The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7245 p554-555
19 April 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 90K

Changing the Charter: a history

There have been three major changes to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Charter in the past — incorporated as the Supplemental Charters of 1901, 1948 and 1953. Jonathan Buisson (on the staff of The Journal) looks at the history behind these changes

The 1843 Charter incorporating the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain survived the test of time well over the first 100 years or so of the Society's history. The changes made in 1901 and 1948 reflected to some extend the result of inflation on the financial limits in the original Charter. It was the Charter of 1953 which rewrote the original Charter to create the one that is currently the subject of consultation.

The original Charter had allowed the Pharmaceutical Society to hold properties and rents, mainly as investments for the Benevolent Fund. The yearly limit of £2,000 on these funds had, by the dawn of the 20th century, become inadequate. The Society's funds were exceeding this level and, under a rule known as the statutes of Mortmain, it was in danger of forfeiting the excess. The Society petitioned for a supplemental charter to increase the limit to £10,000. This charter was granted on 27 March 1901 (PJ, 6 April 1901, p452). It was noted at the time that this was one of the first charters to be granted by the new King Edward VII, who had recently ascended the throne following the death of Queen Victoria in January 1901.

During the 1930s the Society engaged on building what was intended to be a new headquarters building for itself and its School of Pharmacy at Brunswick Square in London. Eventually, the Society decided that it could not afford to complete this building and arranged to sell it to the University of London (where it now houses the School of Pharmacy) bringing in "considerable moneys". At the same time, inflation meant that the Society was in danger of breaching its investment fund limits, once again. The Society petitioned for an increase in the limit, together with power to invest the money raised by selling its property in Brunswick Square. On 20 November 1948, King George VI granted a supplemental charter raising the limit to £38,000.

Modernising the Society

At the same time as action was being taken to increase its financial power, and maintain the legality of its position, the Society had also started what was to be a lengthy and exhaustive consultation process for a wholesale revamp of its constitution.

During the 1939–45 war, a committee of inquiry set up by the Society reported that various matters needed to be put straight in the constitution (its Charter and Byelaws). At the annual general meeting in 1945, the Council announced its intention to make a thorough examination of the constitution.

Twelve tentative proposals for modernisation were considered by the 1947 branch representatives' meeting, held in September alongside the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Torquay at its first full meeting after the war (PJ, 27 September 1947, p226, and 4 October 1947, p244). The meeting was attended by over 140 representatives and a number of other members of the Society. Opening the meeting, the president (Jean Irving) asked the representatives to "consider what changes are necessary and desirable and to give the Council the benefit of their advice and ideas".

The proposals were not firm clauses for a new Charter, although some made their way in one form or another into the 1953 Charter. In the main they were areas the Council believed needed to be addressed for the longer term.

The first was the original Charter object of "the protection of persons carrying on business as chemists and druggists". This, it was thought, needed to be expanded to cover the profession as whole, not just retail pharmacy owners. In part, this was a response to the Jenkins judgment of 1920 which had limited the areas the Society could control under its Charter. An object "embracing the maintenance of the honour and promotion of the interests of the pharmaceutical profession" was suggested.

Discussing this, Mervyn Madge of the Plymouth branch was among those expressing dislike of the word "honour", suggesting "integrity" in its place.

The then secretary of the Society (Hugh Linstead) said that "honour" was a word found in the Charter of the British Medical Association. In general, he said, "the Society must not sit back and let events take charge. It must take the initiative in looking after its own future, and amending the Charter does not entail going to the House of Commons, nor even to a great Department of State".

A second proposal was the removal of the word "chemistry" from the objects of the Charter. The next was the merger of separate registers, for pharmaceutical chemists and for chemists and druggists, into a single register for pharmacists.

The next three proposals dealt with the move to a single educational qualification for becoming a pharmacist and the introduction of fellowship of the Society as a mark of distinction. The secretary noted that fellowship was intended to mark "the really senior practitioner of their calling", probably someone who had gained some kind of higher qualification. Honorary fellowships were also suggested.

Two further proposals allowed the Society to set standards for pharmacists and pharmacy students, both from at home and overseas, before admission to the register.

A proposal over the composition of the Council was then the subject of considerable debate at the meeting. The proposal would have allowed the Privy Council to appoint a further three members of Council, as long as they were pharmacists. This was in addition to three existing nominees.

This met with opposition from the floor of the meeting. John Blackwell of the North Metropolitan branch said to laughter and applause that "election of the Council is the last privilege left to members" after membership of the Society had ceased to be voluntary in 1933. He said that the members were being asked to give a number of blank cheques to the Council. Members needed to retain the right not to re-elect Council members. Other representatives voiced "suspicion" and thought the plan "dangerous and unneccesary".

Defending the proposal, the secretary said that there had been criticism of the way in which the Council was constituted and this was "a far-seeing attempt to give less ground for that criticism while ensuring that the governing body is overwhelmingly pharmaceutical in its composition". The president added that the Society was suggesting change. The danger was that "the Government would not suggest; they would demand".

Two more proposals sought to bring the Society's branches and the way in which the officers of the Council were elected under the control of the Byelaws. Finally, any anachronisms should be remedied by appropriate amendments to the constitution.

More discussion

When the branch representatives returned to the seaside, this time at Brighton in September 1948, modernisation was again on the agenda. In a memorandum published in The Journal (14 August 1948, p104), the Council set out its thoughts following the 1947 meeting and subsequent discussions with the Privy Council Office. It noted that it expected little problem in gaining an amending Charter, but certain matters would need amending legislation, of which there was little chance in the lifetime of the Parliament then sitting.

This need both for parallel changes to legislation, and to reflect changes made during intervening periods, has been a recurrent theme of Charter changes. Pharmacy law had been amended in 1933 and 1941.

Two new subjects for discussion were introduced. The first was a proposal to establish national membership groups for those with special interests in common. The second was a proposal from the then North British branch that it should become the Scottish Department of the Society, a move backed by the Council.

Around 250 members attended the Brighton meeting (PJ, 11 September 1948, p171, and 18 September 1948, p195). The meeting, which also discussed the new formed National Health Service that had come into effect two months before, overran by one-and-a-half hours.

When the meeting came to the constitutional changes, there were complaints that the branches had been given too little time to study the August memo. The memo was also felt to be lacking in detail — "like corned beef with the beef missing" as the representative for Bradford put it.

Asked if there would be full consultation with the members before the Charter was changed, the president (Henry Clement Shaw) replied: "The answer is 'Yes'. I would not be a party to any material change of anything in the constitution without the membership having an opportunity of expressing themselves on it. I cannot speak for future Councils, but no man has a right to be on the Council who would think otherwise."

Royal or not

One point raised by a representative was why there was no reference to adding the word "Royal" to the Society's name. In reply, the secretary (Mr Linstead) said that over the past 100 years the name of the Society had become established in the public mind. The designation "MPS" [Member of the Pharmaceutical Society] now meant something to them and there was an advantage in retaining the old name. (The word "Royal" was finally added in 1988 shortly before the Society's 150th anniversary.)

The controversial subject of Privy Council appointed members of Council, discussed at Torquay, was again raised. There was concern about who these pharmacists might be and for how long they might serve. It was again said that by election, not appointment, was how the Council should be put in place.

The secretary said that the Council was trying to anticipate future political developments. He said that in 50 years they would "be faced with the question whether the control of pharmacy, of medicine, of dentistry, was going to be taken over by the Ministry of Health, or whether it was going to stay in the hands of the professions". The Council thought that the best way to promote the profession and serve the public was "to have a body looking after the interests of its members". Such changes would need legislative support in any event.

Towards a new Charter

Meeting in Glasgow in 1950, the branch representatives discussed both a draft Charter and associated Byelaws. The President (Adam Alexander Meldrum) invited representatives to go systematically through the documents, receiving any necessary clarifications and making desired observations. They would then be able to report to the branches before the final version was put before members in a special general meeting of the Society.

One new part to the draft Charter was a need for the Society to give 21 days' notice of intention to make or alter Byelaws. This was thought by representatives to be insufficient to allow adequate discussion.

In January 1951, the Council published its final revised form of the proposed Supplemental Charter and Byelaws (PJ, 13 January 1951, p25), to be submitted to an SGM to be held immediately after the AGM on 17 May 1951. The Society's main aims for the new Charter were to widen its objectives to cover all pharmacists and to bring more of its actions under the control of its own Byelaws. Once again, the Society sought to extend the financial limit on its powers of investment, this time to £75,000.

In front of around 200 members, the vice-president (Frank Wilson) opened the SGM. (The president was on a tour of the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, having been "safely seen out of the country" earlier that month.) The vice-president announced that the Society and the National Pharmaceutial Union (now the National Pharmaceutical Association) intended to stand by the agreement reached in 1920 as to the proper functions of the Society and the NPU.

The meeting went through the draft Charter, clause by clause, discussing any points of contention and suggesting a number of amendments, most of which were not adopted. One change which was approved was an extension to 60 days of the notice period the Council had to give before any Byelaw could be amended.

After all the clauses had been approved, a final motion calling for the petition for a new Charter to be presented to the King was successfully moved.

Getting a Pharmacy Act

Having had its draft Charter approved by the members, the Society started the complex task of securing the legislative changes necessary to bring it into effect. Here the Society was fortunate in securing the support of John Hall (Conservative member for Wycombe) who, having been successful in the ballot for private members' bills, agreed to support a Pharmacy Bill (PJ, 14 February 1953, p121). No doubt his honourable friend, the Conservative member for Putney (Hugh Linstead, the secretary of the Society), had some influence on this. The Bill seems to have had a relatively smooth passage through Parliament, receiving Royal Assent on 20 May 1953. The Society's new Supplemental Charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth II on 19 November 1953.

Subsequent changes

There have been two subsequent changes to the 1953 Charter. In 1975, the Queen approved an amendment to article 5 of the Charter, removing the investment limit and taking note of differing property laws in Scotland. At the same time, the Society's right to sell its new Lambeth headquarters, its Edinburgh office and its Birdsgrove House convalescent home in Staffordshire were restricted. Approval of a special general meeting is currently needed before these properties can be sold. Finally, in 1988, the word "Royal" was added to the Society's name. This was approved by a sparsely attended SGM.

Changes to the Society's Charter have been few and far between over the past 160 years. As the Society looks to modernise for the next 50 years, the Charter is again under close scrutiny.

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later