This effect however was not produced by the College, without some severe struggles on the part of those who were, or supposed themselves to be, aggrieved by the extraordinary powers granted to the Corporation by the Charter of _Henry_ the 8th; it does not appear whether any of these disputes arose between the granting of the Letters Patent and their confirmation by the statute 14 and 15 _Hen._ 8. _c._ 5. at least no cases remain recorded by any sufficient authorities; it is therefore probable that the College did not attempt any exercise of their new powers until they had received the sanction of Parliament; even the king, (and no one will suspect _Henry_ the 8th of any diffidence of royal prerogative) by using the terms “_quantum in nobis est_,” (see Charter) seems to have been conscious that the powers of fine and imprisonment which he professed to grant, _suo jure_, could only become effective by the ratification of a superior authority. The restriction of practice to persons examined and licenced by some supposed competent authority was not new. Sir _Wm. Brown_ in his Vindication of the College from the imputation and misrepresentation of their adversary in the case of Dr. _Schomberg_, mentions an Act of Parliament or Ordinance of the 9th _Hen._ 5. (_see Appendix_, _p._ 1.) by which the licencing of physicians is confined to the Universities, and of surgeons to persons duly qualified: and the 3d _Hen._ 8. c. 11. (_see Appendix_, _p._ 3.) somewhat strangely confers on the Bishop of London, and in his absence on the Dean of St. Paul’s, the exclusive power or privilege of licencing physicians and surgeons in the City of London, and within seven miles in compass. It can scarcely be doubted that the provisions of this act as relating to physicians, were repealed by the Act 14 and 15 _Hen._ 8. _c._ 5. confirming the incorporation of the College, for where a power to do a specific thing is given to two distinct persons or bodies by separate Acts, it is a general rule that the last repeals the former, _Quia Leges posteriores Leges priores contrarias abrogant_; yet it is said that a Bishop of London has within a few years professed to grant a licence to practise physic in London and within seven miles thereof. Now, independent of the objection before mentioned, it is evident, even on the construction of the 3. _Hen._ 8. _c._ 11. from which alone the power is derivable, that such licence, if any such were granted, is bad; for the words of the statute are, “calling to him or them (the Bishop and Dean) four Doctors of Physick, and for Surgery other expert Persons in that Faculty, and for the first Examination such as they shall think convenient, and _afterward alway four of them that have been so approved_:” Now if the Bishop cannot find four assessors _so approved_, his authority must cease, for he cannot exercise it without them.