LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
437 
matters connected witli his profession. I think that a short, clear, simple 
statement of these facts might well he placed in the hands of every member 
of the Imperial Parliament, together with an appeal for legislative aid in. 
enabling the Council to insist on all future chemists availing themselves of the 
educational advantages that the Society will henceforth be in a position to 
afford. The very accidents that caused agitation for a Sale of Poisons Bill 
might indeed be a powerful argument in aid of such an appeal, and with or¬ 
dinary care the sympathy of the press might surely be elicited.” 
This suggestion, as I think unfortunately, was not acted upon. 
In December, 1863, as one of the Founders of the Society, I again ad¬ 
dressed the Council on the subject of compulsory examinations.* 
In February, 1861,1 drew the requisition to the Council, published on the 
cover of the March number of the Journal,f which, when signed, I forwarded 
to Bloomsbury Square, together with an independent requisition from Leeds. 
On this, a special general meeting was convened, which resulted, as you know, 
in the determination to apply to Parliament for an Amended Pharmacy Act. 
You will see, then, that my letter to Mr. Ince embodies views that I have 
long held. It may be well before going further to quote the j)recise language 
I employed, as follows :— 
“In reply to your note I can only suggest, as bearing on your inquiry, that beyond 
all doubt the passing of the Apothecaries Act of 1815 removed apothecaries from a 
low position to a high one, and by making education compulsory, reconciled the public 
to paying good fees (charged in one line), instead of the miserable little details of an 
old doctor’s bill. The ethics of the medical profession in fact were improved by taking 
away the temptation to charge exorbitantly for physic and substituting a just demand 
for skilled labour. 
“ Precisely the same result, I believe, would follow if the examination of chemists 
were made compulsory prior to their undertaking to compound prescriptions. The 
public would pay a good price for skilled labour, and every pharmaceutist of legitimate 
position would be better remunerated. In short, the temptation to quackery would be 
lessened, and the inducements and incentives to gain a scientific reputation increased.” 
Your President affirms that in writing thus, I employ “ a sort of reasoning 
upon which we are often obliged to act, but which is not always the most 
conclusive and never demonstrative also that I have “fallen upon the fal¬ 
lacies to which analogical reasoning is exposed.” 
To sustain this position he says ;— 
1st. That I have greatly overrated the effect of the Apothecaries xict of 
1815. 
2ndly. That, according to (his) recollection, not a dozen, perhaps not half-a- 
dozen were ever prosecuted for violating the Apothecaries’ Act! And that 
“ long before it was virtually repealed it had become a dead letter, practically 
allowing every one to do wffiat 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.” 
Srdly. That, “as Professor Fawcett informs us the exports of this country 
have trebled during the last twenty years, and the wealth of the class provid¬ 
ing capital has vastly increased, it would be strange if a higher quality of 
medical skill should not have been in demand, and, if found, paid for at a 
liigher rate than an inferior article. The demand has created a supply.” Again, 
“the emolument of medical men has increased not so much in consequence of 
any single act of legislation as by the operation of ordinary economical laws 
which govern all classes and professions, all the more surely when parliamen¬ 
tary legislation does not attempt to interfere with them !” 
* See Appendix, No. 2. 
t See Appendix, No. 3. 
