ARCHIVES OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS

Publisher's Note

“For the first century and a half the College was the only medical body in London. No rival authority was ever created and only twice, in the late seventeenth century and the late eighteenth, was there even talk of petitioning for a charter to set one up. More than that, the college was the only learned society in England outside the universities until 1662, when the Royal Society was founded, largely through the efforts of its own Fellow.”
Sir George Clark in the British Medical Journal, 9 January 1965

Social Historians, Historians of Science and of Medicine and Women’s Historians will all find much of interest in the Annals of the Royal College of Physicians, which provide a detailed record of the activities and issues faced by Britain’s pre-eminent and longest lived professional medical organisation.

The College was founded in 1518 by grant of charter from King Henry VIII. Its founder and first President was Thomas Linacre, one of Britain's greatest humanist scholars, and a close friend of Aldus, Erasmus and Sir Thomas More. Linacre was also physician o King Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey and doubtless the College’s fortunes were enhanced by the support of Wolsey.

Its purpose was to regulate the practise of medicine and thus drive out the quacks and charlatans who brought the developing science of medicine into disrepute. They were given wide powers. No person was allowed to practise medicine unless they passed an examination by the President and Censors who conducted the examinations for both the License and Fellowship. Those found practising without a license, or in a manner not recommended by them, could be fined and sent to prison by the College.

The Annals reveal the competitive nature of branches of science and of rival organisations. Initially the College competed against alchemists, barber -surgeons and local healers who relied on the resources of their own physick gardens or on herbs gathered from the hedgerows. However, as astrology and alchemy fell from grace, it was the rivalry between the Physicians, Surgeons and Apothecaries that became all important. The physicians were triumphant and continued to dominate the practice of medicine in Council by the Medical Act of 1858. An example of the influence and power of the College is provided by the Pharmacopoeia Londinensis which was first published by them - by royal order - in 1618. This prescribed the exact manner in which compounds were to be stored and mixed and was enforced by law across the country.

The educational role of the College was enhanced by the foundation of a number of lecture series starting with the Lumleian lectures in 1581/2. It was at these that William Harvey, who survived the College as censor , elect and treasurer, gave his famous anatomical lectures and described his experimental research. In1755, the College’s support for inoculation against smallpox was an important factor in the development of preventative medicine, and Dr Thomas Dimsdale emphasised his faith in the method by personally inoculating Empress Catherine of Russia.

The Social Historical interest in the Annals lies in the detailed record they provide of the College’s responses to events such as the Plague, the Great Fire or the Cholera in medical matters by the government up to the mid-nineteenth century and advised the Army and navy on tropical medicines. In a memorable passage in the Annals for 1861, Dr David Livingstone advises on treatment for leprosy, based on his experience in Zambia.

The College was also involved in the rise of the hospital as a place for treatment (John Addenbrooke was an extra-licentiate), in the provision of free treatment for the poor and in the specification and implementation of a government funded health body with national powers. Even though the Public Health act of 1848 and the medical Act of 1858 delimited their powers, the College played a full part in the preliminary discussions and successfully fought to retain the right of controlling the education of the profession and granting the term ‘ doctor’.

It is interesting that the College addressed the question of the harmful nature of Tobacco as early as 1628, when W Trumbell wrote to them on behalf of the King stating: “his majesty hath bene credibly informed that ye Tobbaco of ye growth of England and Ireland and dominions thereof is not only found to be unwholesome for men bodyes but a great hindrance and tending to the ruine and overthrow of Plantations in Virginia and other parts beyond the seas..”

He asked the Physicians for their view. Their reply was: “our opinion is that
as it is now usually taken it cannot be but very unwholesome and hurtfull falling short of the perfection of other Tobaccoes that are brought from other more Southern partes where it hath his naturall maturity vigor and efficacy”.
(Annals 13-16 October 1628).

Woman’s questions are much in evidence. The regulation of midwifery and the question of whether men should be allowed to be midwives is a recurring one from the earliest days. Women’s right’s to practice medicine are also discussed at length from the celebrated refusal to license Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, through discussions and votes by members from 1895 onwards, to the opening of the College examinations to women in 1908, and the appearance of the first women member in 1909 (Miss Ivy Woodward) and the first woman licentiate in 1910 (Miss Dossibhai Patell).

Sir George Clark’s A History of the Royal College of Physicians of London (3 volumes, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964, 1966 and 1972 - third volume by A M Cooke, FRCP) provides the best background history of the Royal College of Physicians and is a useful adjunct to this microfiche edition.

This guide accompanying the microfiche edition contains the contents of fiche and reproduces Sir George Clark’s article on the History of the Royal College of Physicians from the British Medical Journal, 9 January 1965, and also the Brief Introduction to the Library of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

We are most grateful to Geoffrey Davenport and his Colleagues at the royal College of Physicians for their help in the preparation of this project.

David Tyler
April 1991

<Back