440 
LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
Let US now turn to the Medical Act of 1858, which Mr. Thompson declares 
to be “ non-compulsory ” ! What are its contents ? 
It provides that evidence of qualification shall be given before registration 
(Clause XXV.). That none but qualified persons shall recover charges 
(Clause XXII.). That none but registered persons shall be legally quali¬ 
fied (Clause XXXIY.). That no unregistered person shall hold a public 
appointment (Clause XXY.). That none but registered persons shall give 
certificates (Clause XXVII.). That any person who shall wilfully and falsely 
pretend to be, or take or use the name or title of, a physician, doctor of medi¬ 
cine, licentiate in medicine and surgery, bachelor of medicine, surgeon, 
general practitioner, or apothecar}^ or any name, title, addition, or descrip¬ 
tion implying that he is registered under this Act, or that he is recognized 
by law as a practitioner in medicine or an apothecary shall, upon a summary 
conviction for any such offence, pay a sum not exceeding twenty pounds 
(Clause XL.). 
Finally, it does not repeal the Apothecaries Act. 
If this be a non-compulsory Act, I can only say that I believe an amended 
Pharmacy Act, couched in similar terms, and providing that no one after a 
certain day (except medical practitioners, existing Pharmaceutical Chemists, 
chemists and druggists, or other compounders of medicines, whether prin¬ 
cipals, assistants, or pupils) should, unless examined by the Pharmaceutical 
Poard, take the name of Pharmaceutical Chemist, chemist and druggist, or 
any title to imply that lie is a compounder of medicines and on the register, 
it would wellnigh satisfy the wishes of those who advocate compulsory ex¬ 
amination in the science and art of pharmacy. 
Exception must next be taken to Mr. Thompson’s dicta about the whole 
course of recent legislation. ’ Special reasons are not difficult to give for 
compulsory examinations in pharmacy. I agree with the evidence of Mr. 
Mackay before the Committee of the House of Commons, that the law of 
caveat emptor is insufficient for the protection of the public. A philosopher 
with homoeopathic proclivities may crow out ‘ caveat emptor] but what is to be 
said on the case of unlettered persons with prescriptions, who wander into 
the pharmacy of an illiterate instead of that of an educated man? 
Under our existing laws “our Government does step in ” very frequently 
to interfere for the public protection. In the discussion that followed your 
President’s address, Mr. Eeynolds pointed out that new railways have to 
pass a Government examination, so have ships’ anchors. Steamboats have to 
be certified, and captains of ships to be examined. We may also notice that 
equally for the public good does Government interfere in other matters 
affecting public safety. It prevents dealers in butchers’ meat from selling it 
in an unwholesome condition. It prevents the use of fraudulent scales and 
weights. It prevents unexamined men from acting as attorneys in courts of 
law. Hay, more, equally for the public good the State does “ step in” to 
compel every child to be vaccinated (and finds much difficulty in enforcing 
this salutary law, although, according to your President’s theory, there ought 
to be none, because the exports of the country having trebled in twenty 
years, the people must have become intelligent, and able to trust to “the 
natural instinct of self-j)reservation ”). In some other cases, and on behalf 
of the public, the State interferes still further with the liberty of the subject, 
even when they hold an indirect relation to sanitary matters. John Lull 
in London finds that he cannot build his house or alter it without the sanc¬ 
tion of a public officer ; that he cannot drain it as he pleases, but must obey 
stringent laws ; that if he have pet nuisances on his premises, public autho¬ 
rity will call him to account; that when he marries a wife, when he has a 
child born to him, and when he buries his friends, he must comply with official 
