They further return expressly and positively, That the said _Melmoth Guy_, when he was so presented and offered as aforesaid, before the aforesaid Master and Governors or Wardens of the said Company of Surgeons, at the said Court, by them held for the purpose herein before in that behalf mentioned, DID NOT understand the _Latin_ Tongue: but WAS UTTERLY IGNORANT of the same: And that the said _Melmoth Guy_ hath NOT, at any Time before or since his being so examined and tried as to his Ability in the _Latin_ Tongue as aforesaid, _offered himself or been presented_ to the said Company or Governors thereof, or any one of them for the Time being, _to be tried_ as to his ability in the _Latin_ Tongue. And therefore they cannot permit the said _Melmoth Guy_ to be admitted and bound before them an Apprentice to the said _Richard Guy_ for the said Term of 7 years, in the said Art Science or Mystery of Surgery, according to the Custom aforesaid, as by the Writ they are commanded. Mr. _Field pro Rege_ objected and argued “That this was an _insufficient_ Return:” For that the _By-Law_ is a _bad_ one, being made in _Restraint of a natural general and common Right_. The _first_ Restriction of the common Right that every Person has of learning and exercising any Art in any Place, except where it happens to be restrained by Custom, is the Act of 5 _Eliz._ c. 4. The City of _London_ have indeed, _by Custom_, a Power over the Youth of their City, and a Power of excluding Foreigners from exercising Trades within their City. 11 _Rep._ 53. _Taylors of Ipswich Case_, shews the _general_ Law to be, that a person ought not to be restrained in his lawful Mystery. _Private Companies_ can not make Laws contrary to the _General_ Law or to the _Customs_ of great Cities: though great Cities and Towns may do so. This distinction is mentioned in 6 _Mod._ 120.[176] _Cuddon_ v. _Estwick_. And he cited the Case of _the City of London_ v. _Vanacker_, in 1 _Ld. Raym._ 496. where _Holt_ Ch. J. said that “if the By-Law was for the _Benefit of the City_, it would be good.” This By-Law, therefore, is not good, without a particular Custom to support it: for it _restrains a Common-Law Right_. The Return does not aver that the understanding the _Latin_ Tongue _is_ a _necessary qualification_ of a Surgeon: And their Art may certainly be performed _without_ it. At least, ’tis no objection to a young Person’s being put out to _learn_ the Art; whatever it might be to the Admission of a Man to _practise_ it. Besides, “Understanding the _Latin_ Tongue,” is a very _indefinite_ and _vague_ expression: And a very different idea of it would be conceived by different persons; as by _Dr. Bentley_ (for instance) and by a[177] Warden of the Surgeons Company. Bad consequences too, may arise from this By-Law: And if so, it shall not prevail. _Godbolt_ 254. S. C. with that of _the Taylors of Ipswich_, (there called _The Cloth-workers of Ipswich Case_.)