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.

    11/50 (page 10)
    Opinion, nevertheless, bears a contradiction on the face of it. Had you exercised common prudence, and taken the opinion, as I have done, of some other Barrister of well-established reputation, you would have received a different reply on your Case. Mr. J. H. Lloyd is my authority, and I forward you the Case and his Opinion. It is high time that the 650 gentlemen [Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. xiii. p. 146] who have applied to have their names entered on the register of Pharmaceutical Chemists should be apprised of their true position and legal status. I was perfectly aware that mjr opposition would render me unpopular with the few hundreds to whom this boon was offered, and had that opposition been only factious, I should have allowed this to pass, and endeavoured to conciliate this section of Members; but I will not sacrifice principle to expediency. The proceeding is illegal; the Council have no more right to remit the examination fees of these 650 gentlemen than they have of future applicants. By so doing they lay themselves open to proceedings by any factious member who might wish to embarrass the Council. If it were thought expedient to admit these gentlemen on the reduced scale of fees, the Council should have proceeded in a legal manner, and have sought additional powers, and not act in direct defiance of an Act of Parliament. Gentlemen, if it is your determination to act thus illegally, and make us, as a Council, liable for pecuniary payments, it shall not be without protest on my part. Gentlemen, I ask what reply you could make to an Order from the Court of Queen's Bench to show cause why the names of 650 gentle- men, as persons not duly qualified to call themselves Pharmaceutical Chemists, should not be struck off the register of Pharmaceutical Che- mists ? To avoid a disgraceful exposure of these gentlemen in their several localities, and actions for damages being brought against your- selves, you would be obliged to present to each of them a diploma or certificate of their having passed an examination (pro forma), and to pay the Society 71. 7s. out of your own private purses, to make up the full amount of fees due on the registration of each of these gentle- men. And, on the other hand, in what a humiliating position would you be placed, were the Registrar to be served with a Mandamus issuing from the Court of Queen’s Bench, directing him to put in force the penal clause of the Pharmacy Act against each of the 650 gentlemen who had assumed the title and emblems of a “ Pharma- ceutical Chemist ” without proper qualifications ? These are matters of too serious importance, (and involving con- sequences which threaten the very existence of the Society,) to be treated with levity, or designated as “ a quibble about words ” [Phar- maceutical Journal, vol. xiii. p. 146], or “ minor differences on matters of detail ” [p. 145]. 9. I have also legally and constitutionally opposed, in the Council and out of it, the introduction, into the present Bye-laws, of a rule making compulsory an annual payment of £1 Is., as a registration- fee, by Chemists and Druggists who were Members of the Society, and were Pharmaceutical Chemists on the 30th June, 1852, by virtue of the 6th section of the Pharmacy Act. Failing to pay such annual sum, you assume the power to strike off the Register of Pharma-