VERSELIUS, James Francis

Physicians and Irregular Medical Practitioners in London 1550-1640 Database. Originally published by Centre for Metropolitan History, London, 2004.

This free content was born digital. All rights reserved.


In this section

James Francis VERSELIUS


Gender Male
Primary occupation medical surgeon (Surgeon)
Period of medical practice 1561-1581
Other notes Fined 1571 (reported by TURPIN 756, q.v.). Influential backers. Refused to abstain. Commission set up.

Censorial hearings

10 Jan 1571
Entry 'James Francis Verselius, a surgeon who according to the evidence of two apothecaries, Thomas Grey and John Turpin, had practised medicine for ten years, was fined £20. On account of the intercession of some men of high rank however the majority of the Fellows reduced the fine to 20 marks on the condition that he gave an undertaking under a penalty of £100 not to practise medicine in future. The same James later paid the President £20 but because he refused to bind himself by an undertaking, nothing from this amount was returned to him.'
Initiator of the complaint other medical practitioner
Second initiator of the complaint other medical practitioner
Pressure applied by College yes
Action taken Fined £20, reduced to 20 marks if he gave bond to abstain; refused.
Verdict guilty
Sentence Fined £20. Offered reduction for bond to abstain, refused.
24 March 1572
Entry 'On March 24 1572 in the Lord Mayor's Court the question whether surgeons should be allowed to give inward medicinal potions for sciatica, French pox or any kind of ulcer or wound was discussed ... it was agreed by all present that they ought not to practise. The petitioners however desired James Verselius the surgeon to recover the amount he had been fined by the College because he had practised medicine. On this account our President [Caius] was summoned to the commissioners and a discussion ensued. However, nothing was refunded for the money had been received legally, and had been spent: this was the reply to Lord James Croftes to whom James the Surgeon had delegated the conduct of the case. By this time James the Surgeon abandoned the attempt to recover the fine.'
Action taken V's fine not refunded.