Chapter XII: THE TWELVE Article is that if Olyver Wilson dothe hereafter (7)

24th September, 1635. Alsoe for that Nicholas Downeing not being an
approved Surgian according to Lawe did twoe opac͠ons[202] in Surgery
contrary to the Lawes of this Kingdome & the Customes & ordinances of
this Companie and being forbid by the M{rs} & Governo{rs} to forbeare
those opac͠ons did notwithstanding that prohibic͠on make opac͠ons
and both patients died, Was fined at iiij{li,} viz{t.,} xl{s} a peece
for each of those twoe opac͠ons because he made not two presentac͠ons
according to the ordinance of this Companie in that behalfe, And he
to be prosecuted at Lawe for the Childs miscarriage.

[202] Operations.

Alsoe this daye the said Nicholas Downeing was fined by this Court at
vj{s.} viij{d.} for his uncivill behavio{r} to M{r} John Woodall an
auncient M{r} of this Companie.

6th October, 1635. Alsoe Nicholas Downeing being here in Court was
required to paye his three fines according to his promise the last
Thursdaye, denied to paye them, is by this Court comitted to the
Compter in Wood Streete in my lord Maio{r} of Londons name.

The following entry is not complimentary to Dr. William Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, the marginal note in the minute book being “Doctor Harveys ill practise.”

17th November, 1635. This daye W{m} Kellett being called here in
Court for not makeing presentac͠on of one M{r} Kinnersleys maide that
died in his charge, he saied here in Court that M{r} Doctor Harvye
being called to the patient did upon his vew of the patient saie,
that by the meanes of a boulster the tumor on the temporall muskle
would be discussed and his opinion was, that there was noe fracture
but the vomiteing came by reason of the foulenesse of the Stomacke,
and to that purpose pˀscribed physick by Briscoe the Apothecarye, soe
the patient died by ill practise, the fracture being neglected & the
Companie not called to the vew.

The next entry illustrates the peremptory method of dealing with a quack:--

22nd October, 1635. One Christopher Hatton whoe saied he waighteth
on S{r} W{m} Belfore his Ma{t}ꝭ Lieutenant of The Tower came to this
Court to knowe the reason of the Companies takeing downe of Lãw
Raylens banner or mountabanck table of bladders & stones being a
stranger borne & then were hung upon Tower hill execution place, this
Courts answere was that by the Lawes & Charters of this Companie they
tooke & demolished them.

ALSO the said Lawrence Ruylen a mountabanck was called here in
Court and ordered to paye his fine of v{li} for hanging his signes
tables bladders and stones upon the publique postꝭ in streetes &
on the Traitors scaffold on Tower hill in an exorbitant manner
being contrary to the Lawes and Charters of this Companie confirmed
according to Lawe And this Court doth order that those signes
and bladders shalbe demolished and he is forbidden from further
practiseing any pˀt of Surgerye hereafter within London or 7 miles
Compasse of this Cittye.

1637. For several years prior to and about this period numerous entries occur of Surgeons being fined £5 for going to sea without license or without having their sea chests examined, also for sending their apprentices to sea as surgeons’ mates without examination.

29th March, 1638. It is ordered that Edward Arris[203] and Hen:
Boone[204] shall have libertie to sett up in o{r} Theater a Sceleton
by them wrought on when they were Masters Anatomysts on the body of
Cañbury besse[205] to be placed on the Corbell stone of the Signe
Libra alsoe they have leave to paint that peere of bricks up to the
Cornish & to depict the planett Venus governeing those twoe signes
underneath Libra & Taurus with twoe shadowed neeces[206] for two
Sceletons & to sett up their names or mottoe under Libra they payeing
the charge for the same & such pˀson or pˀsons as shall sett up a
sceleton on the other signe Taurus shall paye the moietye of the
charge they are now at in painting.

[203] Alderman, Master 1651.
[204] Master 1655.
[205] Canonbury Bessie, a malefactor.
[206] Niches.

3rd July, 1638. Upon the complaint ag{t} ffran: Soare for discecting
a bodye in his owne house contrary to the ordinance It is ordered he
shalbe sumoned ag{t} the next Court.

22nd October, 1638. Tho. Bowden being called to this Court for not
makeing pˀntac͠on of his patient Godfrey Lee whoe died under his
handꝭ is fined at xl{s.}

Alsoe the said Thomas Bowden being not an approved Surgian for that
he tooke upon him the cure & charge of y{e} said Godfrey being
daungerouslie wounded & did not joyne an able & approved surgian with
him in that cure is fined at v{li.}

Alsoe it is ordered that for his the said Thomas Bowdens evill
practise in Surgerye he shalbe Comitted to the Compter in Wood
Streete.

Mr. Bowden subsequently mended his ways as he was elected Third Warden in 1654 and Upper Warden in 1660.

22nd October, 1638. It is ordered that the M{r} & Wardens & as many
of the Assistants Surgians with Counsell shall attend the right
hono{ble} y{e} Lordꝭ of his Ma{t}ꝭ most hono{ble} privye Councell
about the new Patent for distilling strong Waters.

6th March, 1639. Mrs. Susan Gwinn, widow of Dr. Gwinn, the Reader of Anatomy, presented the Doctor’s MSS. to the Company.

1638-9. About this period the war with Scotland consequent upon Charles I interfering in Scotch Church matters, broke out, and a large army being collected in the North the Barber-Surgeons were directed to “press” and forward twenty-three Surgeons to Newcastle.

The Minute relating to this is as follows,--

20th April, 1639. Upon reading the warr{t} sent to this house from
Yorke signed by the Lord Generall concerneing the want of Surgians in
the Armye It is concluded by the Governo{rs} & Assistants here pˀnte
that M{r} Warden Dunn & M{r} Collins shall goe on, & goe aboard some
Newcastle shipp and agree with a shipper for y{e} conveighance of
y{e} Surgians & their Chests & provisions & their mates, & likewise
give them conduct money, & that for the present that charge to be
borne out of the stock of this house untill it cann be reobteyned
from the Thrẽr of y{e} Armye.

This appears to have cost the Company £44 14_s._, whereof they received but £23, the balance never having been paid. The details of the expenditure are subjoined, and in reading them we cannot but commiserate the unhappy men who were barged to Gravesend and thence “transported” to Newcastle.

DISBURSEM{T}ꝭ FOR IMPRESTING AND SHIPPINGE OF THE SURGIANS IN THE YEARS IMPLOYM{T} FOR THE KINGS SERVICE.

Laid out by Edmund Johnson for ymprestinge
of Surgeons for the Kingꝭ service v{li}

Delivered to M{r} Collins for the like x{s}

Spent in goeinge to Lymehouse Ratcliffe &
wappinge to presse xviij{d}

Paid to xxiij Surgions who were transported
by sea from London to Newcastle xxiij{li}
of w{ch} rec{d} by M{r} Serjant Clowes
xvij{li} x{s} & my selfe xx{s} so that
there doth remayne unsatisfied iiij{li} x{s}

Paid unto Tho: Wells the M{r} of the
shipp to transport them viij{li}

Paid for a barge to carry us & them to xxx{s}
Gravesend

Spent at Gravesend at dynner ix{s} vj{d}

Spent at Supper vij{s}

Paid Jo: Mules w{ch} he disburced for
Warfage literage caremenn & other like
Charges as pˀ bill xxvj{s}
-------------------------
Sum̃ is xxj{li} xiiij{s}
-------------------------

In accordance with their Charters the ancient practice of the Company had been to elect annually two Surgeons and two Barbers for Master and Wardens; this fell into electing two Surgeons and two others who were often neither Barbers nor Surgeons, and latterly, even the qualification of Surgery came to be disregarded, whereupon (29th March, 1639) a mandate, signed by Charles I and directed to the Company, was read in Court (see Appendix, G) in which the King set forth that divers persons as “hosiers dyers & other tradesmen unskilfull in Chirurgery or Barbarye” had been chosen for Masters and Wardens contrary to the Charters and Acts of Parliament, and further “wee takeing into considerac͠on of what dangerous consequence it maye be to suffer a Companye wherein the lives and safetie of o{r} people are soe much concerned and for w{ch} o{r} progenitors have soe carefully provided to be governed by such unskilfull pˀsons,” the King straitly commanded the Company to elect the Governors in the future as they ought to do, viz.: two Barbers and two Surgeons each year.

This order of the King appears for some little time to have been obeyed, and then the Company relapsed into their old practice of choosing at their pleasure, whereupon another mandate came from the King, for we find that:--

17th January, 1644. The Court took notice of the King’s mandate, and a very long and elaborate minute is entered to the effect that the practice of choosing two Barbers and two Surgeons for Governors was fraught with much inconvenience and had led to great dissensions, and the Court referring to the Statute of Henry VII, where it is allowed that any person free of the Company following any other profession than that of a Barber or Surgeon should be reputed and taken as a Barber, ordered that for the future, any Member of the Assistants, other than a Barber or Surgeon, might be put in nomination, and that he should be accounted a Barber. The Court were very careful to express their loyalty to the King whilst they ignored his mandate, trusting no doubt, that should they afterwards be called to account by the King, their dutiful expressions towards him would serve in a measure as an excuse for disobeying his express commands.

[Sidenote:
Mould for y{e}
Kings Evill.]

2nd July, 1639. Anthony Mould called to this Court and questioned
concerneing his practise in Surgerye, confessed that he deales onely
in swellings and Kernills & hath a licence from the Kinge to practise
the same, he hath lately taken into his Cure one George Ravenscroft
for scrophilous tumo{rs} in the neck, this Court at the said Moulds
request, hath given libertye to Mould to cure him by Michaelmas next,
& he hath promised then to present the said Geo: whole & well to this
Court.

Some nine years afterwards Mould was again before the Court in a case of King’s evil.

21st March, 1648. Henry Ivatt complayned against Anthony Mold for
his evill practice On the Wife of the said Ivatt who being afflicted
with the Kings Evill Whereof he undertooke to cure her And for that
purpose did receive of the said Ivatt xxx{s} in hand and was to have
40{s} more when she was cured Both partyes refeered themselves to
this Court Whereupon this Court doth Order That the said Mold doth
restore xx{s} back againe to the said Ivatt Which he promised to pay
accordingly And soe all differences betweene the said parties by
theire owne consent to cease and determine.

6th February, 1646. It is this day ordered That our M{r} and M{r}
Warden Browne[207] with the other Assistants Surgeons present doe
move the Sheriffs That at the time of Execuc͠on a Body be quietly
delivered to this Companye’s officer for an Anatomy.

[207] Martin Browne, an eminent Surgeon, Master in 1653, gave the
Company a Silver loving cup and cover.

9th March, 1646. This day M{r} Warden Browne acquainted this Court
that whereas he about 6 yeares sithence had a child of M{r} Hamonds
to his Patient with whome he upon his first calling thither found
M{r} Thomas Bowden[208] with others Who after presentac͠on made by
the Motion of M{r} Warden Browne dyed, that he hath bin reported by
the ffather of the child to have murthered the child And that M{r}
Thomas Bowden had justifyed and would justify the same of w{ch}
scandall M{r} Warden complayneing to this Co{rt} M{r} Bowden prayed
to be excused from giveing any answer thereunto ffor that there was
a Suite at Law now depending betweene M{r} Hamond and M{r} Warden
Browne concerning that matter.

[208] Warden, 1654.

23rd April, 1646. Mr. Martin Browne requested and had a Committee of Examiners to enquire into the case of Hamond’s child, and to report to the Court.

14th May, 1646. The Committee brought up their Report, finding that on the 28th January, 1639, Mr. Browne was called to Mr. Hamond’s child in Bow Lane, the child having fallen out of a window and seriously injured its head. That Mr. Browne consulted with Dr. Spicer and Mr. Thomas Bowden (whom he found there) and as they all conceived the child to be in danger, presentation was duly made to the Wardens of the Barber-Surgeons, that thereupon by general consent, the child was let blood and had a glister, and the next day his head was shaved and a cataplasm applied, that these remedies were continued for about eight days and that then it was deemed advisable to open the head, which was done by Mr. Browne with a Trapan in the presence and with the advice and approbation of Mr. Serjeant Clowes (then Master), Mr. George Dunn[209] (Warden), Mr. William Kings,[210] Mr. Eaton and the said Mr. Bowden, and that the child died on the 15th day, that proper remedies had been duly applied and that everything had been done with great care according to art.

[209] Master, 1646.

[210] Master, 1650.

23rd October, 1646. This Court doth order That all the approved
Chirurgeons according to Law shall appeare at all publique Anatomyes
for the time to come in a fflatt Capp upon the penalty of 3{s} 4{d}
and all the rest of the Livery in a Hatt.

1646. ~The~ CHARGES OF THE ANATHOMYES BETWEENE MICHAS AND
CHRISTMAS LAST.

Paid for Carryeing the Cophin to Newgate 00 00 06

ffor horsehire to the place of execuc͠on 00 02 00

ffor the ffees at the place of execuc͠on 00 05 06

ffor expences at S{t} Gyles xij{d} to the carman xij{d}
and for washing the bodye xij{d} 00 03 00

ffor Perfumes xij{d} wax candles ij{d} and soape j{d} 00 01 03

ffor lynnen for the Bodye 00 06 08

To the Beadles Assistant in taking the Bodye 00 01 00

Paid the Parsons dutye for the buriall ij{d} for y{e}
grave xij{d} for the Clerke & Sexton xxij{d} 00 04 10

To the Bearers ij{s} & expended at the buriall ij{s} vj{d} 00 04 06

ffor a Cophin to burye the bodye in 00 03 04

To Doctor Godard for reading six lectures 06 00 00

To M{r} Nicholas Brothers and M{r} William Watson
whoe desected the bodye xl{s} appeece 04 00 00

Paid for 3 dynners for the M{rs} or Governo{rs} Assistants
Reader & desectors 10 00 00

ffor Candles for 3 mornings 00 11 11

To the twoe Beadles their ffee for three dayes
attendance 00 10 00

1647-8. Paid and disbursed in Charges in sending Chyrurgians
to the seige at Colchester by lr̃e from the Com{rs} of the
Armye & for their maintenance & medicines 17 13 06

26th January, 1647. William Watson haveing his Letters of admittance
and not sealed the Bond according to the ordinance in that behalfe
did amongst other uncivill behaviour and words to our M{r} and the
Court say That he would not be whipˀd by a Bond and that he would
give his answer at his owne convenience. And when our M{r} told him
That he must seale the Bond he answered That must was for the King,
But this Court gave him a fortnight to give his answer peremptorily.

1655. The following is a Copy of a Surgeon’s Certificate to practise:--

[Sidenote:
CERTIFICATE IN
THE BEHALF OF
A CHIRURGEON.]

~To all people~ to whom this present writeing shall come JOHN
FREDERICKE ESQ{R} Alderman of the Cittie of London Thomas Allen
Abraham Clerke and Thomas Bowden Mas{rs} or Govˀno{rs} of the Mistery
and cominalty of Barbers and Chirurgeons of London send Greeting in
our Lord God everlasting.

~Whereas~ WEE have had experience & sufficient Tryall as well of the
good behaviour & honest conversac͠on of Samuell Holditch a Freeman of
the said mistery and Cominaltie & one of the Cloathing of our said
Corporac͠on as alsoe of his skill exp̃ience & knowledge in the Arte
or Science of Chirurgery. NOW KNOW YEE that wee the said Masters or
Govˀno{rs} (att the humble suite and entreatie of the said Samuell
Holditch & for his further appᵬac͠on of his skill) Have on the day
of the date of these presents caused him to be deliberately examined
& tryed before us concerning his sufficiency & knowledge in the same
arte by William Kings[211] Edward Arris[212] Henry Boone[213] Robert
Bullacke[214] Charles Stamford[215] & Lawrence Loe[216] Masters
in Chirurgery being six of the examiners appointed and auth̃ized
according to Lawe for the examinac͠on and appᵬac͠on of Chirurgeons
And findeing him the said Samuell Holditch a fitt and able pˀson to
practice use & exercise the said Arte of Chirurgery Wee doe by these
ps̃ents as much as in us is admitt app̃ve of & allowe him to practice
use and exercise the said Arte or science of Chirurgery & all and
every the parts thereof according to the force forme & effect of the
statutes in that behalf made & p̃vided.

[211] Master 1650.
[212] M. 1651.
[213] M. 1655.
[214] M. 1657.
[215] M. 1659.
[216] M. 1667.

IN WITNESSE whereof we the said Masters or Govˀno{rs} have hereunto
subscribed our names & caused the Comõn seale of y{e} said
Corporac͠on to be fixed this seaventh day of May in the yeare of our
Lord God according to the accompt kept in England One thousand six
hundred fifty & five.

JOHN FREDERICK
THO: ALLEN
ABRA: CLERKE
THO: BOWDEN.

1690. The following is a copy of a Press warrant issued by the Masters and Governors to their Beadles, Smith and Wills:--

~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--

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.

24th September, 1741. John Thrift the Executioner this day attended
on a complaint made against him by the Beadles for obstructing the
Bodys being brought from Tyburne to the Hall for dissection and
threatning to prevent the Company’s measures for obtaining the same,
when after he had been reproved, was Dismissed, But the Court then
agreed (in order to prevent his intended proceedings) to attend the
Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen that they may on complaint made be
releived therein.

18th December, 1741. Ordered that the High Constable of Holburne be
allowed Ten shillings and sixpence as his ffee for every Body that
shall be brought from Tyburne and delivered at this Company’s Hall
and for his aiding and assisting the Company’s Beadles therein and
not otherwise.

10th February, 1742. The Court either forgetting or ignoring their order of 7th May, 1713, now ordered that Mr. William Skelton, a proctor in Doctors’ Commons, who had for many years past received five guineas annually as Caveat money (being Registrar of the Bishop of London) and “pretended to be allowed him by this Company on account of his Lordship’s Grant for the Prohibiting of Surgeons to practice within his Diocese be no longer entitled to such fee untill such time as this Court shall be better informed of the nature of his right of demanding the same.”

23rd November, 1740. Great consternation prevailed at the Hall in consequence of a malefactor who had been hung at Tyburn having revived when brought here for dissection. The account of this remarkable occurrence is recorded by the Clerk, Mr. Joseph Wheeler, on the last page of the rough Minute Book 1738-1742, and is very interesting. From the record of his trial at the Old Bailey (see Sessions Papers) Duell appears to have been an outrageous young scoundrel. A popular impression prevails, and frequent currency has been given to it, that Duell subsequently made a fortune abroad and out of gratitude to the Barber-Surgeons for saving his life, presented them with the handsome leather folding screen now in the Court Room, the best answer to which is, that the screen in question is referred to in the Company’s Inventory some thirty years previously to Mr. Duell’s visit to Tyburn.

Mr. Wheeler’s account is as follows--

November the 23{d.} 1740.

This day W{m.} Duell (who had been indicted at the Old Bayley for a
Rape and had received sentence of Death for the same) was carryed
to Tyburne in order to be executed where having hung some time was
cutt down and brought to this Company’s Hall in order to be dissected
where he had not been five minutes before Life appeared in him &
being let blood and other means used for his recovery in less than
two hours he sat upright drank some warm wine and lookˀd often round
him and before he was carryed back to Newgate which was about Twelve
o’the Clock at Night he severall times pronounced distinctly the
word DONT when anybody touched him though was thought to be mostly
insensible of anything but paine which in a great measure he endured
by his most violent screamings & was often in strong convulsions in
his bowells which he then exprest by applying his hands to those
parts.

The Sheriffs having ordered him back to Newgate he was carryed out in
a blankett putt into a Coach & was seemingly much composed & quiet
not making any manner of noise wherein 3 or 4 days time he recovered
sufficient to converse & eat & drink very freely but never could give
any reasonable account of what had passed. He afterwards obtained a
reprieve in order to be transported for life which he was accordingly
in the 16th year of his age. (_Vide_ his Tryall in the Sessions paper
of that time.)

The Wardens’ accounts give the following particulars relative to this case:--

£ _s._ _d._

Paid the Beadles their expences in bringing
the last Body from Tyburne 2 19 0

Paid the Officers of the Two Compters 2 2 0

Paid Joseph Wheeler the Company’s Clerk his
Coach hire and expences in attending the
Sheriffs when the Body came to life 0 10 0

Paid the Chairwoman for her trouble and
expences about the Body 0 5 0

A somewhat similar account of the foregoing circumstance will be found in Maitland’s London (ed. 1756), Vol. I, p. 613, and also in the Gentleman’s Magazine, Vol. X, p. 570.

SURGICAL LECTURES AND DEMONSTRATIONS.

There are many references throughout the books to the Lectures and Demonstrations of Anatomy at our Hall, as well as indications that from the period of Incorporation (1462), if not earlier, the Company took care to provide for the professional education of its members and apprentices, and to increase their proficiency in Surgical science.

[Footnote: The initial letter ~T~ is reduced from one in the Audit Book, 1612-13.]

In addition to the Examiners in Surgery (who though not necessarily members of the Court of Assistants were often consulted by the Masters or Governors) there were chosen “Masters and Stewards of the Anatomy,” generally two Masters and two Stewards, on whom devolved the duty of conducting the Demonstrations, and arranging for the Dinners which invariably followed. The exact duties of these officials are not at all times clearly defined, though elsewhere will be found allusions to, and orders concerning their offices and functions, but it may be generally taken that the Stewards dissected and prepared the body, the Masters reading the Lectures thereon to the assembled Surgeons and their apprentices.