But in the case of _Sir Hans Sloane_ against Lord _William Pawlett_, Lord Chief Justice _Parker_ was of opinion, that the King by his prerogative could not dispense with an Act of Parliament which was made for the public good of the whole nation; “but admitting that he could exempt them (the Physicians) from personal duties, yet it cannot be inferred from thence, that he might exempt them from being contributory to others to perform those duties which are required by an Act of Parliament, especially where the subject has an interest that such duties should be performed, or a loss if they should not; and the better opinion seemed to be that the King could not exempt in such cases. That in the principal case, the contribution to be made to the finding a man with arms to serve in THE MILITIA, is a charge upon the lands, as well as on the persons of the owners; and if this charter of exemption should be good, it would encrease the charge on all the lands of persons not exempted, which would be a very great damage to such persons, because the physicians who are exempted are a considerable body of men in every county, for which reason it would be very hard if the King had power to lessen the tax imposed upon one man, and charge it on another. Besides the King cannot exempt in any case where the subject has an interest.” (See 8 _Mod._ p. 11.) Therefore when it is intended to exempt Medical practitioners from the burthen of any Militia Act, it is necessary that they should be specifically mentioned. OF ACTIONS BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. A Physician cannot maintain an action for his fees, for they are honorary, and not demandable of right; “and it is much more for the credit and rank of that body, (the physicians) and perhaps for their benefit also that they should be so considered; and I much doubt, says Lord _Kenyon_, whether they themselves would not altogether disclaim such a right, as would place them upon a less respectable footing in society, than that which they at present hold.” _Chorley_ against _Bolcot_, 4 T. R. 317, _see Appendix_. It was contended in this case, that there was no authority in the books for placing physicians and barristers fees[137] on the same footing; the regulation with regard to barristers being founded on grounds of public policy, as appears by a passage in Tacitus to which Mr. Justice _Blackstone_ refers; in which passage it is taken for granted that Medici[138] were entitled to a remuneration, because their situation was dissimilar to that of advocates.[139] But though a physician cannot recover his fees by process of law, yet _pro concilio impenso et impendendo_ is a good and valuable consideration for an annuity; (9 Co. Rep. 50: 7 Co. Rep. 10. 28.) And this was formerly a very frequent mode of remuneration for professional services both in law and physic, though at the present day it does not frequently occur.