LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
535 
of delivering to you, appear to require from me a few remarks, partly explanatory and 
partly defensive. In presenting them to you, I hope to avoid taxing your patience too 
much, by compressing what I have to say within a moderate compass. * 
I think it will be found, on analysing the papers alluded to, that they consist of four 
component parts:— 
1st. Matter which may possibly have some bearing on compulsory examinations in 
general, yet is totally irrelevant as regards the questions in dispute between the author 
and myself. 
2nd. Misstatements of what I said, of course unintentional. 
3rd. A comparatively small amount of real argument; and, 
4th. A concession, which almost renders argument unnecessary. 
That Mr. Orridge holds his opinions in very good company is what I never was dis¬ 
posed to deny. I stated before that many—perhaps nearly all—of our body throughout 
the kingdom held similar views. Presidents of colleges, and medical officers of hospitals, 
whose names and titles are given at length by my censor, may of course be added ^o the 
number of the supporters of compulsory examinations. But to a “ meeting of shrewd 
Yorkshiremen ” (to use Mr. Orridge’s words), what does all this prove? Surely it has 
no relation whatever to the soundness of the analogical reasoning adopted by him, and 
he can scarcely imagine that the parade of authorities, how^ever numerous and influential, 
will serve as a substitute for argument. 
The very satisfactory account which our author gives of his own consistent conduct 
in reference to this question is, if possible, still more irrelevant. It is very pleasing to 
hear that he has laboured perseveringly in the good cause from the very beginning, and 
that his knowledge of the subject, derived from bis ‘‘hourly communication with medical 
men and pharmaceutists for a long series of years” should have led to his having been, 
called upon to address the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society and to move resolu¬ 
tions at its meetings. I could not wish in the least to detract from Mr. Orridge’s merits 
in these respects, but I cannot see how a portion of his autobiography, however edifying 
it might be in another connection, can prove anything in the question before us. If the 
authority of all the presidents of colleges, and of the physicians and surgeons of all the 
hospitals in London has no logical force, Mr. Orridge can hardly expect his own autho¬ 
rity to be esteemed of greater weight. 
Matter of this kind occupies more than half of Mr. Orridge’s space, and, I beg to 
submit, is only of small moment in reference to any subject, but proves no more to the 
purpose in hand than does a chapter in Herschel’s Astronomy. 
As I wished to be brief, perhaps it was to be expected that some things that I said 
should have been misunderstood. For instance, I used the wmrds “compulsory exami¬ 
nation ” in a sense in which I supposed they were employed by Mr. luce, and, as I ima¬ 
gined, generally received amongst us. An Act of Parliament which imposes penalties 
upon all engaged in a business or profession who have not passed an examination, I called 
a “ Compulsory Act,” and an Act w'hich allows men to practise who have never been 
examined, without imposing penalties for so doing, I called a “ Non-compulsory Act,” or, 
rather, “non-compulsory as far as the analogy before us is concerned.” I was aware 
that the Medical Act was compulsory as regards titles, but not so as respects practice^ 
and it was the latter about which I was speaking; and therefore, without using more 
words than w^ere necessary for my purpose, I think I could hardly have been more ex¬ 
plicit. I cannot imagine what a non-compulsory law is, in the absolute sense of the 
words, unless it be a contradiction in terms. A law which compelled no one to do any¬ 
thing in particular, would be a “dead letter” indeed. “The law,” says Paley, “never 
speaks but to command, nor commands but where it can compel.” 
My critic is severely humorous on my allusion to the trebled exports of the country. 
I may not have expressed myself very clearly on this subject; but I could scarcely have 
supposed that any one could have thought that I spoke of the fact of increased exports 
as a cause of the improved education of medical men. This would indeed have been 
a very absurd non sequitur, which could only have been arrived at by roughly tearing 
away essential parts of the paragraph, and joining together what was evidently intended 
to be kept asunder. Trebled exports proved increased wealth, and wealth denmnded 
more medical skill, which was supplied by superior education in obedience in' tb.e de¬ 
mand, and so one cause of the improved state of the medical profession, besides tho 
operation of the Apothecaries Act, was brought forward. Thus, I flatter myself, a 
