LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
339 
liable—1st, the properties of the thing supposed to he best known, and with which others 
are compared, may be misunderstood; and, 2nd, the points of resemblance between the 
objects compared may be few and unimportant. 
Now, to apply these logical principles to the case in hand. The object whose proper¬ 
ties are here supposed to be well known is the operation of the Apothecaries Act of 
1815. I believe that Air. Orridge has greatly overrated the effect of that Act. Its im¬ 
mediate consequences could not be very striking, as all existing apothecaries were 
allowed to continue to practise without molestation. Then, as now, skill and knowledge 
were valued and paid for above ignorance ; though the latter, then as now, when joined 
with impudence, sometimes got the upper hand. Mr. Ince admits that the immediate 
effect of any compulsory Pharmaceutical Bill would also be small. But Mr. Orridge 
attributes to the Apothecaries Act great results after it had been in operation many 
years. Let us see what they were. 
According to my recollection, not a dozen persons, perhaps not half-a-dozen, were ever 
prosecuted for violating the Apothecaries Act. The Company found, after a few trials, 
that the duty of bringing offenders to justice was a thankless and an expensive one ; and 
so it came to pass, that long before the Act was virtually repealed, it had become a dead 
letter, practically allowing every one to do that w'hich was right in his own eyes. That 
is to say, the Act produced very little legal effect in the earlier period of its history, 
and none at all in the latter. 
How could such a piece of legislation—cumbrous in its working, so that it was 
hardly ever put in force—so greatly raise the medical profession in dignity and emolu¬ 
ment, as Mr. Orridge alleges ? And if it could not, then has Mr. Orridge fallen upon 
one of the fallacies to which analogical reasoning is exposed ; he has mistaken the pro¬ 
perties of the object supposed to b^e best known,—he has greatly overrated the effects 
on the medical profession of the Act of 1815. 
I readily concede that the medical profession has made great advances since 1815, but 
I contend not mainly in consequence of the Act of Parliament then passed. Other 
causes have been at work, and other professions have also made progress without com¬ 
pulsory laws. If, as Professor Fawcett informs us, the exports of this country have 
trebled during the last twenty years, and the wealth of the class providing capital has 
vastly increased, it would be strange if a higher quality of medical skill should not 
have been in demand; and, if found, that it should not have been paid for at a higher 
rate than an inferior article. The demand has created a supply, and so the efficiency 
and emolument of medical men have been increased, not so much in consequence of any 
single act of legislation, as by the operation of ordinary economical laws,—laws which 
govern all classes and professions, and all the more surely when parliamentary legislation 
does not attempt to interfere with them. 
And how shall We estimate the bearing upon the present question of the progress that 
has been made since 1815, in education and general intelligence ? Are we not all cer¬ 
tain that the more intelligent a man is, the more he will seek after real skill on the part 
of his medical attendant, and the less likely will he be to be deceived by mere pre¬ 
tenders ? 
If, then we can show, as I think we can, that the Act of 1815 has done very little to 
advance the prosperity of the medical profession, but that that advancement is chiefly 
due to other causes not difficult to discover, we shall see that Mr, Orridge has so far 
failed to prove that a similar compulsory Act would do much for our own interests. 
Mr. Orridge’s over-estimate of the operation of the Act of 1815 may be shown in an¬ 
other way. If a compulsory Act raised the medical profession, we might suppose that the 
substitution of a non-compulsory one would bring it down again to its former level. 
The experiment has been tried, and has not been favourable to Mr. Orridge’s argument. 
The Medical Act now in force is, so far as the analogy before us is concerned, non-com¬ 
pulsory, as it allows all to practise, and only hinders any one from assuming titles which 
do not belong to him. And though the Medical Act now in force has not done all that 
■ could have been wished, yet no one, I imagine, will affirm that the medical profession 
has not progressed since it came into operation even more than it ever did before,in the 
same time. 
We may even turn Mr. Orridge’s weapon of analogy against himself. If the compulsory 
Actof 1815has done so little for the surgeons, a similar Act would do little forthe druggists. 
And if in the course of time the surgeons were willing -virtually to have their compulsory 
