2nd §. No i6,, Apri 19.756.) 
or sciences,” and it was argued that there was a 
freehold, and civil temporal right in these de- 
grees; but attorney-general Yorke replied they 
were originally only in nature of licences to pro- 
fessors, and are now titles of distinction and pre- 
cedence. A case in 1807 settled this view, where 
a D.C. L. of Cambridge moved against the arch- 
bishop for refusing admission to the bar of the 
Court of Arches, but failed in his motion. Dr. 
Lovett, as graduate of Oxford, failed also in his 
defence against an action brought by the College 
of Physicians. “The power of granting degrees,” 
he maintained, “flows from the crown. If the 
crown erects an university, the power of con- 
ferring degrees is incident to the grant.” Upon 
this.dictum Sir Charles Wetherell, when opposing 
the grant of a charter to the London university 
before the Privy Council, said should the crown 
make a university, that university might grant 
all degrees. But this was denied, for the powers 
of universities vary. Dublin grants all degrees ; 
so also Durham: but many other universities are 
limited, for the law does not permit a travelling 
from the charters. 
The universities have at times questioned the 
right both of sovereign and of archbishop to in- 
terfere with the conferring of degrees. In 1687 
James II. sent a letter under sign manual, re- 
questing Oxford to make a Mr. Francis, a Roman 
Catholic, an M.A. without administration of oath. 
This the Vice-Chancellor and congregation refused 
to do, for which Dr. Peachell, the Vice and Presi- 
dent of Magdalen, was deprived of his Vice-Chan- 
cellorship, and suspended from the Headship of 
Magdalen. The eight representatives for the 
university were told by the Lord Chancellor to 
‘90 and sin no more.” 
In 1721 Dr. Gastrell, Bishop of Chester, refused 
to institute Dr. Peploe, afterwards Bishop of 
Chester, into the Wardenship of Manchester Col- 
lege, upon the grounds that the Cantuar. degree 
Was no testimonial that the graduate had accom- 
plished a regular course of study in the public 
schools, and had neither been exercised nor ex- 
amined, and was not therefore incorporated with 
the university ; he denied also the interpretation 
of the act of Henry VIII., and seemed to aver that 
the power was not inherent with the privileges of 
the crown. It was answered the sovereign is the 
fount of such distinctions: the power has been given 
to the archbishop without limitation, and often to 
universities with limitation. That the higher 
degrees were not now faculties to teach, and had 
ceased to be more than titles of honour and pre- 
cedence. ‘That some degrees (Music, for example) 
did not permit their recipients to be members of 
the corporation, and were affections lavished by a 
mother on a son whom she disowns the instant she 
christens. The case went through the courts on 
a declaration of Quare impedit, and was tried at 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
319 
Lancaster assizes on Monday, August 13, 1722. 
The trial lasted from eight o’clock in the morning 
till nine at night. The jury, after two hours’ con- 
sideration, brought in a verdict for his Majesty, 
whereby the right of his Grace the Archbishop of 
Canterbury to confer degrees, &c., by his faculties, 
was admitted. In the British Gazetteer for May 
22, 1725, it is reported : 
“The case that has been depending between the Lord 
Bishop of Chester and the Rev. Mr. Peploe, about his 
Lordship’s refusing to admit him into the Wardenship of 
Manchester College, was decided some days ago in the 
court of King’s Bench in favour of Mr. Peploe.” 
In 1721 a convocation was held at Oxford, when 
thanks were returned to the Earl of Nottingham 
for his Lordship’s answer to Mr. Whiston’s heresy 
touching the Son and procession of the Holy Spirit ; 
and thanks also to Dr. Gastrell for his conduct in 
refusing institution to Mr. Peploe. Dr. Routh told 
me of some case in his own time, which must be 
after 1791, where a graduate of Oxford, but hold- 
ing the high degree from Canterbury, was by the 
university denied his privilege arising from the 
higher degree. The matter, he said, cost a good 
deal of money, and “we lost our cause.” Ido 
not, however, see this case in the reports. 
H. J. GauntLerr. 
8. Powys Place, Queen’s Square. 
Looking through the current number of the 
Medical Directory, a few days since, I think I 
caught sight of ‘“M.D., Lambeth,” affixed tot 
some person’s name. I presume, therefore, there 
are instances at the present time of “ primitige 
physic.” 
It would appear from the following extract * 
from The Diary of the Rev. John Ward, A.D, 
Vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon, that the privilege 
of the bishops was limited to the giving a licence 
to practise, and query whether they had the power 
to confer the degree of Doctor of Medicine ? 
“ May, 1661. Remember that I doe two things: in- 
quire whether a man may get of the archbishop a licence 
to practise per totam Angliam ; 2. Inquire for the apothe- 
carie att the Old Stairs, Wapping, or Blackwall. I read 
Wingate’s Abridgements of the Statutes, and find a bishop 
may licens in his dioces, but not the archbishop through- 
out England. Mr. Burnett said of Mr. Francis his licens, 
that it must bee renewed every year; the apparitor would 
dunne him else, that his father never was, nor never 
would be doctor; and the apparitor used constantly to 
ply him, but he laughed him out of itt. A licens granted 
to practise by Dr. Chaworth to Mr. Francis throughout 
the archbishop’s prouince, itt did not cost him full out 
30s.; there were some clauses in itt, as ‘quamdiu si bene 
gesserit,” and ‘according to the laws of England,’ but I 
suppose itt was the proper form which is used in such a 
case.” — P. 13. 
H. B., F.R.C.S.E. 
Warwick. 
* Arranged by Charles Severn, M.D. 8yo. London. 
9 
