CO885-(10-11) — Page 615

12856.

H

No. 487.

(BRITISH COLUMBIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD DUKE,

Temple, December 30, 1867. WE are honoured 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 also pleased to state that he was desired to observe that the Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90. provides 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 attendance.

That it is apprehended that the imposition by the Colonial Act of a condition on a right which is given absolutely by the Imperial Act 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 qualification 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 qualification in the manner pointed out by section 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 terma 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 favour 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 the Colony the registration of the qualification of persons desiring to practise, and the registration fees?

In obedience to your Lordship's commande we have taken this matter into consider- ation, and have the honour 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 by section 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, &o. (Signed) JOHN B. KARSLAKE,

C. J. SELWYN.

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, &c.

&c.

&c.

16278.-454. $5.-5/86.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO