed against the child’s being the issue of the deceased husband, it seems fair to suppose, that the law was understood, not to be so strict in the time alluded to, whatever that time might be, as indiscriminately to condemn as illegitimate all children not born within it, but rather to consider every excess, unless very extraordinary indeed, as only raising a presumption against them. This construction is clearly most consistent with the terms of the record in question. In the next note we shall attempt to satisfy the reader, that the rule resulting from it is most conformable to other precedents and authorities, as well as to the reason of the thing.

After the case of Radwell from the Record of E. 1. Lord Hale thus gives the four following cases.

“Rot. Parl. 9 E. 2. M. 4. Gilbert de Clare comes Glouc. obiit 30 Junii 7 E. 2. In parliamento tent. quindena a_214Hil. 9 E. 2. the sisters and coheirs pray livery. Matilda, quæ fuit uxor comitis, pretends to be big by the earl, which was accordingly found per inquisitionem. The coheirs reply, that, si comitissa prægnans esset, tantum tempus elapsum est, ut secundum cursum pariendi non potest dici imprægnari a comite. Yet they could not obtain livery till Pasch. 10 E. 2. but the question hung in deliberation.

“Note 18 R. 2. where a woman in such a case immediately after the death of the first husband took a second husband, and had issue born forty weeks and eleven days after the death of the first husband, and it was held to be the issue of the second husband.

“M. 17. Jac. B. R. Alsop and Stacey. Andrews dies of the plague. His wife, who was a lewd woman, is delivered of a child forty weeks and ten days after the death of the husband. Yet the child was adjudged legitimate and heir to Andrews; for partus potest protrahi ten days ex accidente.

“M. 4. Car. in Cur. Ward, and afterwards P. 5. Car. B.R. Thecar marries a lewd woman; but she doth not cohabit with him, and is suspected of incontinency with Duncomb: Thecar dies: Duncomb within three weeks after the death of Thecar, marries her: two hundred and eighty-one days and sixteen hours after his death she is delivered of a son. Here it was agreed, 1. If she had not married Duncomb, without question the issue should not be a bastard, but should be adjudged the son of Thecar. 2. No averment shall be received that Thecar did not cohabit with the wife. 3. Though it is possible, that the son might be begotten after the husband’s death, yet, being a question of fact, it was tried by a jury, and the son was found to be the issue of Thecar.”

Lord Hale’s case of E. 2. appears very extraordinary, the time from 30 June from 7 E. 2. when the Earl of Gloucester died, to the quindene of Hilary, or 29 Jan. 9 E. 2, when the livery to his sister was further postponed in parliament, a_215being within one day of a year and seven months; which is a much later date for the delivery of a live child, than the most liberal in their calculations have hitherto assigned. However, on reading the printed copy of the original record, in the rolls of parliament lately published, we find Lord Hale’s note quite accurate. See Rot. Parl. v. 1. p. 353.—As to the case of R. 2. it confirms the doubt we have elsewhere stated of the opinion, that, if a widow marries again and has a child within nine months after the death of the first husband, the child may choose his father; and is an authority for deciding according to the proof of the woman’s condition when her first husband died. Ante fo. 8. a. note 7. Terms of the Law, first edit. tit. Bastard, and Cowel Inst. lib. 1. t. 9.—Lord Hale’s two other cases are reported in several books, Alsop and Stacey being in Cro. Jam. 541. Godb. 281. Palm. 9. 1 Ro. Abr. 356. and Thecar’s in Cro. Jam. 685. Winch. 71. Litt. Rep. 177.^[179]

If our law was really as strict in point of time as is here represented by Lord Coke, it would not sufficiently conform to the course of nature. The physicians, it is true, generally call nine months, each being of thirty days, the usual period for a woman’s going with child. But then they allow, that, a_216as a delivery may be accelerated by various accidental and other causes, so it is frequently protracted, not only for ten days beyond the nine months, but to the end of the tenth month, and sometimes for a considerably longer time. See Zach. Quæst. Medico-legal, lib. 1. tit. 2. Justice therefore requires, that, in the case of posthumous children, an excess of the usual time should not operate further, than by raising a proportional presumption against the legitimacy.

The Roman law was very liberal in this respect; for the decemviri allowed, that a child may be born in the tenth month; and though a law of the digest excludes the eleventh, yet the emperor Adrian, after consulting with the philosophers and physicians, decreed even for this, where the mother was of good and chaste manners. See Dig. 1. 4. 12. Paul. Sentent. lib. 4. t. 9. s. 5. Nov. 39, c. 2. t. 17. with Gothofred’s learned notes on those two texts of the Roman law. Cod. lib. 6 t. 29. leg. 2. Aul. Gell. lib. 3. cap. 16. Huber. Prælect. in Dig. lib. 1. tit. 6.

A like liberal discretion probably prevails in most countries in Europe; for an instance of which, we refer to a very respectable foreign lawyer, who reports a decision by a majority of judges in the supreme court of Friesland, by which a child was admitted to the succession, though not born till three hundred and thirty-three days from the day of the husband’s death,^[180] which period wants only three days of twelve lunar months. Sand. Decis. Fris. lib. 4. tit. 8. Definit. 10.

a_217Nor will our own law, notwithstanding what Lord Coke advances, if the authorities are duly collected and considered, be found deficient on this interesting subject. Indeed there is a passage in Britton, which gives countenance to Lord Coke’s limitation of forty weeks; for this writer excludes from the inheritance posthumous children not born within forty weeks from the husband’s death. Britt. 166. a. However, even this writer seems to extend in some degree beyond the forty weeks; unless he meant to make the wife’s conception exactly of equal date with the husband’s death, which surely is not a very reasonable construction. But without dwelling on such a nicety, it is sufficient, that the principal of the few other authorities in our books are against so rigid a rule. Bracton is very cautious, illegitimatizing only the issue born so long after the husband’s death, as to create an improbability of its being his child, without naming any fixed period. Bract. lib. 5. fo. 417. b.

As to the determined cases in our courts, the only authorities of this sort, we meet with, are enumerated in the preceding annotation; and these, duly weighed, will not be found, it is apprehended, to warrant Lord Coke’s conclusion.—In Radwell’s case, the finding against the issue is expressed to have been grounded merely on presumption; and besides, if we construe the record properly, the presumption arose from proof of the husband’s non-access to the wife a month before his death,—The case of 9 E. 2. is an instance of allowing so much time beyond forty weeks, that it seems too strong to have much weight; but so far as it can claim any, it counts against Lord Coke.—The case of 18 Rich. 2. at first seems full for Lord Coke’s rule, the child, though born only eleven days beyond the forty weeks, having been declared not the issue of the deceased husband. But when it is further considered, there will be found nothing to prove a positive general rule; for the case was very special, the widow having married a second husband the day after the death of the first, so that the question was not of legitimacy, but merely to which husband the issue belonged.—One a_218of the two only remaining cases considerably extends the time beyond the forty weeks; for in Alsop and Stacey, the first of them, the issue was found legitimate, notwithstanding the lapse of forty weeks and ten days, and the lewd character of the wife: and even as to Thecar’s case, which is the other of them, the issue having been born two hundred and eighty-two days, there was an excess of the forty weeks, though but a trifling one.

The precedents therefore, so far from corroborating Lord Coke’s limitation of the ultimum tempus pariendi, do, upon the whole, rather tend to shew, that it hath been the practice in our courts, to consider forty weeks merely as the more usual time, and consequently not to decline exercising a discretion of allowing a longer space, where the opinion of physicians or the circumstances of the case have so required.

In the course of our inquiries into the subject of this note, we were curious to know the general sentiments of that eminent anatomist, Dr. Hunter, on three interesting questions. These were, what is the usual period for a woman’s going with child, what is the earliest time for a child’s being born alive, and what the latest. The answer, which he obligingly returned through a friend, we have liberty to publish; and it was expressed in the words following:—1. The usual period is nine calendar months; but there is very commonly a difference of one, two, or three weeks. 2. A child may be born alive at any time from three months; but we see none born with powers of coming to manhood, or of being reared, before seven calendar months, or near that time. At six months it cannot be. 3. I have known a woman bear a living child, in a perfectly natural way, fourteen days later than nine calendar months, and believe two women to have been delivered of a child alive, in a natural way, above ten calendar months from the hour of conception.

a_219[What follows is an extract from Sande’s Decisiones Frisicæ, being his report of the case, which in the preceding article is referred to as a decision by the supreme court of Friesland in 1634, for the legitimacy of a child born in the twelfth month after the husband’s death. It is taken from the fourth book, title 8, definition 10.]

“Partum à muliere, quæ non probabatur impudicè vixisse, editum duodecimo ab obitu viri mense, habitum legitimum et ad viri successionem admissum.

“Vir aliquamdiu valetudinarius, et per quatuordecim dies ante mortem lecto affixus, ex hac vita migravit die decimo Augusti, Anno 1631, relictâ uxore, quæ nono mensis Julii die anno insequenti peperit filiam, ita ut à die obitûs viri effluxerint dies naturales tricenti et triginta tres, qui efficiunt menses solares completos undecim cum tribus diebus, vel lunares ferè duodecim, sive annum integrum lunarem ab eo momento, quo vir animam reddidit. Quæsitum, an hæc filia legitima et ad successionem istius viri admittenda sit.

“Inter Medicos et Physicos constat, quamvis hominis nascendi tempora sint varia, illa tamen ad certos limites revocari. Aristoteles enim lib. 7. histor. animal. ait, soli homini multiplex pariendi tempus datum: nam et septimo mense, et octavo et nono parere potest, et quod plurimum, decimo: nonnullas etiam mulieres undecimum mensem attingere. His conveniunt, quæ Plinius lib. 7. natur. hist cap. 5. scribit, nonnullas etiam mulieres undecimum mensem attingere.

“Secundùm ordinarium igitur naturæ cursum, decimus mensis completus est extremus pariendi terminus. Undè Author libri Sapientiæ cap. 7. v. 2. In utero, inquit, matris figuratus sum raro tempore decem mensium. Et Plautus in Cistelaria refert, puellam compressam exacto decimo mense filiam peperisse. At Authores fidei digni referunt exempla mulierum, quæ undecimo, duodecimo, decimo tertio, et ulteriore a_220mense, pepererunt, ut A Gellius 8. noct. attic. 16. Plinius lib. 7. natur. histor. cap. 5. Avicenna lib. 9. de animal. Et Albericus Gentilis disputat. 1. de nascendi tempore hæc celebris Medici Victoris Trincavelli ex epist. 5. verba recitat. Auctores, inquit, multi et illi quidem viri omni exceptione majores, tam antiqui, quam juniores, attestuntur huic sententiæ, nempe repertas esse mulieres indubitatæ probitatis et pudicitiæ, quæ fœtum in utero gesserint ad undecimum mensem et ultra. Cujus diuturnioris gestationis caussas varias nonnulli Medici reddunt, ut videre est in consilio primo Monsbelianorum Medicorum, quod extat apud Gerard. Maynard. lib. 3. decis. Tholos. 4. Alii tamen Medici non adhihent fidem his exemplis, eaque malunt proficisci ex phantasia et imaginatione mulierum, quæ opinantur ex diversis accidentibus se ultra tempus ordinarium gestare fœtum, cum tamen res aliter se habeat, ut apparet ex concilio Medicorum secundo, quod refertur a Maynardo d. loco. Minimè igitur de hac quæstione convenit inter ipsos Medicos. Illud certum est, casus istos mulierum, quæ post decimum mensem peperisse dicuntur, si veri sunt, esse nihilominus raros et extraordinarios, idcirco eorum non haberi rationem à Legislatoribus, qui contemnunt quæ semel bis aut perraro accidunt, et ad ea jus aptant, quæ frequenter et facilè eveniunt l. nam ad ea 5. et l. seq. ff. de legib. l. ea quæ raro 64 ff. de reg. jur. et idcirco legitimum et extremum pariendi terminum constituunt decimum mensem completum. Quod jus primum proditum est lege 12 Tabularum ubi Decemviri ita ajunt, Ut si qua mulier post viri mortem in decem mensibus proximis pareret, qui quævè ex ea nasceretur, suus suavè in viri familia heres esset. Et Testatores dicere solebant. Si filius et filia intra decem mensium spacium, post mortem meam editi fuerint, heredes sunto l. ult. C. de postum. hered. instit. l. ult. ff. de fideicommiss. libert. l. Gallus 29. in pr. ff. de liber. et postum. Ac Ulpianus ut de jure certo in l. 3 § penult. ff. de suis et legit. hered. respondit his verbis, post decem menses mortis natus non admittetur ad legitimam successionem. Augustinus lib. 1. quæst. Evangelic. a_221ita ait. Quod dicuntur decem menses pregnantis, novem sunt pleni, sed initium decimi pro toto accipitur. Hos decem menses ex instituto Græcorum, a quibus Decemviri leges suas acceperunt, non solares, sed lunares fuisse probat Fr. Hotomannus lib. 9. obs. 9. Nec Ulpiano obloquitur Justinianus in Novell. 39. dum negat sub finem undecimi mensis vel perfecto undecimo natum esse legitimum: nam indé à contrario sensu ad correctionem Ulpianei responsi malè inferretur natum initio undecimi mensis esse legitimum ut animadvertit etiam Albericus Gentilis d. Disp. 1. Sanè in Dicastetrio Wittenbergensi anno 1567. partum pronuntiatum fuisse legitimum, quam mulier, quæ honestè vixerat, post obitum mariti pepererat in initio undecimi mensis, referunt Ioachimus à Beust in tract. de matrimonio cap. 36. in fin. et ad. l. 3. ff. de jurejur. num. 36. ac Andreas Rauchbaert, part. 1. quæst. 24. num. 53. Unde Conradus Riddershusius in comm. ad Novell. Const. part. 4. cap. 13. a Justinianeo jure moribus recessum existimat. Quod non est admittendum. Illud notatu dignum, quod ex Theodoro Zuingero Medico refert Hotomannus d. obs. 9. mulieres nempe dum dimidiatum mensem pro integro computant, sæpe opinari, se undecim menses uterum gestare, cum tamen septem tantum quadragenas dies scilicet 280. compleverint. Jure igitur nostro partus habetur legitimus, qui intra et non post decem menses a morte viri editus est. Confer Iacobum Cujacium ad d. Novell. 39. in tract. de præscript. cap. 19. et lib. 4 recept. sent. Iulii Pauli cap. 9. § 5. Andream Tiraquellum in repetit. l. si unquam 8. in verb. Suscepit liberos C. de revocand. donat. Iacobum Menochium lib. 2. de arbit. judic. cas. 89, num. 47. 48. & 52. Ioachimum Mynsing. cent. 6. obs. 4. Franciscum Hotomannum lib. 9. obs. 9. Gerardum Maynard. lib. 4. decis. Tholos. 3. 4. Iacobum Concennatium, lib. 2. quæst. jur. cap. 9. Casus illos raros et extraordinarios ad facti quæstionem, id est, ad Indicis, ut noni viri arbitrium, redigendos esse dicit Hotomannus d. obs. 9. in fin. Et hanc inter ordinarios et extraordinarios partus differentiam esse ait Gentilis, quòd illi justi habeantur, nisi probentur a_222injusti, hi injusti censeantur, donec justi fuerint approbati.

“In hac specie partitæ erant Iudicum sententiæ. Quidam enim censebant juris definitioni hic esset insistendum, cum partus editus sit mense duodecimo ferè completo, si menses his accipiamus lunares, et vir ante obitum quatuordecim dies graviter decubuerit, ideoque credibile non fuerit eum de vene exercenda cogitasse. Alii (qui numero vincebant) judicabant partum legitimum, quòd mulier esset probatis moribus ac pudicitiâ minimè suspectâ, quòd etiam ex marito quantumvis ægroto concipere potuerit, tardiorisque partus caussam ex Hippocratis sententia esse potuisse, quod viri infirmi semen fuerit humidius et excrementosius eoque minus concoctum. Senatus tamen expedire censuit, ut partes ad transigendum monerentur. Transactione autem non succedente, partus frequentioribus suffragiis declaratus fuit legitimus, et patri heres.^[181].”

The learned author of these notes, Francis Hargrave, one of the King’s Counsel, died while our work was at press: the profession have lost a most profound and erudite lawyer; the learned, an elegant scholar; and his friends, a man whose amenity of manner and kindness of heart surpassed the ordinary bounds of human benevolence.

APPENDIX. PART III. — The determination of the College concerning the Questions proposed to them by the King’s Majestie about the death of Joseph Lane .

The College of Physicians in London being lawfully assembled by the command of their Sovereign Lord the King, about certain questions proposed concerning the death of Joseph Lane, reported to be killed by poison, and having made a diligent search, and well considering all circumstances relating; 1. As to the state of the body of the foresaid Lane; 2. As to the disease which (by a long series of violent symptoms) brought him to his end; 3. As to the kind and appearance of his death; 4. As to the observations made upon his dead body by the Physicians and Chirurgeons present; 5. As to the conjectures taken from the strict examination of a bolus extremely suspicious, whose parts were artificially separated, found in Mr. Lane’s house when dead, and after brought into Court before the Judges, and from thence to the Physicians at their College: To whom (by the command and in the name of the King) Letters were wrote from the Right honourable Sir John Cooke principal Secretary of State that they might diligently enquire and give a faithful account to the following Questions, 1 Concerning Lane’s death, whether it was procured from Poison? 2 Their opinion about a purging potion carried the 4th of a_226April, 1632 from Mr. Mathews an Apothecary’s shop to Lane’s House; and taken by Lane the 6th, whether it had any thing of poison in it? The College after very mature deliberation, did humbly present the following Decree to his sacred Majesty as a testimony of their obedience.

1 That the said Joseph Lane did certainly dye of a violent death. 2 That he had taken poison, and that corrosive. 3 That they could determine nothing concerning the Potion sent and given by Mr. Mathews the Apothecary to Mr. Lane without the advice of any Physician, because many of their Medicines were too negligently prepared by their Servants; But if this potion did only consist of those ingredients which he had given an account of, and for which we have solely his word, then there was nothing of poison contained therein. 4. In the remainder of the aforesaid Bolus there was found Mercury Sublimate, not sweet, but the most harsh and highly caustick, which was separated from the rest of the Bolus and shown to the whole College; In testimony whereof the College by the unanimous Consent of the President and Fellows and all present at this consultation, signed this Decree with their own hands, and sealed it with the College Seal, that it might appear more authentick.

And because that from the beginning of the world to this very day good and wholesome Laws have derived their original from evil manners, the whole College of Physicians doe most humbly beseach your most sacred Majesty that as the Father of your Country, you would consult the health and welfare both of your City Subjects and would by your Royal Proclamation strictly command that for the future, No Grocer, Drugster, Apothecary, Chymist, or any other person presume to sell Arsenick, Quicksilver, Sublimate, Precipitate, Opium, Coloquintida, Scammony, Hellebore, or other Druggs either poisonous or dangerous, to poor sorry Women or poor people (which hath been too common) but only to those who are willing to give their names; that if there should be occasion they may give an account of the reason of their buying these dangerous medicines.

a_227May it likewise please your Majesty to issue out your Royal Edict under the most severe penalties, that no Apothecary for the future shall dare to compound for the Well, or administer to the Sick any medicines, especially Vomits, Purges, Opiates, Mercurial or Antimonial remedies without the prescription of Physicians then living; which prescription they shall be bound to produce upon the command or request of the Censors of the College. He that shall act contrary, shall be punished by the Law as a publick enemy to the life of man. Dated from the College of Physicians in London the Last day of May 1632 And subscribed

(See Goodall’s Proceedings)

Case of Standsfield. — Report of the Chirurgeons of Edinburgh on the same case. — The Report of the College of Physicians, Edinburgh February 6: 1687

Extract from Medical Evidence in the Case of Spencer Cowper , Esq. for the murder of Sarah Stout . (13 Howell’s State Trials)

Extracts from the Evidence of Doctor Anthony Addington, on the trial of Mary Blandy at Oxford 1752, for the Murder of her Father by Arsenic.

Dr. Anthony Addington & Dr. William Lewis sworn.

Counsel. Did you, Dr. Addington, attend Mr. Blandy in his last illness?

Dr. Addington. Yes, Sir.

C. When was you called to him the first time?

Dr. A. On Saturday evening August the 10th.

C. In what condition did you find him?

Dr. A. He was in bed; and told me, that after drinking some gruel on Monday night, August the 5th, he had perceived an extraordinary grittiness in his mouth, attended with a very painful burning and pricking in his tongue, throat, stomach, and bowels, and with sickness and gripings; which symptoms had been relieved by fits of vomiting and purging.

C. Were those fits owing to any physic he had taken or to the gruel?

Dr. A. Not to any physic; they came on very soon after taking the gruel.

C. Had he taken no physic that day?

Dr. A. No.

C. Did he make any further complaints?

Dr. A. He said, that, after drinking more gruel on Tuesday night August the 6th, he had felt the grittiness in his Mouth again, and that the burning and pricking in his tongue, throat, stomach and bowels, had returned with double violence and had been aggravated by a prodigious swelling of the belly, and exquisite pains and prickings in every external as well as internal part of his body, which prickings he compared to an infinite number of needles darting into him all at once.

a_237C. How soon after drinking the gruel?

Dr. A. Almost immediately. He told me likewise, that at the same time, he had had cold sweats, hiccup, extreme restlessness and anxiety; but that then, viz. on Saturday night August the 10th, having had a great many stools, and some bloody ones, he was pretty easy every where, except in his mouth, lips, nose, eyes, and fundament; and except some transient gripings in his bowels. I asked him, to what he imputed those uneasy sensations in his mouth, lips, nose, and eyes? he said to the fumes of something he had taken in his gruel on Monday night August the 5th, and Tuesday night August the 6th.

On inspection, I found his tongue swelled and his throat slightly inflamed and excoriated. His lips especially the upper one were dry and rough, and had angry pimples on them. The inside of his nostrils was in the same condition. His eyes were a little blood-shot. Besides these appearances, I observed that he had a low, trembling, intermitting pulse; a difficult unequal respiration; a yellowish complexion; a difficulty in the utterance of his words; and an inability of swallowing even a tea-spoonful of the thinnest liquor at a time.

As I suspected that these appearances and symptoms were the effect of poison, I asked Miss Blandy whether Mr. Blandy had lately given offence to either of his servants or clients or any other person? She answered That he was at Peace with all the World, and that all the World was at Peace with him. I then asked her whether he had ever been subject to complaints of this kind before? She said, that he had often been subject to the cholic and heart-burn; and that she supposed this was only a fit of that sort, and would soon go off as usual. I told Mr. Blandy that I asked these questions because I suspected that by some means or other he had taken poison. He replied, It might be so, or in words to that effect: but Miss Blandy said It was impossible.

On Saturday morning August the 10th, he seemed much a_238relieved; his pulse, breath, complexion, and power of swallowing, were greatly mended. He had had several stools in the night and no blood in them. The complaints which he had made of his mouth, lips, nose, and eyes were lessened; but he said the pain in his fundament continued and that he still felt some pinchings in his bowels. On viewing his fundament I found it almost surrounded with gleety Excoriations and Ulcers.

About eight o’clock this Morning I took my leave of him, but before I quitted the room, Miss Blandy desired I would visit him again the next day.

When I got down stairs, one of the maids put a paper into my hands, which she said Miss Blandy had thrown into the kitchen fire, several holes were burnt in the paper but not a letter of the superscription was effaced. The Superscription was, The Powder to clean the Pebbles with.

C. What is the maid’s name that gave you that paper?

Dr. A. I cannot recollect which of the maids it was that gave it to me. I opened the paper very carefully, and found in it a whitish powder, like white arsenic in taste, but slightly discoloured by a little burnt paper mixed with it. I cannot swear this powder was arsenic or any other poison, because the quantity was too small to make any experiment with, that could be depended on.

C. What do you really suspect it to be?

Dr. A. I really suspect it to be white arsenic.

C. Please to proceed Sir.

Dr. A. As soon as the maid had left me, Mr. Norton the Apothecary produced a powder, that, he said had been found at the bottom of that mess of gruel, which, as was supposed had poisoned Mr. Blandy. He gave me some of that powder, and I examined it at my leisure, and believe it to be white arsenic.

On Monday morning August the 12th I found Mr. Blandy much worse than I had left him the day before, his bowels were still in pain.

a_239I now desired that another Physician might be called in, as I apprehended Mr. Blandy to be in the utmost danger, and that this affair might come before a Court of Judicature. Dr. Lewis was then sent for from Oxford. I staid with Mr. Blandy all this day. I asked him more than once whether he really thought he had taken poison? He answered each time, that he believed he had. I asked him whether he thought he had taken poison often? He answered in the affirmative. His reasons for thinking so, were, because some of his teeth had decayed much faster than was natural; and because he had frequently for some months past, especially after his daughter had received a present of Scotch Pebbles from Mr. Cranstoun, been affected with very violent and unaccountable prickings and heats in his tongue and throat, and with most intolerable burnings, and pains in his stomach and bowels, which used to go off in vomitings and purgings. I asked him whom he suspected to be the giver of the poison? The tears stood in his eyes; yet he forced a smile and said—A poor Love-sick Girl—I forgive her—I always thought there was mischief in those cursed Scotch Pebbles.

Dr. Lewis came about eight o’clock in the evening. Before he came Mr. Blandy’s complexion, pulse, breath, and faculty of Swallowing were got much better again; but he complained more of pain in the fundament.

Dr. Addington. On Tuesday morning August the 13th, we found him worse again. His countenance, pulse, breath and power of swallowing, were extremely bad. He was excessively weak. His hands trembled. Both they and his face were cold and clammy. The pain was intirely gone from his bowels, but not from his fundament. He was now and then a little delirious. He had frequently a short cough, and a very extraordinary elevation of his chest, in fetching his breath; on which occasions an ulcerous matter generally issued from his fundament. Yet in his sensible intervals, he was cheerful and jocose; He a_240said, He was like a Person bit by a Mad Dog; for that he should be glad to drink, but could not swallow.

About noon this day his speech faultered more and more. He was sometimes very restless, at others very sleepy. His face was quite ghastly. This night was a terrible one.

On Wednesday morning, August the 14th, he recovered his senses for an hour or more. He told me, he would make his will in two or three days; but he soon grew delirious again; and sinking every moment, died about Two o’Clock in the afternoon.

C. Upon the whole, did you then think, from the symptoms you have described, and the observations you made, that Mr. Blandy died by poison?

Dr. A. Indeed I did.

C. And it is your present opinion?

Dr. A. It is; and I have never had the least occasion to alter it. His case was so particular that he had not a symptom of any consequence, but what other persons have had, who have taken White Arsenic; and, after death, had no appearance (except a stone in the Gall bladder) in his body, but what other persons have had, who have been destroyed by white arsenic.

C. When was his body opened?

Dr. A. On Tuesday in the afternoon, August the 15th.

C. What appeard on opening it?

Dr. A. I committed the appearances to writing, and should be glad to read them, if the Court will give me leave.

Then the Doctor, on leave given by the Court, read as follows:

Mr. Blandy’s back and the hinder part of his arms, thighs, and legs were livid. That fat which lay on the muscles of his belly, was of a loose texture, inclining to a state of fluidity. The muscles of his belly were very pale and flaccid. The cawl was yellower than is natural; and on the side next the stomach and intestines looked brownish. The heart was variegated with purple spots. There was a_241no water in the pericardium. The lungs resembled bladders half filled with air and blotted in some places with pale but in most with black ink. The liver and spleen were much discoloured; the former looked as if it had been boiled, but that part of it which covered the stomach was particularly dark. A stone was found in the gall-bladder. The bile was very fluid and of a dirty yellow colour, inclining to red. The kidneys were all over stained with livid spots. The stomach and bowels were inflated, and appeared, before any incision was made into them, as if they had been pinched, and extravasated blood had stagnated between their membranes. They contained nothing, as far as we examined, but a slimy bloody froth. Their coats were remarkably smooth, thin, and flabby. The wrinkles of the stomach were totally obliterated. The internal coat of the stomach and duodenum, especially about the orifices of the former, were prodigiously inflamed and excoriated. The redness of the white of the eye, in a violent inflammation of that part, or rather the white of the eye just brushed and bleeding with the beards of barley, may serve to give some idea how this coat had been wounded. There was no schirrus in any gland of the abdomen; no adhesion of the lungs to the pleura; nor indeed the least trace of a natural decay in any part whatever.

Prisoners Counsel. Why do you believe it to be White Arsenic?

Dr. A. For the following Reasons: 1. This Powder has a milky Whiteness; so has White Arsenic. 2. This is gritty and almost insipid; so is White Arsenic. 3. Part a_242of it swims on the surface of cold water like a pale sulphureous film; but the greatest part sinks to the bottom, and remains there undissolved; the same is true of white arsenic. 4. This thrown on red hot iron, does not flame, but rises entirely in thick white fumes, which have the stench of garlick; and cover cold iron held just over them, with white flowers; white arsenic does the same. 5. I boiled ten grains of this powder in four ounces of clean water, and then, passing the decoction through a filtre, divided into five equal parts, which were put into as many glasses: Into one glass I poured a few drops of Spirit of Sal Ammoniac; into another some of the Lixivium of Tartar; into the third some strong Spirit of Vitriol; into the fourth some Spirit of Salt; and into the last some Syrup of Violets. The Spirit of Sal Ammoniac threw down a few particles of pale sediment. The Lixivium of Tartar gave a white cloud, which hung a little about the middle of the glass. The Spirits of Vitriol and Salt made a considerable precipitation of a lightish coloured substance; which in the former, hardened into glittering chrystals, sticking to the sides and bottom of the glass. Syrup of Violets produced a beautiful pale green tincture. Having washed the saucepan, funnel, and glasses, used in the foregoing experiments, very clean, and provided a fresh filtre, I boiled ten grains of white arsenic bought of Mr. Wilcock, Druggist in Reading, in four ounces of clean water; and filtering it and dividing it into five equal parts, proceeded with them just as I had done with the former decoction. There was an exact similitude between the experiments made on the two decoctions. They corresponded so nicely on each trial, that I declare I never saw any two things in Nature more alike, than the decoction made with the powder found in Mr. Blandy’s gruel, and that made with white arsenic. From the experiments, and others, which I am ready to produce, if desired, I believe that powder to be White Arsenic.

a_243She had put a little of it into his cup of tea; but that he never drank it; that part of the powder swimming at top of the tea, and part sinking at the bottom, she had poured it out of the window.

Extracts from the Evidence delivered on the Trial of John Donellan , Esq. for the Wilful Murder, by Poison, of Sir Theodosius Edward Allesley Boughton , Bart. at the Assizes at Warwick, on Friday, March 30th, 1781.