Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/348



The College of Physicians versus Dr. West.

(from 10 Mod. 358.)

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.