No. 111
14th September 1867
My Lord Duke,
I have the honor to forward an authenticated and two plain copies of an Ordinance of the late Session of the Legislature of the Colony entitled;No 31.Manuscript image No 31. An Ordinance respecting Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery. This measure appears harmless. I enclose the report of the Attorney General.
I have the honor to be
My Lord Duke
Your most obedient
humble Servant
Frederick Seymour
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
CC 4 Nov
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
Medical Practitioners Ordinance. A registration fee is imposed on persons who have been qualified in the U Kingdom, before they can practise in B. Columbia. The Ordinance excludes present practitioners; but though the object aimed at is proper enough, the Ordinance is repugnant to the provisions of sec 31 of the Imperial Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict c. 90) and cannotManuscript image be allowed. It becomes a serious question whether the Imperial Act should not be modified, as we had to disallow (I think) a similar Act in Canada on the same ground of repugnancy.
HTH 5/11
Manuscript image
I think myself that the Imperial Act is quite wrong & ought to be modified. But meantime I think that the Lege must be required to repeal this clause as repugnant to Act of Pt.
FR 5/11
Manuscript image
? as to our Register being made to override Colonl legisln & exonerate from local taxation.
CBA 6/11
Manuscript image
Annex Imperial Act.
B&C 15/11
Manuscript image
I think the object of the act is a good one & should be supported—as it appears to me to have been passed however in ignorance of the provisions of Imperial Medical Act—a law compelling a person before commencing practice in a colony to prove his qualifications & register himself before a competent officer—& to pay a reasonable fee for the registry—acknowledging legislation under the Imperial Act as a qualification and imposing a penalty for non compliance does not appear to me repugnant to Imperial Act & if so it would be simpler to obtain necessary modifications in Colonial probably than in imperial acts. If I am correct in this view as the form necessary shd be sent out to Govr—and an intimation that such an act would be sanctioned—although this could not, in consequence of the conflicts with the Imp. Act.
B&C 16/11
Manuscript image
Duke of Buckingham
The point is not free from doubt, but I am disposed to think that an enactment of the kind you propose would still be repugnant to the Imperial Act, though a most reasonable & proper enactment in itself.
The Imperial Act declares that every person registered under the Act shall be "entitled" to practise. I think this means that such person shall be unconditionally entitled to practise without any limitations or restriction, just the same as he would be entitled in England. A person can hardly be said to be entitled to practise if he cannot do so in the Colony without, in a certain event subjecting himself to a penalty. In truth the effect of the Colonial Act (as suggested) would be, that a person would not be entitled to practise without let or hindrance, as he would be entitled in England, until he has done something more than the Imperial Act requires.
I may mention that the Canadian Act was neither confirmed or disallowed because to have disallowed it would have had the effect of reviving an older & more stringent act which it repealed, & to have confirmed it would have been to confirm an act repugnant to the Imperial Act. The Canadian Act cap. 34 of 1865 was similar to the present B Columbian Act.
If Your Grace is inclined to suggest the amendment of the B Col. ordinance it might be well to take the opinion of the L Officers at once, as to whether such an amended Ordinance would be repugnant to the Imperial Act.
HTH 22/11
Manuscript image
I shd think so.
FR 22/11
B&C 22/11
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Manuscript image
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 14 September 1867, reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Rogers to Attorney General and Solicitor General, 19 November 1867, forwarding copy of the ordinance and expressing the concerns of the colonial office for consideration.