Part 33

~Whereas~ by certeine Letters pattents of our Late Sovereigne Lord King Charles the first dated the ffifteenth day of August in the first yeare of his reigne As alsoe by order of our Sovereigne Lord the King in Councill beareing date the twenty eight day of December last ~Wee~ the Masters or Governo{rs} of the Mistery & Coiãlty of Barbers & Chirurgions of London are Authorized and required forthwith to cause to be impressed or taken up for their Maj{ties} service in Ireland ffortey Chirurgeons Mates & to returne their Names to the Councill Board that care may be taken for their subsistance, In pursuance of the said Authorities & in discharge of the trust in us reposed Wee doe hereby require & com̃and you Peter Smith & Jonas Wills being our officers joyntley & severally to imprest for their Maj{ties} Service fortey Able Chirurgeons Mates delivering every person by you imprest one shilling impresse money chargeing him upon his Allegiance forthwith to pˀpare himselfe for the said Service & to make his personall appearance before us at our Com̃on Hall upon further Summons there to receive such orders & direcc͠on for his speedy repaire to such Service as he shall be assigned unto, and for better execuc͠on hereof his Maj{ties} Deputy leiftennants Sherr̃s Mayors Bayliffs & Constables & others whom it may concerne are to be aiding & assisting unto you. Given under our Comon Seale this 17{th} day of January in the first yeare of the Reigne of our Sovereigne Lord & Ladie King William & Queene Mary 1689.[217]

[217] _i.e._, 1690.

2nd July, 1690. It was ordered that any of the Assistants or Livery being Surgeons and not appearing at the Public Anatomy were to forfeit 3_s._ 4_d._ each.

12th December, 1690. Whereas there hath been an abuse offered to M{r} ffenton Bynns by Doct{r} Goodall for giveing internall medicines in a case of Surgery, Ordered that if the College of Phisitians doe arrest M{r} Bynns that he shall bee defended at the cost of the Company for the fact now menc͠oned in Court.

20 July, 1693. Considering some late ill practises in this Company relating to Anatomy & to prevent the same for the future it is ordered by this Court that noe pˀson what soever (except the Reader, Masters & Stewards of Anatomy for the time being) shall use a knife &c to disect any humaine body at any time hereafter brought to this Hall for an Anatomy upon the forfiture of xl{s} for every fact soe com̃itted.

The Court would seem to have had the power of nominating the Surgeons and Surgeons’ Mates to the ships of the Royal Navy. There are hundreds of instances in the books of these appointments, but the following will suffice as examples:--

11th August, 1693. Ordered that M{r} John Bamber bee warranted Chirurgeon of the Waymouth at Portsmouth.

Ordered that Larkham bee continued on board the Bristoll.

Ordered that M{r} Harding have the first fowerth rate that shall bee ordered out.

13th February, 1694. Ordered that M{r} Nicholson bee continued Chirurgeon of the Oxford & that the Captaine bee acquainted with the same.

27th February, 1694. John Jenkin this day relinquished all title & clame to the S{t} Paull ffire shipp, ordered that Richard Woolett bee warranted in his rome at the request of Captaine Mitchell.

22nd June, 1698. Ordered that the whole body of the pˀson desected bee entirely buried some time tomorrow & that Cave the Beadle take care & see it done.

20th July, 1698. M{r} Woodward pˀsented five Books of M{r} Arris Surgery to the Company.

There is no notice at the British Museum, of any Surgical book written by Edward Arris; these were probably some books which had belonged to him.

29th July, 1701. Dr. Tyson having made some proposals as to the regulation of the Library, a Committee was this day appointed and drew up a great many rules, which are set out in the minutes with much prolixity.

3rd December, 1709. It was ordered that no Examiner in Surgery should in future accept any gratuity from, or be treated or entertained in any manner by, any Sea Surgeon or Surgeon’s Mate, either before or after examination, under the penalty of being removed from his offices of Examiner and Assistant.

1st June, 1710. The Archbishop of Canterbury[218] having licensed several persons to practise as Surgeons without due examination, the following memorial was ordered to be sent to his Grace.

[218] Thomas Tenison, ob. 14th December, 1715.

TO The most Reverend ffather in God Thomas by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

THE humble petition of the Masters or Governo{rs} Assistants Livery & ffreemen of the Mystery & Comonalty of Barbers & Surgeons of London.

SHEWETH:

THAT severall Surgeons unlearned & unskilfull in that Art have set up & practised within Seven miles of the City of London under Colour of a Licence from yo{r} Grace & without the examination & approbation of such Surgeons as the Law hath appointed for that purpose ffor which reason wee beg leave to lay before yo{r} Grace the following representation, viz{t.}:

THAT the Company of Barbers & Surgeons were incorporated by the Charter of King Edward the Second w{ch} was confirmed by the Charter of Edward the fourth with this Addic͠onal Clause That the Governo{rs} of the Company should examine approve & authorise all such as should practise in that ffaculty.[219]

[219] This statement as to a Charter by Edward II is a fiction, as also that it was confirmed by Edward IV, with an additional clause. The first Charter was granted by Edward IV, 24th February, 1462. The remainder of the facts stated in this letter to the Archbishop are, however, correct.

THAT the said Charter of Edward 4{th} not having provided by sufficient penaltys against that great & growing mischeife which sprung from the unskillfullness of several vain pretenders in this art, It was provided by the Statute of the 3 H. 8, cap. 11 That no person within London or seven miles of it should exercise Surgery except they were first examined approved & admitted by the Bishop of London or Dean of Paul’s calling to him four expert persons in that faculty under forfeiture of five pounds pˀ month And out of the City & precints seven miles, unless exaĩed & approved by the Bishop of the Diocess or his Vicar Generall in like mañer, upon which Statute yo{r} petitioners beg leave to observe That it was wholly introductive of a new law & creates a power in the Bishop that was before vested in the Company by the Charter, so doth it take care to confine that power meerly to the Diocesan under the limitation of a regular examination in his presence by four persons that had already passed their examinations.

THE Bishop of each Diocess being therefore by their Law invested with a Temporall power perfectly forreign to their Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction & Spirituall care We do humbly hope yo{r} Grace will not exercise this authority which was never by this law placed in the Metropolitane but was only to be exercised by the Diocesan under a regular Examination by persons admitted into our Company. And yo{r} Grace will find this the more reasonable upon Consideration of this Act for the law makes it a part of the Ecclesiasticall concernment upon a supposition that severall persons pretending to Surgery had practised Sorcery & Witchcraft which yo{r} Grace will pardon us if we beg leave to say was an artificiall notion set up by the popish Clergy in those times to draw within their own Verge the Inspection & approbation of all such persons as attended the beds of dying men.

BUT however that law was obtained, our Company which consisted of all such persons as exercised Surgery within London or seven miles being afterwards incorporated by the Statute of 32 H. 8, C. 42, no man could practise within London or seven Miles Compass of the City without an examination by four of the faculty thus incorporated & without being solemnly admitted into the Company.

AND accordingly the Bishop of London has from time to time been pleased to do us that Justice that we humbly presume yo{r} Grace will not deny us, viz{t} not to license any person within his Diocess who hath not first obtained a Testimoniall under the Seale of our Company certifying the examination of such person & his skill & ability for the exercise of that art.

BUT if this restraint of yo{r} Graces Licences were not to be asked as a matter of Justice We should not doubt to obtain it as a favour, when yo{r} Grace considers how this maner of entring into the faculty opens a way to the Ignorant & unskillfull to the great prejudice both of the Company & of the publick, for yo{r} Grace cannot be so much at leisure from yo{r} pastorall care to enquire into the abilitys of such as pretend to sign their Testimonialls nor is any person that comes in by this method subject to the regulation of our Company’s By-Laws which are all signed under the hands of the two Cheife Justices & the present Lord Chancellour & contrived with the greatest exactness to regulate the practise of this art, besides that every person admitted is obliged to give bond to the Company that he will diligently attend such cures as he shall be called unto & that he will never wilfully administer any hurtfull medecine, And in all cases of danger call in one of our ten Examiners to his assistance who are always ready to afford their assistance when asked.

LASTLY we think we may add that the Companys services of the publick may reasonably deserve some consideration from all lovers of the publick for that ten of the principall persons of the faculty meet once a week at their Hall to examine & approve all Surgeons & Surgeons Mates that are in her Majesties Service which amount to five hundred in a year & to inspect all Sea Surgeons Chests of medicines & instruments & to peruse the Journalls of their practice & to view all Sea officers who are wounded in fight & this without the least reward nor are any admitted into the Sea Service without their Testimoniall & approbation to the very great preservation of the Seamen And tis presumed that a Regulation that has been found so necessary at Sea will appear at Land to be equally beneficiall.

WHEREFORE yo{r} petitioners humbly begg that yo{r} Grace will not for the future be pleased to give Lycences to any persons to practise Surgery within London or seven miles compass thereof untill such persons skill & ability for the exercise of that art appears by a Testimoniall under our Companys Seale to have been tried & approved of by the ten Examiners of our Company appointed for that purpose.

There is no note of any reply to this letter having been received from the Archbishop.

6th February, 1711. The Court petitioned the Queen that they might have the Examination and certifying of all Army Surgeons (who were then examined by the Surgeon-General) in the same way that they examined and passed the Navy Surgeons.

20th February, 1711. Letters similar in effect to the one addressed to the Archbishop on 1st June, 1710, though slightly differing to meet some altered circumstances not necessary to be here set forth in full, were ordered to be sent to the Bishops of London, Winchester and Rochester, and to the Dean of St. Paul’s.

6th March, 1711. It is ordered that William Cave one of the Beadles of this Company do make Inquiry who the persons were that carryed away the last body from Tyburne & that such persons be Indicted for the same.

16th August, 1711. Mr. Daniell Turner intending to become a “Collegiate Physician” applied for his discharge from the Freedom and Livery of the Company, which was granted to him for £50, and that sum he at once paid down.

9th October, 1711. Richard Russell one of the persons who stands Indicted for carrying away the last publick body applying himself to this Court & offering to be evidence against the rest of the persons concerned It it ordered that the Clerk do apply himself to Her Majesty’s Attorney Generall for a Noli pˀsequi as to the said Russell in order to make him an evidence upon the s{d} Indictment & particularly ag{st} one Samuell Waters whom the Court did likewise order to be indicted for the said fact.

It was no uncommon circumstance for candidates under examination to be rejected, the reason being often rather tersely given, _e.g._:

13th February, 1712. W{m} Ogilby Rejected & said very Saucily it should be the last time.

Alex{r} Keith Rejected because an Apothecary’s boy.

Edward Brown Rejected because a Barber.

James Erwin ffor a Mate and rejected for Sauciness to M{r} Blundell & the Court.

1st April, 1712. Two Barbers were ordered to be prosecuted for practising Surgery contrary to the By-Laws.

6th May, 1712. Ordered that M{r} Watts be summoned to appear before the Governo{rs} att the next Court to answer a Complaint ag{t} him for practiceing Surgery & Instructing Barbers for 2 Guineas a peice.

Ordered that M{r} Small be likewise summoned to appeare before the Governo{rs} att the next Court to answer a Complaint ag{t} him for amputateing a Breast without calling an examiner to be present.

27th May, 1712. John Wooding having been convicted at the Old Bailey for taking away the body of John Addison from the place of execution, the Court prayed the Lord Chief Justice to allow the sentence upon him to be inserted in the Gazette, and afterwards to consent in the Company’s name to the remission of his fine and imprisonment.

19th June, 1712. Mr. Bartlett, a truss maker, having been summoned for practising Surgery, he was ordered “to take from his sign board that he cures Ruptures.”

7th May, 1713. The Court having complained to the Bishop of London of the inconvenience arising from his licensing persons to practise Surgery, and the Bishop having informed the Company that he would not issue any more such licenses without a certificate of fitness from the Company, it was thereupon ordered that 5 guineas should be paid yearly to his Lordship’s Registrar as Caveat money.

28th May, 1713. Ordered that the Clark go to the Secretary at War for a Guard in order to gett the next Body [from Tyburn].

13th August, 1713. Upon hearing a complaint ag̃st M{r} Godman & M{r} Pinsent for p{r}tending that one Vincents thigh was broke when it was not & then they had sett it contrary to truth & proficiency in Surgery & the Patient & other Witnesses being examined & proving y{e} fact ag̃st him, the Court fined M{r} Godman five pounds for his unskillfull & wilfull practice & to be sued upon the by law or his bond as shall be thought most convenient.

19th November, 1714. Att this Court John Spurling a Barber at Highgate was ordered to be prosecuted upon the Company’s Charter for practising Surgery upon John Holmes Barber.

21st April, 1715. The Court being informed that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty proposed to place the viewing of Sea Surgeons’ chests with Dr. Oliver and Mr. Rider, Physician and Surgeon of Greenwich Hospital, to the exclusion of the Company’s rights and contrary to the Charter of Charles I; it was ordered that a memorial should be presented to the first Lord against such a proposal.

4th June, 1715. The Lords of the Admiralty having requested the Court to undertake, with Dr. Oliver, the examination of such Warrant Officers in the Navy as should apply for superannuation pensions on the ground of age, wounds or infirmities, the Court directed the Clerk to reply stating that the Company would perform that office, and hold Courts for the purpose, on the first Friday in each month. Pursuant to the above, Courts were held and certificates granted from time to time.

5th June, 1716. It is ordered That Nathaniel Charles be prosecuted He owning that he had lett blood severall times for one shilling and six pence, As allso his Master Joseph Roe. Twas observed that M{r} Roe could not write his name haveing set his mark only to the Indenture.

3rd July, 1716. Ordered that the Clerk do permitt Mr. Beckett[220] to Inspect the Company’s Registers of ffremen and apprentices and The Table of Governors Names to enable him to publish his book now in hand relateing to the lives and writings of eminent Surgeons.

[220] At the British Museum there is “A collection of Surgical Tracts,” by William Beckett, F.R.S., London, 1740, and in the preface thereto it is stated that the collection formed by Mr. Beckett relating to eminent Surgeons had not been published.

6th July, 1716. Att this Court M{r} Langley who lives in Shoreditch being suspected to be a Quack Doctor was exaĩed touching his skill in Surgery but not being able to answer a question was rejected.

1st July, 1720. Ordered That the Porter in Southwark and a Bone setter in Cheapside be prosecuted for Bone seting.

5th August, 1720. James King the Surgeon who deposited £7 13_s._ 0_d._ in order to be exaĩed againe as a fforreigne Brother was now Examined againe but not being fittly qualifyed he was rejected and ordered his money back And ordered to be prosecuted in case he shall ever practice Surgery for the future.

23rd June, 1721. The Master represented to the Court that “great trouble and inconveniency” had arisen in consequence of such Surgeons as had of late offered themselves for examination not having presented the Governors and Examiners “with Gloves of such sort and goodness as had been customarily and antiently given to the Governors and Examiners upon such examinac͠on and by buying the gloves of tradesemen who were not proper dealers in such sort of goods.” Whereupon it was ordered that in future every Candidate before Examination should deposit with the Clerk as much money as would be sufficient to pay each of the Governors and Examiners who should be present six shillings, for them to lay out in the purchase of such gloves as they should see fit. On the 10th December, 1725, the glove money was raised from 6_s._ to 10_s._ 6_d._

The real secret of the above order, no doubt was, that there were such a great number of surgeons coming up for examination from time to time, that the Governors and Examiners got less money and more gloves than they wanted.

26th April, 1723. It is ordered that M{r} John Douglass Surgeon and a fforeigne brother of this Company shall be admitted into the freedom and Livery of this Company and be discharged and acquitted from holding or paying any fine for his freedom or Livery, or for all or any offices to the Parlour door as a Compliment to him for introducing the new method of Cutting for the Stone and to express the sense this Court hath of the usefullness therof.

4th September, 1724. William Turner Barber who was sumoned at the last Court for letting blood appeared at this Court and owning his practiceing Surgery and insisting on his right and sufficiency so to do This Court doth order that the Clark do sue the said Turner for letting blood and practiceing Surgery contrary to the Statute of 32. Hen: 8: Cap. 42.

2nd October, 1724. At this Court Thomas Cooke was examined for a fforreigne Brother But being found insufficient he was rejected. Note he lives in Duck Lane Publishes Bills as a Quack pretending to the cure of the Venereall disease, but he being examined touching the cure of that distemper in particular and being found to know little or nothing of it, the Court directed him to take down his Surgeon’s sign and not to practice for the future on pain of being sued upon the Act of Parliament and Company’s Charter.

1725. The following seems somewhat inappropriately placed amongst the dinner accounts for this year.

~The~ CHARGES TO BE PAID BY THE MASTERS AND STEWARDS OF ANATOMY FOR PROCURING A BODY BESIDES THE DINNER AT YE VISCERA LECTURE.

_s._ _d._

Horsehire 2 6 For a Coach 6 0 For expenses in fetching the Body 2 6 To the Sheriff’s officers 13 4 To the Beadles assistant 1 0 For Washing the Body 1 0 For a Coffin 5 0 To Parson Ground Clark and Sexton 5 10 To the Bearers 2 0 Funeral expenses 2 6 For a certificate 0 6 The Clark’s fees 10 0 The 2 Beadle’s ffees 10 0 For a Link 0 3 To the Chairwoman 5 0 ----------- £3 7 5 ===========

14th October, 1726. At this Court Peter North Boatswain of His Majesty’s ship Cornwall was viewed for superannuation and pretended to be afflicted with deafness & the Gout. But the Court being of opinion that his deafness (if any) was occasion{d} by wax in his ear only, which might be cured by syringing, and not being satisfy{d} that he had the gout, The Court did not think fit but that he was capable of further service at Sea.

At this Court one Chambers surgeon in Duck Lane was examined touching his Skill in Surgery in order to be made a fforeign brother, but appearing to be a stupid ffellow & a sort of a Quack who gave out Bills, and not being able to answer a question the Court rejected him.

17th February, 1727. The Navy Board having, on the 16th inst., written to the Master and Wardens enclosing a copy of an anonymous letter which had been received, charging the Examiners in Surgery with partiality, and with qualifying incompetent persons as Navy Surgeons, the Court seem to have taken the matter up in a high spirited manner, and returned a long letter setting forth their practice in conducting the Examinations, referring in detail to the particular case alleged against them, and indeed made a most excellent and satisfactory defence. The correspondence is very lengthy and full of detail, much reference being made to the work carried on by the Company for the public service without fee or reward.

7th March, 1727. It is ordered That for y{e} future when any apprentices are to be bound to Surgeons they shall be called in & be examined by themselves touching their skil in y{e} Latin tongue.

7th April, 1727. James Ripoult a Frenchman was called in but not speaking English nor being naturalized the Court did not think it proper to examine him.

5th October, 1727. John Jacob Sax being a Prussian by birth & not naturalized nor understanding English The Court did not think it proper to examine him.

William Miles recomended by Lord Torrington & examined but seeming to know nothing of Surgery was rejected.

16th January, 1729. A Petition was drawn up by the Court for presentation to the King, setting forth the Company’s right to four dead bodies of felons yearly to be obtained at Tyburn, and that of late divers riotous persons had wrested the bodies from the Company’s Beadles at the place of execution. The Court declared that these proceedings were greatly to the detriment of the study of Surgery, and also set forth the services which the Company rendered to the State, by examining Surgeons and their Mates for the Royal Navy, viewing their medicine chests and instruments, viewing all such officers as are wounded in fight at Sea and for superannuation, and they conclude--