England, out of London, it is not like to find alway men able sufficiently to examine (after the statute) such as shall be admitted to exercise physic in them, that it may be enacted in this present Parliament, that no person from henceforth be suffered to exercise or practise physic through England, until such time that he be examined at London by the said president and three of the said elects, and to have from them letters testimonial of their approving and examination, except he be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge, which have accomplished all things for his form without any grace;” and that the plaintiff, _anno Dom._ 1595, was a graduate, _sc._ a doctor in the university of Cambridge, and had accomplished all things concerning his degree for his form without [115]grace, by force whereof he had exercised and practised physic within the city of London until the defendants had imprisoned him, &c. upon which the defendant demurred in law. And this case was often argued by the Serjeants at bar in divers several terms; and now this term the case was argued by the Justices, and the effect of their arguments who argued against the plaintiff (which was divided into three parts) shall be first reported. The first was, whether a doctor of physic of the one university or the other, be by the letters patent, and by the body of the act of 14 H. 8. restrained from practising physic within the City of London, &c. The second was, if the exception in the said act of [116]14 H. 8. has excepted him or not. The third was, that his imprisonment was lawful for his said disobedience. And as to the first, they relied upon the letter of the grant, ratified by the said act of 14 H. 8. which is in the negative, _sc. nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. exerceat dictam facultatem nisi ad hoc per prædict’ præsidentem & communitatem, &c. admissus sit, &c._ And this proposition is a general negative, but [117]_generale dictum est generaliter intelligendum_; and _nemo_ excludes all; and therefore a doctor of the one university or the other, is prohibited within this negative word _nemo_. And many cases were put where negative statutes shall be taken _stricte et exclusive_, which I do not think necessary to be recited here. Also they said, that the statute of [118]3 H. 8. c. 11. which in effect is repealed by this act of [119]14 H. 8. has a special proviso for the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, which being here left out, doth declare the intention of the makers of the act, that they did intend to include them within this general prohibition, _nemo in dictâ civitate, &c._ As to the second point they strongly held, that the said latter clause, “and where that in the dioceses of England, out of London,” &c. this clause, according to the words, extends only to places out of London, and so much the rather, because they provided for London before, _nemo in dictâ civitate, &c._ Also the makers of the act put a distinction betwixt