Your Committee would also observe, down to the year 1800, Regulations were adopted, which must have had the effect of preventing goods infected with the Plague from being shipped directly for Britain; and they abstain from giving any opinion on the nature and application of the Quarantine regulations, as not falling within the scope of enquiry to which they have been directed; but they see no reason to question the validity of the principles upon which such regulations appear to have been adopted.
The plaintiff, who was a physician living at _Doncaster_, brought this action for fees, for attending a considerable time on the defendant’s testator, who lived at some little distance from the town; and the evidence was, that at _Doncaster_ and its neighbourhood there was no certain rule about fees, but the general practice was for a physician to receive two guineas a week for his attendance. The plaintiff obtained a verdict at the last assizes at _York_; to set aside which _Wood_ obtained a rule _nisi_ last term, on the ground that no action lay for a physician’s fees any more than for a barristers.
_Cockell_, Serj. and _Chambre_, now shewed cause; observing that though this point had been ruled several times at _nisi prius_ against such a claim, yet it had never been solemnly decided, nor was there any authority in the books for putting the claim of a physician’s fees upon the same footing as those of a barrister. In the latter case it might originally have been proper that no temptation should be held out to countenance injustice: but in the former it would be equally impolitic that those who are frequently put to expense in attending patients at a distance, and who are liable to make reparation to those who may suffer by their want of skill, should not be certain of a just and honourable reward. The regulation with regard to barristers is founded on grounds of public policy, as appears by the passage in _Tacitus_, to which Mr. J. _Blackstone_ refers; but they are totally inapplicable to the case of physicians. And in that very passage in _Tacitus_ it is taken for granted that the latter were entitled to a remuneration, because their situation was dissimilar to that of advocates. Besides in this case there is an additional reason why the plaintiff should recover, as there is understood to be a general stipulated acknowledgment for a physician’s attendance at the place where this transaction arose.