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--
Your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that your Majesty will
be graciously pleased to permitt and direct That a ffyle or Two of
y{r} Majesty’s ffoot Guards shall upon applicac͠on to the Commanding
Officer attend the publick executions from time to time to guard
and assist your Petic͠oners Beadles in the taking away so many dead
bodys yearly as are granted unto your Petic͠oners by the said Act of
Parliament or otherwise to releive your Petic͠oners in such manner as
your Majesty in your Majesty’s most gracious wisdom and condescension
shall think fitt.
The Company seem also to have applied to the Court of Aldermen again
for assistance in this matter, for, on the 7th March following, it was
ordered that 2,000 copies of two orders of the Lord Mayor and Court
of Aldermen, dated respectively 4th February and 4th March, should be
printed, and copies fixed up at Newgate and other public places on the
road to Tyburn, some time before any execution, and also that the said
orders should be inserted in the London Gazette and other papers.
4th April, 1729. Peregrine Compton Rejected being fuddled & not
answering a question.
1st February, 1732. It was ordered that any extraordinary cases of
Surgery appearing in the journals of the Sea Surgeons should be copied
out into a book, as well as any others which might be reported to the
Governors, and the same be laid before the Court of Examiners, from
time to time, for their direction as to whether the same should be
published. This book, if it ever existed, is not now in the Company’s
possession.
15th August, 1734. It is ordered that from henceforward a Silver
Medal not exceeding the value of a Guinea with a proper device upon
each side of it to be made and presented at the end of the year to
each of the Demonstrators now chosen and to the Demonstrators for the
time being as an acknowledgment for their trouble in performing such
Demonstrations.
These medals by a subsequent order, were to have a representation of
Holbein’s picture on one side and of Inigo Jones’ Theatre on the other,
but they do not appear to have ever been struck.
It was customary at the Demonstrations of Anatomy to provide specimens
of parts of animals, presumably for comparison, as appears by some of
the expenses incurred, _e.g._, in 1732:--
To a sheeps hart & kidney 0 0 6
A sheeps hart and lights 0 0 4
2 Bullocks eyes 0 0 4
and the following is the Beadle’s Bill at the dissection of a female
malefactor in 1735:--
For a board to lay her head upon 0 0 4
For a board to shew her liver upon 0 1 0
For two bullocks eyes 0 0 4
For four sheeps eyes 0 0 4
For a quarter of soap 0 0 1-1/2
For hogs brissels 0 0 1
For a new spunge 0 0 3
For Borrowing a Hone to set the Instruments 0 0 3
For Sticking up the Bills 0 2 6
For nine days attendance at 2{s} 6{d} p{r} Day 1 2 6
------------
£1 7 8-1/2
============
4th February, 1735. Under this date is an entry of a long letter from
the Commissioners of the Navy, complaining of the want of skill in a
Surgeon, whereby great mortality had ensued on the ship _Newcastle_;
the Court examined the Surgeon and his Journal and considered that
there was nothing to find fault with as regarded his proficiency in
Surgery, and that the sickness among the ship’s crew required skill
in Physic rather than in Surgery, moreover they declared that the
Physician at Greenwich examined the Navy Surgeons as to their skill
in Physic and not the Barber-Surgeons’ Company. The Clerk was directed
to write to the Commissioners to this effect, and to state that the
Company did not consider themselves answerable for any man’s want of
skill in Physic.
A long letter dated 5th February was accordingly written and is set out
in the Minute Book. The Surgeon complained of was Thomas Middleton, son
of Mr. Henry Middleton (the oldest Member of the Court) and it appears
that he had been fully examined and qualified.
29th September, 1735. The following order touching the vexed question
of dead bodies was issued by the Sheriffs:--
~London~ TO WITT
IN PURSUANCE of an Act of Parliament made in the Thirty second year
of King Henry the Eighth and of an order of Sessions bearing date
the eighth day of July in the Fifteenth year of our late Sovereign
Lord King Charles the First Sir Maurice Abbott Mayor. ~Wee~ do
order and command our Officers who are entrusted with or attend
the execution of such Malefactors as shall be to dye at any time
hereafter during our Sheriffalty to deliver to Henry Gretton and
William Littlebury Beadles of the Company of Barbers and Surgeons
of London or such other Officer or Officers as the Company shall
appoint, One of the Bodys of the said Malefactors from time to time
for a publick Dissection and to assist them with the said body to
their Hall according to an Order of the Court of Aldermen of the
Thirteenth of February 1675[221] Sir William Hooker Mayor and to two
other subsequent Orders of the Court of Aldermen one bearing date the
fourth day of February the other the fourth day of March 1728[222]
Sir Robert Baylis Knight Lord Mayor.
[221] 1676 N.S.
[222] 1729 N.S.
Given under our hands this 29{th} day of September 1735.
JN{O} BARNARD
RO{T} GODSCHALL.
1st June, 1736. It is ordered that the Constables of the Holborn
Division shall be allowed Three Guineas and a halfe above the Guinea
already paid them in regard to their expences at the last execution,
when the Body was taken from the Beadles and retaken by the
Constables and the Clerk is ordered to repay the same But the Clerk
is not to pay the officers of the Compter the Two guineas usually
received by them at every execution.