Dr. Thomas Bonham III

Dr. Thomas Bonham, had a medical degree from St. John's Cambridge, receiving a B.A. in 1581, and an M.A. in 1585. His actions displayed a strong grasp on the law due to his father being a member of Parliament. Not much else is known about him but what we do know can easily be derived from his actions in regard to the court case that is his namesake. Which demonstrated that he had no fear of standing up for himself and had a strong sense for the pursuit of justice. Perhaps when all is said and done, he was a progenitor of the American patriot, as his acts of defiance and the case were adopted into early colonial law and had a direct effect on the American Constitution.

Bonham began practicing in London as a medical doctor by 1602. In the city of London, at that time, physicians were not lawfully allowed to practice medicine unless licensed by the Royal College of Physicians. The exclusive, college had a limited membership of usually fewer than 60 fellows at any one time. Giving an allowance of no more than 100 practitioners, who paid annual dues and were licensed by the college. The Royal College, which represented both the king and parliament was initially designed based on only 2 precepts, limit the amount of physicians allowed to work in the city of London (eliminate the competition) and prevent unqualified persons, I.E. frauds, quacks etc. from practicing medicine in the city. This prompted Bonham to petition himself for membership with the college in 1605. With the structure of the institution designed in such a manner his acceptance was promptly refused. He was ordered to stop practicing medicine but rejected the demand. In response, the College first fined him. He refused to pay the fine and later after a confrontation with Henry Atkins, then president of the college, was ordered imprisoned, in Newgate Prison, for contempt of the college.

(The college in both instances was acting under a royal grant, one expressly confirmed by an Act of Parliament, which confined the practice of medicine in London to men admitted to practice by the College.)

Dr. Bonham disputed the validity of the action taken against a graduate of his ancient university. In due course, he sued the College for false imprisonment and the case came on before the Court of Common Pleas, over which the much renowned often referenced, Cheif Justice, Sir Edward Coke, presided. To the outrage of the King and Parliament the court held in Dr. Bonham’s favor.

Several arguments were raised by the case, but the most challenging of them concerned the effect of the Parliamentary statute which, the College maintained, giving it the unquestioned right to take the action it had taken against Dr. Bonham. The statutory language did give the College the right to administer fines; there was little doubt about that. However, said Coke, because the College received one-half of all the fines they collected, they were in effect acting as judges in their own cause by putting Dr. Bonham on trial and imposing a fine upon him. The College was pocketing the proceeds. As for the statute, Coke wrote, “the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”

(Bio compiled by Robert Moon, based on various sources)

https://youtu.be/cXDa6WZVFVs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bonham_(physician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bonham%27s_Case

https://watermark.silverchair.com

https://www.jstor.org/stable/845533

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/1080873

https://law.jrank.org/pages/6484/English-Law-DR-BONHAM-S-CASE.html

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/bonham-v-college-of-physicians.php