the prisoner’s opinion, a cure for consumption, with which _Sir Theodosius Boughton_ was threatened, and that it had been administered to cure, and not to kill him; or on the death of _Mr. Scawen_,[508] that his mistress had infused or dissolved corrosive sublimate in all his drinks and medicines, to cure him of an ulcer, with which he was afflicted; and that she had done it secretly, because he had an avowed aversion to mercurial medicines. Yet such pleas would continually be made, if the doctrine of allowing all persons however ignorant and unqualified to tamper with medicines, should be admitted. On the other hand there is very considerable weight of authority; _Sir. Wm. Blackstone_ follows _Sir Mathew Hale_ in his opinion, that this doctrine, that if any die under the hand of an unlicenced physician it is felony, is apocryphal, and fitted to gratify and flatter doctors and licentiates in physic; though it may have its use to make people cautious, and wary, how they take upon themselves too much in this dangerous employment; _1 Hales_, _P. C._ 429, 430; _4 Bl. Com._ _c._ 14, _p._ 197; it is difficult to imagine how caution is to be enforced by taking away the liability to punishment. Mr. Serjeant _Hawkins_ takes a different ground; “Also it hath been anciently holden, that if a person, not duly authorised to be a physician or surgeon, undertake a cure and the patient die under his hand, he is guilty of felony;” but inasmuch as the books wherein this opinion is holden (_Stamford_, _P. C._ 16; _Pulton_, 22; _Crom._ 27; _43 Ed. 3_, 33; _Fitz H. Cor._ 163; _Britt._ _c._ 5; and _4 Inst._ 251) were written before the statutes of _23 Hen. 8_, which first excluded such felonious killing, as may be called wilful murder of malice prepense, from the benefit of clergy, it may be well questioned whether such killing shall be said to be of malice prepense within the intent of that statute; however it is certainly highly rash and presumptuous for unskilful persons to undertake matters of this nature; “_and indeed the law cannot be too severe in this case_, in order to deter ignorant people from endeavouring _to get a livelihood_ by such practice, which cannot be followed without the manifest hazard of the lives of those who have to do with them;” _1 Hawk. P. C._ 131. This doctrine does not by any means go as far as _Sir Mathew Hale_; for as the supposed alteration of the law is referred to the operation of the statute, which takes away the benefit of clergy from murders, that is to say from felonious killing with malice prepense, it does not apply to manslaughter, to which the benefit of clergy was still allowed. But there yet remains a question, whether in the case of a person illegally taking upon himself the administration of dangerous medicines, for profit, (and it must be observed that the greater number of nostrums are, from the powerful nature of their ingredients, highly dangerous) does not subject himself to a charge of murder if any die under his