Public Offices document.
Minutes (15), Other documents (8).
Selwyn and Kaulabe discuss the contradictions between British Columbia’s ordinance, entitled An Ordinance respecting Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery, and imperial acts concerning medical practitioners. Selwyn and Kaulabe also propose a solution for British Columbia’s ordinance that would remove contradictions between colonial and imperial acts.
Holland’s minute states that British Columbia’s ordinance must be disallowed. Adderley’s minute advises changing imperial legislation to allow Colonies to impose a Certificate of Imp. Registration. Minutes by Holland, Buckingham, and Rogers discuss and describe the preparation of amendments to imperial acts related to medicine
and the colonies, which includes proposed drafts of the amendments. Included documents
describe the newly written act on practicing medicine in Britain and the colonies
and describe requested amendments to the new legislation.
Selwyn and [Kaulabe?] to Buckingham
Temple
30th December 1867
My Lord Duke,
We are honored with Your Grace's commands, signified in Sir
Frederic Rogers' letter of the 29th of November ultimo, stating
that he was directed by Your Grace to transmit to us the enclosed
copy of an Ordinance passed by the legislature of British Columbia
entitled "An Ordinance respecting Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery."
Sir Frederic Rogers was alsopleased pleased to state that he was
directed to observe that the Imperial Act 21 and 22 Vict: c. 90
provided by the 31st Section that persons registered under
that Act should be entitled to practise Medicine or Surgery in any
part of Her Majesty's Dominions, and to recover their Fees.
That by section 6 of the Colonial Ordinance no person who is
not registered under that Ordinance shall be entitled to recover his
fees for attendence.
That it is apprehended that the imposition by the Colonial
Act of a condition on a right which is given absolutely by the
Imperial Actconstitutes constitutes a repugnancy between the Colonial and
Imperial Act.
But that as it seems a very reasonable provision that a person
desiring to practise in the Colony should be compelled to register his
qualifications and pay a registry fee, it has been suggested that a
Law requiring a person who intends to practise in the Colony to
prove and register his qualifications in the manner pointed out by
sect 4, and to pay a registration fee, and imposing a penalty upon
any such person who practises or recovers fees without having complied
with these requisitions, but not in termsprohibiting prohibiting him from
practising and recovering fees, would not be repugnant to the
Imperial Act.
That under these circumstances he was directed to request that we
would favor Your Grace with our opinion upon the following questions:
1. Whether section 6 of the Colonial Ordinance is repugnant to
the Imperial Act.
2. Whether an enactment of the kind suggested would avoid this
repugnancy or whether any other alteration might be suggested
which would avoid such repugnancy while securing to theColony Colony the
registration of the qualification of persons desiring to practise,
and the Registration Fees.
In obedience to Your Lordship's commands, we have taken this
matter into consideration and have the honor to Report
That we are of opinion that section 6 of the Colonial Ordinance
is repugnant to the Imperial Act.
We further think that an enactment of the kind suggested or any
enactment which should impose conditions obligations or restrictions
upon a Medical Practitioner registered under 21 & 22 Vict: c. 90 and
bysec. sec. 31 of that Act entitled to practise in any part of Her Majesty's
dominions and to recover his fees, would be repugnant to the Imperial
Act.
We have the honor to be
My Lord Duke,
Your Grace's most obedient
humble Servants
Mr Elliot
The Law Officers have reported that the Ordinance is repugnant to the
Imperial Act; and that the Law suggested wd also be repugnant to
that Act. The Ordinance must, therefore, be disallowed.
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 5, 29 January 1868 informing Seymour of the contradictions between British Columbia’s ordinance and imperial legislation regarding medical practitioners and the process
being undertaken to review imperial legislation.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
Though the Ordce is not to be disallowed, would it not be well to let
the Govr know that part of it is absolutely void—as being
repugnant to Impl Law (28 & 29 Vict c. 62 s. 2). Such an
instruction may prevent legal proceedings. I submit a draft.
Rogers to A.O. Liddell, Home Office, 8 January 1868, forwarding
copy of the ordinance and report of the Law Officers and
suggesting an amendment of the imperial act, extensively edited.
Minutes by CO staff
I
think some explanation of the points is neccessary in the [one word
cut off microfilm] of what I have written but the ending requires
correction.
Sir F. Rogers
This draft is prepared in accordance with HG's Minute on 10821.
It seems quite right that this shd be done by the H Office, as
The Medical Act of 1858 was introduced (I think) by that Department.
Rough "Draft of a Bill to enable Colonial Legislators to enforce
Registration of Medical Practitioners in the Colonies."
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
HG proposes to introduce this Bill into the House of Lords, treating
it as a purely Colonial question.
I have given the Col. Legislature power to enforce registration.
This includes (I think) the power to enact that no person, unless
registered shall demand & receive his fees, charges & costs, as this
wd be one of the means—indeed the only effective means—of
enforcing registration.
I have confined the power to a power "to enforce registration"
because it is very desirable to avoid a contest with the Medicos in
England, & they would be up in arms, if power was given to the Colonial
Legislature to enforce examinations of persons who had qualified in
the UK.
Mr Adderley
I think as a matter of principle that a Colonial Legislature should
have absolute power to determine what qualifications shd be
necessary to authorize a man to prescribe to themselves, their wives
& their sons & daughters. I can hardly imagine a matter more entirely
and exclusively of Colonial concern. But I dare say that Mr Holland
is right as to the opposition wh the medical profession wd
make and that it may be prudent to acquiesce in what, to my mind,
is contrary to sound principle rather than provoke opposition. But
of this you must judge.
Abstractedly I should like to repeal the clause and
reenact it with the follg addition proposed
Subject to such laws as may from time to time be enacted in
any Colony of HM's Possession in respect to such Profession it
shall be lawful for any person registered &c.
Printed copy of "A Bill intituled An Act to Amend the Law relating
to Medical Practitioners in the Colonies."
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Robinson
The Govr of B. Columbia has been promised a further communication
(par: 4 of No. 5, 29 Jan 1868) with regard to the Ordinance No. 31 of
1867 "respecting Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery."
As the Imperial Act "to amend the law relating to Medical
Practitioners in the Colonies" has passed (31 Vict: cap. 29), will
you bring the accompanying papers under Sir F. Rogers consideration
with a view to instructions being given as to the despatch to be
written to the Govr?
I suppose the Act would also go in Circular
to all the Colonies?
Edward Simmond, Secretary, Royal College of Surgeons, to
Macdonald, 22 April 1868, disputing a clause in the proposed act and
suggesting that the provisions of the act not take effect before
receiving royal assent.