438 
LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
4thly. That the Medical Act is a “ non-compulsoiy Act,” and a “substitu¬ 
tion ” for a “ compulsory Act.” That “ if surgeons were willing virtually to 
have their compulsory Act repealed, then let druggists take warning by 
their example and avoid seeking a compulsory Act which when obtained 
will be powerless for good.” Again, “ are we not all certain that the more 
intelligent a man is, the more he will seek after real skiU on the part of 
his medical attendant, and the less likely will he be to be deceived by mere 
pretenders ?” 
Lastly, he says, “ As a general rule, and in the interests of the public, all 
trades and professions ought to be free to be exercised by all, unless some 
special reasons can he giveji to the contrary. Our Government leaves the 
matter to the judgment of the people, considering the natural instinct of pre¬ 
servation will lead men right. It does step in, however, and force some men 
to be honest against their will, so that the public may be able clearly to dis¬ 
tinguish the learned from the unlearned, those who have passed an exami¬ 
nation from those that have not. Here, then, in this country we now draw 
the line. We almost but not Cj[uite make the practice of medicine a monopoly. 
It would be strange if we were to make the practice of pharmacy, which is 
confessedly less responsible, q^uite a monopoly.” 
There are probably some who may think that in addressing a meeting 
of shrewd Yorkshiremen your worthy President (if I may say it without 
offence) would have exercised a wise discretion Pad he scrutinized facts 
before he ventured into the hazy theoretical regions of political economy; 
that at the very moment of imputing to others the charge of reasoning 
from false analogies he should have been very careful not to sin in this 
particular himself. 
It will be seen that the whole fabric of your President’s argument in 
reality rests on his trusting to his “ recollection ” relative to the working 
of the Apothecaries Act of 1815, and his assumption that “long before the 
Act was virtually repealed it had become a dead letter, and that not a 
dozen persons, perhaps not half-a-dozen, were ever prosecuted under it.” 
I confess that I rubbed my eyes with astonishment when I read this some¬ 
what hardy assertion. 
Prom the year 1815 up perhaps to 1825,1 am not aware of any convenient 
means of reference,—about the latter date, however, the ‘ Lancet ’ was esta¬ 
blished, and I think that any one who will take the trouble to refer to its 
indices, will find abundant evidence to prove that the Act of 1815 was not 
a dead letter. In 1841 the ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal ’ was first published, 
and this, at all events, can be easily reached by all those whom I am now 
addressing. They will find record of the following prosecutions under the 
Act which your President declares had become a dead letter long before 
the Medical Act became law :—Yol. i. p. 176, The Apothecaries' Company v. 
Greenhough (1842).—Vol. vi. pp. 341, 347, 358, and 597, The Queen v. Hit- 
croft (1847).—Yol. viii. pp. 544 and 559, The Apothecaries' Company v. Wells 
(1848).—Yol. viii. p. 487, The Apothecaries' Company v. Loho (1848).—Yol. 
viii. p. 585, The Apothecaries' Company v. Kelly (1848).—Yol. xi. pp. 483 and 
532, The Apothecaries' Company v. Crowther (1852).—Yol. xiv. pp. 246 and 
285, The Apothecaries' Company v. Trownridge (1854).—Yol. xvi. pp. 105 
and 106, The Apothecaries' Company v. Broadhent (1856). 
In i]ie folloioing year^ the Medical Peform Bill was introduced into Parlia¬ 
ment. 
I leave you. Gentlemen, to judge as to whether your President’s memory 
has or has not led him into a false position. If the cases I have quoted are 
to the point, what becomes of the inferences from his “ dead letter ” theory ? 
I wish, however, to add my personal testimony, by declaring that for years 
