Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 7.djvu/39

 9" s. vii. JAN. 12, 1901.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

31

A monk who kept horses, hounds, &c., anc frequently went hunting, had no choice but to acknowledge that any saying against hunting monks applied to him ; nor could he deny the epithet " gownless " if he habitually appearec in fine clothes ; but it is always open to a man to make a fair appearance in defending him- self against being held reckless. The ex- Elanation given by Chaucer (1. 181) may lirly be taken as a parallel saying, convey ing in substance the same reproach.

Chaucer tells us that on revising a tran- scription of his poems he found many errors. From this it follows that an unconnected copy by a scribe inspired by the voice and pre- sence of the poet was unreliable ; and still more unreliable is that by a scribe with second-hand inspiration.

When one criticizes Chaucer, one is far from pretending to know more than the author ; one does not even pretend to know more than the scribe, only more than is actually set forth in the writing.

With regard to what might be said of one who amended an author whose language he did not know how to pronounce, nothing more could be said against him than that his emendations were wrong. Anything more would be a mere argumentum ad hominem, that would recoil on the head of him who used it, showing him to be one who questioned the truth of the saying, " The proof of the pud- ding is in the eating, not in the knowledge or reputation of the cook." A. C. W.

INSTALLATION OF A MIDWIFE (9 th S. v. 475 ; vi. 9, 177, 274, 336, 438). The Act 3 Henry VIII. (1511) decided that no person should exercise or occupy as a physician or surgeon in London, or within seven miles, unless he were first examined or approved by the Bishop of London or the Dean of St. Paul's, who was to be assisted in the examination by four doctors of jjhysic and by persons expert in the art of surgery further, that no person not so approved should practise within any diocese of England unless he had been ex- amined and approved by the bishop of the diocese, assisted by such expert persons as the bishop might, in his discretion, think fit. Letters testimonial under the bishop's seal were to be granted to the approved persons, and any one occupying contrary to the Act incurred a forfeiture of 5l. a month.

According to this Act, it appears that the archbishops and bishops and the Dean of St. Paul's constituted the only authorities who could grant licences to persons to practise physic and chirurgery in England. The Privy Council, although not named in the

Act, certainly possessed the same power. It granted a licence to Adrian [sic] Colman, widow, to practise physic in Norwich in 1596. Midwives were in those days licensed by the same authorities. This was an absolute necessity, inasmuch as, if there was any danger of the child dying before a priest could be summoned, the midwife was bound to baptize it. It was therefore necessary that the midwife should be not only licensed, but also endowed with authority to perform so sacred a rite as that of baptism. Conse- quently, before the licence was granted, an oath containing fifteen items was solemnly administered to her. She was to use " pure and clear water only, and not any rose or damask water, or water made of any con- fection." The Norwich Diocese Book from 1770 to 1786 contains a record of licences given to thirty persons " to perform the office, business, and functions of a midwife," to three persons (two of whom were females) to practise as surgeons, and to two others to practise phlebotomy. No licence was granted after 1786. In the Archbishop of York's in- junctions to his clergy curates were enjoined "to instruct mid wives openly in the church in the very words and form of baptism, to the intent that they may use them and none other." The register of Hanwell records a singular mistake which occurred at a baptism of this kind :

"Thomas, son of Thomas Messenger and Eliza- beth his wife, was born and baptized October 24th, 1731, by the midwife at the Font, called a boy, and named by the godfather Thomas, but proved a girl."

From the table of fees in the Consignation Book, Norwich, 1706, it appears that licences to practise physic, chirurgery, or midwifery were generally one shilling each, sometimes two shillings : Cecily Dey, of Marlingford, paid two shillings for a licence to practise chirurgery, arid Rachel Pank, of Swanton Abbot, one shilling and sixpence for a mid- wife's licence.

Licences were granted at the bishop's visitations, and those which were in force lad to be exhibited and a fee paid. Those vho refused to appear were proceeded against n the spiritual courts. Any person who Dresumed to practise without a licence was ined bl. a month, one half of which went to the king and the other half to the informer. An example of a midwife's licence :

8 Philip (Yonge, 1761-1783], by Divine permission Bishop of Norwich, to our beloved in Christ, Sarah ihe wife of Jonathan Tomlinson, of Walsoken in he county of Norfolk, within our Diocese and urisdiction, sendeth greeting. Whereas we under- itand by good testimony and credible certificate