The penalties are to be recovered by action of debt in _the President and College v. Salmon_; I _Ld._ _Raym_, _p._ 680.[93] an exception was taken that the proceeding should be by information at the suit of the king, but the Court decided that where a certain penalty is given by a statute the person to whom, &c. shall have debt by construction of law. Another exception was taken in the same case, that the action ought not to be brought _tam quam_, no action being given to the king. _Sed non allocatur._ For _per curiam_, the precedents are the one way and the other. See _Butler v the President Cro. Car._ 256. and cases there cited.[94] The words of the Statute of _Henry_ being strongly prohibitory, none may practise physic under any authority, in London and within seven miles without licence of the College; in _the College of Physicians v. Bush._ 4 _Mod._ _p._ 47. the defendant pleaded letters patents of king Charles the second, by which free liberty is given to French protestants to exercise the faculty of Physic in London and Westminster, &c. and that he was a French protestant. Upon demurrer the plea was held ill. For a Charter or Letters Patent cannot vary an act of Parliament. The next material point to be considered is, what is a practising of Physic within the meaning of the statutes; this would at first sight appear to be a very simple question, but the act of the 34th _Hen._ 8. which gives liberty to persons not being Surgeons, to administer outward medicines in certain cases, and drinks for the Stone, Strangury, and Ague, created some difficulties; it was pleaded in the case of Doctor _Butler against the President of the College_, (_Cro. Car._ 256,) to which plea the President replied by showing the Statute of the 1 _Mary_, _c._ 9. which confirms the Charter and Statute of the 14th _Hen._ 8. and appoints that it shall be in force notwithstanding any Statute or Ordinance to the contrary; on this several questions arose; those which relate to the special pleading of the case we omit, but the interpretation of the Statutes is material; it was doubted first whether the 34th _Hen._ 8. did repeal any part of the 14th as to Physicians, or whether as the preamble recites, it was directed against Surgeons, and next whether if it were in any degree repealed, the Statute 1st _Mary_ did not revive the 14th and repeal the 34th. “_Richardson_, chief Justice, conceived it was repealed by _primo Mariæ_, by the general words, any act or Statute to the contrary, of the act of _decimo quarto Henrici Octavi_, notwithstanding. But I (“_loquitur Croke_,”) conceived that the act of _tricessimo quarto Henrici Octavi_, not mentioning the Statute of _decimo quarto Henrici Octavi_, was for Physicians; but the part of the act of _tricessimo quarto Henrici octavi_, was concerning Chirurgions and their applying outward medicines to outward sores and diseases, and drinks only for the Stone, Strangury and Ague; that