The unconstitutional and illegal proceedings of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society / by William Dickinson.

  • Dickinson, William.
Date:
[1853]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The unconstitutional and illegal proceedings of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society / by William Dickinson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    10/50 (page 9)
    On these three clauses of the Pharmacy Act I take my stand, and declare any infraction of them illegal and unconstitutional. But it has been asserted, that power is given, by the 2nd section i of this Act, to the Council, “ to make and establish new and addi- tional Bye-laws, as they shall deem proper and necessary; ” this is true, but the clause continues, “ for the purposes contemplated by the Charter, or by this Act, to be approved by a general meeting, &c.” But as the Charter did not at all contemplate the registering of Chemists and Druggists as “ Pharmaceutical Chemists,” and the act recognised those only who were actually members of the Society on the 30th June, 1852, and after that, such as should pass an exami- nation and pay the fees; the Council were not enabled to frame a law to meet cases not contemplated by the Charter or Act. Do the Council suppose that this clause enables them to make laws, which would, in fact, modify, control, or supersede the Act ?—Impossible. The Council, however, did proceed to take the unconstitutional course of announcing to Chemists and Druggists, after the passing of the Act, that those who had commenced business after the date of the Charter (Feb. 18, 1843), and prior to the passing of the act (June 30, 1852), on applying before May, 1853, might have their names placed on the register of Pharmaceutical Chemists, and be admitted Members of the Society on payment of three guineas. Seeing that such a proceeding would be contrary to the express provisions of the Act, I felt it my duty to point out to the Council that they would be acting illegally. To enable them to carry out the admission of these gentlemen on the lower scale of fees and without examination, and to redeem their pledge made to several who had accepted the invitation, the Bye-laws of November, 1852, were prepared. These, I was told, had been submitted to Counsel, and that “ proper legal authority ” had declared that it would meet the difficulty sug- gested. I seconded the resolution, adopting the Bye-laws at the Special Meeting, under the impression that the alleged legal opinion was to be relied on, and it is brought against me as an accusation that I now oppose my own resolution. [Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. xiii. p. 153.] Gentlemen, you have not the courage to tell the whole truth. I soon discovered that the Bye-laws in question did not meet the diffi- culty, and subsequently I protested against the admission of Members under these Bye-laws, and stated my reasons. This protest I now again repeat. The very Bye-law itself under which you propose to act, does not name or empower you to register these gentlemen as Pharmaceuti- cal Chemists, but you take the power under this Bye-law to register these gentlemen as “ Chemists and Druggists certified to be duly qualified for admission as Members of the Society.” Yet even this power is denied you by the 12th section of the Pharmacy Act. And even yet further, it is Mr. J. H. Lloyd’s unqualified opinion, that the Bye-law is wholly void. Having committed yourselves, you submit a Case, and take the written opinion of Mr. Tidd Pratt on the legality of your proceedings, which, we are given to understand, he had already sanctioned. No person could expect Mr. Pratt knowingly to contradict himself; the