436 
LEEDS CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
The fourth meeting of the Session was held in the Library of the Philosophical Society, 
on the evening of Wednesday, January 9 ; the President, Mr. Thompson, in the chair. 
The following communication from Mr. Orridge was read by the Honorary Secre¬ 
tary, Mr. Yewdall:— 
Gentlemen,—In the hurried note that I addressed to you about a fortnight 
since, I referred to the inaugural address of your president (Mr. Thompson), 
wherein he commented in an adverse spirit upon some passages from a letter 
of mine, quoted by my friend Mr. Ince in his paper on “ Pharmaceutical 
Ethics.” 
I now invite your attention to my reply. The importance of the subject 
can scarcely be over-estimated. It largely concerns the public welfare and 
affects not only the professional but the social position of every pharma¬ 
ceutist in this country. If I am wrong in my views, I certainl}?- err in good 
company. The President of the Medical Council, the President of the 
Eoyal College of Physicians, the President of the Eoyal College of Surgeons, 
the Hospital Physicians and Surgeons of London,* and of most of the chief 
country towns, the President and Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, as 
well as the representatives of other sections of the body of chemists and 
druggists (so far as they have expressed an opinion) are unanimous, at least 
in this, viz. that for the public interests it is ex]3edient that men to whom the 
lives of Her Majesty’s subjects are so largely entrusted as they are to the 
practitioners of pharmacy, should be competent to discharge their duties, 
and that the Legislature should provide for their compulsory examination. 
In justice to myself from the pointed manner in which Mr. Thompson has 
referred to my name,.I find it necessary to remark that the subject is not 
new to me. Let me add that whatever I may say in reference to my in¬ 
dividual action or individual opinions, is said because the impression made 
upon any man’s mind who, for a long series of years, has been in hourly com¬ 
munication with medical men and pharmaceutists, is, if he possess a particle 
of judgment, in some measure worth ascertaining, in connection with the 
matter before us. 
So long ago, then, as 1840, when no Pharmaceutical Society was in exis¬ 
tence, a contribution of mine appeared in the pages of a periodical of the 
day, indicative of views kindred to those which have been so recently com¬ 
bated by your President. 
In 1851,t at a special general meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society, and 
at the request of the late Mr. Jacob Bell, I moved the following resolution• 
“ That this meeting recommends the Council to adopt a liberal construction 
of the terms of the Act in regard to the admission of Chemists in business 
on their owm account before the Act.” It is noteworthy that this resolution 
was drawn by Mr. Bell himself, and handed by me in his handwriting to the 
Chairman. 
After Mr. Bell’s death, and before the establishment of the United Society, 
namely, on the 2nd of August, 1859, I ventured (through the Secretary) to 
address the then Council in these terms, having reference to Mr. Bell’s be¬ 
quests to the nation and to the Society :— 
“ To me it seems that such an opportunity never before offered for appeal¬ 
ing to public opinion and asking for fuller powers from the Legislature; you 
can point to the fact that the prime mover of the agitation for pharmaceutical 
legislation has not only given his country a splendid legacy as regards the 
fine arts, but has also left a munificent token of his earnestness in educational 
* See Appendix, No. 1. 
t See Pharm. Journ. vol. xii. p. lOd. 
