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.
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 commercial 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.
Chorley, M. D. v. Bolcot, executor.
(From 4 T. R. p. 317.)
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 acknowledgment 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.
Rule absolute.