o3G 
LEEDS chemists’ ASSOCIATION. 
reader of less penetratiou than Mr. Orridge might have understood the argument, and 
then, instead of proving nothing, I think it would have proved much against the asser¬ 
tion that the Apothecaries Act, of itself, or mainly, raised the profession to its present 
condition. 
Notwithstanding Mr. Orridge’s allusion to Homoeopathy, I still assert, as a general 
rule, that the “ more intelligent a man is, the more he will seek after real skill on the 
part of his medical attendant.” The exceptions brought forward do but prove the rule. 
We now come to the arguments employed in combating my positions, and you will 
remember that I did not so set myself up as a champion on one side that I could not 
afford to appreciate sound reasoning on the other. Let us see how the case stands. The 
proposition asserted on the other side is twofold. 
1st. That the present prosperous condition of the medical profession is mainly due to 
the Act of 1815 compelling every medical practitioner to be examined ; and 
2nd. By analogy, an Act compelling every chemist to be examined, would lead to a 
like state of prosperity. 
It will be recollected that against the first part of this proposition I brought forward 
other causes which had been at work to produce the result besides the Act of 1815, and 
concluded that these other causes operated so powerfully that the advances made by the 
medical profession were not mainly in consequence of the Act of Parliament referred 
to, just as though the Goodwin Sands began to be dangerous immediately after the 
building of Tenterden Church steeple; it is not usually reckoned that the one is the 
main cause of the other. But I never expressed any doubt of the Apothecaries Act 
having produced some good effect. It was not always quite a “ dead-letter.” But I 
will avoid on this occasion trusting to my memory alone, lest, as Mr. Orridge fears, it 
should lead me “into a false position,” over which he might have again to rub his eyes 
with astonishment. A long array of cases cited, with chapter and verse produced, 
always looks much better than a mere hap-hazard statement made from “recollection.” 
Let us therefore give Mr. Orridge the full benefit of his most precise references. And, 
when looked into, to what do they amount? Nine cases are given in which the Apo¬ 
thecaries’ Company prosecuted individuals for violating the Act of 1815, and in two of 
these cases the Company did not succeed. This leaves seven successful cases occurring 
in fifteen years. One or tw^o of the references are rather curious, if intended to impugn 
the views I before advanced. For example, vol. vi. p. 342, the Apothecaries’ Company 
confess that “ their means are inadequate to the institution of frequent prosecutions ;” 
and in the same volume, p. 347, the ‘Lancet’ is quoted as saying, “men of rank and 
medical education were prosecuted by the Company, while the uneducated pretender 
revelled in success and luxury.” 
I grant that the effect of a law is not always to be measured by the prosecutions based 
upon it. But the Act of 1815 was all along notoriously violated, and confessedly failed 
to put an end to quackery, as Mr. Orridge must know. 
I think, therefore, that after all, my memory has not led me on this occasion far 
wrong, and that as regards the hosts of law-breakers the Apothecaries Act was practi¬ 
cally a “ dead letter.” 
I'roin these and other considerations brought forward in my former Address, and re¬ 
maining intact after the onslaught that has been made upon them, I conclude that as 
the present prosperous state of the medical profession is not mainly due to the operation 
of the Act of 1815, so a similar Act in favour of chemists would not alone have any 
considerable effect in raising their condition. 
Whether limitations to freedom are the characteristics of modern legislation in this 
country, as my critic seems to think, or whether what are called free-trade principles 
have been prevalent of late years, as I ventured to assert, is a question which I think it 
would be out of place to discuss at length on the present occasion. 
I hasten to consider what I rejoice to look upon as a concession on the part of Mr. 
Orridge; and if I can consistently meet it with a little concession on my part also, I 
hope we shall end our little controversy, not only in an amicable, but in a useful manner. 
After enumerating the contents of the Medical Act now in force, and especially the 
penal clause providing that none but registered persons shall use a title implying that 
he is a legal practitioner, Mr. Orridge admits that “ an amended Pharmacy Act, couched 
in similar terms, and providing that no one, after a certain day, (vested interests being 
reserved,) should, unless examined by the Pharmaceutical Board, take the name of Phar- 
