[68]. Chambre and Linacre were in holy orders, a circumstance which has been cited against the present bye-law of the College, that no priest can be admitted; it must be remembered that it is the policy of the present day to restrain the clerical encroachments, which constituted a leading feature of the Papal usurpation; our Inns of Court observe the same rule.
[69]. Jo. Alph. Borellus, in speaking of the pretensions of Honoratus Faber to this discovery, concludes Omnes enim sciunt Harveium Anno Dom 1628 Fancofurti typis Gual. Fitzeri suam exertationem primum edidisse; scilicet decem annos antequam Fabri sanguinis circulationem docuisset. See Goodall’s Proceedings of the College.
His work de Generatione Animalium, although eclipsed by his superior discovery, must be considered as a valuable acquisition to the science of Physiology; its luminous reasonings overturned the doctrine of Equivocal Generation, that had been maintained in the schools since the days of Aristotle, and established the universal principle “Omnia ex Ovo.”
[70]. Henry Marquis, of Dorchester, who was admitted a Fellow in 1658, left at his death in 1680, a collection of medical and other books to the College which were valued at £4000.
[71]. This power has however been questioned; the words of the Act 25 Hen. 8. are, “All manner of Licences, Dispensations, Faculties, &c. as heretofore hath been used and accustomed to be had at the See of Rome.” The term Degree does not occur in the act, yet in The King v. the Bishop of Chester, a degree of Bachelor of Divinity granted by the Archbishop was held a good qualification. 8 Mod. 364: Strange 797. This judgment was ably controverted in a pamphlet published at Oxford in 1791; we may say with the author, “As to the Archbishop of Canterbury I have no design to rob his See of any privileges belonging to it. He may give as many titles, and bestow as many honours as the Pope himself does, provided they are not admitted into the same rank with those conferred by the favour of the Crown, and they do not challenge any place in the construction of Charters and Acts of Parliament.” See Serj. Hill’s Law Pamphlets in fol vol. 1. in Lincoln’s Inn, Lib. A recent Act of Parliament, 55th Geo. 3. recognises only Physicians licenced by the College and by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
[72]. Such subsequent Charters would not however annul the original Letters Patent. “A new Charter doth not merge or extinguish any of the ancient privileges of the old Charter. And if an ancient corporation is incorporated by a new name, yet their new body shall enjoy all the privileges that the old corporation had.” Raym. 439: 4 Rep. 37. For other points as to renewed or substituted Charters, see The King v. Amery and Monk, by information in the nature of a quo warranto, 1 T.R. 575. Newling against Francis (the election of Mayor of Cambridge) 3 T. R. 189. The King against Miller, 6 T. R. 268. And more particularly Rex v. the Vice-Chancellor &c. of Cambridge, 3 Burr. 1656. “A Corporation already existing are not obliged to accept the new Charter in toto, and to receive either all or none of it. They may act partly under it and partly under their old Charter or Prescription. Whatever might be the notion in former times, it is now most certain, that the Corporations of the Universities are Lay-Corporations; and that the Crown cannot take away from them any rights that have been formerly subsisting in them under old Charters or prescriptive usage.”
[73]. An alien cannot now be a Fellow of the College, and there is good reason for this, as he may have judicial authority when elected to serve as Censor, &c.
By 9 J. 1. c. 5. s. 8. no Popish Recusant shall practice Law or Physic, or exercise any public office, or the trade of an Apothecary; but this Act is in part repealed by 31 Geo. 3. c. 32. There is also a considerable distinction in law between a person who is merely a Papist and one who is a Recusant.
[74]. It is true that the College has no means of punishing the disobedient in the country, because the Statute is not supported by penalties; but it must be remembered that the acting in defiance of a Statute is in itself a misdemeanour. According to the opinion of Chief Justice Mansfield, a Doctor’s Diploma does not itself entitle the possessor to practise in the country parts (provinces) of England. He must be an Extra-Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, or Medical Graduate of an English University. The provincial physician, unless thus protected, is placed under very humiliating circumstances; he is only a doctor by courtesy, and therefore cannot claim rank, or defend himself in courts of law. In a cause tried at Stafford before Judge Mansfield, a physician who had graduated in Scotland, having been grossly abused in his professional capacity, sued for redress, but could obtain none, because he had not complied with the act of Henry the 8th. Middleton v. Hughes. See Harrison’s Address. 62.
[75]. To this Act it has been objected that it wants the Royal confirmation, and it was suggested that Cardinal Wolsey for a sum of money, interpolated this among other Acts without the King’s assent. The story, sufficiently improbable in itself, rests on no evidence, and the plea founded on it was overuled by C. Justice Pemberton, 2 Show 166. See also College of Physicians against Huybert. Goodall’s Collect. 267, where the circumstances are more fully related.