They further return expressly and positively, That the said Melmoth Guy, when he was so presented and offered as aforesaid, before the aforesaid Master and Governors or Wardens of the said Company of Surgeons, at the said Court, by them held for the purpose herein before in that behalf mentioned, DID NOT understand the Latin Tongue: but WAS UTTERLY IGNORANT of the same: And that the said Melmoth Guy hath NOT, at any Time before or since his being so examined and tried as to his Ability in the Latin Tongue as aforesaid, offered himself or been presented to the said Company or Governors thereof, or any one of them for the Time being, to be tried as to his ability in the Latin Tongue.
And therefore they cannot permit the said Melmoth Guy to be admitted and bound before them an Apprentice to the said Richard Guy for the said Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery, according to the Custom aforesaid, as by the Writ they are commanded.
Mr. Field pro Rege objected and argued "That this was an insufficient Return:" For that the By-Law is a bad one, being made in Restraint of a natural general and common Right.
The first Restriction of the common Right that every Person has of learning and exercising any Art in any Place, except where it happens to be restrained by Custom, is the Act of 5 Eliz. c. 4.
The City of London have indeed, by Custom, a Power over the Youth of their City, and a Power of excluding Foreigners from exercising Trades within their City.
11 Rep. 53. Taylors of Ipswich Case, shews the general Law to be, that a person ought not to be restrained in his lawful Mystery.
Private Companies can not make Laws contrary to the General Law or to the Customs of great Cities: though great Cities and Towns may do so. This distinction is mentioned in 6 Mod. 120.[1] Cuddon v. Estwick. And he cited
- ↑ V. I Salk. 193 S. C.
