A574834


IdO.c





I 837ý
AR 5s
5C'ChTl
UBM,%RY                 Oll THE
Bonyo-Fmicn,
Eel
-lot'.110
CUMSPICE
wm!pj IT IBM ITUTO,
tI
H 0 M 0 EO PAT H I C
Ll BRARY                 I =Tl'i  P i  I





Ae"















N


PAO'





H 0 M (E-O PATH Y
IN 1851.
EDITED BY
J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL, M.D.


oublisbeb for the association bg
JAMES HOGG, 4 NICOLSON STREET, EDINBURGH,
"D
R. GROOMBRIDGE & SONS, 5 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.
MDCCCLII.





EDINlBURGH: PRINTED 31Y J. HOGG.





PREFAC E.


WHEN it was made known that a Student of Medicine had been refused the degree of Doctor at the University of Edinburgh, because he announced his intention of devoting himself to the study of Homceopathy,
there was a general jubilee among the most determined
opponents of the new system. At a meeting of "The
Faculty," held at Brighton, the thanks of the body
were unanimously tendered to the University which
had so nobly set the example of crushing the pestilent
heresy in the bud; and a writer in 1 Tait's Magazine,"
who speaks as counsel for Old Physic, significantly
hints that at length the right step has been taken to
prevent the increase of the new sect. But these notes of
congratulation quickly died away, for no sooner was
the public made aware of the fact, than there was a
general feeling of indignation at this daring coup
d'etat in medicine, and a resolution to demonstrate to
this upstart medical hierarchy, that it had mistaken
the age and the country suitable for so sudden an exhibition of despotic power. To undo the wrong al1573 66





iv


PREFACE.


ready perpetrated, and to prevent its repetition in future, an association was formed last autumn for the
protection of Homoeopathic students and practitioners.
A threefold object lay before them-to obtain a degree for the injured student, to check the persecution
in the University where it had begun, and to afford
the public an opportunity of forming an opinion of the
character of the whole affair.
To accomplish the first, a communication was made
to the Homoeopathic College of Pennsylvania, stating
the nature of the case, and transmitting the testimonials of the student, showing the course of study he
had successfilly pursued. For it was maintained that
the value of a university did not consist in the degrees it
conferred or withheld, but in the instruction conveyed to
its alumni; that the degree was merely a certificate that
the alumnus had diligently employed the opportunities
of acquiring knowledge there afforded; and, if any
other degree-granting body could be satisfied of this,
it would be perfectly entitled to confer its honours
upon the adopted children of another not " Alma
Mater." To effect this, it has been proposed by those
who preside over the American College to appoint a
commission in this country, to examine the student
whose case gave rise to the application, and, in the
event of the examination proving satisfactory, to
waive the rule which requires personal attendance,
and transmit across the Atlantic the rights of medicine refused to the ingenuous youth by his native
and. The association has thus set the example of





PREFACE.


V


the practical value of an Anglo-American alliancethe alliance of the public of the two great sister nations. It should be understood that this Pennsylvanian
College has a large and well-appointed staff of teachers,
and it must not be confounded with such an institution as the University of St Andrews, which grants
degrees in medicine although there is but one medical
teacher there. To show that it is a bond fide school of
medicine, we shall extract the following statement
from the last annual report:
"A more full and complete course of instruction is given
in this institution than is usual in other medical colleges.
The endeavour will be made by the teachers to present
the different objects of study in a manner to sustain attention; and this is the more easily accomplished, in consequence of the highly philosophical and comprehensive law
of Homceopathy imparting a stimulus to more minute and
scientific research. This deeper interest is elicited not
only from witnessing the effects of minute doses of medicinal atoms upon the animal economy, but from the fact
that many of the recent developments in various branches
of science, reveal phenomena as the results of causes, either
very attenuate or even inappreciable, excepting in their
effects.
" The law of simile leading to a closer approximation of
the causes of phenomena, and their more rigid observation, and thence to their more ready solution, infuses into,the teachings of all the branches of medicine an extraordinary interest.
"The Professor of biology [i. e., physiology] and pathology, therefore, will, in addition to a general description of
healthyand diseased function, demonstrate the minute structure of organs and tissues, their peculiarities as exhibited in





A1i


PREFACE.


health and in disease, and explain those differences of
sensation which are expressive not only of the nature of
the morbid action, but of the kind of structure affected;
thereby obtaining the indications for the remedial measures
to be adopted.
"From the chair of anatomy, instructions will be given
both of a general and special nature-those parts will be
particularly dwelt upon, an accurate knowledge of which
is necessary for a successful surgical practice. When upon
the distinctive characters of structure, for example, upon
the tissues or cerebro-spinal system, opportunities will be
afforded for remark upon phenomena connected with an
abnormal condition of such parts, and their specific therapeutical indications.
"Throughout the course of lectures upon materia medica
and therapeutics, there will be pointed out the relative
value of medicinal symptoms, as well as such as are characteristic; likewise, those diagnostic qualities by which to
select from numerous medicinal symptoms, apparently corresponding with those presented in disease, the properly
adapted medicine. All the facts necessary to be known in
the history of plants in their connection with medicinal
properties, the parts used, the cautions to be observed,
and the means to be employed in their preparation, will
be fully explained. Similar instruction will be given in
relation to the articles obtained from the animal and mineral kingdoms.
"It will be the duty of the chair of Homoeopathic institutes and practice of medicine to expound the law of
similia similibus curantur; to divest it of all hypothetical
embarrassment, and present it in its simple, and, therefore,
in its most forcible aspect as a great law of nature. To
explain, also, the rules of its application; and, in further
confirmation of its truth, show how it adapts itself to
every modification of morbid action.     The histories of
disease will be succinctly given; but to their symptoms,





PREFACE.


vii


diagnosis, and prognosis, and especially to their treatment,
the most minute directions will be bestowed.
"It will be the province of the clinical instructor to
teach the proper mode of examining patients with a view to
the most correct appreciation of their condition, and to designate the appropriate means of relief. An important
part of these examinations, in a very great number of
cases, is auscultation; the knowledge of which is indispensable to correct diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. To
this chair belongs likewise instructions in regimen, clothing, ventilation, and such other circumstances which not
only aid nature in her restorative efforts, but are absolutely
necessary to the favourable action of medicinal agents.
"The course of chemistry and toxicology will be full
and complete. This branch of science, when studied specially as an aid to medical practice, is invested with additional interest to the Homceopathic student; in which relation much greater nicety and precision are required in
the preparation of medicinal agents. The interest is likewise increased from  the striking analogous facts which
this science furnishes in support of the law of similia, in
the minute division of atoms as detected by chemical tests,
and in the wonderful phenomena effected by agents which
are possessed of neither weight, volume, nor colour-viz.,
light, heat, and electricity.
" The teachings of the chair of surgery will be in accordance with the great reform which the Homoeopathic principle has wrought in all other branches of medical science.
By its influence, the field of medico-surgery is completely
reformed and enlarged, and the surgeon is enabled to relieve, without resort to painful operations, many diseases
which were formerly surrendered to the knife. But, as all
operations performed may again be necessary, and as many
of the subjects of accident or disease can be relieved only
by surgical contrivances or operations, they will be taught
in all their minutiae by this chair. The most approved





Viii


PREFACE.


methods of operating will be shown upon the subject, or
illustrated by models, &c., and, when opportunity offers, on
the patients before the class.
"The female sex is subject to many and varied ailments.
Whilst the peculiarity of her organisation renders her more
obnoxious to disease, it, for the same reason, causes a
greater susceptibility to medicinal action. In no branch
of medicine is the power of Homceopathy more frequently
and strikingly witnessed than throughout the entire range
of the diseases of females. The period of utero-gestation,
which, under Allopathic management, may, with truth, be
regarded as a pathological condition, under Homceopathic
guidance, is what nature designed, a physiological process.
In the diseases of the puerperal state, as well as those occurring during lactation, Homceopathy exhibits its incomparable superiority. Upon the instrumental part of obstetrics, the most minute instructions will be given. To the
chair of midwifery belong, also, the diseases of children; to
a consideration of the most serious of their complaints a
portion of the course will be devoted.
"The remaining chair to be noticed is that of botany
and medical jurisprudence. As a necessary adjuvant to
materia medica, the necessity of a knowledge of the former
of these subjects is obvious. A large portion of our remedial agents is obtained from the vegetable kingdom, and
from the same source we expect to receive, hereafter, many
important acquisitions. In addition to the regularwinter
course of lectures, a summer course, given by the botanical
professor, affords students, in rambles over the country, a
favourable opportunity to acquire a practical knowledge of
this subject. To medical jurisprudence, in most colleges,
little, if any, attention is given; and yet upon its possession may rest, not only the individual reputation of the
physician for a proper knowledge of his profession, but
upon the amount of such knowledge may depend also the
reputation, property, or even lives of individuals, who,





PREFACE.


ix


whether innocent or guilty, are arraigned before the tribunals of justice. The vast importance of the law of simile
in times long past, had it been known, would afford, were
this the proper occasion, a curious as well as interesting
subject for consideration."
From an institution so organised and conducted, and
recognised by the state, it can be no dishonour to hold
a diploma; and, be it remembered, the only real value
of any diploma, even an Edinburgh one, is the social
status it confers, and the assurance it conveys to the
public that the holder of it has enjoyed the advantages
of an academic education. Beyond that, its privileges
are too insignificant to be enumerated.
So much for the first object. To attain the second
-to recall the University to its duty as a university,
and not a mere Medical Maynooth-it was'resolved to
petition the Town Council, as representing the public
and enjoying privileges within the University, to require of that venerable body to disclaim the intention
of enforcing upon aspiring graduates so unreasonable
a test as an abjuration of Homceopathy-its practice or
its study-during their whole life. The terms of the
petition, with an account of its signatures and the reception it met with by the Town Council, will be found
at the end of this volume. Whether the Senatus have
given a specific reply or not, is not yet known; if they
do not, then, of course, there will remain for the student the option of the American degree, until a better
system can be organised in this country.
The last remaining object of the association-to





X


PREFACE.


supply materials to the public for forming its own
opinion-has been attempted in this volume, where
will be found the greater number of the articles, of a
controversial character, which have appeared for some
time back up to the beginning of the present year. The
Press, so far as it has spoken, has been quite unanimous in condemning the conduct both' of the College
of Physicians and of the University; and the agitation
of the question has raised Homoeopathy into " a topic
of the day." Under this title, a very temperate and
able article appeared in the last number of the "Eclectic
Review," which contains so much sound reflection,
that we gladly avail ourselves of some extracts from
it, with which to conclude our prefatory remarks.
"'A topic of the day,' the title might belong to any one
of many different subjects:-emigration, or papal supremacy; mesmerism, or the health of towns bill; the condition of the working classes, or the results, social and
political, of the recent gathering of all nations. But on no
one of these do we mean to encroach in the present article;
what we propose is, to offer a few remarks on Homoeopathy,
viewed in those aspects which may interest the general
reader. Beyond such limits, as our title implies, we shall
not pass. To do so would be out of place in our pages,
where a medical disquisition would hardly be looked for.
On Homceopathy, then, we will make some general observations; Homceopathy, that word of varied acceptance in
different quarters; in some, standing for a deep and dangerous imposture; in others, merely for shallow quackery,
of a mild and painfully feeble description. Some view its
progress as betokening a satisfactory revolution in medical
practice; others, as a revolution indeed, but such only as





PREFACE.


xi


might belong to Chaos come again. What one party hails
as the day-star of a new and better era, another regards as
the cloud no bigger than a man's hand, which, if not
speedily dispersed, will expand until the sun of medical
truth is veiled irremediably from our unworthy eyes.
With how many more is this question, so extensive in its
bearings, so important as to its truth or falsity-in reality
nothing more than 'a topic of the day.' To a large, and
we believe a gradually augmenting class, the contradictory
theories circulating among us induce a total loss of confidence in all medical systems whatsoever. A spirit of inquiry on most subjects is abroad. Whether the intellectual
habits and mental training of the masses be such as to
qualify them for its successful direction, may be a question,
but one we are not called to enter upon here. Suffice it
that we notice its practical results. A state of uncertainty
is so painful to the human mind, that men will often seek
refuge in a stony scepticism from the pressure of questions
whose pertinacious adhesion disturbs and disquiets them.
And as such disquiet must be in proportion to the magnitude of the question agitated, it need not surprise us that
it is precisely on all the most important of these that disbelief finds exercise. The ordinary results of such defeated
inquiry are-internally, scepticism; externally, inaction.
We think that man must be either above or below the
common standard who escapes these consequences. Some
one has said that 'a misanthrope is only an honest man
who has been a bad seeker;' he is misanthropical, not because he has gone too far, but because he has not gone far
enough. A parallel observation might be made on most
important subjects of inquiry; but, though we have had
unsuccessful searchers in plenty, and honest men, we maintain, not a few, how small a portion, even of these honest,
will acknowledge that they have indeed been bad seekers.
Such a recognition appears to belong to the intellect; and
many will feel that they have failed, for one who sees that





xii


PREFACE.


the cause of error has been in himself. It is worthy of notice how often we find the results we have alluded toscepticism and inaction-in those characters where the
moral nature is proportionally higher than the intellectual
capacity. It would seem as if the felt needs of the former
were greater than the ability of the latter to meet them.
We are sensible that this is not in accordance with the
common opinion, which inclines to look on disbelief in any
generally-received doctrine as proof of active intellectual
power; and, however unreasonably, of defective moral feeling; but, while we are far from intending to generalise on
the statement, we believe it is one that would repay investigation. The inquiry would be interesting, but unsuited
to our limits, and we must pass on; only protesting against
being suspected for one moment of favouring that pernicious tendency common in our day, which would place the
intellectual above the moral. Our belief is simply that
they act favourably the one on the other; that both may
be cultivated together; and that each loses by separation.
The truth seems to be, that a high intellectual development
is the best medium through which a high 'moral' can be
correctly seen and shown. Other media mislead. The
sun is the thing; but we only benefit by it vid the atmosphere."
After putting in a just plea to respect and consideration in behalf of the medical profession at large, with
their lifelong conviction, it proceeds:"On the other side, no accusation of affectation, or
would-be notoriety, can affect our judgment of those who,
often at personal sacrifice, are led to embrace and practise
Homoeopathy.    Their convictions may be erroneous, but,
having such convictions, how could their conduct be other
than it is? What rational ground is there for imagining
that they do not act on conviction? If we must again





PREFACE.                     xiii
-refer to those narrow personal interests which some persons,
I With that half wisdom half experience lends,' *
are ever seeking out as the hidden mainspring in any unusual course of conduct, we can only say, that, even granting some might be so influenced, here as elsewhere, it
would be difficult, with any plausibility, to lay such to the
charge of Homceopathists as a body. If they professed to
hold some important uncommunicated discovery, some secret by which disease should be cured, the mystery might
attract, and the monopoly might profit. But where we
find outward appliances few, simple, and unattractive, no
mixed compounds (not even a hieroglyphic prescription),
and means explained, investigation courted, hospital and
other professional data thrown open, we are driven to the
conviction that if these men be, what they are so often and
so vulgarly called, quacks,' they have their trade yet to
learn. We feel it almost a disgrace to pen any notice of
such language; how much more disgraceful is it that prejudice can have gone so far as to leave any opening for
such comments, which unfortunately are only too well
called for. If Homoeopathists are either deceiving or deceived, they are sacrificing their professional prospects to
a present of reproach and ridicule, with a future of unlimited contempt.   One point seems overlooked: if we
grant, for the sake of argument, that Homceopathy is a
truth, what other or better course could its advocates have
followed than that they have adopted? or, if it be even a
possible truth, how else could its claims be satisfactorily
adjusted? or, supposing it an error, what shorter way tO,
explode it, than exposing it to the test of experienc? In
all this we owe them thanks, yet they too have something'
to guard against; for they are exposed to the temptation


* VWordsworth.





xiv


PREFACE.


of being drawn as far from the truth by the charm of novelty, as their opponents by the charm of habit.
"Something of mutual concession would be no bar to,
the progress of science, while it would further those higher
interests-the development of liberality and liberty, candour and equity-in comparison with which, or deprived
of which, even the advancement of science is a poor thing.
Why may there not be an honourable rivalry, stimulative
to both parties, beneficial to the public, and favourable to
the elucidation of truth?  Why do we still see in some
* quarters something very like a determination, not only
that Homceopathy has not been proved a truth, but, moreover, that it shall not be proved such? Why should some
parties oppose inquiries which, on their own statement,
could only demonstrate the infallibility of their own positions. It is curious that intolerance and impatience of
opposition are ofted found precisely in an inverse ratio to
the amount of conviction. It would seem as if the mind
sought to convince and establish itself by means of the
very vehemence and stringency of assertion employed towards others. But why may not 'truth, substance of the
world,'* be trusted in virtue of its own immutability to
survive any amount of investigation?
"However, amid the prejudices which may affect all
parties, we readily attribute to the profession, as a body, a
sincere desire for the establishment of the truth, and that
result is best promoted by free inquiry and open discussion.
The present subject has already excited great attention in
our own and other countries, and certainly is one that cannot be summarily suppressed. In Prussia, and other of
the German states, in France, Belgium, Italy, and the
United States, Homceopathy has many proselytes-is, in
short, a ' recognised' agency, and the footing it has gained
would of itself, without other claims, entitle it to notice
* Schiller.





PREFACE.


XV


and inquiry. Let us now look a little more closely into
the matter."  *   *  *   *   *
" Having stated the leading characteristics of Homceopathy, we may as well notice some of the objections most
frequently brought against it. In this we can hardly offer
much novelty. Every philosophic objection can have but
its one philosophic answer; where such are produceable,
Homoeopathists have not been backward to produce them.
To us there appear difficulties yet to be solved; but, on
the other hand, there are some objections so carelessly
made, so frequently brought forward, and so uncandidly
persisted in, that we cannot pass them over in silence,
though on other grounds they would hardly deserve much
notice.
" One grave error in the attacks on Homoeopathy is that
of treating the infinitesimal doses as the essential characteristic of the system
" Now this is not the case. We know that every greater
revolution brings in its train numerous lesser ones, which
to many become the most important part of it, and are
substituted for the primary aim and true essentials. For
example, the object of the Reformation was not the destruction of images, but to a large party in this country that
became the chief pursuit, and the name of iconoclast equivalent to that of reformer.    Again, religion inculcates
temperance, but temperance societies do not constitute religion. Temperance is Christian, but it is not Christianity.
Such illustrations abound, and always will, for there is a
certain class of minds apparently unable to discriminate
between essentials and non-essentials. They have no sense
of proportion, no perception of perspective: the great and
the little, the far and the near, are all one to them; such
minds are like the paintings on Chinese screens, where
the man is as big as the house he is entering, and an obtrusive butterfly, in a supposed background, bigger than
either.





xvi


PREFACE.


" In the present case, what are the facts? The assertion
is so far from the truth, that it appears Hahnemann had
formed his theory for a length of time on his primary
principles (already stated), ere he considered this reformation as to amount of dose necessary; and even now great
differences exist among his disciples as to the strength of
the doses to be employed. In Germany, Homoeopathic
medicines are oftener given in larger quantities, that is, in
appreciable doses; it is said, with less successful results
than among ourselves; but as to this we are not prepared
with any definite statement; nor is such-in any degree requisite to our point, which is merely, as we have stated,
that the infinitesimal dose is no necessary constituent of
Homceopathy.
"This has been stated repeatedly, but apparently to little
purpose; nor do we expect to be more fortunate than our
predecessors, for the popular mis-statement affords shelter
to a whole colony of jokelets, which must be all ceded,
if the simple truth and justice of the assertion are to
be attended to. A sacrifice like this we are not so unreasonable as to expect; and, as such a treatment of such a
subject can injure none but the perpetrators, we need not
be very severe on this point; only, speaking aesthetically,
a little novelty of attack would now be a great relief. *
"Another objection, or rather opposition, raised is, that
the cures of Homoeopathy are effected through the imagination; and people go on talking of belief and unbelief,
' faith' and 'want of faith,' as if they spoke of some mysterious abracadabra, some mystic incantation, which could
only take effect upon the faithful. As to this imagination
hypothesis, it must surely have been a lively one which
originated it. Anything more unpretendingly simple never
was propounded in medicine. What the imagination can
find to feed on in Homoeopathic globules, rather than in
the potent pill-boxes and many-coloured draughts of Allopathy, we confess ourselves unable to discover. But it is





PREFACE.


xIvii


something that the cures are admitted, and only the means
questioned; while such a suggestion from the administrators of 'those precious simples,' laudanum and calomel,
comes strangely. If imagination can cure disease, by all
means let her work, and give her all the credit, but don't
give her the calomel, for you see she does not need it. If
globules or bread pills suffice, anything more becomes
superfluous cruelty.
"At any rate, there is one class of patients who cannot
well be supposed to be victimised by the freaks and vagaries of the imagination-that of young children, in the
treatment of whom Homceopathists have always laid claim
to signal success. Let this be looked into. If correct,
there is at once a moral gain in the absence of irritation
and annoyance, and consequent habits of peevishness, which
we too often see superinduced in them under severe medical
treatment.
"But in fact we suspect imagination has favoured Allopathic practice far more than the Homaeopathic may venture to expect. Many people like the formalities ani
etiquettes of invalidism, its fuss, and sympathy, and importance; and if they do not positively enjoy their miseries,
they do most indubitably like something of excitement
and outward appliance in getting out of them. We once
heard an invalid lady gravely founding her distrust of the
efficacy of Homoeopathy on the absence of all suffering.
'Why, said she, with the manner of one stating an unanswerable argument, 'I never should know I was really
cured in that way.' We ventured with becoming diffidence to suggest, that a fact of that kind might be allowed to speak for itself. 'No, no,' said she, with an air
of logical acuteness, 'there is no satisfaction in that sort of
thing.'
"We agree with her, that there is to the many so little
satisfaction in 'that sort of thing,' that it is not calculated
to attract. It is certain, that be Homceopathy true or be





xviii


PREFACE.


it false, it would be far more rapid in progress, find a far
readier and more general acceptance, if it dealt more in
tangibilities. Something refreshingly nauseous, re-assuringly unpalatable, would find more favour, absurd as the
assertion may appear; for to many, in medicine as in morals, good is not good until it has been duly absinthiated.
It is somewhat to the credit of Homceopathists, that they
have so strictly abstained from playing into the popular
weakness. To communicate something of colour, taste, and
substance to their medicines would be the easiest thing in
the world-but what then?
S And why should witless man so much mis-ween
That nothing is but that which lie hath seen?'*
" Glasses of what looks like pure water, and tiny boxes
of fractional globules, may seem weak agents, but if the retreat of a malady is effected, and its return prevented, then
the absence of a more marked agency need not act more
unfavourably on our serenity than the fact that we do not
see the grass grow nor hear the snow fall. The effects
may be gradual, and thus less striking; but they are so far
in accordance with those of nature, which does not generally
work by convulsions. All her more usual and most beneficent operations are silent, gradual, and progressive. To
the same class of objectors or demurrers belong those who
would refer the cures of Homoeopathy to superior attention to minor rules, simplicity of diet, &c. If this be to,
why was it not sooner found out and acted upon? How
thankful we may be for the innovation; but if diet can cure
disease, what becomes of Allopathy?
" After all, let success be the test. To use the words of
a German writer, though in a sense which he certainly
never contemplated, 'Everything through which we are
bettered is true.' Whether this test would prove favourable
to Homceopathy we cannot decide, nor are we solicitous to
SSpenser.





PREFACE.


XiX


do so in this place. We have only entered on the subject
as one belonging to our day, and which calls for investigation. We have no favour to one party more than the
other, and have wished to show none, unless something of
a desire to befriend the oppressed, as 'oppressed,' rather
than the oppressor as 'oppressor,' should be so construed.
We have sincerely desired to keep simply to the truth, and
all we wish is the examination of the subject by competent
inquirers.  In objective science there is not the same
ground, or shadow of a ground, for opposing inquiry,
which some minds find for disliking its incursions into the
regions of speculative philosophy. In science, inquiry and
error must ever act antagonistically-one will and must
extinguish the other. Errors in science, in their very nature, have a limited life. By allowing their free development, we secure their removal; by suppressing it, we prolong their existence, and cherish a vital energy which their
natural growth would never have supplied. Let Homoeopathy be investigated in a spirit and manner suited to the
subject. It may be a mixture of truth and error; if so, let
us accept the good without caring whence it comes, and
reject the evil in the same way; or it may be a great truth,
in which case let us have it by all means. Or, finally, it
may be altogether erroneous; if so, in the name of common
sense, let that be made clear, and the whole concern swept
into nonentity, to leave the path clear for something
better."
To which we say Amen.
J. 13. R.
Since this was sent to press, the Indian mail hlas
brought the following important intelligence, contained(
in the "Friend of India," of November 27, 1851,





XX


PREFACE.


showing that the little flame kindled in Leipsic fifty
years ago, has now its responding beacon-lights in all
the quarters of the globe:
"We have the pleasure of publishing the prospectus of
a Homeopathic Hospital about to be established in Calcutta, under the patronage of Sir John Littler, and the
superintendence of Dr Tonnerre; and, at the risk of being
considered heretical, beg to recommend it to the earnest
attention of the community.     We had occasion some
months ago to notice the erection of a Homoeopathic Hospital in London, from the subscriptions of those noblemen and gentlemen who had experienced the benefit of the
system, and were anxious to see it extended to others, and
it is fitting that we should have a corresponding institution
in Calcutta. We have no professional knowledge of either
Homoeopathy or Allopathy, and are as unable to explain
the principles of the former, as the blind man mentioned
in Scripture was unable to explain to the unbelieving
Pharisees how He opened his eyes; but, as the object of His
benevolence replied, 'this one thing I know, that whereas
I was blind, now I see,' so do we ground our recommendation on the successful results which we have ourselves
witnessed of this mode of treatment. Even if we were to
follow the usual rule, and believe only half we see, we
should have sufficient evidence of its efficacy, in almost all
the cases to which it has been applied within our knowledge; and, as a natural consequence, we do not believe
one tithe of what we hear against it. It is not pretended
that Homceopathy will cure all diseases in all stages, and
thus bestow the gift of immortality on the human family;
it is enough that its simple process has been triumphantly
efficacious in the removal of many diseases, when they had
been previously pronounced all but incurable, to establish
the necessity of a close and fair investigation of its merits
and its results. We are fully aware that it has encountered





PREFACE.


xxi


the severest opposition from those who have been accustomed to the Allopathic system throughout their professional career; and, so far as this opposition can be attributed
to a firm and conscientious adherence to what they consider
the soundest principles of medical science, it is entitled to
respect. But it is quite possible to carry this feeling so
far that it degenerates into a strong personal attachment
to preconceived opinions, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that they were not altogether correct. Bigotry is
not confined to religious opinions. There may be medical
bigotry-perhaps we may dignify it with the name of incredulity-as there is also legal bigotry. But we cannot
but consider it the bounden duty of every medical practitioner who demands the confidence of his patients, to prove
his title to it by a calm and unbiassed investigation of the
merits, and, above all, the results of a medical system, different from his own, which is stated on unquestionable evidence to have been efficacious in relieving pain and removing disease. The science of medicine has been progressive
in Europe for three centuries, and it is only through investigation, observation, and experience that it has attained
its present eminence;-there may be other modes of cure
than those which are dreamt of in the present philosophy
of the profession, equally, if not more efficacious, and it
behoves those who are intrusted with the health and lives
of their fellow-creatures to use the utmost diligence in ascertaining whether the Homceopathic system of treatment
may not come within this category. Homceopathy has of
late made considerable progress in the confidence of the
public in Calcutta; but it is worthy of especial remark
that there is not a single case in which those who are its
advocates have not been converted to it through a conviction of its efficacy, by a personal experience of its happy
effects, either on themselves or their friends. To decry it
without examination, would be to act in the spirit of those
who sent Galileo to the dungeons of the Inquisition for as




xxii                   PREFACE.
serting that which at the time appeared to be an astronomical paradox. We trust Dr Tonnerre will meet with
such encouragement as to be able fully to establish the
hospital; that the mode of treatment pursued by him
and its results will be impartially studied by the members
of the faculty; and that the blessings it has conferred on
our own friends and relatives may be extended to others."





CONTENTS.


Page
Letter to John Forbes, M.D., F.R.S., on his Article entitled
" Homceopathy, Allopathy, and Young Physic," contained
in the " British and Foreign Medical Review." By William
Henderson, M.D., Professor of Pathology in the University
of Edinburgh......        1
On the Observation of Nature in the Treatment of Disease.
By Andrew Combe, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians of Edinburgh, one of the Physicians in Ordinary,
in Scotland, to the Queen, &c. &c....   83
Homceopathy via Young Physic. Ry J. Rutherfurd Russell,
M.D........      125
Medical Toogoodism and Homceopathy...   144
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Homoeopathy.......     176
Our College of Physicians.....   191
The New Test Act.....     196
Dr Ransford's Reasons for Embracing Homceopathy.  244
Fulminations Against Homceopathy...     261
Homoeopathy and Allopathy....  265
The Royal College of Physicians and the Homccopathists  270
The Brighton Protest Analysed    *...  285
A Letter addressed to Dr Rose Cormack. By the Rev. Thomas
R. Everest, rector of Wickwar...     2





xxiv


CONTENTS.




T1e East versuos  e w es.
Proposed Inaugural Address for 1852, to be delivered to the
Medical Graduates of the University of Edinburgh by the
Professor of Materia Medica Pura..
Trial and Confessions of Professors Syme, Christison, and
Simpson...
Dr Russell's Address at the Second Congress of Homceopathic
Practitioners. Held at London on the 23d and 24th July,
1851.....
A Trip to Leipsic.-The Hahnemann Jubilee.
Proceedings of the Town Council of Edinburgh in Reference
to Homoeopathy..
Appendix-Names of the Members of the Association


321


371
384





LETTER
TO
JOHN FORBES, M.D., F.R.S.,
On his Article entitled " Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and Young Physic,'
contained in the "British and Foreign Medical Review."
BY
WILLIAM     HENDERSON, M.D.,
Professor of Pathology in the University of Edinburgh.*
Srn,-It is not the irritability of an author subjected to
a rigorous criticism that prompts me to address to you the
following remarks on your late review of IIomceopathy,
for I can say with sincerity that you have given me, personally, scarcely any ground for complaint. Indeed, both
as an author and an adherent of the system which you have
reviewed, I can justly pay you the compliment of stating
that you are the first public opponent of Homoeopathy in
this country who has treated it with the courtesy of a gentleman, and the candour, if not of an unbiassed unbeliever,
at least of. one who does not recklessly assert what is untrue.
Nor is it solely on account of the importance of the
omissions and mistakes you have made that I address you at
present. Far greater than any you are chargeable with, and
deliberate misrepresentations to boot, have been committed
by some of your contemporaries, which the feebleness of
their influence either for good or bad has rendered unworthy
of notice. It is, however, otherwise with you, and the pro* This letter was first published in the " British Journal of
Homoeopathy," in April, 1846.
B





2


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,,


ductions of your pen; and though I might, with little
anxiety for the result, leave your article on Homoeopathy
to do the important work for which it is in many respects
so well suited, without any comments of mine, it has occurred to me that the inaccuracies and defects to which I
have referred may, under the sanction of your name, have
more influence with many than they deserve to have, and
may thereby retard the progress of an inquiry in which
the profession and the public are very seriously concerned.
I gladly avail myself, therefore, of the apology for my interference which is afforded by the circumstance of my
having a place in your review, in order to supply some of
the omissions, and correct the principal mistakes of that
article.
Though I give you full credit for having undertaken
and prosecuted your examination of the subject with a desire to act fairly by it, I am far from admitting that you
have succeeded in your object. While there is much in
your paper that is just, and a little that will be regarded
as even liberal, there is a great deal that is the reverse of
both.  Some of what comes under this latter designation
is, no doubt, the result of imperfect information-of views
which, as you acknowledge, have been " suddenly and prematurely" forced from you. A large account, however,
remains that cannot be regarded in this light, but which
affords some curious illustrations of the psychological infirmity that often leads men to exhibit doctrines which they
dislike to as much disadvantage as they can, without absolutely affirming what they know to be untrue.
To this infirmity I must ascribe the suppressing of explanations that might lessen or remove an objection; the
ready admission of whatever appears likely to tell against
your opponents; the prompt repudiation of everything like
a presumption in their favour; and the recourse to denials
or affirmations regarding points on which you are not entitled, by your actual knowledge, to offer an opinion.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


3


Added to all this, there are so many misrepresentations
of facts and doctrines (so plainly stated by Homceopathic
writers, that it is difficult to conceive how they can be misunderstood), that it will be scarcely surprising should many,
who do not know you personally, doubt the possibility of
their being unintentional.
It is easy to perceive that you started on your inquiry with
your mind fully made up on the more important merits of
the case; and the following are clearly the " views relating
to the general subject which have long occupied" your
thoughts. You have been long satisfied that the treatment of diseases, according to the old system, was, for the
most part, radically bad,-with some exceptions, simply
powerless as to the cure of diseases, and in many, if not in
most, of these exceptions, worse than powerless, positively
injurious; you were familiar, therefore, with the belief that
the majority of the supposed cures of diseases, including
acute inflammations and other dangerous maladies, under
the old system, were due to the power of nature acting independently or even in spite of the treatment; you have
heard not a little of the success of Homoeopathy, and the
difficulty of conceiving that the means you supposed it to
employ could act in any way on the body, suggested an
explanation of this success, which chimed in with your estimate of the power of nature. The riddle was thus easily
solved. The recoveries under the old system are mostly
due to nature, ergo, the recoveries under Homoeopathy can
be due to nothing more.
In order to guard myself from misrepresenting you, I
shall quote your own words. The inferences you specify
as the result of your deliberations are:" 1. That in a large proportion of the cases treated by
Allopathic physicians (that is, of the old school), the disease is cured by nature, and not by them.
" 2. That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion,
the disease is cured by nature, in spite of them; in other





4


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


words, their interference opposing, instead of assisting, the
cure.
"3. That, consequently, in a considerable proportion of
diseases, it would fare as well, or betteiý, with patients, in
the actual condition of the medical art, as more generally
practised, if all remedies, at least all active remedies, especially drugs, were abandoned.       *       *
"Although Homeopathy has brought more signally into
the common daylight this lamentable condition of medicine
regarded as a practical art, it was one well known before
to all philosophical and experienced physicians.
"It is, in truth, a fact of such magnitude-one so palpably evident, that it was impossible for any careful reader
of the history of medicine, or any long observer of the
processes of disease, not to be aware of it. What, indeed,
is the history of medicine but a history of perpetual changes
in the opinions and practice of its professors, respecting the
very same subjects-the nature and treatment of diseases?
And, amid all these changes, often extreme and directly
opposed to one another, do we not find these very diseases,
the subject of them, remaining (with some exceptions) still
the same in their progress and general event? Sometimes,
no doubt, we observe changes in the character and event,
obviously depending on the change in the treatment, and,
alas! as often for the worse as for the better; but it holds
good, as a general rule, that, amid all the changes of the
treatment, the proportion of cures and of deaths has remained nearly the same, or, at least, if it has varied, the
variation has borne no fixed relation to the difference of
treatment."-Pp. 257-8.
"The foregoing elucidations, it will not be doubted, disclose a lamentable state of things; but it is not a state to
be despaired of, much less is it one to be concealed as
something disgraceful. It is more our misfortune than our
fault that it is as it is; but if it were our fault, still it ought
to be made known. There, as in morals, the more sensibly





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


5


we feel our defects, the more openly and heartily we confess them, the more likely are we to get rid of them. As
thus reflected in our critical mirror, the features of our ancient mother assuredly look somewhat unattractive. She
seems neither happy nor prosperous-yea, she seems sick,
very sick, yet not sick unto death. On the contrary, we
believe that she is more vivacious and vigorous than at any
preceding time; her countenance is merely ' sicklied o'er
with the pale cast of thought,' from the strength of her
inward throes; 'the genius and the mortal instruments are
now in council, and her state, like to a little kingdom, is
suffering the nature of an insurrection.' And such, in
truth, do we believe to be, literally, the condition of physic
at this moment. Things have arrived at such a pitch, that
they cannot be worse. They must mend or end. We believe they will mend. The springs of life are yet untouched; the constitution retains its rallying power; the vis
medicatrix is in action; and we flatter ourselves that their
is yet enough of young blood and energy and wisdom in
our ranks to redeem the past, and to achieve that glorious
regeneration, which has been long announced by infallible
signs and portents in these latter days. Old as we are, we
yet hope to see raised the standard of 'Young Physic,'
though we cannot expect to see it furled after the destined
victory is won."-P. 261.
So much for your estimate of the old system-one which
has long occupied your thoughts, and which, I may be permitted to say, was so entirely mine also, that I thought it
worth while to examine the pretensions of a new system.
Then, as to Homceopathy; in commenting on a general
comparison of its success, with that of the old system, as
shown in the tabulated results of Fleischmann's practice in
"the Homaeopathic Hospital of Vienna, and of several
French and British Hospitals, you say"The remarks above made are even of more importance,
in relation to the general subject now under consideration,





6


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


than they may seem to be at first. They not only show that
the kind of successes and failures experienced by the Homceopathists, is precisely the same as that experienced by the
Allopathists; but they also seem to show that the medication of the former can boast of no peculiar virtue whereby
it can achieve triumphs in fields altogether forbidden to the
latter. Under the influence of medicines, all of which must
be considered newz-new absolutely, or new in their form,
mode of administration, and principle of action-we would
have hardly expected the old relations of curability and
incurability exactly preserved. Does not this fact, common to both, seem to point to a community of power, or want
of power, in the two classes of agents, rather than to a speciality of action and potency in one? "-P. 244. And so
determined are you to make out your point against the old
system, as possessing little, if any, potency as a system of
curing, that you behave very liberally (as your Allopathic
friends will think) to the recorded successes of Homceopathy; but with the purpose of bringing both the old and
new systems to the level of your power of nature.
1" These tables (Fleischmann's Homceopathic tables), for
instance, substantiate this momentous fact, that all our ordinary curable diseases are cured in a fair proportion, under the Homceopathic method of treatment. Not merely
do we see thus cured all the slighter diseases, whether acute
or chronic, which most men of experience know to be
readily susceptible of cure under every variety of treatment,
and under no treatment at all; but even all the severer and
more dangerous diseases, which most physicians, of whatever school, have been accustomed to consider as not only
needing the interposition of art to assist nature in bringing
them to a favourable and speedy termination, but demanding the employment of prompt and strong measures to prevent a fatal issue in a considerable proportion of cases.
And such is the nature of the premises, that there can
hardly be any mistake as to the justness of the inference.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


7


Dr Fleischmann is a regular, well-educated physician, as
capable of forming a true diagnosis as other practitioners,
and he is considered by those who know him as a man of
honour and respectability, and incapable of attesting a
falsehood. We cannot, therefore, refuse to admit the accuracy of his statements as to matters of fact; or, at least,
to admit them with that liberal subtraction from the favourable side of the equation which is required in the case of
all statements made by the disciples and advocates of new
doctrines. Even after this rectification, we see that enough
remains to justify the inference above deduced. No candid physician, looking at the original report, or at the small
part of it which we have extracted, will hesitate to acknowledge that the results there set forth would have been considered by him as satisfactory, if they had occurred in his
own practice. The amount of deaths in the fevers and
eruptive diseases is certainly below the ordinary proportion;
but, for reasons already stated, no conclusion favourable to
Homoeopathy can be thence deduced. It seems, however,
reasonable to infer that, even in these cases, the new practice was not less favourable to the cure than the ordinary
practice. In all such cases, experienced physicians have
been long aware that the results, as to mortality, are nearly
the same under all varieties of Allopathic treatment. It
would not surprise them, therefore, that a treatment like
that of Homoeopathy, which they may regard as perfectly
negative, should be fully as successful as their own. But
the results presented to us in the severer internal inflammations, are certainly not such as most practical physicians
would have expected to be obtained under the exclusive
administration of a thousandth, a millionth, or a billionth
part * of a grain of phosphorus, every two, three, or five
hours. It would be very unreasonable to believe that out
* I shall by and by show that this account of the doses is altogether
incorrect.-W, H.





8


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


of three hundred cases of pneumonia, two hundred and
twenty-four cases of pleurisy, and one hundred and five
cases of peritonitis (in all six hundred and twenty-nine
cases), spread over a period of eight years, all the cases,
except the fatal ones (twenty-seven in number), were
slight, and such as would have seemed to us hardly requiring treatment of any kind. In fact, according to all experience, such could not be the case. But, independently
of this a priori argument, we have sufficient evidence to
prove that many of the cases of pneumonia, at least, were
severe cases. A few of these cases are reported in detail
by Dr Fleischmann himself, and we have ourselves had the
statement corroborated by the private testimony of a physician (not a Homceopath), who attended Dr Fleischmann's
wards for three months.  This gentleman watched the
course of several cases of pneumonia, and traced their progress by the physical signs, through the different stages of
congestion, hepatization, and resolution, up to a perfect
cure, within a period of time which would have appeared
short under the most energetic treatment of Allopathy."P. 243.
Again, in reference to the cases published in my treatise,
you say of two " well-marked cases of acute rheumatism,"
and two of " severe neuralgia," that " it would be unfair
to deny that the result obtained in these four last cases
would have been regarded as very satisfactory under any
mode of Allopathic treatment," p. 245; and of the cases
generally, "we do not hesitate to declare that the amount of
success obtained by Dr Henderson in the treatment of his
cases would have been considered by ourselves as very
satisfactory, had we been treating the same cases according to the rules of ordinary practice."-P. 250.
Now, all these admissions have the appearance of fairness, and considering the manner in which the facts both
of Fleischmann and myself have been misrepresented by
uncandid reviewers, they will seem startling and extreme





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


9


to most of your professional readers. Yet they are fair only
in a degree-only to the level of your hypothesis regarding the power of nature, and far short of the truth. A
greater amount of success than the old system you will not
admit Homoeopathy to procure; you allow it to run neck
and neck with the former in the treatment of some of the
most dangerous inflammations even, but not a hair's breadth
more. It must not pass the line of your preconceptions, let
the "hard words, and harder figures of statistical tables"
say what they may.
But the subject is far too important to be slurred over
in a way so summary and inaccurate, and I therefore hope
you will excuse me if I keep somewhat closer to the facts
"than your hypothesis finds it convenient to do. To get rid
of the overwhelming evidence of the superiority of the
"Homoeopathic practice, as shown on a comparison of Dr
Fleischmann's tables with similar tables of Allopathic physicians, you object to all the statistical tables that profess
to exhibit the comparative results of treatment of any kind.
The genius of the diseases at different seasons, the influence
of the sex, age, and condition of the patients, are so many
circumstances that seem to you to deprive the statistics,
hitherto published, of value in such a comparison. And
you are right to this extent, that we have as yet no statistical details sufficiently minute, or so carefully classified,
as to enable us to determine to a fraction what is the
amount of superiority which one kind of treatment possesses over another. But a degree of precision such as
this is not necessary in the inquiry we have in hand. We
want to know, simply, on which side, the Homccopathic or
the Allopathic, the advantage lies, and not the exact
amount of the advantage. And to settle this point there
is an ample accumulation of sufficiently minute information
to leave no room for doubt respecting it. In large collections of cases of any disease, the sex, age, and condition of
the patient, and the date of the disease when brought un




10


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


der treatment, become so much equalised, that there is no
danger, in comparing them, of drawing an erroneous inference as to the general fact of which group has been the
most successfully treated-which treatment has been, on
the whole, the best, and the most worthy of future confidence.
I conceive that no one will be inclined to dispute that
three or four hundred cases of a particular disease, on each
side, taken indiscriminately from both sexes, at all ages
above infancy, at all periods of the disease, according as
the persons affected happened to present themselves for
treatment, at all seasons, and during a series of years, present very fair grounds for ascertaining the comparative
value of two kinds of practice. It is in the very nature of
statistics, collected in such circumstances, and embracing
so large a number of cases, to do away with accidental
sources of error, and to bring out a general fact that might
be misrepresented by more limited data. The comparisons I
am about to give possess all these safeguards against mistake, and the proofs which they afford are as completely
decisive in respect to the general fact of the superiority of
the Homceopathic practice as any proofs we have in medicine on any point whatever.
Dr Fleischmann treated in the Homoeopathic Hospital
of Vienna during the nine years beginning in 1834, and
ending in 1843, two hundred and ninety-nine cases of inflarmmation of the lungs. Of these nineteen died, or about
one in sixteen.
With these cases I contrast, first, the experience of
Chomel in the Hotel Dieu of Paris. He does not, in the
account from which my information is drawn, specify the
number of cases that had fallen under his care; but when
we consider the frequency of pneumonia in Paris, the size
of the hospital in which he practised; and the length of
time to which the account refers, we must admit that the
number cannot have been less than that treated by Fleisch




AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


11


mann. The period of ten years, from 1832 to 1842, during which Chomel's cases occurred, will be allowed to
have been sufficiently extensive to have prevented any
possibility of error from the variable genius of the disease,
coinciding so nearly as it does, too, with the period of
Fleischmann's practice. And in order to do away with
the possibility of any prejudice to the comparison, in favour of Homceopathy, that might be conjectured to arise
from the cases of Fleischmann having been accidentally of
an age more favourable to recovery than those of Chomel,
I select from the statements of the latter what he says of
the mortality during that period of adult life, when the
average success is the greatest, and contrast this with the
results of Fleischmann's practice among persons of all
ages. It appears, then, that between the ages of twenty
and forty, Chomel had a mortality of one in eight, or double
that of Dr Fleischmann at all ages. The Homoeopathic
physician does not mention the ages of his patients; but
the table he has given proves that his hospital is, like
other general hospitals, devoted to the reception of all
kinds of disease; and, judging from the nature of the diseases he specifies in his table, it is clear that the persons
admitted were mostly past the period of adolescence.
Thus, of the diseases the most common in early youthscarlet fever, measles, hooping cough, convulsions, general
scrofula, varicella-only one hundred and eighty-seven
cases were admitted in the nine years, while the whole
number of patients was six thousand three hundred and
twenty-two.
Again, if we compare the mortality of pneumonia under
the ordinary treatment, within limits of age still more favourable to recovery (for you know that the mortality is
less as the age is earlier-that of early infancy excepted),
we still find it greater than that of Fleischmann at all
ages. Barthez and Rilliet give us one hundred and sixteen cases between the ages of sixteen and thirty, and





12


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


Leroux* one hundred and eighty-two cases between the
ages of thirteen and thirty, including a period of seventeen
years, in which the mortality is at the lowest, after the age
of puberty, in the ordinary practice; and thus we have
almost exactly the same number of cases as Fleischmann
adduces, and collected, too, in various years and seasons.
The mortality was more than one in twelve, or one-fourth
greater than that of the Homoeopathic practice. All that
can be said or imagined, by any experienced and reflecting person, of the sources of fallacy in statistics, cannot
subvert the conclusion from these facts-that the Homoeopathic treatment of inflammation of the lungs is vastly superior to the ordinary treatment. The exact amount of
its superiority may not be such as these facts represent;
it may be greater or it may be less, but that is of no consequence to the present inquiry. What we want to determine, I repeat, is simply which practice is the most successful, and not the precise amount of the difference; and
yet it is only to this latter, and, in a practical point of
view, altogether secondary and insignificant consideration,
that your objections to statistics actually apply.
What makes the comparisons I have made still more
important and conclusive is, that the mortality of pneumonia increases after the age of forty, so that from forty
to sixty, during Chomel's ten years, it was one in five; and
above sixty, one in two. This progressive increase in the
mortality with increasing years, appears, according to M.
Grisolle, the most learned writer on the subject, "to be the
same in all countries, in hospitals as well as in private
practice."-P. 520. And yet, with all the disadvantage
of a comparison of cases, in which a portion must have
belonged to periods of life at which pneumonia increases
in danger and severity, with others drawn from a period
when it shows much less of a dangerous tendency, the suc* Grisolle.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


13


cess of Homeopathy is indisputably greater than the ordinary practice.
In order to convey some idea of the superiority of the
Homoeopathic over the ordinary treatment of pneumonia,
at all ages, I adduce the following accounts, of which the
Allopathic facts are derived from Grisolle's work, and the
Homoeopathic from the statistical tables of Fleischmann
and Reiss, carried down to 1844. On the Allopathic side
we have Louis, Trousseau, Grisolle, Laennec, Bouillaud,
all eminent practitioners of a country whose medical practice you hold up to the emulation of British physicians.
Together, they furnish five hundred and thirty-one cases
of inflamed lungs; of which eighty-one died, or one in six
and two-thirds. In this number there are included fiftyseven cases by Laennec, of which he says only two died.
He is accused of having overstated his success, having
confessedly given his account only from memory. And it
is affirmed, on the authority of one who attended his wards,
that his loss was actually much greater than he has allowed.
Still, I have taken his own account of the matter.
On the Homoeopathic side we have, in addition to the
two hundred and ninety-nine cases of Fleischmann already
noticed, forty-four treated by him in 1844; and thirtyfour cases of Dr Reiss, treated in the Homoeopathic Hospital of Linz* in 1843 and 1844-the only cases of pneutomia, treated in that hospital, of which an account has
been published. In all, then, three hundred and seventynine cases, and nineteen deaths, or one in twenty-the
last forty-four of Fleischmann, and the thirty-four of
Reiss, having all recovered!
It is well known that among females the rate of mortality from inflammation of the lungs is higher than among
males, though females are much less liable to the disease.
The number of the latter that occurred among the cases of
* Oesterreichische Zeitschrift fur IIomeopathie.





14


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


Fleischmann and Reiss is not mentioned. But it is certain that the accommodation for females in Fleischmann's
hospital is such, that no cases of pneumonia among them
were more likely to be excluded than among the males;
and there is no reason to suppose that females are less
liable to pneumonia in Vienna than in Paris. In the account given of a small number of cases treated by Skoda
in an Allopathic hospital in Vienna, the proportion of females is noted-there were nine to twenty males. Among
the five hundred and thirty-one cases that occurred in
Paris, the proportion of the sexes is stated by some of the
physicians; and we find that, of three hundred and fiftyone cases thus classified, only seventy were females; so
that no considerable proportion of the immense general
mortality could have been due to that source.
It does not appear that any deduction should be made
from the success on the Homoeopathic side, on the ground
that the statements come from the partisans of a particular
system, which ought not to be equally made from the alleged success on the other side; for the several physicians,
on whose authority the latter is given, were contending,
some of them acrimoniously, for the superiority of their
respective measures of treatment.
It is curious that while you eschew "any close comparison" of Fleischmann's tables with those of Allopathic
physicians, on the ground of an absence of sufficient detail, no statement that can tell in favour of your own
views is too vague and meagre to be admitted in evidence.
One might almost suspect, therefore, that, had a close comparison been likely to show Homaeopathy to disadvantage,
it would not have been so scrupulously avoided. You
quote Grisolle's account of the expectant practice, or no
practice, of Biett and Magendie, with the purpose of putting that on a footing with Homeopathy in its claims to
suffrage. And yet, while the Homoeopathic records are
distinct as to the number of cases that were treated, and





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


15


the mortality among them, in hard statistical figures,
neither the one nor the other is mentioned of the cases
that were left by those physicians to take their own
course. Biett's mortality is said, merely, to have been
"very inconsiderable" during the year that he treated his
patients with only emollient drinks and cataplasms. Magendie's is not mentioned at all; the only information we
have regarding his treatment of pneumonia being, that
"he employs no other treatment" than the expectant.*
"Very inconsiderable," with Grisolle, would doubtless
mean one death in every five, or four, or perhaps three,
cases, seeing that his own practice, which he stoutly defends against M. Bouillaud, furnished no less than one in
six and one-third. The " very inconsiderable" was clearly
meant to be coupled with " considering that the cases were
left to nature." His own mortality was very considerable
beyond all dispute; and if he meant to say that Biett's
was, in the plain, absolute, and unqualified sense of the
words, very inconsiderable, he was bound to adopt, and to
recommend it to others, instead of laying down rules for
the use of blood-letting and tartar emetic.
Equally vague and unsatisfactory is the statement you
make on your own authority:-" We may add that, to our
* There is a small mistake in your account of this. Grisolle uses
the word "gue," which is not no, but scarcely. Even Magendie,
notoriously bold and unfeeling as he is, dared not habitually to give
up all treatment. The mistake, however, favours your side of the
argument. For it would be a presumption, and you employ it as
such, in favour of no treatment, and in the same measure against the
claims of Homoeopathy to be some treatment, if any physician saw
good reason to relinquish the employment of medicine in the treatment of pneumonia. But even Magendie did use some remedies,
though apparently neither very active, nor very successful; for your
Dublin contemporary for February, who appears to speak from personal knowledge, affirms that the mortality was held by lookers-on to
be greater under the distinguished physiologist than under his colleagues, and therefore much greater than under HIomweopathy.





16


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


knowledge, the same plan has been followed in one, at
least, of the large hospitals of Germany, and the result
was considered to have been far from unsatisfactory."P. 246. This abandonment of the old practice, in favour
of none at all, is scarcely the most obvious tribute to its
efficiency. In this we agree; and as to the German result, to which you refer in such very precise terms-so much
preferable to hard statistical tables-it amounted, we may
suppose, to the loss of only a third, or a fourth, of the
cases; a result certainly " far from unsatisfactory," as the
consequence of no treatment at all, when even active treatment loses between a sixth and a seventh, or, if I may adduce the experience in one at least of the larger hospitals
of Britain, a third!  How would you have dealt with the
luckless Homceopath who should attempt to encounter the
statistics of Allopathy, with such miserable statements as
you oppose to those of Dr Fleischmann?
Although I have said enough to satisfy any unprejudiced and intelligent person that the Homceopathic practice in pneumonia is very much more successful than the
Allopathic, I cannot quit the subject without affirming,
that you give the latter less than its due, small as that may
be.   Grisolle, as you know, left eleven slight* cases of
* In alluding to them, you say,"Dr Henderson misjudges these
cases in terming them 'slight,' in comparison with the one treated by
him. They seem to have been fully as severe."-P. 246. I persist,
notwithstanding, in calling them slight, unquestionably slight, cases.
For Grisolle not only says that the general symptoms were mild
enough to satisfy him that he might leave them to themselves without
danger, but he says that the inflammation was" of small extent" in all of
them. Why did you not notice this most essential particular? If you
had, you could not have added that they were " fully as severe " as
the case of mine to which you allude. That case is stated to have had
the lung condensed " as high as the spine of the scapula," and from
" the axilla all down the lateral aspect of the side "-about two-thirds,
at least, of the whole lung. No small extent truly. In what other
respects they were as severe, neither you nor I have any means of





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


17


pneumonia to take their own way undisturbed by treatment, and he gives an account of the time during which
the characteristic expectoration, pain, and fever continued,
and of the period at which the phenomena of auscultation
began to decline, and when they disappeared. He does
the same in reference to the cases that were treated by
blood-letting, and tartar emetic, and affirms, justly, that
the latter were convalescent sooner than the former.
The details are to the following effect: 1. In the eleven
left to nature, the pain did not cease in a single case before
the seventh day; in several it lasted till the 20th, 25th, and
27th days; the mean was fifteen days. In four he was forced
to have recourse to cupping, owing to the persistence of
the pain, and one of them required a blister in addition.
[He helped the power of nature a little, after all.]
In the cases that were bled (two hundred and thirtytwo in all), the mean duration of the pain was seven days.
In those that were treated with tartar emetic alone
(forty-four in number), he does not mention the mean duration of the symptom. But he says, "the first sign of
amendment consisted in a diminution, and sometimes a
knowing. Grisolle himself, the only authority on the subject, says
nothing of the frequency of the pulse, or of the respirations, of the
state of the mental faculties, or of the state of quiet or restlessnessthe very points on which, much more than on any local signs, an
opinion of the severity of a case of pneumonia ought to rest. But you
take it for granted that his cases had delirium-pulses above 120, respirations 48, and much restlessness night and day! All of these symptoms existed in my case, and must have existed in the eleven if they
were as severe. No experienced physician can maintain that the
mere fact of the disease having reached "the stage of red hepatization" is a proof that it was severe. A small extent of hepatization, and mild general symptoms, constitute slight cases of pneumonia if the disease can ever be slight. I mention these particulars only
to show how strangely you depreciate what is Homoeopathic, and magnify beyond all warrantable compass what may serve to bolster up
your hypothesis.
C





s18


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


total cessation of the pain, which was often very pungent,
and acute." In five cases of the latter sort it had completely ceased after the first day of treatment.
2. In the eleven, the mean duration of the characteristic expectoration was ten days.
In fifty cases bled in the first stage, the mean was seven
days. In one hundred and eighty-two bled in the second
stage, it was nine days.
In thirty-five cases treated with tartar emetic, the state
of this symptom was noted; and in seventeen it existed in
the highest degree; and in them the expectoration was
rendered more or less colourless in twenty-four hours after
the treatment was commenced.
3. In the eleven, the phenomena of auscultation did not
begin to decrease till the end of the second week, and persisted
still in various degrees till between the twenty-second and
thirtieth days.
In the cases bled within the first four days of the disease, the phenomena began to decrease between the sixth and
seventh days. In those bled later, the mean of the commencement of the decrease was the tenth day.
In the forty-four cases treated by tartar emetic, the
phenomena began to decrease in thirty-six, between the etnd
of the first and the fourth (lays of the treatment.
So much for the course of slight cases left almost to
nature, compared with that of severe cases treated by the
ordinary means. I think that you will feel yourself in a
dilemma when I present to you the plain inferences deducible from those facts, and your account of the course
and duration of cases treated Homccopathically. You
admit, on the competent testimony of a physician (not a
IHomocopath), who attended Dr. Fleischmann's wards for
three months, and watched the progress of several cases of
ipneumonia, through the different stages of congestion,
hepatization, and resolution, up to a perfect cure, that
this rcsult occurred "within a period of time which would





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


19


have appeared short upon the most energetic treatment of
Allopathy."-P. 243. Now, the energetic treatment of
Allopathy appears, beyond all question, as Grisolle's narrative proves, to cure pneumonia within a period of time
much shorter than the power of unassisted nature can do.
What is then the demonstration which follows? Let us
see if you have not given us a fine specimen of the reductio ad absurdum.
Energetic treatment cures pneumonia much sooner than
no treatment at all. Homccopathy cures pneumonia in as
short a time as energetic treatment; ergo, Homceopathy
cures pneumonia only as soon as no treatment at all!
Quod est absurdum. I am the more astounded at this result
of your argument, because the very facts which I have
quoted from Grisolle, in proof of the advantage of the ordinary treatment over no treatment, are contained in a
previous number of your own review.
You have been unfortuate in not having considered attentively the means which Dr Fleischmann used in the
course of his remarkable success in inflammation of the
lungs. Had you done so, you might have avoided the
blunder which I have now exposed, for you would have
discovered that the solutions of phosphorus, which formed
his principal remedy, contained a notable quantity of that
very active substance. If you had consulted Fleischmann's
notice of his practice contained in the " British Journal
of Homoeopathy," No. 5, you would have found that his
first attenuation of phosphorus contains, in every hundred
drops, a grain of the drug; in the second, nearly one-tenth
of a grain; and in the third, about one-hundredth. These
are the attenuations used by Homceopathists in severe
cases of pneumonia, as you will perceive from the cases
detailed by Fleischmann and myself. Now, if you had
considered that the dose of this medicine, when given
after the rules of your own school, is only about the fiftieth
of a grain-or only double the dose of the first HomcEo




20


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


pathic attenuation-you can hardly have concluded that
the Homoeopathic treatment of pneumonia is incapable of
producing any positive effect. You would have perceived
that it is not by the millionth or the billionth of a grain
of phosphorus that the Homoeopathists claim the credit of
curing pneumonia so much more successfully than others.
And I may here remark, in reference to acute diseases,
that the lower or stronger attenuations of the medicines
are those almost universally used, a circumstance which
you do not seem to have known when you made the general remark at p. 229, that "the primary dilutions, or
attenuations, are used comparatively rarely," otherwise
you would, doubtless, have made an exception in respect
to inflammations, and thus have silenced the clamour of
these opponents who labour to frighten the public out of
its propriety, by representations founded alike on malice
and ignorance. Whatever may be thought of the higher
attenuations and their alleged value, in chronic diseases,
there can be no doubt, in the mind of any rational man,
as to the lower, both actually containing a very sensible
quantity of medicine, and being capable of producing a
sensible effect, even though experience had not abundantly
proved that they do.
I feel the more desirous of removing misconception in
the minds of professional opponents on this part of the
subject, because it is in the treatment of acute inflammations that Homoeopathy possesses the most momentous advantage over the ordinary practice. I have already dwelt
on this superiority, as shown in the case of inflammation
of the lungs. But the tables of Flesichmann and Reiss
show an equally remarkable superiority in.regard to other
inflammatory diseases. From these we learn, that of two
hundred and fifty-eight cases of erysipelas, chiefly of the
face too, only two died; of one hundred and twenty-six
cases of peritonitis, only six; of forty-five cases of inflammation of the membranes of the heart, not one died; of





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


21


two hundred and forty-eight cases of pleurisy, only three.
I need not institute a detailed comparison of such results,
with the tables furnished from Allopathic hospitals. You
know that this is done in the excellent Introduction to
Homceopathy, edited by Drs Drysdale and Russell; and
you know, also, the vast superiority which the comparison
exhibits in favour of the Homoeopathic practice. I may
further observe on this most important point, that it would
be strange indeed, contrary to every principle of probability, that the circumstances you mention as liable to
vitiate the inferences that may be drawn from a comparison of the kind, should, in so many separate instances,
be accidentally so entirely in favour of Homceopathy.
Although I have commented with some rigour on a few
of the errors of narration, and of inference, which disfigure your allusions to Homceopathy as claiming the
credit of a mastery over acute diseases, which no other
plan of treatment possesses, I sincerely believe, that if you
had entertained but a suspicion of the truth, you would
have honestly and manfully avowed it. I am far from
supposing that the man who has had the courage and
candour to proclaim to the world the unsoundness of the
ordinary practice; the necessity of a thorough regeneration
of practical medicine; that "things (in Allopathic physic)
have arrived at such a pitch, that they cannot be worse,"
-and that "they must mend or end;"-I am far from
thinking that he who could utter such truths as these, so
unpalatable to the general taste, so truly Hahnemannic,
would hesitate to declare that the claims of Homceopathy
were just, if he only knew enough of the subject to qualify
him to decide. You have borne a testimony to the character and genius of Hahnemann, and to the ability and
good faith of many of his followers, that must satisfy your
readers that you would scorn to rank among those who
are filching his discoveries, and arraying themselves in
his hard-earned honours. And if, in your tribute to him,





22


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


you have stopped short of his greatest merits, and have
failed to give him credit for having effected any positive
good in the practice of medicine, the defect must be ascribed to the limited extent of your acquaintance with
his labours, rather than to any unkindly feeling towards
his memory. The length you have gone, however, is new
in this country among the adherents of the ancient school,
and gives you a claim to such marked commendations as
are usually paid to justice and generosity when they are
scarce.
These virtues appear to flourish better among our professional brethren in Germany, so that it seems to confer
no particular claim to distinction among them, that a man
should give honour to whom honour is due. They are
generally much better informed, also, than our English
physicians are, and, therefore, if the propensity to pilfer
were exercised by any of their number, he would be sure
of being speedily detected and pilloried for his crime.
Hence it is, that while in this country one of the most
valuable discoveries of Hahnemann's method of ascertaining the curative properties of medicines, has been stolen
from Homceopathy, without a word of acknowledgment
to indicate the source from which it was originally taken,
his more just and candid countrymen, while they take advantage of his labours, award the discoverer the encomiums
to which he is entitled. "It was Hahnemann," says Professor Maly, of Gratz, " who first recommended the use of
Aconite in pure inflammatory fevers, with or without eruption, as well as in inflammatory diseases generally, in obedience to his principle, similiasimilibus, by which the effusion of blood, except in certain exceptional cases, is wholly
obviated. Even were we under no other obligation to Hahnemann, by this simple discovery he would, like Jenner, deserve to
be ranked among the greatest benefactors of suffering humanity."
Professor Maly teaches Materia Medica in an established
university-is no Homoeopath, in the technical sense of the





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


23


term-publishes his series of observations on the subjects
of his professorship in an Allopathic periodical, and yet
seeks no warrait in these circumstances for plagiarism and
injustice. It would be well if others would follow the
honourable example in regard to this and the other discoveries of the same illustrious man, with which they are
enriching their monographs and journals without once
mentioning his name.
While on this subject, it may not be disagreeable to you
to be informed of a few other particulars of the homage
that is paid on the Continent to the value of Hahnemann's
contributions to the Materia Medica, and they will doubtless receive the more favour with you that they are not furnished by those who enrol themselves under his standard.
The same Professor (Maly) observes, of the Helleborus
Niger, after commending its use in dropsies of various
kinds, and other diseases, that " Hahnemann's proving of
the medicine upon those in health, will be found the best
guide" to a knowledge of what it is capable of accomplishing.
Of Pulsatilla he says, "The healing power of this medicine in rheumatic complaints, acute as well as chronicdiseases of the eye, and the various affections complicated
with derangement of the catamenia, &c., is taught in the experience collected to so large an amount in the Homweopathic
writings."
Another writer in an Allopathic journal for 1845, Dr
Popper, of Winterberg, eulogises the use of Belladonna in
inflammation of the throat, and acknowledges that he was
indebted for his acquaintance with it to " the numerous indisputable testimonies of many intelligent and experienced
Homeopathic physicians," and concludes in the following
words:-" A more frequent employment of this medicine,
in many diseases, is to be recommended to the use of impartial physicians; and the best source of information upon
its virtues is the Materia Medica of Hahnemann, and the
writings of liberal Homweopathists."





24


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


I give these as samples only of the general estimation in
which Hahnemann is held by those who do not rank among
his followers, who cannot be suspected of a spirit of partisanship, but possess honesty and information, and are not
enslaved by prejudice. Similar testimonies might be easily
multiplied, but I leave the consideration of those acknowledgments which have been made of the importance of
Hahnemann's contributions to the details of the Materia
Medica, in order to notice, what is more cheering stillbecause pregnant with the future recognition of all the
valuable parts of his system-the acknowledgments of the
excellence of some of his fundamental principles.
At the Scientific Congress held at Strasburg in 1842,
the Medical Section, with Professor Forget at its head,
passed the following resolution:-" The Medical Section is
unanimously of opinion, that experiments with medicines
on healthy individuals are, in the present state of medical
science, of urgent necessity for physiology and therapeutics.     *       *       * "
Dr Siebert,4 an Allopathic writer in an Allopathic journal for 1823, observes, "It is not to be doubted that the
complaints so loudly made, for some time past, in regard
to the want of a foundation for therapeutics, have produced
a beneficial effect in two ways; the first is negative, consisting in greater scepticism in the existing Materia Medica; and the other is positive, being the proving of medicines
on persons in health, and more accurate experiments with
them in disease.     *       *      *     To outward
appearances, Homceopathy stands as much opposed to the
old regime as ever; but I do not believe it does so in
reality. Under the impulse given by this doctrine, medical science continues to direct more attention to the effects
of medicines upon the healthy animal frame; while, on the
+ British Journal of Homoeopathy. January, 1846.
SDitto.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


25


other hand, Homceopathists are every day directing more
and more attention to the physiological aspects of diseases
which they had before much neglected."
In the " British and Foreign Medical Review" for
January, 1846, the learned editor, Dr Forbes, among the
best expedients for bringing his art out of its present deplorable position, recommends the future cultivators of it
"to re-consider and study afresh the physiological and
curative efects of all our therapeutic agents, with the view to
obtain more positive results than we now possess," and " to
endeavour to substitute for the monstrous system of Polypharmacy now universally prevalent [in the old school
W.H.], one that is, at least, vastly more simple, more intelligible, more agreeable, and, it may be hoped, one more
rational, more scientific, more certain, and more beneficial."  Professor Maly, of Gratz, already mentioned,
urges the exhibition of medicines one at a time. Dr Siebert, too, advocates the greatest possible simplification of
the number and form of drugs in prescribing.
Now in these, and similar advices from various Allopathic
authorities, and which have been partly carried into practical effect, though to a very small extent, by Allopathic
physicians, both in America and Europe, a very satisfactory
testimony is given to two of Hahnemann's fundamental
principles, which he thus expressed, whilst those who now
echo his words were enjoying the polypharmics of the nursery:"There is no way more certain, or more natural, for
finding infallibly the proper effects of medicines on man,
than to try them separately, and in moderate doses, on
healthy persons, and to note the changes which result from
them in the physical and moral condition."-P. 194.*
"It will never enter the mind [of the true physician] to
* Exposition de la Doctrine Medicale Homoopathiquc, 2d edition.
Paris, 1834.





26


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


give as a remedy more than a single simple medicine at a
time."-P. 280. *
I have said that the adoption of these principles of
Homoeopathy is fraught with the future recognition of the
most valuable parts of Hahnemann's system. And, first,
for this reason, that theproving of medicines on healthy persons will convince medical men of the accuracy of Hahnemann's experiments, and thus effectually silence the objections which have been drawn from the supposed impossibility of such medicinal symptoms as he describes ever
having been produced. If the new provers of your " Young
Physic" proceed courageously and skilfully in their work,
this cannot fail to be one result of their labours and sufferings. The transactions of the Homceopathic Society of
Vienna abundantly warrant the anticipation. The members of that body have begun to subject the Materia
Medica of Hahnemann to a rigid experimental scrutiny,
and as their mode of proceeding is worthy of being followed
as an example, I transcribe this short account of it, and its
bearings on the credibility of Hahnemann.
" The members meet, and to each is given a portion of
the medicine to be experimented with, without telling him
what that medicine is. At home they take this medicine in
various doses, and write down all the effects they have observed; they then meet again, and each reads over the
symptoms it has produced on him. Thus, there is obtained a series of testimonies from well-qualified and independent observers. They have found that the general results of Hahnemann's provings are perfectly accurate, and
have expressed their admiration of his skill as an experimenter and faithful describer of his experiments." t
You who have neverproved a medicine, I presume, oppose
your notions of how medicines ought to behave themselves
SExposition de la Doctrine Medicale Homceopathique, 2d edition.
Paris, 1834.
t British Journal of Homceopathy, p. 8, January, 1846.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


27


when taken by a person who does not need them, to the
deliberate and oft-repeated experiments of Hahnemann and
his friends.
" No unprejudiced person," you affirm, " who examines
these records ever so superficially, can for a moment believe
that one-half, or one-tenth of the symptoms recorded, were,
or could be, produced by the medicaments swallowed."P. 234. Then Hahnemann and his friends have told falsehoods regarding the more severe symptoms, and recorded
many that were trivial and accidental.
I will not accuse you of making the imputation of falsehood, for you have already allowed the integrity of Hahnemann. But that Hahnemann did err in recording trivial
occurrences among the symptoms that followed the taking
of the medicines, no Homoeopathist denies; nay, the provers
in Vienna, who "have expressed their admiration," &c.,
proclaim the fact, and reject many of these symptoms. But
does his error in the smallest degree affect the practical use
of his provings-supposing, for a moment, the Homoeopathic principle to be correct, that regulates the selection of
a remedy? No, certainly. That principle requires that
the symptoms of the disease to be treated, should find in
the provings of the remedy phenomena that correspond
with them-with all of them, if possible, with the chief and
most characteristic of them at least. It matters nothing
that there should be in the proving many more truly medicinal phenomena than there are symptoms in the disease;
and, of course, it matters as little that there should be as
many more trivial jottings, that neither correspond with the
disease nor are due to the medicine. Hahnemann himself
anticipated your objection, but he thought it best to err on
the safe side-to note down phenomena that might be accidental and unimportant, rather than run the risk of excluding what might be of consequence. If the line must
be drawn nicely between the genuine and the false phenomena, who was to decide on the precise qualifications that





28


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


entitled a symptom to be retained, or marked it for oblivion?
Surely not tlie first prover, nor the first few provers. It
must be the prerogative of the many, who, having summed
up their own experiments and those of their predecessors,
thus ascertain what bears the characters of constancy and
genuineness, and what seems to be inconstant and accidental. The risk in all provings is rather from genuine symptoms being excluded, than from accidental ones being admitted. At least the Homceopathist feels so, who knows of
what importance sometimes are seemingly inconsiderable
particulars.
With all the exuberance of Hahnemann's details, the
case is not nearly so incredible as you make it appear. You
ridicule the idea of one thousand and ninety symptoms
being producible by one medicine. And yet a very little
attention to the proving of Calcarea, the medicine you
specify, will show you how unfair the inference is that you
allow to be drawn by the bare transcription of the numerals which stand at the close of the list. The fact is, that
scarcely one-tenth of the number consists of distinct and
separate symptoms (true or false). For example, the first
nine figures (the seventh excepted), relate strictly to only
one symptom; and this is multiplied into what appear to be
eight to one who does not read the sentences corresponding to the figures, by the degrees of the symptom (vertigo)
at different times of the day being separately noted, and by
the circumstances of its being present in the open air, on
walking and sitting, on moving and lying still, being also
noted and numbered separately.   In the same way, for
the purposes of distinctness and easy reference, are all the
other symptoms split up, as it were, and numbered. This
was Hahnemann's method with all his provings, and you
perceive how small a degree of explanation deprives your
objection of its weight, and how little attention was necessary on this, as on other occasions, to save you the uneasiness of a misrepresentation.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


29


But your objections to the provings of Hahnemann extend to other particulars besides the number of the symptoms. You object to the nature of the symptoms also, and
lay special emphasis on the absurdity of including surgical
diseases among them. As I do not know where you fix the
disputed boundaries of surgery and medicine, I may not be
qualified to feel all the surprise which appears to have pervaded your mind, when somebody gave you to understand
that many surgical diseases are recorded among Hahnemann's provings. Possibly visions of compound fractures,
concussions of the brain, popliteal aneurisms, and carcinomatous tumours, were called up by the intelligence. If so,
I can quiet your concern on the subject, by assuring you
that neither Hahnemann nor any of his assistants went to
so great a length in their devotedness to science, as to incur the risk of such serious consequences; and that they
do not anywhere allege that they ever experienced them.
There is a little work which you do not seem to have read,
called a " Defence of Hahnemann and his Doctrines," &c.,
that exposes the source of your error. Allow me to refer
you to it for information on this point, and on many of the
same kind, that I may be spared the tedious task of correcting so many errors of detail.
It is barely possible that you may consider every disease
that is treated by a surgeon as a surgical disease. If that
be your definition of the term, although it is somewhat of
the oddest, we shall, no doubt, agree that many surgical
diseases are mentioned among the provings. Surgeons
treat erysipelas-belladonna produces it; surgeons treat
boils-pulsatilla produces them; surgeons treat ophthalmia-aconite, belladonna, &c., produce it; surgeons treat
cystitis-cantharides produce it; surgeons treat cariesmercury produces it; surgeons treat psoriasis-arsenic
produces it; and so on with twenty other disorders common to surgeons and the provings. You deny all this, but
Hahnemann and his company of provers aver it, and (you





30


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


will pardon in so important a discussion, my plain speaking) they were far better entitled to know.
But you deny this also: " Not a shadow of proof exists
that the symptoms were the consequence or direct effect of
the medicine; while a thousand reasons can be adduced
for supposing the contrary."-P. 234. What sort of proof
would satisfy "philosophers and hard-headed sceptics like
ourselves," it is not for me to say. Philosophers are not
always the wisest men in the world. One endeavoured
to prove thit there was no such thing as motion; another,
that there was no difference between right and wrong; a
third, the father of a philosophy that finds its disciples in
modern times, that we should give no credit to our senses,
and so sincerely did he act upon his principles, that "if a
cart run against him, or a dog attacked him, or if he came
upon a precipice, he would not stir a foot to avoid the
danger. He had friends, however, who, happily for him,
were not such great sceptics, and took care to keep him out
of harm's way; so that he lived till he was ninety years
old." Again: "hard-headed," or "unlimited scepticism," as
Dugald Stewart has it, "is as great a proof of imbecility
as implicit credulity is." Philosophers and sceptics may
carry their principles too far, it would seem; and if they
wanted more proof of the source of their sufferings (in case
they should take to the proving of medicines on their own
bodies) than what I am about to specify, would stand very
much in need of the "care of their friends."
Suppose some half-dozen men, who had a certain confidence in the evidence of their senses, to set about proving
the effects of a particular medicine on their own persons,
they being at the time in health, and, on the whole, accustomed to enjoy a tolerable share of bodily comfort. And
suppose, further, that they took special care to avoid all
irregularities in regimen while their provings were going
on. Well, one of them finds that in a quarter of an hour
or so after swallowing a dose, say of aconite, "giddiness





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


31


and headach" come on. Has he reason to conclude that
the aconite was the cause? Possibly not. He had no giddiness or headach for many a long day before-but let that
pass; they may have been accidental. As soon as he is
well again, or some days after, he takes another dose, and
in ten minutes he finds his giddiness and headach return.
On comparing notes with his colleagues, he finds that the
other five have all experienced, at one or more trials, something of the same sort in various degrees and combinations.
Is he to believe his own senses, and the concurrent experience of others, or, like Pyrrho the Elean, to discard
all such fallacies, and, unless the care of his friends prevent
him, swallow the whole bottle of poison to vindicate his
principles, and show his contempt for common sense!
Again, though naturally possessing a good digestion and
a peaceable stomach, he discovers that very soon after a
dose of this pernicious aconite, he feels a very inconvenient
disgust for his victuals, or such qualms as threaten to end
in something worse, and sometimes actually do so, or is tormented with pains in his entrails or his liver. He repeats
the experiment again and again, asks his comrades how
they felt after their doses, and consults old authors concerning their'experience and observation on the subject;
and after all his researches and trials, he finds that there is
a remarkable concurrence of evidence that those who knew
no abdominal ailments for weeks or months before, did, after
every dose of that particular potion-some sooner, some
later-undergo afflictions of various kinds: some nausea;
some nausea and vomiting; some pain, pressive, shooting,
or constrictive; some diarrhoea; some vomiting and diarrhoea; some mere regurgitations; some vomiting of blood;
some of bile. And he finds, besides, in himself and others,
that, after the interval of a day or two, from the use of the
medicine, he and they eat, and relish, and digest their food
as well as ever. He thinks all this affords some ground for
believing, on the principles of common sense, that aconite





32


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


produces certain serious evils in the digestive organs. He
notes down his sensations and doings under its influence, as
they occurred at different periods after the several doses he
had taken-as they happened to be solitary or combined-or
as they varied in character and duration; he notes down all
he can learn from his friends of the same kind, or gather
from other credible authorities; and he numbers them separately to keep them distinct, though they are sometimes the
same, sometimes but little different from one another, and
so the list becomes long. In the same way, tedious and
toilsome, he gathers a list of sufferings experienced, if any,
in every region of the body; and as he is very precise, and
very anxious to be correct, all the symptoms-their diversities, and degrees, and shades of difference or of sameness
-are classified and numbered; and the last number of the
last shade turns up five hundred and forty. He might
have omitted some repetitions, and some trifling differences,
and some trifling sensations; but he is precise, and he puts
them down; he may have felt certain of them often before,
independently of medicine-at all events, he feels them
now, and their presence can do no harm.
Many years after, a number of men, some twenty or so,
anxious to prove this medicine over again, take dose after
dose, on numerous separate occasions, and their experiments corroborate all the principal details of the original
proving, and add some considerable items to the number.
They, too, are healthy men, accustomed to no such aches
and pains as they experience while taking the physic; and
they, too, on the principles of common sense, refer their
sufferings to the same cause, and in their simplicity never
consider that " a thousand reasons can be adduced for supposing the contrary to be the fact!! "  Two or three good
reasons will satisfy them entirely, I have no doubt, and
when they are favoured with these, they will take to aconite afterwards as kindly as goats to milkthistle, or pigs to
henbane!





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


33


Besides these objections to the provings in general, you
single out some substances as peculiarly liable to be considered utterly incompetent to produce any symptoms at
all. Thus you say-" When we find the Homoeopathist
maintaining that substances utterly powerless in a state of
sensible bulk, even in the greatest amount, acquire astonishing powers by mere subdivision, without any discoverable change in their physical or chemical properties, can
any proposition be submitted to human apprehension that
seems more utterly impossible, more ludicrously absurd?"
-P. 235. And you ridicule the idea that the decillionth
of a grain of such substances (charcoal and carbonate of
lime) can produce any symptoms. But neither Hahnemann
nor any one else ever affirmed that the decillionth of a
grain of charcoal or carbonate of lime is capable of doing
anything of the sort. Hahnemann, in reference to substances
commonly esteemed inert, while he maintains that it is only
after many triturations that they acquire any p6wer of acting on the system, says, that in experimenting with them
on the healthy body, the high trituration selected for the
purpose must be taken dose after dose in increasing quantities, and for many days, until their effects become sensible.
That they,doA produce sensible effects when taken in this
manner, is substantiated on the same grounds as those which
have, I trust, rendered the provings of aconite abundantly
credible to any one but a disciple of Pyrrho. If it be not,
either Hahnemann could not " have been sincere in the
belief of his doctrines," as you say he was, or he must have
belonged to another extreme in philosophy from that maintained by the sceptics, that every real event was imaginary;
he must have believed on a large scale in the occurrence of
the most painful bodily sufferings, wihich had no actual
existence! He must have imagined several distressing
aches in his bowels and his brains, spasms and palpitations,
that never actually occurred. He and those who experimented with him on such substances had been well and
D





34


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


hearty when they partook of them; yet, again and again,
as they returned to them, they became affected with sufferings of no equivocal or contemptible kind. You do not
seem to be aware that the potency of minute division, in
giving activity to substances innoxious in the gross state,
has other advocates besides the Homoeopaths. Fluid mer'ury, you will admit, has been swallowed in ounces and
pounds without producing any serious evil; yet there are
undoubted examples of persons inhabiting places in which
a quantity of this metal was kept, having become violently
affected by the " infinitesimal" dose of it that found its way,
at the ordinary temperature, into the air they breathed.
Some think that the mercury had become oxidised, and had
thereby acquired an activity not possessed by it in its reguline state. But Orfila, the greatest authority I could produce to you on this subject, ascribes the effect simply to
the minuteness of the division in which the metallic mercury was afloat in the air. Buchner and Pereira concur
with him in the opinion. It seems, then, to be no " gratuitous outrage" to the reason of the most able and bestinformed men, whatever it may be to that of others, to assert that substances which we can take " into our stomachs
with no other inconvenience than their mechanical bulk,"
in "ounces, nay, pounds," can produce the most formidable
symptoms when in a state of very minute division. The
fact is believed, you perceive, by very high Allopathic authorities. The principle, therefore, of your objection is the
reverse of an acknowledged one among scientific men; and
the only difference between Allopathyand Homoeopathy on
the subject is, that what Orfila and others assert of mercury, Hahnemann asserts of charcoal, carbonate of lime,
and some other substances; and he has this advantage over
those wlho impugn his opinions, that he has experimentally
tested their truth, and his opponents have not!
Of the same complexion with your statements on this
subject is the following:-" We hold the great alleged fact





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


from which the doctrine took its rise to be no fact at all;
or, at least, not to be a fact of that generality of manifestation which a theory said to be of universal applicability
ought to rest upon. We deny, on the other hand, that
many of the medicines said by fIahnemann to be capable
of exciting artificial diseases in the healthy body, are
really possessed of such powers. We instance, in proof
of our assertion, the very medicine which gave rise to the
idea of the doctrine in its author's mind-cinchona. We
deny that it will produce ague, or anything like ague, or
any other form of fever, in the majority of human beings;
and so of a large proportion of the Homoeopathic remedies
in common use."-P. 234. This extract is brimful of mistake, gratuitous assumption, and false inference. The
"great alleged fact" on which you strangely imply that
the doctrine rests, is, I may inform your readers, that
Hahnemann, when trying on his own person the effects of
cinchona, says he became affected with the symptoms of
ague, a disease, as is well known, generally treated by
that medicine. You might just as well say that the great
fact on which the theory of mutual attraction, or gravitation, among the heavenly bodies rests, is.Newton's having
witnessed an apple fall from a tree! That very small fact
" gave rise " to the train of ideas in the philosopher's mind
which issued in the discovery of a great law; but I nowhere
learn that it is made the basis of his doctrine. That basis
is found in calculations and facts, which embraced an ample
range of observation. The small fact suggested, and found
its explanation in the general law, but would have made
but a poor basis for so magnificent and comprehensive a
theory. Just so with Hahnemann and cinchona. The
effects of the drug suggested and found their explanation
in the Homoeopathic law, but are as innocent of being a
basis as the fall of the redoubtable apple. The great fact
on which the doctrine rests is, that diseases like those which
may be produced by medicinal substances, admit of being





36


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


cured by such of those substances as, in their effects on
the healthy body, resemble those diseases; and that fact,
or general law, is based on experiments that embraced an
ample range of observation too. But, say you, agues, or
any other fevers, do by no means so universally follow the
taking of bark, as apples fall to the earth when loosed from
the tree. Well, be it so: the latter is a great fact, then,
because universally true; and the other is not so great a
fact, because not universally true. But does it follow that
it is no fact at all? that it has so little of fact about it,
that it had no business to "give rise to the idea" of the
Homccopathic law? If the excitement of febrile symptoms
by cinchona were but occasional and accidental, Hahnemann had as good a right to be the subject of them as
any one else. He seems to have been so, and has made a
better use of the accident than most men would have
done.
But is the occurrence of fever from the free use of cinchona so incredible or rare a thing as you affirm? I do
not know whether you deny that it ever occurs, or merely
that it occurs often.  You say, first, that "the great
alleged fact from which the doctrine took its rise is no fact
at all;" and afterwards only deny "that it (cinchona) will
produce ague, or anything like ague, or any other form of
fever, in the majority of human beings." As there is some obscurity, or contradiction, here, I shall construe the passages
in a way the most favourable to you, and presume that, in
the first clause, you mean to say that it is no fact at all
that cinchona produces the symptoms of ague, and in the
second, that it will produce "any other form of fever"
only in a minority of human beings.
In answer to this latter allegation, I refer you to any
authentic work on Materia Medica. Dr Pereira, describing the effects of bark on healthy persons, says, that, by
large doses, "a febrile state of the system is set up (manifested by the excitement of the vascular system and dry





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


37


tongue), and the cerebro- spinal system becomes disordered,
as is shown by the throbbing headache and giddiness."P. 1404. He does not pretend to determine what proportion of men will be so affected, but seems to think the
operation in question rather characteristic, by the use of
the indefinite article. " If a man in perfect health," &c.,
take a considerable quantity of cinchona, febrile action is
set up. So much for the production of fever, in regard to
which property of cinchona, you will acknowledge yourself
either to be mistaken, or to have no countenance whatever in the authority of those who know most upon the
subject.
Then, as to the power of bark to produce ague, meaning
by the term a fever, consisting of certain stages, completely ceasing for a time, and recurring in paroxysms, I
fully agree with you that we have no evidence that such
a power exists. But if you imply, in the passage I have
quoted, that Hahnemann alleges that he experienced an
ague, in this sense, from the use of cinchona, you are very
much mistaken. He nowhere says so. His words are:
--"How is it possible (if not by Homoeopathic action),
that the tertian and quotidian fevers which I have radically cured, some weeks past, by a few drops of the tincture of cinchona, should have presented symptoms almost
identical with those which yesterday and to-day I have observed in myself, when, by way of experiment, I have taken
by little and little, though in perfect health, four drachms
of good cinchona?"-Lettre a un Medicin.
Now, I confess, I never could see any reason for supposing that he meant anything more than this-tlhat the
bark (taken in doses, frequently repeated, observe) produced chilly feelings and shiverings, followed by heat of
tihe surface and perspiration.  If he be also said to affirm
that the proper periodicity of ague was produced al.,o by
the bark, then he is made to say that he had a quotidian
and a tertian at the same time, which is ridiculous. And





38


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


if you look at his proving of the medicine, you will find
that he says nothing of a succession of such stages being
followed by an interval of cessation, and that again by a
new paroxysm. Shiverings, chilliness, flushing, and perspiration, compose the most characteristic symptoms of an
ague when the fit is present; no symptoms at all characterise it when it is not, that is, in the intermission. And
when cinchona cures ague, I suppose it does quite enough
when it cures the febrile symptoms, in the same sense as
other means cure spasmodic asthma, epilepsy, and other
paroxysmal diseases; that is, prevents their return. That
cinchona does produce the chilliness, shiverings, heat,
sweatings, and other febrile conditions that commonly
characterise a fit of ague, is attested by twenty other
authorities besides Hahnemann.  You will find their
names appended to the symptoms they had severally
witnessed, in his Materia Medica; and you will distinguish among the number some that belonged to the same
school as yourself.
It is possible that you meant, in alleging that the " great
fact" is not " a fact of that generality of manifestation
which a theory said to be of universal applicability ought
to rest upon," to signify that such is the case, because
cinchona fails often to cure ague, even in Allopathic doses,
and this may be one of the cases in which you say Homoeopathy failed where it ought to have succeeded. If
such be your meaning, it originates from misapprehension.
Cinchona does not produce all the diversities that may
occur in the symptoms of ague in all manner of persons;
and when one is affected with an ague, the paroxysms of
which are distinguished by symptoms which do not closely
resemble those producible by cinchona, Homoeopathy declares that cinchona will not cure that ague. The simple
fact of its being an ague is never alleged by Homceopathists, and was never alleged by Hahnemann, as being
all that is necessary to make it curable by cinchona.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


39


It must be an ague, with symptoms of a particular kind.
This is the doctrine of Homceopathy in respect to cinchona
and agues, and in respect to every other medicine in relation to disease, be it true or false. As every diarrhoea
is not curable by the same medicine, neither is every ague,
nor every stomach complaint. And the peculiar difficulty
of the practice lies in selecting that medicine, among several that may appear to suit, more or less, the particular
disease, which suits the particular case of that disease.
Your allegation, therefore, that certain private trials by
those who were strangers to the practice (and it can be
to such only that you refer) were unfavourable to the
claims of Homoeopathy, is the weakest of all conceivable
arguments; and, with a few others of equal calibre that I
have yet to notice, shows an eagerness ngis adderepondus,
which proves that you must have been at a sad loss for
argument, and can scarcely have left any stone unturned
in search of objections..
Among the nugee more particularly connected with the
provings of medicines, aud their value as guides to practice,
I may notice here an objection you make on the ground
that some diseases are latent, and can, therefore, afford no
symptoms to guide us in the selection of a remedy. "How
many diseases," say you, "have been detected only on dissection after death, and which have escaped the recognition of the most experienced physicians?"  How would
a Homcoopath treat such cases, is the implied interrogation?  How would you?  How would "the most experienced physicians?" For my own part, I humbly confess,
I should not know how to treat them. Homoeopathy
makes no.claim to the power of resuscitation. But as you
allow that the members of your side of the.profession
"continue to be almost as ignorant of the actual power of
* Andral is the only Allopath who has published trials of the Homceopathic practice, and his are, as is proved by Dr Irvine, as absurd
as can well be imagined. See " British Journal of Homoeopathy."





40


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


remedies in modifying, controlling, or removing diseases"
-p. 253-as they have been in all times past, and that the
changes which follow their treatment are, "alas! as often
for the worse as for the better "-p. 258-it seems pretty
clear that they must sometimes procure, or hasten, the
fatal issue of the maladies they undertake to cure, an
amount of potency which you do not grant to Homceopathy, and which Homoeopathists, to do them justice, are
not ambitious of claiming;-as Allopathy, I say, appears
thus to possess the power of killing, it is possible that it
may aspire to make alive, were it only as a matter of
simple compensation. If such be the fact, Homoeopathists
give way at once, acknowledging the imperfection of their
art in this particular, an imperfection which has reduced
them to the necessity of consigning their dead to the treatment of the undertaker.
You next observe, "Every physician, for example, has
met with cases of chronic pleurisy, with extensive effusion
into the chest, which presented no pectoral symptoms, and
which were only detected by auscultation. How could
the fitting remedy for such cases be selected on the principle of similia simnilibus?" This is a fair question, and the
cases fair ones for practice, if you mean to bend so far to
the imperfection I have acknowledged as to let us try our
-skill before death and dissection. In the first place, then,
a IHomoeopath, ignorant of auscultation and percussion,
could not treat such cases at all, any more than an equally
ignorant Allopath could. But Homomopaths study auscultation and percussion quite as much, and know them as
well, as your Allopaths, whether of the old, or young,
physic school; and as pleurisy is not always latent, but is
commonly -attended by pectoral symptoms, they have been
able to determine what remedies are useful in the ordinary
cases. When, therefore, extraordinary cases of the kind
you mention occur, they still use the same remedies, and
on the very rational supposition, that if they cured the





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


41


pleurisy with the pectoral symptoms, they have a fair prospect of curing it without them. Analogy, it is true, suggests the means in such latent cases; but the similia similibus furnished the initiative. At the same time, I admit
that the sinilia similibus principle does not apply to the
latent disease individually. We must be contented with
having got our treatment of it in a roundabout way, and
with finding that experience justifies its adoption.
But a more important circumstance is involved in this
part of the subject than answering the question you have
put. It is this, that in every disease, of which the pathology is so far known as to enable the physician to ascertain
the nature of the anatomical changes and morbid actions
of the part of the body which is diseased, the Homceopathist regards them as of primary importance in guiding
his practice, and the more remote concomitant symptoms
of inferior, often of no consequence to that end. It is thus
that in pneumonia, pleurisy, and other well-defined diseases,in which the conditions of the parts affected are known
and can be ascertained during life, the remedies which the
Homoeopathistuses are few, notwithstanding that the symptoms which may attend such diseases are numerous and variable. He conceives the more constant and characteristic
conditions of the disease, when these can be ascertained,
to be the surest indications for the treatment, because denoting with the most certainty the part that is affected, and
the distinguishing peculiarity of the affection. To him, the
anatomy and physiology of disease, when they are not mere
conjectures or assumptions, but ascertained truths, are of
infinite value, and, therefore, he regards pathology (in this
its only scientific sense) as a department of medicine which
he is not merely entitled, but, for the progress and perfecting of his art, imperatively required to study. If he knew
as much of the pathology of all diseases as lie does of those
I have specified, he would in every one of them, I have
no doubt, find occasion to make the pathological condition





42


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY.


the more immediate object of his concern, and the director
of his practice; and would regard such symptoms as were
not necessarily connected with, and indicative of, it as
claiming little of his consideration. As it is, he regards
the most constant and characteristic symptoms as alone of
consequence in pointing out the proper remedy in cases
where the true pathological condition which causes them
is unknown. When he varies his remedy, in diseases commonly considered the same, although their pathology is
unknown, or imperfectly known, he does so only when the
particular cases of that disease differ in such a way that
the symptoms of one resemble the characteristic effects of
one medicine, and the symptoms of another the characteristic symptoms of another medicine; and he acts thus in
the very reasonable belief that, when the distinguishing
symptoms of one case differ from those of another, the difference depends on some difference in their pathology, notwithstanding the general similarity of the cases. If he
had any direct way of getting at the difference in their
pathology, in all diseases that are closely related, as he has,
by auscultation and percussion, of ascertaning the different pathological conditions of inflammations within the
chest, that way would be much preferred by him in practice to the less certain method of selecting his remedy by
external phenomena and sensations. Yet, in this preference, he would not be giving up the law similia simnilibus;
for, of course, the medicines have their pathology (in order
to produce the symptoms of the provings) as well as the diseases; and all that is wanting to make pathology the basis of
Ilomnopathic practice is, a correct knowledge of the pathology
of both the diseases and the medicines. Where that double
knowledge exists, the Homoe3pathic practice is founded essentially on pathology-as in bronchitis, pleurisy, pneumonia, peritonitis, nephritis, cystitis, gastritis, dysentery,
and many others-the more variable symptoms of these
diseases leading to the use of various remedies, but only





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


43


of such remedies as produce respectively bronchitis, cystitis, &c., of some sort, and with varieties in the more important symptoms that correspond to those of the remedies.
Where such knowledge does not exist, there is no help for
it. If we know nothing more of the diseases and the
medicines than their symptoms, we must be content to
make the similarity of the symptoms of the one to those of
the other the rule of practice; and well does it answer;
so well, indeed, that in the great majority of those cases
even whose pathology is known, and known by experience
to require particular remedies, the ordinary symptoms
serve to indicate these remedies to one who does not know
the pathology of the diseases he is treating, as well as to
one who does.
In a minority of such cases, however, the pathological
practitioner has the advantage; and I may illustrate the
statement by the example of pneumonia. \When the complement of its symptoms has the usual amount and degree
of completeness, he who neglects auscultation can prescribe
for the disease as well as he who relies on the assistance of
auscultation; but when, as happens in some cases of pneumonia, the symptoms are very few, or of a nature that
does not distinguish it from pleurisy or bronchitis, the
former may be unable to select the most suitable and successful remedy; while the Stethoscopist, by the aid of his
additional means for ascertaining the pathology of the case,
is able to do so with certainty and ease. Both may succeed eventually in their object, even with this disparity of
knowledge, in the majority of instances; but he who bas
the aid of the more accurate diagnosis will succeed the
soonest, and the most frequently.
While the explanation I have given of the manner in
which some cases of disease are now treated by Hlomieopaths, which have had no actual parallel in the effects of
the provings of medicines on healthy persons, shows how
the principle-similia similibus-has led to the practice,





44


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


there are, undoubtedly, not a few instances in which remedies have been introduced among Homoeopathists without having been suggested by that principle. These are
termed by Homceopathists empirical remedies, because
they did not spring from the general law, but were discovered by chance, or something akin to it, like the empirical remedies in general. They believe such remedies to cure
Ilomoeopathically, because they do so in the same doses as
the Homceopathic remedies in general do. This belief
may be right, or it may be wrong; but the fact explains
how diseases may be maintained by Homceopaths to be
curable Homceopathically, which it may be difficult to
conceive were ever experienced by a prover.
As you seem to have read no other work on the doctrines of Homceopathy than those of Hahnemann, and to
be unacquainted with the practice as now almost universally pursued by the physicians of his school, it is not surprising that you should have given a very inaccurate account of the actual state of the Homoeopathic art and doctrines. It never seems to have struck you that the third
of a century might have led to considerable alterations in
such parts of the system as admitted of being corrected or
modified by experience; or that it was possible that those
who embraced the leading precepts of the practice could
differ from their author on the soundness of some of his
views. To go back to works of Hahnemann, published
twenty or thirty years ago, for an account of Homceopathy to be presented to the public of the present day
as a fair exposition of the system, is about as just as if
one were to affirm the views and statements of Laennec
to exhibit, in all respects, the existing principles and
practices of auscultation. That distinguished man has
had many disciples (among whom none in this country deserve to rank higher than yourself), who have added much
to auscultation that he had overlooked, and corrected many
errors into which he had fallen. Yet auscultation, with





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


4j


all the additions it has gathered in the last five-and-twenty
years, and with all the refinements which have been introduced into it by the multitude of its acute and zealous students, is, in point of magnitude and difficulty, utterly insignificant compared with Homoeopathy. While it, however, has altered and expanded, by the assiduity and acuteness of its cultivators, Hqmceopathy must not be allowed
to move a pinion, or change a feather. Its principles and
practice, as they came from their author, must be stereotyped, and go down to posterity with all their imperfections
on their head. What work is therein medicine, whose contents twenty, or even ten, years have not rendered more or
less antiquated and obsolete? I cannot charge my memory with one; and if such have been the fate of medical
dissertations, down even to the smallest on the smailest
subjects 'in the " orthodox" school, how unreasonable and
unfair to admit of no modifications and improvements of
the original views and precepts of a system which embraces almost the whole field of practical medicine! I
need not say more to satisfy a man of your understanding
and literary attainments, that you have committed a very
palpable violation of justice in the course you have adopted,
and that it is incumbent on you to correct the error into
which you have inadvertently fallen. Meanwhile, in order
to remove the false impression which your review is calculated to make on those whose information does not extend farther than yours, I may inform your readers that
there is a very great difference between Iachnemannism and
modern Homoeopathy.
The customs and doctrines of HIahnemann, which are
now either abandoned or regarded as open questions by
Homceopathists, are his psoric theory of chronic diseases, or
that which refers them generally to the mniasm of psora, or
itch, contaminating the constitution; his potential or dynamical hypothesis, which maintains that, by triturations and
shakings, medicines undergo an increase or development





46


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


of virtue, in addition to that which proceeds from the finer
division of their substance by mere dilution or attenuation;
the employment of the higher or weaker attenuations in
acute diseases; the necessity of very long intervals between
the doses of medicines. And it is but fair to Hahnemann
and to Homceopathy to add, that, latterly, he saw it
necessary to abandon in his own practice the two last
of these.
To my mind, if I viewed the subject from the same
point as you do, it would appear a very suspicious circumstance if the original propounding of a system, so vast in
its compass as Homoeopathy, had been brought forth in a
form so seemingly complete and perfect as to admit of no
alteration in its theoretical principles and practical details;
if, as the exposition of one man's opinions and precepts,
however profound his genius, it had received the unqualified acquiescence of all his disciples; if its hypotheses had
not met with opposition among them, and its practical rules
had not been modified by their larger experience. The
history of every great discovery in art and science, of every
new announcement that proved to be fundamentally true,
would mock its pretensions, and throw a just suspicion on
its adherents, if Homceopatliy, after more than forty
years' existence before the world, had remained exactly as
it came from its author. On the other hand, I affirm that
it is no small testimony to its truth, that in no particular of
essential consequence to it, as a rule of practice, has the
long period of its searching probation found it to be false
(for the whispers to the contrary are too contemptible to be
thought of); and that, where it has been modified, it is in
those very points where a large and varied experience
might have been expected to modify it; and that there
should be so general a concurrence, among the hundreds
in almost all countries who have made it an experimental
study, on the particulars in which it ought to be modified.
As early as 1824, Dr Rau, of Giessen, published both





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


47


his high opinion of the Homoeopathic treatment and his
dissent from the extreme and hypothetical dogmata of
Hahnemann.    Since then, the moderate Homceopathy,
which employs the lower attenuations for the most partthe very lowest, and even the original or "mother" tinctures in some diseases, more especially the acute-which
administers them at short intervals, even every hour in
severe acute diseases-which discards the psoric theory
and the potential hypothesis-which contends for the practical importance of the knowledge afforded by the pathology of internal diseases, and for the value of the most
careful diagnosis, has grown up, and is the almost universal Homoeopathy of the present day. With all this the
Homoeopathic law, the similia similibus principle, the only fundamental principle of Homoeopathy, remains the motto and
the maxim of this, the true-the only possible " Young
Physic."
Now, what is " degrading " in this Homoeopathy? You
make use of the opprobrious epithet on two occasions in
your review, and under the avowed conviction that the
system is " calculated to destroy all scientific progress in
medicine."-P. 251. But the manner in which you work
out your conclusion, if it were not palpably the result of
ignorance, would call for a very strong term of reprobation
to characterise it. You first misrepresent the subject of
your criticism in a manner that may be excused in the
obscure editors of our monthly and weekly prints, but is
altogether unworthy a man of your place and reputation;
and then you pelt it with your scientific contempt. You,
indeed, qualify the sneer I have quoted by saying, that if,
by Homoeopathy, " diseases were to be better treated and
more speedily and frequently cured, it would be not only
absurd, but transcendentally wicked to sacrifice the welfare of humanity for the sake of a scientific phantom."
"What is the scientific phantom that you would thus magnanimously sacrifice for the good of humanity? Phantom!





48


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


I suspect humanity will think it a strange phantom-somewhat of the gouhl or vampire sort-that would make
the glory of the physician to consist in diagnostic and
pathological acuteness, more than in the recovery of his
patients.  " I am sometimes disposed to doubt," says an
eminent disciple of this phantom school, " whether the untoward event of a disease, which his science had enabled
him to predict, and which he had assiduously endeavoured
to avert with all the resources of his art, is not productive
of more real satisfaction-as it certainly is more creditable-to
the philosophic practitioner, than the recovery of a patient
of the nature of whose disease he is ignorant."*  A remarkable sentence,-and all the more so because containing not the opinions of an individual merely, but of an
entire school-the modern school of ultra-pathological
physic. It is no wonder that those who entertain such
opinions should think that even if Homoeopathy were partially true, and, therefore, that it might fairly be received
as one of the recognised methods of treating diseases, yet
owing its success to the guidance of the bare empirical
formula similia similibus, as that is commonly understood
by the ignorant, it would " be very unfortunate for medicine if this were done."  Unfortunate for medicine! No
matter what for humanity. When we consider the paucity
and feebleness which you acknowledge in the resources of
the ordinary practice, we can suppose that the cup of superior satisfaction and credit habitually overflows.
But wherefore unfortunate for medicine? Homceopathy, as is known to all who are familiar with the history
of its progressive improvements within the last twenty
years, overlooks no pathological knowledge that can be of
consequence to a practitioner of whatever school, and if
there would be anything unfortunate to medicine in its
being received as one of the recognised methods of treat* Dr Forbes.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


49


ing diseases, on the supposition that it is partially true,
the misfortune would consist, along with others, in its
furnishing the physician with the means of treating diseases whose internal pathology is avowedly unknown
(with a degree of certainty that he cannot derive from any
other source), by a careful study of what is known of such
diseases, and the application to that of the Homceopathic
principle of therapeutics. In your work on diseases of
the chest you affirm, " that there are many diseases of the
pathology of which we are entirely ignorant; and there is
every reason for believing that not a few of these, if really
consisting in any change of organic structure, are of such
a nature as will never be exhibited beneath the knife of
the dissector;" and, though the progress of science since
that sentence was written has lessened our ignorance of
pathology, you will not deny that the statements it contains are, notwithstanding, still extensively applicable.
In regard to those diseases whose pathology is yet unknown, are we to do nothing in the way of improving our
treatment, little satisfactory or creditable as it may be
even when successful, save by the fluctuating empiricism
that tries this drug and the other, without a rational guide
or motive?   Est ridiculum (says the orator), ad ea quae
habemus nihil dicere; quaerere, quae habere non possumus-at
least for the present. When pathology succeeds in doing
anything to remove the darkness that still hangs over so
many maladies, Homoeopathy will as gladly take advantage of the new disclosures as your Allopathy can do; and
if there be any degradation in treating such diseases, till
then, without the light of pathology, it seems to me to attach much more to the senseless empiricism of the old
school, than to the regulated method (empiricism if you
please) of the new.
As Homoeopathy, then, seeks avowedly for all the assistance that pathology, or an intimate knowledge of all
that can be known about diseases, can afford it, what is
E





50


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


the branch of medical science which it neglects?  Anatomy and physiology are necessary to the pathologist, and,
therefore, cannot be discarded by Homceopathy. Materia
Medica, including botany and chemistry, are necessary to
the distinguishing, identifying, and preparing of drugs, and,
therefore, cannot be discarded by Homoeopathy. A knowledge of the action of medicines on healthy persons is now
called for on all hands, and Homoeopathy has anticipated
the general voice, and added an immense amount of information to that department of science-nay, has made it a
branch of science peculiarly its own; for on your side
there is no proper information on the subject, and I shall
by-and-by show that you could not use it if there were.
What is there, then, in the science of medicine that HoInoeopathy has not?  Antiquity. Yes, simply antiquity!
That is the only particular in which it is wanting. Now,
apart altogether from the general opinion (erroneous it
would appear) that science is not the better of being old
-that the science of a century or two ago is scarcely
equal to the science of to-day-pray, what is the difference
between the antiquity of the present Allopathy and its
Homrcopathic rival? Homoeopathy, we may say, is fifty
years old; how much older is the Allopathy you admire?
Pathology, physiology, botany, and so forth, are the same
in both; it is in therapeutics alone that they differ. And
yet, while you contend in one page (240) for the weight of
the "accumulated materials supplied by millions of observers during an experience of two thousand years" as
telling vastly in tfvour of Allopathic therapeutics. you
tell us, very candidly and deliberately, in another (260),
that " this department of medicine must indeed be regarded
as vet in its mernst infancy." In the interval between the
two quotations you adduce abundant evidence that the
lhtter opinion is correct. For example, you say of the
ordinary practicet" This comparative powerlessnss ana positive uncertainty of medi




' AND YOUNG PHYSIC.                     OI
cine is also exhibited in a striking light, when we come to trace the
history and fortunes of particular remedies and modes of treatment,
and observe the notions of practitioners, at different times, respecting
their positive or relative value. What difference of opinion; what an
array of alleged facts directly at variance with each other; what contradictions; what opposite results of a like experience; what ups and
downs; what glorification and degradation of the same remedy; what
confidence now-what despair anon in encountering the same disease
with the very same weapons; what horror and intolerance at one time
of the very opinions and practices which, previously aid subsequently,
are cherished and admired!
" To be satisfied on this point, we need only refer to the history of
any one or two of our principal diseases or principal remedies, as,
for instance, fever, pneumonia, syphilis; antimony, blood-letting,
mercury. Each of these remedies has been, at different times, regarded as almost specific in the cure of the first two diseases; while,
at other times, they have been rejected as useless or injurious. What
seemed once so unquestionably, so demonstrably true, as that vcnesection was indispensable for the cure of pneumonia I and what is the
conclusion now deducible from the facts already noticed in tie present article (p. 246), and from the clinical researches of Louis and
others? Is it not that patients recover as well, or nearly as well,
without it? Could it have been believed possible by the practitioners
of a century since, that syphilis could be safely treated, and succcsfully cured, without mercury? Or that it could even be questioned
that mercury was not specific in the cure of this disease? And yet
what are the opinions and the practices of the surgeons of the present
day, and the indubitable facts brought to light during the last thirty
years? Are they not, that mercury is not necessary (speaking generally) to the cure of any case, and that it is often most inljurious, in
place of being beneficial? The medical god, Mercury, however, scenit
as unwilling to be baulked Ao his dues as the mythological. If he has
lost the domain of syphilis, he ia- gained that of inflanmmation; and
many of our best prac:iLione:'s might possibly be startled and shocked
at the supposition thit their successors should renounce allegiance to
him in the latter dominin, as they themselves had done in the former.
And yet such a result is more than probable, seeing that there exists
not a shadow of more positive proof (if so much) of the efficacy of the
medicine in the latter than in the former case.
"TThe same truth, as to the uncertainty of practical m.edicine generally, and the utter insufficiency of the ordinary evidence to establish
the efficacy of many of our remedies, as was stated above, has besn
almost always attained to by philosophical physicians of experience in





52


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


the course of long practice, and has resulted, in general, in a mild,
tentative, or expectant mode of practice in their old age, whatever
may have been the vigorous or heroic doings of their youth."Pp. 258-9.
The general testimony of millions of physicians for two
thousand years amounts, then, but to a very small matter;
and if you prefer Allopathy on evidence of that kind, you
may, on as good, prefer believing in ghosts too.    It was
precisely on such testimony that Johnson did so. " This
opinion," says the sage, " which perhaps prevails as far as
human nature is diffused, could become universal only by
its truth."
One word more, and I have done with this question of
antiquity. You never once advert to the notorious and
admitted fact, that some of the medicines long used in the
old school act Homicopathically.  Nor do you hint that, so
far back as the time of Stahl, at least, that is, about 150
years ago, the Homceopathic principle, similia similibus, was
expressly enforced as the proper rule for the prescription
of remedies!*
If what I have said of the existing state of Ilomoeopathy
shall convince you or your readers that, in giving Hlahnemannism-that is, the theories, hypotheses, and practices,
without exception or modification, of the founder of
the system-as the Homeopathy of the present day, you
have made a great mistake; it may be replied that you
* In the following terms," The rule admitted in medicine, to treat
diseases by remedies contrary or opposite to the effects which they
produce, is completely false and absurd. I am persuaded, on the
contrary, that diseases yield to agents which produce a similar disorder (similia similibus)."  This passage is quoted in lHahnemann's
"Organon;" for Hahnemann does not lay claim to the discovery
of the Hom-eopathic law by which remedies act, but to the merit of
having determined the methods by which it may be carried out into
full practical effect; as the provings of medicines on the healthy
body more carefully, and the diminution of the doses-two desiderata
which had rendered the law, before his time, of very limited use in
practice.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


53


have, at least, beat Hahnemann out of the field, and, to
that extent, have accomplished the purpose of your review.
This would be a mistake, however, quite as glaring as the
other. For anything that you have said to controvert his
principles and practices, they stand just where they were
before you engaged in the conflict.  Not an argument,
or the shadow of an argument, appears in your paper that
touches a single position of Hahnemann. IIahnemannism
might, in every particular, be received as truth itself, if no
more could be adduced against it than is contained in your
attack upon it. In proof of which assertion, I shall briefly
notice the manner in which you think you dispose of one
or two of its precepts and doctrines, in addition to those I
have already considered.
After detailing the manner in which Hahnemann recommended the medicines to be prepared for use, the
triturations and scrapings of the dry preparations, and the
shakings of the liquid attenuations, you say, " altogether,
it must be admitted that the whole complexion of the
thing bears a much closer resemblance to what we have
heard or seen of magical ceremonies and the tricks of
conjurors, demonstrations for effect, and to produce an
impression, than to any operation of a scientific or bona
fice character"-a sentence which you justify, because,
" in the first place, it is manifestly impossible for any
human being, during the course of a long life, much less
in the course of a few years, to have performed a sufficient
number of experiments, or made a sufficient number of
comparative trials, to enable him to state, with any degree
of certainty, that these particular manipulations, and none
others, were the exact and exclusive means to produce
the desired effect. *  *  *  In the second place, it certainly has a very suspicious look of a foregone conclusion,
rather than of a legitimate deduction from facts, that all
the scrapings and rubbings to which each remedy is subjected, in each single stage of its transmigration, should





54


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


occupy exactly one hour, and not one minute more or less."
-P. 238.
In reply to all this, I remark, first, that Hahnemann
nowhere alleges that he had been led to adopt the six
minutes' friction in the mortar, and the four minutes'
scraping to detach the powder from the instruments, preparatory to renewed friction, by having found these preferable to any other number of minutes. The precise directions given by him for the preparation of the medicines, is universally known by Homoeopaths, and might
have been easily ascertained by you, to have for their object a uniformity of medicinal power in the several attenuations, by whomsoever manufactured.   Indeed, within
fifteen lines of the place where your translation of his
directions stops, he says as much. He there lays down
additional rules for carrying on the attenuations to the
higher degrees, and he does so expressly, "in order to
institute some uniformity in the preparation," &c. Quite
enough to have made it evident to any unprejudiced
person, not eager to put a disparaging construction on his
proceedings, that all his directions were for the same purpose, and yet you actually say, "we cannot find in Hahnemann's writings any explanation of, or reason for, the precise and peculiar mode and amount of the manipulations
prescribed."-P. 237. The explanation and the reason,
notwithstanding, lie in the very pages you must have
read; and, of all the misstatements into which you have
fallen in the course of your article, none surprises me more
than this. Hahnemann states, in the plainest language,
that he believes the power of all remedies to be exalted by
trituration (distinct friom mere subdivision); and though
experience has proved that such is not the fact, that belief of his, and the desire that the preparations everywhere
should be made of a uniform potency, are the very obvious
explanation and reason for the precise and peculiar mode
and amount of the manipulations, and ought to have pro




AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


tected him from the sneer about juggling tricks and magical ceremonies.
Homceopathists, with few exceptions, do not concur with
him in thinking that medicines acquire any such increase
of power by trituration besides what is due to mere minuteness of division. They admit, however, that in chronic
diseases the higher attenuations sometimes act better than
the lower as remedies, either because the fineness of the division of the particles, or the smallness of the dose, is more
suitable to the exigencies of particular cases.
Then as to the "exactly one hour, and not one minute
more or less," to which you remark that the frictions and
scrapings are precisely limited, I conf'ess that I felt with
you on the point-that it was very ridiculous; and, besides, that HIomceopathy must have an intense vitality indeed, nothing short of tlat which invaluable truth alone
can give, to have survived the unfortunate notions which
Hahnemann has tacked to it. Still, as I knew he was no
pretender to magic, no conjuror, and as I had occasion to
observe that you were not an accurate historian of his proceedings, it occurred to me that I might as well consult
himself in regard to this awkward particular. I did so,
and, while my mind was immediately relieved regarding
Hahnemann and his directions. I acknowledge that I did
feel a momentary uneasiness about Dr Forbes. Magic
there may have been, nay, there must, in the conversion
of six sixes and five fours (minutes) into " exactly one
hour, and not one minute more or less." But who is the
conjuror-Hahnemann, or you? I fear you must plead
guilty, as Hahnemann says 'nothing on the point, but innocently leaves his arithmetical readers to find out that
the sum of the minutes he specifies for rubbing and scraping is just fifty-six! which, it may be necessary to add, is
four minutes less than an hour-that magical division of
time which you have selected for your commentary.
Hahnemann, it seems, is not very intelligible to you





56


HOM3IEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


when he speaks of as great an amount, but lower degree, of
medicinal power being developed by some differences in
the preparation. A knowledge of his doctrines would have
prevented your difficulty. He thought friction and agitation developed, or brought out, the latent virtues of medicine, so that the same quantity of medicine might, according as it was triturated or not, have its powers either
partly latent or fully developed. Here, also, he may be
wrong, but his meaning is intelligible enough. And, in
one sense, he cannot be held to be very palpably wrong,
when supported by the authority of Orfila, and Buchner,
and Pereira. According to their views of mercury in fine
division, as compared with mercury in a crude, undivided
state, a grain of the latter, though it contained the same
actual amount of power or capacity of action, would exert
far less medicinal energy than after having been finely
divided by trituration with some inert powder.
In all that you have said, then, on the manner in which
Hahnemann directs the medicines to be prepared, and of
the effects of that preparation, you have not succeeded in
proving him to be absurd; and, if any of your readers
thought that you did, their opinion must have rested on
your inadvertent misstatement of the facts.
Lest it should be thought that the differences between
Iahnemann and his followers on the points just adverted
to are of a nature that necessarily vitiates and invalidates
his claims to success as a practitioner, I may remark that
the one difference relates only to a hypothetical explanation of the reason why the high attenuations are capable
of acting as remedies, namely, whether it is merely that in
a state of extremely minute division they are still capable
of acting, or that their activity depends on their virtues
being augmented and developed by friction and agitation;
and that the other is a question which relates solely to the
energy of their action. Modern Homceopathists do not
deny that the high attenuations exert a remedial action in
I





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


57


many chronic diseases; but they consider that the lowex
are preferable in general, because they act more speedily
and energetically.  Similar differences of opinion exist
everywhere among other physicians, while they profess
equally to be guided by experience, and neither party is
entitled to assume that the mode adopted by the other is
without its measure of success.
That Hahnemann erred on this subject, simply practical
as it is, was, doubtless, owing to his attachment to his potential hypothesis-an hypothesis which necessarily enforced the employment of the higher attenuations, as signifying the greatest degree of energy. Why he was so
misled by an hypothesis, may be a proper subject for the
derisive inquiries of those, if such there be, who have never
been misled by hypothesis themselves, but have always
walked by the unerring rules of demonstration.
Men who, like Hahnemann, have discovered important
truths, and are endowed with an ardent genius, learn, it
may be too easily, to place implicit confidence in the suggestions of faculties which had already penetrated far into
new and unexplored regions of science. They do not always wait for the tardy steps of induction; but, as the history of almost all the great discoveries, as well as of the
great errors, of genius declares, grasp by anticipation at
conclusions which future experience is left to confirm or
annul. The latter is much the more frequent result; and
hence, if genius be the benefactor of philosophy, "it is
genius also, and not the want of it, that adulterates philosophy, and fills it with error and false theory." Such being
the frailty common to minds of that class to which he belonged, it can be only ignorance and injustice that would
found on the acknowledged errors of Hahnemann an argument or a sneer against the whole of his system. The more
especially that, from the very nature of the subjects to
which his hypothesis referred, many difficulties arose to
prevent a speedy and conclusive proof of its fallacy; and





58


HOMOEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


that the particular view which he took of new and extraordinary phenomena was countenanced, and, it may have
been, suggested, by certain facts, which seemed to admit
of no other interpretation, namely, the actual acquisition
of medicinal energy, by means of trituration, by substances
otherwise inert. Minute division, and the solubility which
it bestows, appear to be the true explanations of these facts
-explanations, however, which could have been afforded
with certainty only by long and unbiassed observation.
I must, however, do you the justice to acknowledge,
tlhat you do not argue in the way I have condemned; you
admit that, though the theory, doctrines, or principles of
Homoeopathy were proved to be false, "we have no demonstrative evidence that it is false in its practical bearings
-false, tlat is, powerless, as a means of cure."  If this
be true of the doctrines in general, it is very plainly so in
reference to the potential hypothesis, which has nothing
to do with the main law of Homreopathy-the similia
similibus principle. The former is disproved by Hahnemann's own followers, and by them only; the latter they
hold to be demonstrably true.
The psoric theory, or rather hypothesis of Hahnemann,
is, perhaps, the most unfortunate of his speculations.
Not, indeed, on account of anything essentially unphilosophical in either its pathological or practical bearings, but
because of the peculiar light in which tle disease from
which it takes its name is regarded-at least in this
country. And as I, like yourself, am  an undeniable
Caledonian, I am not less sensible than you are that there
is something of the ludicrous about it. But, if we lay
aside our national feelings on the subject, and look at it
in sober seriousness, we must admit, I think, that it may
bear a construction discreditable neither to the pathological acuteness of its author, nor to his practical sagacity.
It amounts essentially to this, that the majority of chronic
ailments are due to a constitutional taint, which betrays





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


59


itself by a variety of symptoms and sensible effects in different persons, or in the same person at different times;
and that, in order radically and effectually to cure those
chronic disorders, it is not enough that the physician
should direct his treatment against them individually or
collectively, but that he should also have regard to the
state of the constitution from which they spring. There
is nothing new in all this. Every one knows that in one
form or another the doctrine is applicable to a multitude
of troublesome and dangerous disorders. Scrofula, gout,
syphilis, rheumatism, are each held to be constitutional affections, and any one of them may persist for years, or for
a lifetime, sometimes latent, or lulled into inaction, sometimes betraying itself by more or less considerable disorders of one kind or another. In the treatement of these
occasional outbreaks of disease, the prudent physician
does not always content himself with seeing them disappear,
but follows up his treatment of them by means that are
supposed capable of improving the condition of the system,
of modifying or subduing the constitutional evil.
Had Hahnemann admitted psora to rank but as one among
many constitutional taints that might from time to time
discover itself by various local symptoms, I do not know
that any one would be prepared to convict him of error.
Nay, it is certain, that his opinion would be strengthened
by the concurrence of more than one respectable authority.
For it is not a doctrine peculiar to Hahnemann, that the
disappearance of the psoric eruption from the skin gives
occasion to other evils of a more serious kind. One of
his opinions is, that the mischief to the constitution is less
when the eruption is abundant on the surface; and it is
at least some excuse for his notions on the subject, that
when the persons affected with the disease are enfeebled
by chronic ailments, of one kind or another, the eruption
is much less considerable than in the vigorous and robust,
as Biett justly observes. He may be wrong in having





60


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATIIY,


supposed that the chronic disorders of such persons are
due to the " miasm" of psora being thrown in upon the
system; but the two facts-first, that the eruption is abundant when it affects the robust; and, 2d, that it is scanty in
the feeble and otherwise unhealthy-form as good grounds
for his particular view of the matter as many of our common pathological opinions regarding cause and effect can
boast of. And when it is further considered that such a
man as Pringle, not to mention earlier writers, avers that
the psoric eruption is sometimes critical, or appears on the
surface just when some serious internal maladies have
ceased, and apparently in a pathological connection with
their cessation, we see some additional reason for regarding the doctrine of IIahnemann on this subject with
leniency.
I confess I have not given the subject so much consideration as to justify me in giving an opinion on the
question-Whether psora is ever the cause of a constitutional taint which may appear in the form of chronic
maladies of various characters?   And I hesitate all the
more to give an opinion regarding it, that the question is
answered in the affirmative by men who are held, even in
our day, as no contemptible authorities in medicine. For
example, Autenreith advocates the doctrine in the following remarkable terms, and at great length in the same
strain:"The most formidable, and in our country the most frequent,
source of the chronic diseases of the adult are, the psoric eruptions
badly treated by sulphur ointment, or generally by other active
greasy applications. I have so often seen here the misery which
"by psora occurs to the lower classes, and to those who have a sedentary occupation, and I see it daily in such a manifold, melancholy aspect, that I do not hesitate a moment to declare it loudly as a subject
worthy of the observation of every physician, and even of every magistrate, who lays to heart the health of those committed to their
careU."
* Versuche for die praktische Heilkunde, p. 229. Tibingen, 1807.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


61


I,may notice that pulmonary consumption is one of the
diseases he traces to this cause.
Again, Schdnlein, the present professor of pathology
and therapeutics in the University of Berlin, in his Clinical Lectures for the year 1840, is reported to have expressed himself to the following effect:* (The case under
observation was one of organic disease of the heart, with
dropsy.)
"What is the cause of this affection?  On looking backwards, we
find no other complaint than the itch. Latterly, the admission of
sequelre of the itch, that old medical dogma, is not only become dubious, but has been abandoned and turned into ridicule. Among the
older physicians, we particularly notice Autenreith, who wrote a
masterly treatise on this subject, so that it was remarkably impudent
in Hahnemann to pretend that he was the first to point out the sequelme of the itch.t  * * *  I must confess that, according to my
own observations, and to those of many other physicians who deserve
the fullest confidence, I have no doubt whatever about the existence
of sequelse of the itch."
And then he goes on to show reasons for his opinion,
and the grounds on which he presumes that the chronic
disease under consideration took its rise from the itch,
which had existed nine years before.
If the errors of one set of reputable physicians can be
admitted as some extenuation of the errors of another, supposing them to be in error on this point-and they do so extenuate in the way of dividing the unenviable distinction of
being wrong-we can adduce some nearly parallel examples
of an unwarrantable pathology. Stahl, you know, restricted
all chronic diseases to affections of the vena port-e (porta
malorum).    Portal ascribed all hereditary diseases (and
they include a pretty long catalogue of chronic ailments of
all kinds) to scrofula; which, again, in all its multitudi* Lancet, 1844, p. 211, &c.
+ Hahnemann did not do so. He claims only the credit of having
traced almost all chronic diseases to the itch, which is more than
others had done.





(2


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


nous forms, Astruc, Lalouette, and others (Portal himself
among them), conceived to be degenerated syphilis.
Once more, and I have done with my apology for the
psoric hypothesis. Psora is the most common of diseases
in all parts of the habitable globe. No age, sex, or condition can resist its pestilent infection; and back to a remote antiquity its attachment to the family of man is recorded with humiliating certainty. The poor it attends
everywhere with the fidelity of a shadow, intrudes wherever men gather in numbers, from the workshop of the
tailor to the tent of the soldier. Wherever a chronic disease can creep in, psora can lead or follow. And if it be
argued that chronic diseases often afflict persons who
never had the eruption of psora, it may be replied that no
one can tell with certainty how long the infection, which
is commonly betrayed by the eruption, may remain latent
in the system. Biett admits that it may for months;
Hahnemann thought that it might much longer, and even
never cause an eruption at all.
But all this is no proof of Hahnemann's hypothesis. It
is not intended to be so; if it be received as some extenuation of his error, my object is gained. He, in common
with Autenreith and Schdnlein, has failed to prove it, or
even to make it very probable; yet it is not utterly and
absolutely absurd, whatever " the half-educated multitude"
may think of it.
The really important inquiry in reference to this hypothesis is, whether it affects the practice of Homceopathy,
so as to involve in its overthrow the pretensions of the
latter to success in the permanent cure of chronic diseases. That it does, is the drift of your jocose observations on the subject; that it does not, is the unquestionable inference, from a candid consideration of the
" antipsoric" treatment. All that is really of consequence
in Hahnemann's instructions respecting that treatment is,
that chronic diseases in general can be radically cured





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


63


with certainty only when the remedies which are used for
the purpose are selected from among those which cure
psora. I have no doubt that he regarded this circumstance
as an additional proof of the accuracy of his psoric hypothesis, and if the circumstance be as he says it is, I should
consider his inference from it by no means contemptible.
That it is true, I do not believe any further than this,
that Hahnemann had some reason to conclude, from experience, that the so-called antipsoric medicines produced a
more lasting benefit to the constitution than many other
medicines. A much greater range of observation than
one man can overtake in a lifetime would have been necessary to have warranted him in saying more.   His
psoric hypothesis probably appeared to him sound enough
to supply the deficiency of actual observation.
It is of some consequence to notice one peculiarity of
Hahnemann's psoric hypothesis which you seem to have
misapprehended. You make it appear as if he affirmed
that when a chronic disease is not treated antipsorically
and Homoeopathically, it must infallibly relapse, and get
worse, until it ends in death. He says nothing of the
kind. So comprehensive is his psoric hypothesis, that it
makes chronic diseases, with few exceptions, to be of one
family-the offspring of the same blood. Hence, though
one chronic disease, in the common acceptation of the term,
may be perfectly and permanently removed, yet if another,
though totally different in its symptoms, should at any
time subsequently appear, I-ahnemann would have called
it merely a different form of the same radical distemper,
of the same chronic disease. So that if a man who once
had some chronic disorder of his bowels should, twenty
years after it was removed, become affected with palsy, in
Hahnemann's opinion, it would have been the old disease
recurring in a new form, either because the constitutional
psora had not been cured along with the former illness,
or because the taint had been contracted anew. This





64


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


affords an explanation of what he means by chronic diseases
occurring in a worse and worse form as age advances; and
the fact that they very often do so you will hardly deny, although you may reasonablydemur to the doctrine that would
make them all essentially the same, however dissimilar in
their symptoms; and their occurrence to depend on the one
constitutional taint having been uncured. You are, doubtless, sufficiently aware that it is too commonly the characteristic of even the same chronic disease to go on from
year to year gradually gaining strength, and becoming less
and less amenable to treatment, until it eventually ends in
death. This unfortunate course is not witnessed only
under what Hahnemann would have termed improper
Homoeopathic treatment. It is common enough under
Allopathy, and every other " pathy," despite of antipsorics.
At the same time, my conviction is, that Homceopathy can
do more for many such chronic complaints than any other
treatment can; and it may be that the "antipsorics" are
the most useful of the Homeopathic means.
When you speak of the "antipsoric " treatment being as
chronic as the diseases, in referring to the "two years"
that it requires in order to eradicate them, you mistake
the meaning of Hahnemann. He refers not to the cure of
what you would call the chronic disease, but to the removal
of the psoric taint in the system-his chronic disease. And
I do think that the time lie demands is not unreasonable in that view. Most men would be very thankful if
they could get scrofula or gout eradicated in two years,
or ten; though they might think either period rather long
for the cure of a single fit of the latter, or of the sore eyes
or glandular swellings of the former.
Once more on this subject. When Hahnemann says
that your power of nature cannot cure chronic diseases,
he still plainly refers to the " psoric miasm," the constitutional distemper. If his psoric doctrine be regarded as
true, the affirmation in question isalso true; for psora is well





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


65


known never to disappear spontaneously. But waiving the
psoric doctrine, it is pretty certain that the power of nature
does not, in the sense of Hahnemann, cure the liability of
human beings to become affected with chronic ailments,
from time to time, throughout their lives; and that is what
Hahnemann considered a proof that nature does not cure
chronic diseases, or psora with its many heads. There is
no small difference between this, the true view of the doctrine, and your version of it. The latter you give in italics,
as if to appeal to every man's experience to testify that
Hahnemann was grossly in the wrong; whereas he made
no such allegation as your words imply.
But I must shortly notice my second reason for believing
that the course of provings which you and so many others
recommend to " Young Physic," must pave the way for a
universal adoption of Homceopathy. Suppose the task
executed, and executed well, what can you gain by it, as
Allopaths, but some additional purgatives, emetics, narcotics, antispasmodics, diuretics, diaphoretics, and such like,
of which you have a store already ample enough to melt
the mammiferous creation from off the face of the earth, or
to lull it into an endless sleep? I can understand how
you may stumble on remedies for particular diseases by
trying drug after drug, as each comes to hand, on persons
that are ill. This is the method that has been pursued
for two thousand years, or thereby, and it has brought
some useful remedies to light, of which some, probably the
most, act Homocopathically where they act with advantage.
But what you can learn of the virtues which a medicine,
tried on the healthy body, shall exert on the diseased, beyond its probable evacuating and nauseating, and narcotising, and one or two other energetic influences long since
abundantly supplied, I am at a loss to conjecture. Will
"Young Physic," then, allow all his pangs to go for
nothing? Was it only for this that he has panted, and
groaned, and writhed, and coughed, and spit, and sneezed,
F





66


HOMIEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


and bled?   That he has endured headaches and colics,
stitches and twitches in every section of his frame, and so
many a fac-simile more of the ills " that flesh is heir to?"
Can he make no use of them Allopathically, or Antipathically; or must hebe contented to let them stand as penances?
Supposing he should try to turn them to some remedial
account, what he can make, Antipathically* or Allopathically,t of such an effect of a medicine as a racking pain
in his stomach, for example, or a fiery redness of his nose?
Why, Allopathically, he can get up an artificial pain in his
stomach, to remove a natural pain from his head, or his
feet; or he can set his nose in a blaze, to cure an erysipelas of his legs, on the principle that one fire puts out
another. But will the cure not be as bad as the disease?
Then, Antipathically, how will he manage to make a practical use of his voluntary afflictions? I can understand how
he may succeed, when his nose is disagreeably white, in
striking the more becoming hue by a skilful administration
of the reddening remedy,-but I am at a loss for the useful
employment of the pain in his stomach. The opposite
of a painful is an agreeable sensation, and I know not an
instance of a pleasurable feeling in the stomach playing an
importantt part in pathology. Yes, there is one such.
You will find it in the treatise of worthy Dr Underwood,
on the diseases of children. The " inward fits," quoth he,
are betrayed by a frequent and sweet smiling during sleep;
the which is provoked by wind pleasantly tickling the stomach. Now, for just such a dose of the ache-causing remedy
as shall nicely strike the balance between a pleasure and a
pain! What an opportunity for our infant Hercules, our
young Antipath! to still the apprehensions of a fond mother,
and disappoint the forebodings of the lugubrious nurse.
* A ntipally, I may remind the reader, means the treatment which
aims at producing a state opposite to the disease.
+ Allopathy,-the treatment which aims at producing a state
merely difftrent from the disease, or in a different part of the body.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


67


Seriously, what can be made of nine-tenths of the knowledge of the effects of medicines taken in health by, the
Allopathic or Antipathic methods? The Homcepathic
turns them all to account, and no prover suffers in vain.
Because, for every morbid symptom or effect it seeks a corresponding medicinal one. Let your new provers but bring
their experience of medicinal diseases to corroborate that of
the Homoeopaths, and the universal adoption of Homceopathy is at hand. They cannot leave their knowledge of
the provings of medicines to lie useless while others turn
theirs to the advantage of mankind. They will try if they
cannot do the same, and for a rational man to try Homceopathy is tantamount to his conversion.
But when they do try to employ the medicines they have
proved on the healthy body, as remedies for disease on the
Homoeopathic principle, does it follow that they must adopt
the Homoeopathic doses? May they not continue to use
them in the larger quantities of the old practice? These
are points which they must determine by experience for
themselves, if they will not extend their confidence to
those who have practised Homceopathically before them.
I may, however, in the meantime observe that, even in
the old system, nothing is less determined than the proper
doses of medicines. A sagacious and experienced Allopathic physician, not very long ago remarked to me, in reference to this subject, " What do we know of the proper
doses of medicines?" Almost everything has yet to be
determined among you on the subject, for it dcoes by no
means follow that the utmost quantity of a drug which a
patient can swallow without speedy and obvious detriment,
is the right quantity for curing his disease, although this
is unquestionably the principle which guides the common
practitioner in his prescriptions. In regard to the doses
of medicines, and the frequency of their repetition, Professor Jorg, of Leipsic, the very opposite of a Homccopathic practitioner, made the following suggestions twenty





68


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


years ago, which his brethren have been slow in adopting:
"The smallest doses of medicines that are yet effective,
exhibit their essentially curative powers with most purity
and most certainty, and secure us best against any secondary or concomitant medicinal effects. * * * Most of the
powerful medicines are at present taken at far too short
intervals, and the recovery of the patient thereby greatly
retarded, if not altogether prevented, by his becoming
affected with medicinal disease in too great an extent."*
J6rg is esteemed a great authority among your best writers
on Materia Medica; and he is almost the only physician,
as he certainly was the first of the old school, who followed
the example of Hlahnemann in proving medicines on the
healthy body.   You will not, therefore, despise his opinion
on the doses that ought to be given, when medicines are
employed Homteopathically.
" Medicines operate most powerfully upon the sick when the symptoms correspond with those of the disease. A very small quantity of
medicinal arnica will produce a violent effect upon persons who have
an irritable state of the oesophagus and stomach. Mercurial preparations have, in very small doses, given rise to pains and loose stools
when administered in an inflammatory state of the intestines. * * *
Yet why should I occupy time in adducing more examples of a similar operation of medicines, since it is in the very nature of the thing
that a medicine must produce a greater effect when it is applied to a
body already suffering under an affection similar to that which the
medicine itself is capable of producing."-P. 16.
In the last number but one of your review you had occasion to lament the loss of a physician who took a Homceopathic remedy in Allopathic doses. " The ca-e," you say,
"may bea most useful warning,and speaks more powerfully
than any reasoning as to the absolute necessity of caution
in the use of aconite."  Let us hope it will be so.   Had
the unfortunate gentleman taken the medicine in the HoInmcopnthic doses, le would have experienced all the good
effects it was capable of affording, and he might yet have
* Materialien zu einer Kiinftigen Heilmittellehre, p. 9. 1825.





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


69


been alive. In the work which is reviewed in that article,
there are several cases mentioned in which patients narrowly escape destruction from the same medicine, by the
instriuctions of the physician having been misunderstood.
And thus it is that the discovery of a medicine which
j ustly entitles Hahnemann to rank among the greatest benefactors of mankind, is made to peril or destroy human life
-to leave it at the discretion of careless or stupid attendants, by the doggedness of practitioners who sneer at his
advice for its safe and efficacious employment.
On your criticism of the cases which I have published
I have little to say. You affirm that the recoveries are
all due either to nature or imagination, while you admit
"that the amount of success obtained by Dr Henderson
in the treatment of his cases, would have been considered
by ourselves as very satisfactory, had we been treating the
same cases according to the rules of ordinary medicine."
No doubt they would, but why not consider them a great
deal more satisfactory than those rules can enable you to
effect, seeing that the acute cases were cured without
the effusion of blood, the pains of purgation, or the
miseries of nausea and blistering; and that not a few of
the chronic cases had resisted the rules of ordinary medicine, though applied, and in the most serious instances
too, by some of the wisest practitioners of your art. I
know no reason for presuming that the rules of ordinary
medicine in other hands could have effected what it could
not in theirs; though I feel very certain, that if any ordinary practitioner had had the opportunity of trying, and
had succeeded, he would have regarded the cases as both
very satisfactory, and his treatment very superior to that
which had failed. Since you think that the medicines
employed in the cases I have published, deserve no credit
for the success, a way is open for you to place the pretensions of Homceopathy on their proper footing, Produce a
hundred and twenty-two cases of the same kind, treated by





70


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


your bread pills (farina 30), and the experiment will be
complete. You have already endeavoured to prove that
that favourite remedy of yours was as useful in an epidemic diarrhoea of considerable violence, as 1 a course of
orthodox physic." It was unnecessary to make any argumentative exertion to prove that it was so, for all Homoeopaths (and your argument is specially addressed to them),
will heartily concur in your conclusion, and believe, moreover, with you, that it would be far better for mankind if
the farina practice were more generally adopted in preference to orthodox physic.
I have given one half of an experiment, give you the
other. It can cost you no other difficulty than keeping
notes of your cases; you can have no scruples, founded on
the advantages of the rules of ordinary physic, to overcome, considering that the amount of success in my cases
was, in your estimation, very satisfactory, though by means
which you deem no better than doses of flour. Such is your
assertion in favour of your crumbs, and the onus probandi
on that point lies with you. Bread pills seem to be one of
your recognised methods of treatment; you have shown
them to be preferable to orthodox physic; show them next
to be preferable, or equal to Homoeopathy, in the same kind
and number of cases as I have published; and not only
will your professional sagacity be magnified, but you may
aspire to the thanks of the agricultural interest, at present
much in need of consolation.
Hard-headed scepticism and credulity go hand in hand.
Those who are sceptical on one subject, are very easily
satisfied on another; and their unbelief arises quite as
much, or more, from a blind attachment to the notions they
cherish, as from a deficiency of probability or proof in
favour of the doctrines they reject. Hard-headed scepticism of this, the ordinary quality, utterly unfits men for
philosophical and scientific investigations on a subject to
which they are opposed. If it be beset with sources of





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


71


mistake, the biassed mind of the sceptic can see nothing
but these; lays hold of them with avidity, and delights
itself in the sapient conviction that, because there are some
things fallacious in the subject of its hasty and partial study,
there can be nothing that is true. If Jenner had started
on his researches regarding vaccination with the antipathies
of a hard-headed sceptic, wedded to a foregone conclusion,
as all hard-headed sceptics are, his studies might easily
have issued in a deliberate refutation of the popular supposition, in his neighbourhood, that cow-pox was a protection against small-pox; and the world might yet have
wanted the blessing of his discovery. As it was, with all
his determination to know the truth, he almost yielded
before the sources of fallacy he had to encounter.  How
speedily would a hard-headed sceptic,-whether an Ingenhouz, or a Rowley,-have closed his inquiries on the subject, when he had ascertained that the cow milkers often
contracted sores on their hands in the course of their occupation, and were not, therefore, exempt from small-pox.
What a clear proof that all the whispers to the contrary
were old women's fables! What truly sceptical spirit could
want more satisfactory evidence? But Jenner's head having been made of penetrable stuff,-not yet become indurated and sapless by the seasoning processes of scepticism,-admitted the idea that, though the circumstances
in question were undeniably true, they might not constitute the whole truth. He persevered in his researches,
and obtained a glorious reward of his labour.
Scepticism is much more a matter of feeling than of
judgment; and there is ample reason for believing that the
general scepticism of the profession regarding Homceopathy is owing far more to a dislike of it than to any convictions of the understanding at variance with its pretensions.  In almost utter ignorance of its principles and
practice, many, no doubt, like yourself, think the general
adoption of it would be " very unfortunate for medicine,"





72


HOM.OEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


and, therefore, hate it with all the sincerity of hard-headed
scepticism, as the supposed enemy of their favourite " phantom." And yet it is this temper which men ridiculously
mistake for the philosophic,-for that which preserves the
mind neutral in the investigation of contending claims,which shuts the door against no evidence, but impartially
weighs and listens to the arguments on both sides. With
this spirit they strangely confound the one-sided scepticism
which locks the door against all new comers, or says, with
the man in the play, " I'm fixed, determined; so now produce your reasons. When I'm determined, I always listen
to reason, because it can then do no harm."  And this
scepticism, too, which was once held to be a very fine thing,
the property of these quite superior minds, which ought
not to believe with the vulgar, appears to have overflowed
its receptacles among the lustrous population of the higher
regions of mind, and to have gravitated to those low-lying
valleys of intellect, where there can be but little reflection,
because there is little light, and where scepticism is easily
accommodated, because there is little to dispute with it the
virgin soil. In reference to Homceopathy, at least, it can
be said truly, that scepticism is no indication of superior
wisdom, for if there be men of talent and learning (on other
subjects) opposed to it, it is undeniable that, among the
bitterest unbelievers are to be found, both in and out of the
profession, a host of persons distinguished alike by their
ignorance and their incapacity.
In the course of your strictures on my work, you extract
three cases apparently as samples of the whole. If this
was the intention with which they are given, I can only
say, and say with justice, that you could hardly have acted
more unfairly. Even on the supposition that all the recoveries were due to your power of nature, the proceeding
is unfair. There are cases, and not a few, among those I
have published, the recovery of which, within the period
specified oi each, and more especially considering the time





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


73


during which the diseases had lasted, and the nature of the
sufferings, was sufficiently remarkable to have entitled them
to notice, were it only to show how much better no treatment at all was than the ordinary treatment. There are
cases, also, which had been under no treatment for a long
time before the Ilomceopathic was employed-and some of
these might have been noticed as striking examples of what
your power of imagination can do, or of the remarkable
coincidences that sometimes happen between the commencement of a particular treatment, and the spontaneous
termination of a disease. Your readers might then have
formed some conception of the reasonableness of the shifts
by which you endeavour to explain away the apparent efficacy of the practice. They would have been able to discover the rules by which one shift or another was selected,
as thus:First,-That when cases recovered, promptly, from
chronio diseases that had resisted the rules of orthodox
treatment, continued down to the time wlen the Homrnopathic was adopted, the results must be ascribed to the
lucky cessation from orthodoxy.
Second,-That when cases recovered, promptly, from
chronic diseases that had not been under orthodox treatment for a long time before the commencement of the
Homeopathic, the results must be ascribed to the power of
imagination, or the accidental and spontaneous cessation of
the diseases.
Third,-That when the persons affected were too young
to be the likely subjects of this power, the result must be
ascribed only to the spontaneous cessation of their diseases.
Referring your readerso o the work itself for the particulars which you have withheld, I have no hesitation in
affirming that no candid and experienced man can peruse
the cases attentively, and say with sincerity, that lie has no
doubt that the results are adequately accounted for under
one or other of these three heads. This is the utmost that





74


HOM(EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


I expected the narration of the cases to accomplish; and
this, I am satisfied, it is fitted to accomplish. I did not
dare to hope that it would overcome the strong prejudices
of the hard-headed, or silence the opposition of the feebleminded and malignant. These are conquests which no
record of cases can ever achieve.
To those who do not belong to this corps of invincibles,
I would suggest the propriety of calculating the probability
of the causes you assign for the recoveries under Homoeo-pathy. In regard to one of these causes, the coincidence of
recovery and the use of the Homceopathic remedies, some
approach to a mathematical estimate of probability may be
obtained; as, for example, a disease having lasted, without
improvement for six, eight, twelve, twenty-four, or two
hundred months, and having no ascertained natural limits,
what are the chances of its ceasing of itself, in one, two,
four, or six weeks, after a certain day?  With every instance, in a given number of unselected cases, in which the
amendment commences shortly after that day (on which a
particular practice has been commenced), the probability
lessens of its being due to chance; until, if nine-tenths of
the cases do so amend and recover, no probability is left
that chance can account for the results. As to the influence
of imagination in producing the benefits in the cases to
which I advert, I think that reasons satisfactory to all but
the invincibles can be shown for its absence in the majority of them, while it remains only as a presumption or
possibility in the others. Thus, in some cases the coincidences occur in persons who are too young for the work of
fancy; in some, the persons affected have no notion of the
marvellous nature of their physic, and are very plainly incapable of being moved by the knowledge if it were imparted to them; in some there is a total want of expectation of any result whatever; and in some the remedies
given are not at first correctly chosen, according to the
rules of the practice, and produce no effect; but when





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


75


afterwards they are better selected, the good effects follow.
These, however, are particulars which can be properly estimated only by the man who practically examines, and experiments for himself. No printed records and statements
can impress them on the reader as they impress themselves
on the practitioner, and therefore it is that documentary
evidence can never settle the question in all its divisions.
But why is the subject left to be settled in any measure
by documentary evidence? If the practice of Homoeopathy
has grown to the vast extent which you allow, all over
Europe and America-has learned, experienced, and honest
men among its practitioners-is so successful as you admit
in the treatment of acute, as well as chronic, diseases, and
so forth, that you " can refrain no longer" from noticing it
-if " as an established form of practical medicine, and as
a great fact in the history of our art" (p. 239), you are
obliged nolentes volentes to consider Homceopathy-why
should you restrict your consideration of it to documents,
which cannot, in regard to every particular, furnish conclusive evidence, and to omit the practice in person, or to
recommend it to others? This is the only way of considering it that can lead to a definite result on the general
question. No man will believe in Homoeopathy, in all its
extent, on the testimony of those who have practised it,
because testimony in practical medicine is so easily evaded
by the doubter; and no man ought to disbelieve on the
authority of those who have not.
Some of my cases you object to as trivial. Now, apart
from the fact that a disease does not need to be deadly, or
even severe, in order to test the action of a remedy, the
objection has probably been founded on the very success of
the practice. Take, for instance, the cases of dysentery,
and others among the acute cases;-after the practice was
"begun their course was mild enough certainly, and their
recovery was for the most part very speedy. Does it,
therefore, follow that the cases were slight?  Would any





76


IIOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


man be entitled to say from the first report of them, before
the treatment, that they were slight of their kind? I say
no. And it is rather too much to urge the very success of
the practice, as lessening the evidence in its favour! If
the cases had continued as at first, or had increased in intensity, for a number of days, you would call them severe,
no doubt; and you would at the same time have evidence,
which no Homoeopath could gainsay, that the practice was
useless. We are entitled to the converse of this, however-the cases decreased rapidly in severity after the
treatment was begun; affording some evidence that the
practice was not useless.
Of three cases you quote, there are two concerning*
which a few remarks are called for. The one is that of a
gentleman who had become, from necessity, dependent on
aperient medicine for above two years. He took some
Homceopathic medicine, and soon became restored to perfect health. The result you consider to have been due to
the pill system having been discontinued. Possibly you
may be right, and possibly you may not. But you act unfairly in conveying the impression to your readers that I
adduced the case as a proof of the marvellous effects produced by the millionth part of a grain of nux vomica.
You profess to have read the introductory part of my
work, and quote from it a passage to the effect that I
published every case of which an account had been taken
down at the commencement of the treatment. You seem
also to have read the summary at the end of the work, in
which it is stated that I do not mean to assert that all the
recoveries were due to the Homceopathic remedies. These
statements might have suggested to you that, in publishing the cases, I committed myself to no opinion of the
cause of recovery in any individual case (one of the cases
of pneumonia excepted), but acted the part merely of a
faithful transcriber of the details of a series of experiments
-contenting myself with the remark, that I could not be




AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


77


lieve the very favourable course and issue of so large a proportion of the cases to be due to accident, or imagination.
You may say, indeed, that if a case were of such a nature that its recovery could not help us to form an opinion
of the value to be attached to the treatment, it was useless
to detail it at all. But then you forget that, though the
recovery of a case may not prove anything in favour of the
treatment, its not recovering may help to prove something
against the treatment. Had the case in question, and
others of the same kind, undergone no improvement under
the treatment, would you have sneered at them as contemptible. I suspect not-and you would have been right.
The other case to which I refer I transcribe, with your
comments upon it.
"A young lady, aged 19.. Aug. 3.-For between two and three
years has been subject to diarrhoea, with pain in the bowels, after
intervals rarely exceeding a week. The attacks last for several
days, and the bowels are moved from six to ten times a-day. She is
ill at present with one of them. Pulsatilla, 6, twice a-day. 29th.-A
day or two after last report, the diarrhoea ceased, and has not recurred. 10th September.-Continues without having had a return of
diarrhcea; a length of interval which she does not remember to have
occurred since the complaint began.
" When the intervals did exceed a week, how much did they exceed it? Did they ever reach four weeks? If the young lady could not
remember this, Dr Henderson should have inquired of those who could,
before he adduced this flimsy case as evidence of the potency of the
billionth of a grain of Pulsatilla. Does Dr Henderson think it a
strange thing in the economy of nature, and only to be explained by
the -Deus ex machina of I omoeopathy, that a case of diarrhcea, characterised by intervals of health, should stop as lsual, although an incomprehensible something was given, and that it should not return
for a few days longer on one particular occasion? These may seem
little things to comment on, but surely little things will not be despised by Homoeopathists of all men; and here they very significantly
show the sort of philosophy we have to deal with. Men capable of
admitting cases of this kind as evidence-and we could extract fifty
from Dr Henderson's book much feebler than this-are demonstrably
disqualified to treat of things which demand for their handling ihe
stern logic of a masculine mind."-P. 24 9.





78


HOM8EOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


The severe observation which the last sentence contains
on myself I let pass without remark, as I have reason to
believe that you regret it. I may say, however, that it
gave me no uneasiness, because I felt it to be undeserved.
As to your inquiries about the case, I confess I am puzzled
to know to whom I should have applied for the particulars
you desiderate so very much. Who ought to know more
of such matters than the person chiefly concerned, when
arrived at years of discretion? I know no one who took
so lively an interest in the transaction as she, or who had
a better right to do so; and if she could not remember,
who knew all the outs and ins of it, whose memory could
have been trusted? It is certain, however, that she could
have remembered whether, for two or three months before, she had had an interval of four weeks' freedom from
her complaint. That, I think, will be allowed. Then,
she may be allowed to have had no such interval for several months, at least, before the commencement of the
practice, as she had immediately after. Still the case does
not prove that HIomceopathy was the source of her improvement. Granted: but had the complaint continued to recur
with intervals " rarely exceeding a week" after that treatment was begun, as it had done for some two or three
months before (her memory may be trusted so far, surely),
the case would have proved that Homoeopathy had failed.
In a series of experiments regarding the truth of an allegation, the failures are of no less importance than the successes-nay, in physic they are of far more value as evidence, for successes may be only apparent, may be fallacious, whereas about failures there can be no mistake.
You say that you can extract fifty much feebler cases
than this from the book. You cannot extract one that
does not bear upon the investigation in the same way, and
with even more significance than this; and though the
view of these experiments which I have now given appears never to have occurred to you, it is not the less an





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


79


important one, or one which you ought to have seen without my help.
The cases in general were of that kind which composes
the great majority of the ailments which are treated by
the rules of orthodox medicine, by purgatives, antispasmodics, emmenagogues, leeches, blisters, anodynes, tonics,
antacids, mercurials, &c., and yet without any of these
they recovered, as you admit, very satisfactorily. Some
of them were of a more serious description, and had resisted the orthodox rules, though applied in a few of them
by some of the best practitioners in this city; and yet of
these the majority recovered, or were greatly benefited
also; and in a very short time. Those that did not, were
mostly of a kind, or in a stage of disease that defies all
medical treatment, with the exception, possibly, of the
Irish. For, though your new contemporary of Dublin,*
with a racy Irish equivoque, proclaims that results which
you term very satisfactory, would, in the hands of Dublin
Allopathy, " have been widely different "-I will suppose
the writer to mean that the Dublin practice would have
proved more succes.ful; that the Allopathy of the favoured Isle, where the " vulgar regard the physician as
scarcely second to the priest" (p. 179), and where the
polite, we presume, regard him with much less reverence
-would have been more fortunate than the Allopathy of
Edinburgh, or of London-for modesty does not flourish
everywhere. I leave you and your contemporary to settle
the point between you; while I content myself with the
fact, that the results of my cases must have appeared to
the said writer too satisfactory to be published in his review, seeing that in his report of them he has taken such
liberties with the text as, I trust, are not to be regarded
as specimens of Irish honesty, among priests or physicians,
* The Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, No. 1, February, 1846.





80


HOMCEOPATHY, ALLOPATHY,


the vulgar or the polite. It promises little for the character and prosperity of a new periodical that it should
come into the world with disingenuousness stamped on its
forehead. For, unwilling as I am to make a grave charge
against an opponent as long as charity can suggest an excuse for him, in the present instance no choice is left me;
-and I accuse the writer of that review of having studiously misrepresented the cases he has quoted. How sad
it is that an uncandid spirit should befoul the current of
criticism in questions of science and humanity. In the
words of Hazlitt, " a writer who assumes the garb of candour, and an inflexible love of truth, to garble and pervert it, to crouch to power, and pander to prejudice, deserves a worse title than that of a sophist."
If the literal truth were known, I suspect it would appear that the cases are something of a puzzle to you Allopaths.-One will have it, that the recoveries are so satisfactory that they must be due to the cunning hand of
nature,-whose works so far excel the doings of man; another, that they are so incredible that the cases must have
been too highly coloured-(the "Lancet," 1845); a third
(the "Dublin Journal"), that Allopathy could have done
better. On the whole, then, the cases and recoveries may
be regarded as tolerably good.
That portion of your article which is specially addressed
to the practitioners of orthodox medicine, and lays down
rules for the future guidance of " Young Physic," does not
lie within the scope of what I proposed to myself in this
letter, and I shall say little about it. Almost the only thing
that strikes me as worthy of remark, in,connexion with it,
is, that your Dublin contemporary is somewhat unkind in
receiving so coldly your scheme in reference to a " Young
Physic," considering that you propose that a part of his
nursing should be according to a genuine Irish receipt.
Your ninth rule runs thus:L To discountenance all active and powerful medication in the acute





AND YOUNG PHYSIC.


81


exanthemata, and fevers of specific type, as small-pox, measles, scarlatina, typhus, &c., until we obtain some evidence that the course of
these diseases can be beneficially modified by remedies."
" I'll never go into the water again till I learn to swim"
-was the wise resolution of the Irishman, as the story has
it, who narrowly escaped being drowned. " Use no physic
in the acute exanthemata till we learn that it is of use," is
the new.practical rule of a system strongly suspected of
having drowned not a few in its day.
Even the young " Dublin Quarterly " has some doubts,
although not very definite, of the great advantages to
science of such a contemplative method as this; and ventures, very innocently, to surmise that " Young Physic,
if it ever germinate at all, cannot possibly be expected to
bear any fi'uit till our children, and our children's children,
have been gathered to their fathers."  If I mistake not, the
treatment of the acute exanthemata will not have commenced even then, unless Young Physic apply to mesmerism for a revelation on the point.
On looking over the extracts I have made, in the foregoing pages, from your review, I observe that they do not
include your reservations in favour of a mild and judicious
Allopathy. As it would be unjust to allow the readers of
this letter to carry away with them the impression that you
condemn the ordinary practice altogether, I am bound to
inform them that this is not the case. While you boldly
arraign the medical art, as generally practised, denounce
the too indiscriminate and profuse administration of drugs,
and lament the existing ignorance respecting their remedial powers, you distinctly affirm that Allopathy is a
system " which, with all its faults, contains a considerable
amount of truth, and a yet greater amount of good."
This statement, indeed, does not refer specially to the
Allopathic art, but appears to include its pathology, and
other branches of medical science.  These, as I have
already said, are equally the property of Homceopathy,
G





82


HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.


and therefore no Homoeopath will desire to controvert
your opinion. Yet, supposing it to include a little of Allopathic practice also, I can offer no objection to its justice.
For while embracing Homoeopathy, in the sense in which
I have explained it in this letter, I do not think that it
contains the whole truth of therapeutics, though I believe
it to contain much more than any other system. I am
aware that in making this avowal I shall not please the
bigots among the disciples of Hahnemann, and may incur
the sneer of the suspicious and sordid (the sordid are always suspicious), among their opponents of the old school.
I count either event a very small matter, persuaded that,
when the candid and intelligent on both sides come to
know one another, and understand one another's views
and methods better than they do at present-when the
dusts of controversy have had time to settle, and the atmosphere is clearer, they will find that they are not so very
far asunder as they at present suppose. Yet we may have
many a tough encounter before we " sheath our swords for
lack of argument "-a prospect which we Homoeopaths
rather rejoice at. We claim nothing but a fair field and
no favour; and are ready to fight it out, without a shadow
of doubt as to the issue.
The contest may be conducted as it becometh gentlemen
to contend, without the rash imputation of unworthy motives-without appealing to the prejudices and passions of
the ignorant-without wilful unfairness, and without discourtesy. You have set the example of an onset free from
those degrading vices of controversy, and I trust that I
have in this defence been also successful in my endeavour
to avoid them. If not, I shall be heartily sorry for my
failure.
With every sentiment of esteem, I am,
Your obedient servant,
WILLIAM     HENDERSON.
Edinburgh, March, 1846.





ON THE


OBSERVATION OF NATURE IN THE
TREATMENT OF DISEASE.
BY ANDREW COMBE, M.D.,
Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, one of the
Physicians in Ordinary, in Scotland, to the Queen, &c., &c.*
Edinburgh, 25th January, 1846.
MY DEAR SIR,-I have now carefully re-perused your
article in the recent number of the " British and Foreign
Medical Review," and rejoice that you have spoken out
openly and honestly what you believe to be truth, regarding both Homoeopathy and what is antithetically but incorrectly called Allopathy; and as I consider a consciousness
of our faults to be the first step to improvement, in medicine as well as in morals, I feel no regret that you have
made the confession so complete. In all probability you
will be attacked for having spoken too disparagingly of
" Allopathy," and too favourably of Homoeopathy; but the
result of discussion will be to extend the consciousness of
such defects as are real, and to prompt to their removal, so
that truth and the interests of humanity will gain by the
course you have pursued. If I were to judge merely from
the general tone of your remarks, I should say that you
have exaggerated the defects of ordinary medicine, and
that this has arisen from your not having been sufficiently
careful to distinguish between its essence, and what may
* In a letter to the Editor of the " British and Foreign Medical
Review, or Quarterly Journal of Practical Medicine and Surgery."
April, 1846.





84


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


be more justly termed its errors and imperfections. Writing, as you did, for the express purpose of directing attention to the defects of ordinary medical practice, with a
view to future improvement, you were in a manner forced
to give them a prominence which was calculated to throw
the real solidity of its foundation and the best part of its
superstructure into the shade, in the minds of those readers
at least who had not previously thought much on the subject, and hence were unlikely to discriminate for themselves. But, disregarding minor inaccuracies of expression and of opinion, and looking to essentials only, I should
say that although, from the above causes, it might be easy
to quote detached sentences from your review, which betoken an utter want of faith in medical art, yet it is evident
that such was not your meaning, and that you have perhaps a stronger sense of its truth, beneficence, and importance to mankind, than many of those who will blame you
for your broad avowal of its faults.
If you had been careful to make the necessary distinction between medicine as a practical science, based on the
laws of nature, and only requiring the steadier application
of sound principle to its cultivation, to lead to more certain
and beneficial results, and that soi-disant medicine practised by so many of its votaries without regard to principles of any kind, and consequently often involving in its
train no small amount of mischievous as well as merely negative consequences-between medicine, in short, and the
abuse of medicine-and restricted your condemnation to
the latter alone, you would have given less room for misapprehension and difference of opinion, and at the same
time rendered your article both more acceptable and more
instructive. Even as it is, however, you have not left
yourself altogether defenceless. In two or three passages
you admit, cursorily, indeed, but distinctly enough, that
the defects you complain of are not inherent in, and inseparable from, medicine itself, but are only attributable to





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.             85
a large portion of the prevailing practice; and while you
denounce unsparingly the faults and omissions of its disciples, you are so far from being sceptical of medicine itself, that you pronounce it to be, even in its present state,
"a noble and glorious profession," and destined to become
as truly " grand and glorious in actual performance, as it is
now in its essence, its aims, and its aspirations."
Believing your censure, then, to be directed against the
faults of medical science, as at present practised, and not
against its principles and truths, I am so far from thinking
it undeserved, that I have been for years impressed with
similar convictions to your own regarding them, and felt
an earnest desire to contribute any little aid I could towards their correction and removal. From an early period of my professional life, I was struck with the exclusiveness with which relief was generally sought from
drugs or active treatment, and the indifference with which
the Icedentia were often allowed to remain in undisturbed
operation, and the juvantia left entirely to chance or the
whim of the moment. And yet experience demonstrates
that, in the great majority of cases, the drug is only one
influence among many, and that it is by the intelligent regulation of these external conditions, far more than by
active medication, that the physician can effectually contribute to the comfort and recovery of the patient. Disease
is a perverted state of a natural organic action, and not a
something thrown into the system by accident, and which
obeys no fixed laws. In the cure of disease, therefore, the
business of the physician is not to supersede nature, but
carefully to observe what is wrong, and to aid the efforts
made by her to re-establish regularity and order. Accordingly, experience shows that the physician and the remedy
are useful only when they act in accordance with the laws
of the constitution and the intentions of nature; and hence,
in chronic, and even in acute diseases, the most effective
part of the treatment is generally the hygienic, or that





86


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


which consists in placing all the organs under the most favourable circumstances for the adequate exercise of their
respective functions. If this be done systematically, every
effort of Nature will be towards the restoration of health;
and all that she demands from us in addition, is to remove
impediments and facilitate her acts.
So far, however, is this from being the prevailing view
of the proper sphere and duties of the physician, that even
many medical men habitually act and speak as if they considered their only business to be the prescription of drugs,
or some active external remedy, such as a blister or a
bleeding; and in ordinary medical education, no attempt
whatever is made to direct the attention of the student to
the value of preservative or preventive treatment, or to
those important auxiliaries to recovery from illness which
it is the province of hygiene to unfold. The consequence
of thus considering drugs as our only or chief resource is,
that, when called to the bedside, we are apt to fix our attention exclusively upon the prominent symptoms, and
allow obstacles to recovery to continue in operation or
start up unsuspected, which often go far to counteract
the best devised and most active treatment. This is the
more to be regretted, because the practitioner himself is, or
ought to be, the source of one of the most powerful and
beneficial hygienic influences to which a patient can be
subjected. Taking a high and just view of his position,
his aim ought to be, on all occasions, to procure for the
family of which he is the confidential adviser the highest
health of which it is capable; and had the public, on their
side, a just sense of his duties, they would resort to him
for advice not only during actual illness, but regarding the
management of their own health, and the education and
management of their children. As a general rule, however, the practitioner attends only to the individual sick
member to whom he is called in; and, so far from taking
cognisance of the causes of disease amidst which the family





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


87


may be living, he, unless specially called upon, rarely
thinks of laying down precautionary rules for the future
guidance even of the one who is ill. He prescribes for him,
and the present attack once over, he leaves him to the
mercy of accident, to sink or swim, as chance may direct.
Nay, if we look into the families of medical men themselves, it is rather an exception to see any rational precautionary treatment in systematic use, or any one advantage secured, which an acquaintance with hygiene would
suggest as worthy of our attention. Breathing vitiated
air, for example, is universally known to be one of the
most active causes of scrofula, and yet I have more than
once seen the scrofulous offspring, of otherwise sensible
and well-informed medical men, sleeping three or four in
a small room, with closed curtains around their bedc, while
an unoccupied, well-aired room was close at hand, and reserved perhaps for a stranger. Again, it is by no means
uncommon to see the children of medical men suffer in
health from habitual and indiscriminate indulgence of the
appetite, neglect of air and exercise, and over-working of
the brain, without even an attempt being made to prevent
the evil by the adoption of a better regimen; and if they
thus, from indolent indifference or practical blindness, neglect the protection of their own flesh and blood from
evils which may be guarded against, how can we expect
them to feel any interest, or use any foresight, in protecting the children of others? It is not indifference, however, that causes this inattention. It is simply that t/ey have
never been taugiht that such concern is a duty incumbent on
professional men; and they have never been so taught because hygiene has ignorantly been considered to be a subject which concerned nobody but old women and hypochondriacs, instead of being, as it is in reality, both in its preservative and in its therapeutical applications, one of the
most important and most beneficial elements of our professional knowledge.





88


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


It was a deep sense of the evils resulting from this state
of things which led me, about sixteen years ago, to begin
the preparation of the first of the three works I have since
published for the purpose of inculcating the importance of
physiological and hygienic information both to the public
and to the profession. It was the same deep conviction
which induced me, in 1838, in a letter on medical education to our friend Sir James Clark, which was printed but
not published, to comment strongly upon some of these
evils and their origin in the defective state of professional
education. And it was under the same feeling that, in
January, 1842, when disabled from practice by the illness
under which I still labour, I became so desirous to rouse
attention to the subject, that I embodied an outline of my
views in a letter to my brother, Mr George Combe, then
resident in Germany, to be made use of by him, if I did
not survive to bring them out in a more satisfactory
form. This I have never yet been able to do, although I
have never lost sight of the subject; and, in this state of
matters, perhaps the best answer I can now make to your
appeal to your brethren, for suggestions in aid of your own
efforts, is to lay that letter before you. To yourself, its
perusal will be gratifying, as exhibiting the pre-existence
of views in many respects in harmony with your own, as
to the present state and future prospects of medicine;
while to your readers, also, it may not be without interest, as affording in so far a presumption of the truth of
the principles which have led us both, by almost parallel
although different roads, to nearly the same conclusions
concerning the sources from which the improvement of
medical practice is to be obtained. But to bring out this
coincidence more clearly, it will be useful, before subjoining the letter, to notice briefly the analogy which subsists
between its objects, and the results at which you have
yourself arrived.
The aim I had chiefly in view in writing that letter was





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


89


to show that, before undertaking the treatment of disease,
we ought to make ourselves acquainted, 1st, with the laws
which regulate the action of the different bodily organs
during health; and, 2dly, with the natural history or course
of diseases, that we may be able to read aright the indications of nature in their treatment, and take special care
neither to counteract her efforts nor to substitute another
method of cure for hers, unless where we have positive evidence that the vis medicatrix, judiciously aided by us, will
prove unavailing. I then proceeded to show that it is
from losing sight of the order and indications of nature,
and neglecting the aid to be obtained from their observance, that no small portion of ordinary medical practice is
fallacious, and some of it even hurtful, from actually interposing obstacles to the operation of the restorative power
inherent in the living organism. In other words, I wished
to direct attention in a special degree to the propositions,
that nature is the active agent in the cvre of disease, as well as
in carrying on the ordinary operations of life; that the
physician can never be so well employed as when he acts
intelligently and consistently as the nature minister et interpres; and that there is small wisdom and less glory to
be obtained from attempting either to substitute other devices for her arrangements, or to put her to the rout by main
force, and by the use of means at variance with her laws.
Your propositions, on the other hand, are:-" 1st, That
in a large proportion of cases, as at present treated, the
disease is cured by nature and not by the physician.
2d, That in a lesser, but still not a small, proportion the
disease is cured by nature in spite of him; in other words,
his interference opposing instead of assisting the cure.
And, lastly, that, consequently, in a considerable proportion of diseases it would fare as well, or better, with patients in the actual condition of the medical art, as more
generally practised, if all remedies, at least all active remedies and more especially drugs, were abandoned."





90


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


Such are the inferences which you have deduced from
a general survey of medical practice, and I need hardly
stop to point out how completely they harmonise with the
conclusions at which I had arrived. This will be apparent
to every reflecting reader, and will become still more so
after perusing the letter in which my views are more fully
developed. Here, however, it will be useful to remark that
an omission occurs in your article which will tend to the
further diffusion of a misapprehension already too prevalent
on a point of vital importance. When you speak of" leaving the patient to the efforts of nature," as the akernative
of abandoning what is usually called " active medical treatment," you, in common with most other writers, unguardedly use the phrase as if " trusting to nature" were equivalent to consigning the patient to chance or caprice for
his guidance, to do anything or nothing exactly as the
feeling or whim of the moment may suggest. This is at
once an erroneous and a pernicious interpretation, because
it is calculated to lead to indifference and carelessness,
under the very circumstances in which vigilance and discriminating attention may prove most useful. So far from
sanctioning inactivity on our part, an intelligent reliance
on nature implies that we shall exercise, throughout the
w hole course of the disease, the most watchful observation
over its phenomena and progress, and not only timeously
remove obstacles which may interfere with its proper
course, but rigidly fulfil all the conditions which a sound
physiology shows to be most conducive to the well-being
of the various bodily organs, and to their restoration when
disordered. In this way, the physician may often exercise
the most salutary influence, nay, even be the means of
saving the patient's life, and yet not give one particle of
medicine. In No. 14 of your " Excogitanda," and in a
few other places, all this is virtually implied; but you nowhere bring out the principle with that clear and prominent distinctness which it so eminently deserves, and





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


91


which is so essential to a right understanding of the question in dispute between Homoeopathy and ordinary medicine. I regret this omission, because the more I see, the
more I am convinced that it is only by the intelligent observation and study of nature that a sound system of medical doctrine can be obtained, or medical practice ever be
made to confer those benefits on mankind which it seems
to me fully capable of rendering. In proportion as we
proceed upon this solid basis, every step taken will be in
advance, and every new discovery in physiology, anatomy,
chemistry, &c., will tend to enlarge our power over disease, by enabling us more and more to give nature fair
play. Instead, therefore, of medicine being superseded, as
many suppose, by taking nature for our guide, it will, on
the contrary, only begin to take just rank as a science,
when our allegiance to nature shall become practical, enlightened, and complete. One word more of preface. In
reading the subjoined letter, you ought to keep in mind
that it was written merely as a private record of my opinions, and consequently bears the marks of haste both in
its arrangement and language. If it had been intended for
the public eye, I should perhaps have modified some parts
of it, and been more careful in others to guard against any
misapprehension which might arise from the imperfect development of my views. But as these are blemishes which
do not affect the accuracy' of its general statements or
reasoning, and which I may safely leave to the indulgence
of the reader, and as it is desirable to show the pre-existence of my opinions, such as they are, I shall not venture
to make any alterations by way of removing the defects.
" TO GEORGE COMBE, ESQ., MANNHEIM.
Edinburgh, 8th January, 1842.
"My Dear George,-The great defect in the study of
medicine, and in all investigations connected with it, at
present, seems to me to consist in the nearly total absence
of guiding principles, and in the neglect of the great rules





92


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


of Bacon, and more especially of the observation of nature,
as the only solid foundation on which medicine or any other
science can rest and advance towards perfection. This last
will seem to many of my brethren a very singular charge,
because if there is one circumstance on which the profession prides itself more than another at this moment, it is on
the ardour with which observation is pursued and facts are
sought for. Nevertheless, I believe the charge to be supported by incontrovertible evidence, and I attribute the
small progress really made to this very truth. I admit that,
everywhere, observations are made and facts stored up with
an industry, accuracy, and zeal, which, under better guidance, would soon accomplish great things. But these observations and facts are incomplete, and therefore partial,
and, if relied upon, apt to mislead. They are phenomena
or occurrences rather than ultimate facts, and, their conditions and relations remaining unknown and unconsidered,
they lead to no useful results. Hence, the multitude of
observations daily recorded in the writings of medical men
serve more to oppress the memory and puzzle the inquiring mind, than to advance science and improve practice.
Hence, too, the thousand and one facts of the one year disappear under the shade of the thousand and one newer
facts of the succeeding year. All, indeed, are not of this
description. Some few out of the many are complete facts,
and have a meaning which becomes daily brighter, and
bears a direct relation to practice. The sum of these constitutes the real amount of the progress made by medical
science, and the proverbial uncertainty of medicine affords
a pretty accurate indication of the relative amount of incomplete or false facts gathered into the granary.
" The grand object of medicine is to preserve and restore
the healthy action of all the different organs and functions
of the human body, so as to ensure their efficiency, and fit
the individual for the successful discharge of the duties
devolving upon him as a created being and a member of





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


93


society. Here, then, the first step to be taken is obviously
to become acquainted with the mechanism of the body, the
structure of its constituent organs, the conditions or laws
under which these act, the purposes which they respectively
serve in the animal economy, and the relations in which
they stand to each other, and to the external agents by
which man is surrounded and acted upon from the moment
of conception down to his latest breath. In other words,
the first step towards rational principles of cure must consist in a knowledge of the laws of the healthy functions. The
second ought to be the observation of the manner in which
the various disturbing causes act upon the different functions, and the kind, course, duration, and termination, of the
morbid action which they produce. Having investigated
these points, we become qualified to inquire, in the next
place, what circumstances will best favour the intentions
of nature, and remove the obstacles which may have arisen
to impede or thwart her efforts. To succeed in these aims,
or even to make a rational attempt at succeeding, we must
be profoundly impressed, or I may say saturated, with the
great principle or truth, that all the operations and actions
of the living body, whether healthy or morbid, take place
according to fited and discoverable laws, and that God has
left nothing to chance. With this grand fact before us, it
becomes palpably evident that we can do nothing rational,
in the way of either prevention or cure, except in so far as
we act in accordance with these laws. Many medical men
have, however, a very different impression from this. A
good physician will always seek to be, and never aim at
being more than, Bacon's 'servant and interpreter of nature.'
A greater than he created man and ordained the laws of
his being, and no surer road can be found than that traced
by the hand of his Creator. Overlooking this truth, and
viewing disease as an entity ungoverned by any definite
laws, and not destined to run through any definite course,
many medical men talk as familiarly of their 'curing' and





94


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


'arresting disease' as if they had an absolute control over
the whole animal functions, and could alter their laws
of action at pleasure. To my mind, no clearer proof of
presumption and philosophic ignorance can be found than
this usurpation of the prerogatives of Deity; and its results
are often very unsatisfactory.
" That there are forms of disease in which a determinate
nature and course cannot be easily traced, is quite true; but
there are many more in which the natural course is as obvious as that of the sun. Take the familiar example of
cow-pox, small-pox, fever, or ague. The disease is regulated by fixed laws in such a palpable manner, that every
medical book describes with perfect accuracy the appearances which each will present on given days of its progress
in an average constitution. The same holds with measles,
scarlatina, and many other acute affections; and less clearly,
but still perceptibly enough, with gout, rheumatism, and
inflammation. All of these go through a regular course,
in a shorter or longer time; and when everything goes according to rule, we feel assured that the constitution is
safer than where some unusual accident has interrupted
the natural progress of events. This, be it observed, is the
course towards health which the Creator, in constituting
man, considered best for him; and the wisest thing we can
do is to act in accordance with it, and seek only to remove
impediments. It is not we to whom the cure is intrusted,
or by whom it is effected. The Creator has perfected all
the arrangements for that purpose, and our sole business
ought to be to give these arrangements full play. Man,
however, is too full of his own importance to view things
in this light. He wishes to be master and to control disease by his own act, and accordingly he has in all ages
been seeking for the means of 'arresting' disease at its onset. Not many years ago, the cold affusion was in this way
in high vogue for cutting short fever, and its praises were
loudly sounded. Gregory applied it even in scarlet fever,





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


95


and I rather think in measles. In many cases nature was
so far vanquished, by repeated cold drenching, that the
disease was apparently cut short during the commotion,
and (probably from relief being obtained through another
channel) without visible bad effects. But in many more,
nature stood firm, and additional mischief was added to the
original evil, in the shape of affections of internal organs,
which ended fatally. Now affusion is laid aside, and its
legitimate substitute, tepid or cool sponging of the surface,
is usefully employed, because in harmony with the natural
course of events.
"Here, then, is a type or standard to guide us to the
correct investigation of nature in other less determinate
affections. Is it not presumable that they also have a
certain nature, and course, and termination, which it
would be well for us to observe and promote? Take
even a severe cold, with which all are acquainted more
or less. Everybody knows that when once set in, treat
it how you like, it will run through a determinate course
of increase, maturity, and decline, and that all we can do
is to shorten a little the duration of its stages by diminishing its intensity; or lengthen it by increasing its severity.
Occasionally, it is true, an incipient cold may be stopped
by a ' heroic' remedy, such as a tumbler of warm punch at
bed-time; but much more frequently the heroics leave the
patient worse than they found him, and the common experience of mankind shrinks from their use. Even a common boil on the fingers runs through its regular stages of
inflammation and decline, or of suppuration and ulceration,
each stage being hastened or retarded by external or constitutional causes, but never inverted. But if we apply to
the one stage the means which are adapted only to the succeeding one, the result will be injurious; or if we lower
the system so much that it becomes inadequate to carry
on the regular succession of actions required for recovery,
mischief must once more be produced. Let us take a case





9G


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


of pleurisy in an individual of average strength as an example. We know that, in ordinary circumstances, the
excitement goes on increasing during a period varying
from two to five or six days; that effusion of fluid into
the cavity of the pleura ensues, that the inflammation then
begins to abate, and after a few days more passes into an
inactive state; that the naturalaction of the part then begins
to be restored, and the fluid to be absorbed, till by and by
recovery is completed. Or, if the inflammation endangers
life, it either goes on longer than usual, or gives rise to
effusion of a quality and quantity incompatible with recovery, and death at last ensues. In a case of average
severity in a healthy constitution, left simply to the quiet
and abstinence which nature almost compels, we know,
from observation, that such are the stages by which recovery is brought about; and all that the physician need
attempt or care for is to use every precaution to prevent
excitement from running too high or going on too long,
and to meet any contingencies which may interfere and
impede recovery.
" Very different, however, is the general course of proceeding. Relying on the testimony of an incomplete fact
(viz., that bloodletting produces excellent effects in inflammation, without attending sufficiently to the influence
of the adjuvantia), the moment the practitioner ascertains
the existence of 'inflammation,' he pulls out his lancet and
bleeds the patient copiously. The oppressed vessels being
thus partially emptied, much relief is experienced, and
both patient and physician are pleased with the hope that
the disease will be 'cut short.' This we shall suppose to
have happened at the end of twenty-four or forty-eight
hours, or first third of the ascending stage of the inflammation. In a few hours, however, the vessels have contracted, and they and the heart adapted themselves to their
diminished contents, and nature thereupon resumes her
attempt to carry the disease through its proper stages.





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


97


The pain returns, the pulse rises, and the oppression augments. Bleeding is again resorted to with immediate
relief, and the same phenomena recur. At the third
bleeding, we arrive at the period of the natural decline of
the disease, and consequently no more excitement appears.
'Now, then, we have cut it short at last,' says the doctor,
smiling complacently. 'Yes,' says the gratified patient,
'that last bleeding did the business; but what a pity you
did not take more at first, and stop it at once.' With
care and good management all goes on well, and by degrees the patient returns to his former diet and habits.
If, however, he happens to be a person not of a robust
constitution, matters go on more doubtfully, and after
partial recovery he finds his strength permanently shaken,
or perhaps falls into chronic disease, and ultimately dies,
or after a long struggle he may regain his former health.
"If we attend to the observation of nature with a view
to co-operate with her, and not simply to take her by storm,
we-shall be guided in our practice by the indications which
she presents. In small-pox, for example, or measles, the
excitement often runs very high in the first or eruptive
stage, and means are required to moderate it. But if we
bleed too freely, it is well known that the eruption (which
we shall suppose to have come out) will generally disappear,
and increased danger to life ensue, because the order of nature being forcibly interrupted, some internal disease is
brought on, or the system sinks exhausted. Whereas if. instead of bleeding excessively, we keep the patient very quiet,
in a cool well-aired room, and administer cooling drinks,
mild laxatives or antimonials, and reserve bleeding for
cases of necessity, the probability will be much in favour
of recovery. To apply this to the pleurisy. Instead of being
intent on cutting it short, the moment we ascertain its existence, we would have respect to its natural course and duration, and reserve our means to carry it safely through its
regular stages. So far as my observation goes, cures would
H





98


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


be more numerous and complete were this principle followed. If a severe bleeding disturbs fatally the progress
of small-pox eruption, may it not also, when unseasonably
used, injuriously influence the course of internal inflammation, and lead, for instance, to fatal oppression or effusion?
We know that de facto it is a very rare thing to cut short a
smart inflammation by a severe bleeding; but is that
a reason for bleeding again whenever the pain returns?
I think not. If the inflammation threatens to run very
high and endanger life, then depletion becomes a reasonable alternative, but not so if it resumes merely its normal
or regular course. If regard were had to the nature of the
disease, I am convinced that many cases in which blood is
very freely drawn would do well and better by much
milder means; and that in many where blood-letting is
really needed, a great deal might be spared in point of
quantity, with much future advantge to the constitution.
Take, again, the beginning of a severe cold or influenza.
We know that de facto it will increase for several days,
after which the feverish state will decline. If, to force it
away, we begin with hot drinks and sudorifics, we invariably increase the fever by adding to the excitement; but
if we keep quiet in bed, moderately cool, eat little, and
drink mild tepid fluids when inclined for them, abstain
from mental excitement and annoyance, the feverish state
will be kept down; and if we then give a good sedative
antimonial, we shall rarely fail to elicit free and relieving
perspiration, and to break the force of the disease. If we
go out during the rising stage, we make the cold more
severe, but in the second stage we do good. In the former,
meat is inj urious, in the latter, useful. The principle holds
with a slighter cold, but is of course modified in its operation.
" Even the causes of disease, and remedies, themselves
produce their effects in a regular order, according to fixed
laws which we ought to study and respect; but in practice





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


99


we disregard this. It is no answer to say, ' Oh, they have
acted quite differently in A. B. from what they did in
B. C., and therefore they can have no determinate effects.'
But find out the disturbing cause which interrupted the
regular course in B. C., and the uniformity will become
apparent enough. Such a cause must exist, whether we
know it or not. Having practically no regard to the laws
of the constitution, we are apt to overlook their influence
on the operation of causes of disease, and to consider nothing
in the light of a cause which has happened more than
a few hours before. We forget that there is always an interval of hidden action in the system itself before the effect *
becomes palpable to sense. Take hydrophobia as a very
striking example in proof. A person is slightly bitten on
the finger, wipes it with his handkerchief, and forgets all
about it, till at the distance of two or three months symptoms of hydrophobia suddenly show themselves, and he is
speedily carried off. In the interval, he was unconscious
of any change going on, and none was remarked by his
friends. Yet nobody can deny that during all that time
the poison was in the system, and producing changes of
which the fatal paroxysm was the result. Even in the
ordinary contagious diseases of small-pox, scarlatina, fever,
&c., several days of silent internal working always intervene
before the poison takes visible effect. This indicates the
operation of fixed and determinate laws presiding over
the production and course of diseased as well as of healthy
actions. We never see a disease start up instantly after the
application of its cause, nor full health suddenly take the
place of active disease. We see the inhalation of fixed air
induce immediate death; but it acts not by giving rise
to disease, properly speaking, but by withdrawing one of
the essential conditions of life. It is no proof of the absence of fixed laws and a determinate course, to say that
the same cause does not always.produce the same results.
The constitutional state upon which the cause acts is often





100


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


different, and hence an impossibility of the result being
identical under every variety of circumstances.
"By thus insisting on the necessity of a more complete
and faithful observation of the course of nature, and of
acting more systematically according to her guidance, I
am ftr from meaning that we are to sit with our hands
across, and allow things to take their own way. So far
from it, it is certain that the principle I inculcate would
demand more watchfulness, and give room for a nicer exercise of judgment, and a more consistent and, I believe,
successful treatment. Disease arises either from the habits
of the individual, from accidental causes, or from peculiarities of constitution acted upon by these. Hence, on
being called to a patient, the first step in the natural investigation is to examine the constitutional qualities, to
make ourselves acquainted with the mode of life, feelings,
&c., and to trace the manner in which the cause has acted
or continues to act. All these influence vary greatly both
the nature of the disease and its probable course. They
also bear directly upon the kind of treatment and its probable success. If, however, we are content to regard disease as an entity, arising by chance and observing no laws,
we shall have no inducement to trouble ourselves or the
patient with any of these inquiries. Such is in fact the
practical faith of the great majority of professional men.
They discover the existence of an entity, which in medical works has a certain name, and, knowing that in the
same books certain remedies are said to be good for that
entity, they prescribe them accordingly, without giving
themselves much concern about their mode of action or
fitness for the individual constitution, age, or stage of the
disease, and without inquiring whether there is anything
in the mode of life tending to reproduce the malady or
not.  In many chronic ailments, removable causes are
thus often left in full operation, while the effect is partially mitigated, but not cured, by the use of active medi




ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


101


cines, and in a short time the whole evil returns in its full
force.
" Whereas, if, proceeding according to the order of nature, we can trace the disease to any error in the mode of
life, to any external source of danger, or internal peculiarity of constitution, aggravated by either of these two
conditions, we can convince the patient of the fact, and
give him a rational and confiding interest in the changes
which we may recommend, and thus not only promote his
recovery, but render him proof against all the seductions
of quackery. According to the prevailing kind of intercourse between patient and physician, viz., unhesitating
dictation on the one hand, and ignorant obedience on the
other-blind faith is the pivot on which their mutual connection turns, a faith which is thus necessarily at the mercy
of the chapter of accidents, and is often supplanted by
reliance on the first bold and confident quack who comes
in the way. People wonder that quackery abounds, and
medical men ask for power from the legislature to put it
down. They themselves, however, are in no small degree
its abettors, and they have the remedy already to a great
extent, although not wholly, in their own hands. If they
who are educated, and should know better, accustom their patients to the principles of quackery, by themselves treating them
empirically, can they wonder that patients who are not professionally educated, and are trained and treated on purely
empirical principles, should be as ready to listen to the
assurances of the quack as to those of the regular practitioner, whose manner of proceeding is often so nearly
allied in kind, as to present no very obvious marks of distinction from that of the quack?  In fact, medicine, as
often practised by men of undoubted respectability, is
made so much of a mystery, and is so nearly allied to, if
not identified with, quackery, that it would puzzle many
a rational onlooker to tell which is the one and which the
other. And this being the case, it requires no ghost from





102


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


another world to explain why the profession has decidedly
sunk in public estimation, and does not exercise that
wholesome influence on public opinion which it ought to
do. If the mass acts empirically, it can, in the very nature of things, expect only the amount of respect due to
empiricism. The public mind has advanced immensely
within the last fifty years, in elevation of view as well as
in extent of knowledge. Medicine, however, has advanced only in knowledge; and, on looking back to the
writers of 80 or 100 years ago, I incline to think that it
has actually lost in elevation and comprehensiveness, and
even in the perception of its own nobleness of sphere. If
this be so, we must look within for the sources of regeneration, and for the means of regaining a dignified and honourable place in society. The public mind has advanced,
while, in scope and general principles, the professional
mind has stood still. To regain respect and relative position, the latter must shoot ahead again, and, on doing so,
will regain its influence also.
"Let us, however, return to the case of pleurisy as an
illustration. It is in general a well-marked disease; its
nature is supposed to be well known, and the indications
of treatment as clearly understood as those of any malady
to which the human frame is liable. It is, therefore, rather
a favourable example of the state of professional knowledge
and principles of treatment. And yet, what do we find?
Are medical men agreed how it should be treated? They
ought to be, as it is frequent enough in its occurrence to
give ample opportunities for experience: but they are not.
In this country, many place their chief reliance on free and
repeated blood-letting and mercury. In France, the plan
of bleeding coup sur coup, in small quantities frequently repeated, is somewhat in vogue. In Italy, bleeding was given
up by many, and large doses of tartar emetic were resorted
to. In Germany, the cure was often intrusted to Homaoopathic doses of 'medicaments.' The strange thing is, that





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


103


pleurisy is cured by, or at least pleuritic patients recover
under, each of these plans, while also many recover under
the ' medecine expectante' plan of lying in bed, drinking
ptisan, and waiting upon Providence. Even in this country,
however, a change has come o'er the spirit of my brethren
within my own brief day. When I first opened my professional eyes, the lancet was in great vigour, and a wellemployed medical man almost lived in a stream of blood.
'Vigorous practice' was the order of the day. In typhus as
well as in inflammation, the lancet was the sheet-anchor of
many, and quantities of strong purgatives were administered, sufficient to put disease of every shape and hue to
the rout. Take the same men of vigour now, at the distance of twenty-four years, and they will tell a different
tale. It is no longer, 'Be bold and decided and prompt
in what you do;' but, ' Be watchful, and trust something to
nature.' This diversity of opinion and practice seems to
me to have arisen partly from different constitutional states,
arising from changes of atmospheric or other influences affecting the prevailing character of diseases, but much more
from all parties disregarding nature's indications and efforts, and acting heterogeneously and without any rational
principle. In this way, I believe that under each plan of
treatment individual cases recovered which would have
terminated fatally under a different mode; but, also, that
under all of them many died who might have been saved
by a more rational and close adherence to sound physiological principles. To these we may be partially led even
by a reference to the symptoms usually present.  The
sense of cold and shivering, which commonly precede,
would lead to the avoidance of exposure. The pain, increased by breathing, inculcates absolute rest and refraining from speaking. The oppressed respiration requires,
of course, purity of air more than ever. The heat and
thirst which soon arise demand cooling, simple drinks, and
occasionally tepid sponging of the arms and face. The





104


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


local stitch asks for mild emollients, such as bran poultices,
and the impaired appetite requests the stomach to be let
alone. If the bowels are oppressed, a mild laxative or lavement are indicated.
" Suppose the exciting cause not to have been violent or
long-continued, and the attack, consequently, one of moderate intensity in an average constitution, the probability
is, that by the adoption of the above means alone the disease will run through its course safely, and leave the constitution unimpaired. In this case, effusion of fluid will as
usual take place, be moderate in quantity, and be gradually
absorbed. This effusion of serum, be it observed, is a
natural provision,-lst, for the relief of the vessels of the
inflamed part; and, 2dly, for preventing adhesion between
the pleura of the ribs and that of the lungs, and, consequently, for the preservation of their free play upon each
other. When two surfaces, one of them inflamed, are
placed in juxtaposition, and no fluid intervenes, adhesion
takes place, and hampers their mutual action. Within
certain limits, then, there is no advantage to be gained by
prevelting the effusion, supposing we could always do so.
/fwe watch attentivel/, and find all going on regularly and
smoothly, according to the method by which nature removes the inflammation, why should we step in to prevent,
say, any effusion? I believe that many of the extensive
adhesions actually met with after death in persons who had
at one time suffered from active pleurisy, are the results of
over-active treatment interfering disadvantageously with
natural processes. Adhesions occur also, however, but
generally of small extent, from inflammation so slight in
degree as to have suppressed the usual secretion, without
leading to any effusion at all.
" Again, suppose the exciting cause to be very energetic,
the habit inflammatory, and the attack violent. We, of
course, ought to be doubly rigid in the use of the means
albove mentioned, and in addition we must watch closely,





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


105


and come in time to nature's assistance to prevent mischief. The reaction may run so high as to induce disorganisation, or the effusion of an albuminous or semipurulent fluid, or to over-excite the brain or heart, and produce
distinct disease in them. Or the individual may have some
infirmity of body, which renders it more dangerous to wait
the usual course of events than to attempt to shorten or arrest it. The thinking physician will take all these contingencies into account, and decide to act; but when he does
so, he will still time his measures according to the law of
nature.
" 18th January.-So far I had got, bit by bit, in my exposition; but, as writing fatigues me, I must now break it
short, and send this away. Keep it merely as a rough and
unfinished outline, and not as a proper embodiment of my
views. To bring out these, would carry me into writing
not a letter but a book. I shall, therefore, not resume the
subject, nor for a time must you expect any more letters
from me.-Yours, &c.                          A. C."
Assuming the general accuracy of the views contained
in the preceding letter, we shall be warranted in inferring
from them that the radical fault of a large portion of the
prevailing medical practice consists-1st, in prescribing for
the abstract disease, irrespective of the constitutional condition of the patient; 2dly, in placing the chief reliance,
even in cases where the active interference of the physician is not at all required, on the use of drugs and active
means, the operation of which, from their administration
being guided by no principle or well understood rule derived from experience, tends not unfrequently to impede
and disturb the restorative efforts of nature; and, lastly,
in the general and often entire neglect of those physiological or hygienic arrangements which, from their co-operation with the intentions of nature, contribute so powerfully to the well-being of the individual when he is in





10


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


health, and to his recovery when attacked by disease. But
much as these defects impede the present efficiency of
medicine as a practical art, they do not in the least disprove its firm foundation in the laws of nature, or detract
from the value of its principles, when properly applied (as
they also often are) under the guidance of reason and experience. On the contrary, by laying bare the causes of
the blemishes by which the medical superstructure has
been disfigured, we not only show how they may be removed, but hold out the prospect of medicine being ultimately brought to as high a degree of certainty and perfection as any estimative science can attain. For even were
all its constituent elements as fixed and certain as those of
mathematics, their application must still be made by men of
varying powers and knowledge to patients of different ages,
sexes, habits, and constitutions; and it is plain that, under
circumstances so inherently variable, there must always
be such a wide field for the exercise of individual judgment and skill, as to render absolute similarity or equality
of practice a moral impossibility. Approximate results are
all that can be looked for.
Keeping to essentials then, and believing as I do, from
the force of evidence, that ordinary medical science rests
on a solid and natural foundation, I see great reason for
endeavouring to improve and purify its doctrines and practice, but none whatever for abandoning the principles on
which it is based. So far from this, I am more than ever
persuaded that the observation of the order of nature is at
once the surest guide we can have in the study and treatment of disease, and the only means by which we can arrive at a correct estimate of the special action and relative
value of every therapeutic agent, whether Homoeopathic or
eclectic. The same remedy prescribed at different stages
of the same disease may be followed by consequences so
widely diflerent as wholly to mislead us, if we do not use
the necessary discrimination. Thus, an infinitesimal dose





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


107


or an ordinary drug administered just at the crisis or turning-point of a disease will befollowed by an alleviation of
all the symptoms; but surely it would be unreasonable to
infer, merely from that sequence, that the dose or the drug
was therefore the cause of the amendment. On the other
hand, when a medicine in itself useful or harmless, given
eclectically or Homceopathically during the increase of the
disease, fails to prevent that increase from taking place, are
we on that account warranted in inferring that it was the
cause of the subsequent aggravation of the symptoms?
Certainly not; and yet such inferences are so frequently
drawn on equally slender grounds, that I, in common with
most of my brethren, have had the mortification to receive
unmerited praise and gratitude on the one hand, and blame
on the other, for good and bad consequences which I was
conscious were wholly independent of and unconnected
with the drugs which were supposed to have caused them.
In both instances all that could be justly said was, that the
phenomena which ensued were subsequent in point of time to
the administration of the medicine; and hence, unless we
discriminate carefully between mere sequence and actual
causation, we may easily be led by supposed experience
into the most grievous errors. A case illustrative of this
principle occurred a few days ago. A young lady complained of troublesome palpitation of the heart brought on
by unusual agitation of mind. At the very time when the
exciting cause was removed, a Homceopathist was consulted, and prescribed a globule.  In a day or two the
symptoms began to subside, and in a few days more they
ceased. The Homoeopathist knew nothing about either
the existence or cessation of the exciting cause, and therefore would naturally consider the result as produced by his
medicine. In reality, however, the supposed cure was so
palpably the mere return of quiescent and regular action
in a healthy subject, after the exciting and disturbing cause
had ceased to operate, that the Homcopathist himself would





108


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


never have thought of ascribing it to anything else, if he
had been fully aware of all the facts of the case.
It is from not taking sufficiently into account the many
modifying causes which may influence the progress and
results of disease, altogether irrespective of any drugs
which may have been administered, that the most opposite conclusions may be honestly arrived at regarding the
efficacy and merits of the treatment pursued. In the preceding letter, taking small-pox as an example of a disease
known to pursue a regular course, I contrast the safety
and advantage of a treatment conducted according to the
indications of nature with the mischief which may be done
by interfering violently with her order of proceeding; and
show how differently the same indications may be interpreted when we have no sound principle to guide us. A
few weeks ago, two cases of this disease occurred, so strongly
illustrative of both propositions, and so entirely in harmony
with the views we are both advocating, that I cannot refrain
from shortly alluding to them.  The first patient was
attended by a general practitioner, who, it was said, had
improperly resorted to copious and repeated blood-letting
at the beginning of the attack. The eruption did not come
out freely, and the patient sank. The second case occurred
in the same family, but was attended by a judicious and
watchful Homoeopathist, who adopted what I have described as the natural treatment, but with the addition of
certain infinitesimal doses. The result was, that the disease went through its regular course, and terminated in
complete recovery. By some of those interested in the two
patients, this result was proclaimed to be a triumph of Homoeopathy over "Allopathy;" but, considered impartially,
and assuming the accuracy of the statements made to me,
the triumph, if there be any (for it does not follow that because the first patient died under the treatment pursued
she would necessarily have recovered under the Homoeopathic), may more justly be regarded as that of rational over





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


109


irrational practice. Not having seen either of the cases,
and not being accurately acquainted with their details, I
shall not pretend to pronounce a positive opinion concerning the influence of either the bleeding or the globules;
but as the results in both instances coincided exactly with
those specified in my letter, written four years before they
occurred, as likely to attend good as contrasted with bad
general treatment, I can scarcely be accused of uncharitableness in still doubting whether the globules had any
real share in bringing about the recovery which report
ascribed wholly to their agency.
Connected with, and arising out of, the same neglect of
the natural history of disease is another difficulty, which
greatly impairs the value of many of the cases published
as illustrative of the efficacy of either system of treatment.
In the majority of instances, the vagueness and meagreness
of detail are such as to render it impossible for the reader
to form, from the data before him, even a rational conjecture
how the disease has arisen, or what constitutional or external causes are in operation to influence its intensity and
affect its duration. It is precisely the obscurity inseparable
from these omissions which often renders it difficult for the
practitioner to appreciate the real agency of a new remedy
or mode of treatment, where the unprofessional friends,
from unconsciousness of their own ignorance, see only the
clearest evidence of its efficacy, and are apt to express
amazement and indignation at what they consider the
wilful blindness or prejudice of the practitioner, who, still
feeling a doubt, asks for further evidence before sharing
in their enthusiasm. Not aware of the many sources of
fallacy which lie in the way, the bystander attaches unhesitating faith to the narratives of cure, the very marvellousness of which is sufficient to call for'the exercise of a
prudent caution before perilling the lives of others on the
assumption that the narratives contain a pure embodiment
of truth.





110


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


It is for this reason, also, that I consider the numerous
cases published in some recent Homoeopathic works to be
individually valueless as proofs, either of the action of
Homoeopathic remedies, or of the superiority of the new
system to the old. Taken in the aggregate, their results
may constitute a fair ground for further inquiry; but, individually, little weight can be attached to them as proving the specific virtues of any particular medicine, or the
reality of its influence on the cure. They contain a mere
statement that certain symptoms were complained of, and
certain remedies prescribed, and that certain changes followed; but they afford no concomitant information regarding the mode of life and causes which led to the disease, or
the hygienic observances by which the exhibition of the
remedies was accompanied; and, consequently, the reader
is not enabled to form an opinion of his own as to the
agency by which the cure was effected. To the Homccopathist himself, who watched the cases, they may be pregnant with meaning, because he may have satisfied himself
on these points; but to his readers they are nearly barren
as items of evidence. This, indeed, is a defect inherent in
a large proportion of ordinary, as well as Homoeopathic
cases, although in a smaller degree; and, as a consequence,
cures are often ascribed to the use of drugs, which have
in reality had nothing to do with them. A case in point
occurred to myself shortly before I relinquished practice.
A delicately-constituted boy fell into a state of health
which excited the alarm of his friends, who consulted several practitioners about him without benefit. The treatment prescribed seemed to have been in many respects
appropriate, but little advantage was derived from it.
This led me to minuter inquiry, and I found that the
guardians of the boy, in their anxiety for his mental progress, kept him at school from an early morning hour till
late in the afternoon, and thus prevented him from obtaining a due supply of nourishment to support his strength,





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


111


till, by the mere lapse of time, he became exhausted and
irritable. They conceived a biscuit or a piece of bread in
the forenoon sufficient for him, because it seemed to be so
for other boys. I prescribed a mild tonic for immediate
relief, but insisted that he should have a longer interval
in the forenoon for exercise in the open air, and an early
dinner of plain nourishing food. The decided amendment
which speedily ensued was attributed by some of the friends
to the medicine; but, in reality, it was due almost exclusively to the regimen being brought into harmony with
the laws of nature.   Similar medicines prescribed by
others had been of no use; but, conjoined with the required change of regimen, their operation, so far as it
went, was beneficial. Every medical man must have met
with similar cases, and also with many in which it remained
difficult for him, even after the most careful consideration,
to determine what was the real agent in the recovery which
ensued. If, in the case of the boy, I had prescribed a
Homeopathic globule instead of the simple tonic, recovery
would, I believe, have equally followed; but would the infinitesimal dose have been on that account entitled to the
credit? I refer to this because I am acquainted with several cases of Homceopathic cures equally equivocal as this
would have been, but to which much importance has nevertheless been attached; but I need not occupy your space
with their details. To my mind they do not indeed disprove Homeopathy, but they do show that nature, duly
seconded by the arrangements of the practitioner, is adequate to the cure of many diseases, without his resorting to
drugs of any kind.
Speaking, then, from a general view of medical practice,
I should say that it is open to the charge of being carried
on without due regard to the period and natural course of
the disease, or to any other recognised principle which
can yield us safe guidance, and that this is the cause of
much of the uncertainty and contradiction for which our





112


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


art is proverbial. We too often, I repeat, attack the disease as if we had to deal with an entity, and not with a
state of a living being of a determinate constitution, who is
suffering under it, and whose qualities, tendencies, and
powers of endurance, consequently require to be taken into
account as well as the disease itself. These defects, however,
are not inherent in, and inseparable from, medicine. They
are simply the defects of its cultivators; and if we were
to begin by making ourselves acquainted with the laws of
action of the different bodily organs, with the natural history of the diseases to which they are liable, and with the
physiological conditions most favourable for their restoration, and then endeavour to deduce our curative indications from a general consideration of all those circumstances,
there is every probability that we should make a nearer
approach to unanimity of opinion, because then every one
would set out from the same starting-point, and proceed in
the same direction towards the goal. It is true that as yet
we know so little of the course and tendencies of many
forms of disease, that we might often be at a loss what
treatment to adopt; but the clear recognition of our ignorance is the first step towards the acquisition of knowledge,
and more enlightened observation would gradually remove
the obscurity which at present prevails.
If any of these remarks should be considered by some
to imply a want of faith in professional aid, I have only to
reply that no conclusion can be more unfounded. With
all its imperfections on its head, medicine, in the hands of
discriminating and experienced men, seems to me already
to be the source of the greatest benefits to suffering humanity. When cultivated with more constant reference to
sound principles, it will become still more beneficial in its
applications. It is a deep conviction of this truth which
makes me so desirous to assist in the good work of medical improvement to which you are now devoting yourself.





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


113


It would be easy for me, were it needful, to point out
numerous instances in practice, in which medicines were
prescribed without reference to any guiding principle, or
natural tendency in the system at the time, and in which,
consequently, results ensued which were wholly unexpected.
In this respect I cannot exempt myself from the censure
I have bestowed upon other practitioners; and I must
further admit that, even after I became fully alive to the
importance of endeavouring on all occasions to act as the
assistant and interpreter of nature in the treatment of
disease, I continued to meet with many cases in which I
could not discover what the real order of nature was, and
in which, consequently, I was obliged to resort to purely
empirical treatment, and with necessarily varying success.
But even then I had this advantage on my side, that the
abiding consciousness under which I lived of nature's
presence and power inspired me with watchfulness for the
observation of her earliest indications, and induced me in
the meantime to borrow all the aid I could from her, by
placing the various bodily functions, as far as possible,
under the conditions most favourable for their healthy
operation. When doing so, I have sometimes been rewarded by the gradual disappearance of difficulties which
seemed at first irremediable, and by an amount of improvement which served to increase my faith in the restorative
powers of nature even under unfavourable circumstances.
The one great principle, then, to which a comprehensive
review of Homoeopathy, " Allopathy," Hydropathy, and
all other systems of medicine, seems irresistibly to lead is,
that, in all cases and on all occasions, nature is truly the
agent in the cure of disease; and that, as she acts in accordance
with fixed and invariable laws, the aim of the physician ought
always to be to facilitate her efforts, by acting in harmony with,
and not in opposition to, those laws. Disease, as already remarked, is a mode of action of a living organism, and not
an entity apart from it. In accordance with this view,
I





114


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


experience shows that when we favour the return to a normal action by simply natural means, recovery will ensue
in most cases, without the use of drugs at all. So far from
being always necessary to a cure, drugs are required only
where the power of nature to resume her normal action
proves inadequate or is impeded by a removable obstruction. Even then, it is still nature acting in accordance
with her own laws that brings about the cure. She may
be aided, but she ought never to be thwarted; and medicine
will advance towards the certainty of other sciences only
in proportion as we become saturated with this guiding
principle.
A few words now on Homoeopathy in particular. I am
very glad that you have brought the question of its truth
and merits seriously before your readers; for, of all methods
of advancing the interests of science, that which consists in
the supercilious neglect of alleged new discoveries, merely
on the ground that they differ from what is already known,
is assuredly the worst. We know far too little of the constitution of nature, and more especially of animated nature,
to be able to decide a priori what can or cannot be true regarding the mode in which vital operations are conducted,
or in which they may be modified by external influences.
Medicine itself is in its very essence an estimative science,
and the truth of the principles on which it rests can be
ascertained or verified only by careful and extensive observation. Theoretically, these principles may be rendered
more or less probable in the eye of reason, but they never
can be demonstrated except by an appeal to experience.
Medicine, moreover, considered as a system or body of doctrine, is still at the best in a very defective state. Every
page of your Review admits and laments this unfortunate
truth. We ought, therefore, to extend the hand of welcome
to every man who is able either to correct an established
error, or add a new truth to the existing store; and much
more so, if the offered contribution should be that of a new





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


115


and important principle capable, if true, of modifying and
improving the whole field of medical practice. Not that
we are by any. means called upon to run after and examine
every new theory or alleged discovery in medicine, merely
because it is announced to be such. If we did, we should
impose upon ourselves a never-ending and most useless
task. But surely we are bound not to be too rash in rejecting, without examination, facts and principles which
come before us, attested by men of experience, skill, and
integrity, and who can have no motive for deceiving us.
Judged of by the standard of our own opinions, these facts
and principles may seem at first sight to be altogether
absurd; but, if so, the question then comes to be, is our
standard itself undoubtedly a correct one? Or may it
not be that ignorance has misled us to adopt it as infallible, and that it would be wiser in us to compare both it
and the alleged discoveries with nature before assuming
either to be demonstrably true? Had this reasonable
course been followed with the discoveries of Harvey,
Jenner, and Gall, how much idle and acrimonious disputation and professional obloquy might have been avoided,
and how many benefits might have been obtained which
were lost for years to suffering humanity, by the opposite
course of first rejecting and ridiculing, and then examining evidence only when compelled to do so by a humiliating, because tardy and ungracious, necessity.
Let not this wholesome lesson, then, be lost to us who
are the living successors of those who acted so unwisely.
To use your own words, Homccopathy, whether true or
false, comes before us for examination with "claims on
our attention which cannot be gainsayed." It is, you say,
an ingenious system, " professing to be based on a most
formidable array of facts and experiments," and "woven
into a complete code of doctrine with singular dexterity
and much apparent fairness." Its discoverer and chief cultivators are, as you believe, "sincere, honest, and learned





116


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


men."  Dr Fleischmann, perhaps the most eminent among
them, is considered by you as "a regular, well-educated
physician, as capable of forming a true diagnosis as other
practitioners," and as " a man of honour and respectability,"
whose testimony as to matters of fact "you cannot therefore
refuse to admit." Even in acute diseases, the results of
his treatment are such as " would have been considered as
satisfactory by any candid physician;" and, according to
you, even his own narrative affords ample evidence that
many of his cases were severe; and you candidly add that
this was confirmed to you by the private testimony of a
competent physician who followed his practice for three
months, and himself traced the progress of the pneumonic
cases by careful auscultation through all their stages up to
perfect recovery, which took place in as short a tithe as
under the most energetic treatment. In some eruptive and
febrile diseases, the mortality is stated by you to have been
below the ordinary rate. Let us scout quacks and pretenders as we may, here is surely too strong a prima facie
case to warrant our dismissing it with mere ridicule and
contempt, and one which amply justifies you in the course
you have adopted of seriously investigating its claims. I
am aware that you have been blamed by many for occupying your pages with even a refutation of "' such trash;" but
so far from participating in this feeling, my chief objection
to your review is that it does not go far enough to be conclusive, either for or against Homceopathy. You have admitted too much, and denied too much, to warrant your
either pronouncing a definitive sentence, or reposing in mere
opinion against its truth. Had you shown that the general
results of its practice were less favourable than those of
ordinary medicine, you might legitimately have held yourself absolved from going further; but in your present position you can no longer stand still. If, as you admit, the
truth of Homoeopathy is a question of fact and experience,
which no mere argument can set aside, you are bound in





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


117


reason and in logic to test its facts for yourself before pronouncing authoritatively that it is not true, and more especially before stigmatising it as " useless to the sufferer and
degrading to the physician."  However improbable its doctrines and practice may be in an a priori point of view, it
is not by argument or ridicule that its alleged stronghold
of facts can be successfully assailed. As a matter of theory,
supported only by argument, Homeopathy produces no
conviction whatever on my mind of its truth, or even of
its probability; but as a question of fact, claiming to rest
" on the irresistible ground of its superior power of curing
diseases and preserving human life," and on the alleged
experience of able and honest men, as competent to judge
as most of those who oppose them, I cannot venture to denounce it as untrue, because I have no experience bearing
especially upon it to bring forward, and we are still too
ignorant to be able to predicate a priori what may or may
not be true in the great field of nature. But after the presumptive evidence which you yourself have produced, if I
were now in practice I should hold myself bound, without
further delay, to test its truth by careful and extensive
experiments; because, where truth is really our aim, the
shortest and least encumbered approach to it is always the
best; and even a few well-defined and carefully observed
facts would carry far more weight, as items of evidence,
than volumes of general or controversial reasoning. In instituting such an inquiry, however, we ought to be prepared to lay aside prejudice, and to scrutinise facts with
the fairness and liberality characteristic of a love of truth,
and not regard them with dislike and distrust, as if they
were as many live embers purposely laid down to burn our
fingers the moment we touched them. View the question
as we may, one of three things must be: either Homoeopathy
is true, or it is false, or it is a mixture of truth and error.
Let us suppose the worst, and hold it to be false in its
foundation, and false in its superstructure, what harm can





118


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


result from putting it to the test, and ascertaining the fact
demonstrably? None whatever, but, on the contrary, much
good. We shall at least have gained the power of giving a
direct and authoritative negative to its allegations, which we
shall then prove to be fallacious, and which have been
suffered to reign and diffuse themselves for thirty years
from the absence of direct counter-evidence by which to
rebut them. We shall thus be able also to put the profession and the public on their guard with some chance of
being listened to, and shall have obtained the inestimable
advantage of keeping our own minds open to the admission of new truths, and of showing that in our estimate of
evidence, and in our conclusions, we are actuated not by
any mean jealousy or dogmatic assumption of authority,
but by the single and simple desire of advancing the interests of science and humanity to the best of our ability.
The very worst that can happen in the event of its being
wholly untrue is, that we shall have bestowed some time
and pains in obtaining the means of more effectually putting
down a great error; while, as a compensating advantage
of no small value, we shall have at once increased our,
knowledge and cultivated and strengthened our intellectual and moral faculties, by the very nature of the mental
exercise which such a scrutiny requires; and surely these
will be rewards well worth all the time and trouble which
they may cost us.
If we adopt the supposition that Homoeopathy embodies
an admicture of truth and error, the inducement to institute
a rigid and careful inquiry into its claims becomes still
more imperative, that we may obtain possession of the one,
and carefully avoid the other. The degree of success, be
it more or less, which all admit to attend Homceopathic
practice, as conducted by such men as Fleischmann, is sufficient to show that either the system or its advocates possess some advantages in the treatment of disease, which it
"would be useful for ordinary practitioners also to examine





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


119


and adopt. Whether the means which afford these advantages be derived from the domain of hygiene, of materia
medica, or even of the imagination, is of comparatively
little practical consequence, provided their utility to the
patient and the best mode of reproducing and applying them to
the treatment of disease can be clearly established. This,
however, can be done only by careful investigation, and that
such investigation would be amply rewarded may fairly be
presumed, from the good already effected by Homoeopathy
in demonstrating the evils attendant on that over-active
medication which characterises so much especially of English practice. Ordinary medicine is now not nearly so
heroic and undiscriminating in the use of strong measures
as it was some years ago, and this improvement is unquestionably due in part to the progress of Homceopathy, as
well as to the natural increase of our knowledge.
The remaining, although unlikely, supposition, viz.,
that Homoeopathy shall prove to be essentially true in its
fundamental principle, and consequently fraught with
benefits to science and humanity, as its advocates affirm it
to be, need not detain us more than a moment. If true,
how much more shall we then have reason to rejoice that
we did not look upon its claims with prejudiced eyes, or
reject and condemn it unheard and unexamined! Had
Harvey's detractors examined his facts first, and then
given their verdict, how different would the results have
been to themselves, to him, and to mankind! And yet in
our own day the profession acted towards Jenner, and
also towards Gall, as if Harvey's name and memory had
been blotted from the page of history.
I press all these considerations upon you, not from any
particular leaning towards Homoeopathy, or any other new
and disputed branch of knowledge, but because of the
transcendent importance of cultivating science in a right
spirit, and offering truth a ready and unprejudiced welcome from whatever quarter it may come. Ridicule and





120


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


declamation may be rightfully employed to explode errors
qfter they shall have been proved to be so; but they are most
unfit instruments for the primary investigation of truth,
and as such ought to be banished for ever from scientific
discussion, and a candid spirit of philosophical inquiry be
instituted in their room. I have had no personal experience
of Homoeopathy, and am, consequently, as little inclined to
admit as to reject its claims, but I should wish to steer
clear of prejudices regarding it. There are perhaps a few
analogies in its favour, but its doctrinal expositions embody much that is crude and contradictory, and most of its
practical evidence, in the shape of published cases, is rendered nugatory by the same sources of doubt which render so much of professional experience and testimony inconclusive, if not worthless. Sufficient discrimination is
not used, or if used not recorded, to warrant much reliance
on the alleged connection between the remedy and the recovery in individual cases. As in ordinary medicine, the
post hoc is too universally assumed to imply the propter
hoc. If I am not mistaken, the more intelligent Homeopathists themselves admit this, and in consequence do not
claim belief on the ground of the recorded cases, but affirm
that, on the contrary, rational belief can be produced only
by personal and extensive experience. But, while I refuse
belief, I can see no reason for that deadly hostility which
many feel towards the principle of Homeopathy. If it be
true, such hostility is misplaced and injurious. If false,
it is needless and supererogatory; for the hostility will
vanish with the non-existence or destruction of its object.
And, after all, why should either party delight in representing Homoeopathy and ordinary medicine as in every
respect opposed to each other? In a large proportion of
cases, the more rational and enlightened men of both
parties employ the very same hygienic and general means
which we have already seen to act so large a part in effecting recovery; and the chief difference between them re




ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


121


lates to the principle on which the requisite medicine is to
be selected. The Homoeopathist prescribes according to
the principle of simnilia similibus, because experience, he
says, proves this to be the safest and most efficacious plan.
The ordinary practitioner, on the other hand, prescribes
that which rational, or it may be routine, experience has
led him to believe the best adapted for cases of the kind
before him; and without stopping to inquire whether its
action is homoeopathic, allopathic, or antipathic. Surely
there is no necessary cause of quarrel in all this, but
merely results to be tested by careful experiment. " True,"
you may say, "but then the infinitesimal doses are so
absurd."  They certainly look very absurd; and I at once
admit that nothing short of demonstration and personal
evidence will ever inspire me with a conviction of their
power to do either good or harm. But then all Homoeopathists say that it is the principle of siidlia similibus,
and not the dose, which constitutes the essential element in their system, and that the infinitesimals may be
discarded, and yet the great principle of Homceopathy remain unshaken. This latter, then, is the great fact to be
proved or disproved, to settle the question for ever; and
why should it not be put to the test? Let experiments
be made on a sufficient number of healthy persons with
quinine, or any other drug, to ascertain whether it really
has the property ascribed to it of exciting certain groups
of symptoms in a sound constitution, and, after carefully
varying and repeating the experiments, faithfully record
and publish the results. Surely there is nothing unphilosophical or undignified in instituting such an inquiry, and
nothing so difficult as not to be easily overcome by judgment and patience. Having tried their action in health,
try the same remedies in the usual doses in the treatment of
disease with as much care and discrimination as possible,
and again record the results. If the principle holds good,
let us adopt it, and be thankful we have now a surer guide





122


OBSERVATIONS BY DR COMBE


than before. If it fails, our exposure of its fallacy will
tell with tenfold effect, from being founded on direct experience. In the same way with the infinitesimal doses,
let us go at once to facts, and leave mere disputation to
the idle speculator. All truth is harmonious, and what is
true in the one sytem must harmonise with and throw light
upon what is true in tie other, and, consequently, it would
be better for science were both parties to endeavour to find
out the points of contact rather than those of repulsion.
In the very nature of things, certainty or absolute identity
of opinion is, and ever must remain, an impossibility; and
it ought never to be forgotten that in this respect there is
a radical difference between medical and physical science.
Physical science is fixed and positive in its principles and
in its details, because its facts are always accessible for
examination under the same conditions, or under such variations as can easily be traced and allowed for. Medicine,
on the contrary, is and ever must be an estimative science,
because its facts and phenomena are subject to continual
variations from varying states of the body and mind of the
patient, which we can neither control nor appreciate with
entire accuracy. Its cultivators, too, are men differing in
intellectual power, knowledge, skill, and experience; and
even, if they were all equal, their judgment is constantly
liable to be impaired or disturbed by any slight disturbance of health or excitement of feeling, or even by a little
extra fatigue; and hence, although its principles are fixed
and determinate, because also founded on the laws of
nature, the soundness of the conclusions deduced from them
for the guidance of treatment must ever depend on the
soundness of the estimate formed by the physician of their
operation and influence in the individual case. Very
rarely, indeed, can they be absolute, and hence the wide
field for the exercise of sound judgment, skill, and discrimination, on the part of the practitioner, and the mischief
which may attend a practice founded on mere routine.





ON NATURE AND DISEASE.


123


Hence the forbearance and charitable construction which,
as members of a liberal and useful, but most difficult, profession, we are bound to exercise towards each other; and
for the exercise of which there is, I fear, ample occasion in
this very letter. But restrained as I have been by impaired
health, as well as by the impossibility of doing full justice
within your limited space to a subject at once so extensive
and so important, I could not always express my opinions
with the precision which I wished, and therefore I must
trust to your good sense and right feeling not to give undue
importance to any isolated or dubious expression which you
may meet with, but to adopt that meaning which is in accordance with the general spirit of my remarks. My only
anxiety has been to help you in the good work to which
you have dedicated yourself with so much zeal, energy,
and talent, and for which you will, I have no doubt, one
day have your reward in a rich harvest of useful results.
I remain, my dear sir, very sincerely yours,
ANDREW COMBE.
P.S.-To prevent the recurrence of a very common
mistake, may I be allowed once more to call the attention
of your readers to the broad distinction which subsists between the principle of similia similibus-which alone constitutes the basis of Homceopathy-and the doctrine of the
infinitesimal doses, which has been engrafted on, but does
not constitute a necessary part of it? This caution is the
more required, because the two propositions are more frequently confounded than distinguished, and we are surely
bound to take the word in its correct meaning, as used by
Hahnemann and his followers.
In a practical point of view, also, it is important to note
the distinction, because, while it would be comparatively
easy to verify the specific powers or mode of action of any
drug given in ordinary or appreciable doses, and thus to
test the real principle of Homceopathy, it would be far more





124       DR COMBE ON NATURE AND DISEASE.
difficult, and require a much longer and more varied inquiry, to obtain precise and conclusive proofs, were the
same drugs to be administered in doses altogether inappreciable to sense, as in the decillionth of a grain. We
ought, therefore, to begin with the most important part of
the inquiry first, and to leave the doctrine of the infinitesimal doses to be tested in its turn, if need be, after the
viability of its parent shall be decided.





HOMI(EOPATIHY          via YOUNG       PHYSIC.
BY J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL, M. D.*
THIERE is a point in the development of a complex
science, such as medicine, at which it seems to be overburdened by the multitude of its facts and the insufficiency
of its generalisations. When it has reached this stage,
and come to a dead lock, it gets no aid from those who
have the reputation of being its most successful cultivators. For the very endowments which gave them renown
at the time when the science required merely the accumulation of materials, or the critical selection of facts and
their lucid arrangement, disqualifies them from the higher
task of grasping the subject as a whole, and viewing it by
the light of general philosophy, discovering the true centre
from which it must be re-organised. This great achievement requires more than the highest powers of analytical
acumen; it requires the intuition of synthetic genius. And
* Although I have no hesitation in allowing this paper to appear
even in its present form) yet, had I time, I should feel incliined to
make many material alterations in it. While 1 still feel that I must
radically differ from Dr A. Combe in his views on the relation of the
laws of nature as they affect man whether in health or sickneiss, yet
I wish to add my trifling tribute of admiration to the blameless purity
and active benevolence which distinguished the life of that most liberal and beloved physician.





126


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


when the voice of the great discoverer, who is destined to
renovate his department of knowledge, makes known the
central truth, there is none on whose ear it falls more repulsively than on that of the high priest of the special
science itself.  Great discoveries belong to philosophy
rather than to science; and no class of minds is less prepared to receive them than are those who have devoted
themselves to the study of scientific details alone.
There is nothing more strange or more lamentable than
the total absence of philosophical discernment displayed by
those who are now the appointed guardians of medicine.
While deploring its present uncertain and unscientific
character, they do not seem at all aware of the real
cause of its poverty, and propose remedies which would
be as useless if got as they are impossible to get. Their
inability to perceive what medicine stands in need of,
arises from the same cause as their rejection of Homeopathy. If there be anything more striking in Dr Forbes'
memorable article than this, that throughout the whole of
it he speaks of theory in medicine as if it were quite an
unimportant thing, and as if the whole end of the labours
of the medical philosopher were attained if he made himself sure of a sufficient number of facts, it is the constant
recurrence of the expression, " philosophic practitioner"
-whose philosophy seems to consist in doubting much
and in doing nothing. Unsparingly as he condemns Home1opathy, as tending to degrade physic by making its
practitioners artisans, the position he would appoint to
medicine is singularly opposed to the usual requirements
of an art and a science. Science is certain knowledge,
giving the power of prediction; art is the application of
that knowledge. But his science consists in knowing that
we can know nothing, and the art he recommends us to
practice is the dolce far niente! He speaks of Hommopathy as " an ingenious system of medical doctrine, tolerably complete in its organisation, tolerably compre




ON IOM(EOPATHY vid YOUNG PHYSIC.


127


hensive in its views," and says that "it is as good and
rational a theory as most of our medical theories."  With
the great leader of philosophic practitioners, it seems
a very light matter whether a theory be right or wrong.
He seems to regard it very much in the light of the shell
of an oyster, useful only for containing a nutritious body
of facts. It is not surprising that, considering theory to
be so very insignificant a matter, he lightly observes, with
an inconsistency which might be culpable in one who took
a more serious view of the value of theory, " that we may
indeed have sufficient proof to satisfy any reasonable mind
that the theory, br doctrines, or principles of Homoeopathy
are false," although he does not enter into any such proof,
but waives it till a more convenient season. He turns
away contemptuously from the consideration of the theory,
doctrines, or principles, and eagerly asks what the facts are
worth.
The facts arrest and startle him. He finds that under
the guidance of this theory practitioners of medicine restore to health more patients than under the orthodox method, which disdains, as an infringement upon the liberty of
the faculty, to acknowledge obedience to any theory whatsoever. This fact of the greater success of Homoeopathic
treatment, is a hook in the nose of Allopathy, which must
in some way or other be extracted. The problem is this:By the most authentic returns, more cures are effected in
certain dangerous diseases under Homoeopathy than under
Allopathy; how, then, is the inference to be prevented
that, therefore, Homceopathy is good, and the position to
be established that it is radically bad? This is done in the
simplest and most ingenious way. Good and bad are relative terms: it is the same thing to say that a man is
better than a monkey, as to say that a monkey is worse
than a man. It merely requires the transposition of the
predicates. If we say Homoeopathy is better than Allopathy, we suppose some good in the former-more good,





128


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


at least, than in Allopathy. But we have only to say
Allopathy is worse than Homoeopathy to get rid of the
dilemma. And this is the position our great antagonist
assumes! But it is urged, if Homoeopathy be bad, and
Allopathy still worse,'how do you retain your allegiance
to Allopathy?  To this he answers: it is bad in esse, but
good inposse; it contains the germs of its entire renovation, and it only requires proper attention to foster the
latent rudiments of good into vigorous growth.  How
comes it, a sceptic might inquire, that you, who have so
long held a chief place in the cabinet of medicine-you,
her appointed, acknowledged, respected minister-should,
till now, never have whispered your belief that the system
you have been directing requires a thorough reformation?
How is it that this momentous truth has been forced from
you by the doings of so insignificant a body as the Homoeopathists?  Surely in the history of our art, among the
triumphs of Homoeopathy will be recorded,-" It forced
Dr Forbes to give his candid opinion of the state of medicine.  It forced him to make confessions during his
life, which otherwise he might have reserved for his testament."
But let us follow out the process of Young Physic, and
see exactly what it is, and to what it leads:-Allopathy
and lomceopathy are both bad. In their hospitals many patients die, although more recover. The average mortality in
both is much alike; the kind of diseases which kill them
is much alike. It is plain that, as there is no great difference in the amount of recoveries under the two systems,
they must both derive their efficacy from the same cause.
Now, as the methods of treatment are wholly opposite, the
benefit must accrue from something beyond or outside of
the treatment altogether. The only thing beyond that, common to both, is the natural power of recovery. Here, then,
is the real explanation of the cause of the equality in the
mortality and recovery in the two sets of hospitals:-that





ON HOM(EOPATHY via YOUNG PHYSIC.


129


those who are able to stand the treatment and the disease
get well; and those who are unable die. The practice of
medicine (medendi, curing) turns out to be nothing. All
that the physician can do, is to open his wards and see
fair play between nature and death. If the struggle between them end in favour of the latter, he has the satisfaction of confirming his diagnosis; if in favour of the former,
of dismissing his patient.
Is it, then, really come to this-that, after two thousand
years of observing disease, we are no further advanced in
its treatment? In what respect is Young Physic superior
to Hippocrates? They both advise the same thing: Watch,
say they, the progress of disease, but do not interfere.
Young Physic, however, remarks, that all who have deviated from this rule have done mischief. All that his
greater experience has taught him is, to have greater confidence in the canon of Hipprocates. How long is this
new cycle to run? Are we to stand, like sentinel-stars,
for other two thousand years, silently watching the course
of disease, while ever and anon an eccentric man of action
suggests some practical innovation, till, at the expiry of
this double millennium, another Forbes arises, and with
his critical crowbar demolishes the systems of these practical men, and dooms his fellow-mortals to endure all the
pangs of sickness, with nothing but the consolations of
philosophy to alleviate them? In short, what is the germ
in Allopathy on which Dr Forbes rests his hopes?  The
only positive recommendations we can find are-carefully
to watch the progress of disease, to employ all proper hygienic measures, and to use the numerical method in noting
down the effects which have been or may be observed to follow
the administration of the medicines. The first two recommendations, however excellent, can hardly be considered as at
all differing from those given by Hippocrates; and, as Dr
Forbes evidently expects much good to accrue from the
last, it is to it we shall now direct our sole attention: and
K





130


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


if we can establish that the only results of such a method
are increasing perplexity, rank error, or total disbelief in
the powers of medicine, we must acknowledge the incapacity of Young Physic to be of any use-except in the way
of a pioneer.
" Ars longa, vita brevis, observatio fallax;" how, then, can
any man, in the short term of his life, discover for himself
what remedies are certainly useful in the all but infinite
variety of diseases he has to treat?  Suppose even that
he has the advantage of a large hospital, is it possible for
him to make experiments in such a way as to arrive at certain knowledge? The Young Physic school, which prides
itself upon its philosophy, recommends the use of the numerical method, that, by noting down the result of each
medicine in each form of disease, we may at length arrive
at positive data to direct us in'future cases. Let us inquire
what philosophers of established reputation think of this
plan.
M. Comte scouts with the same severity as Dr Forbes all
ontological speculations, and founds his system on the ascertainment of positive phenomena alone, leaving the mystics
to pry into the cause of these phenomena. He has, moreover, a profound respect for mathematical science, places it
as the first and fundamental science in his scheme of human
knowledge, and is most anxious to carry the numerical spirit
as far into general science as it will legitimately go. He
would apply the method of numerical notation to every department of human knowledge where it could be of any avail.
Surely, if any philosopher of note is likely to countenance
Young Physic's brave attempt to reform medicine by introducing into it the accuracy of arithmetic, it must be M.
Auguste Comte.   His opinion is given in the following
words:"Indeed, the spirit of calculation tends in our day to
introduce itself into this study (Physiology), especially into
that part of it relating to medical questions, by a much





ON HOM(EOPATHY Via YOUNG PHYSIC.


131


less direct method, under a much more specious form, and
with infinitely more modest pretensions. I wish to speak
of that pretended application of it which is called the statistics of medicine, from which many savans [e. g., Young
Physic] expect wonders, and which, from its very nature,
can lead only to profound and direct degradation of the
medical art (reduced by it to a blind enumeration). Such
a method, if we may be allowed to call it by the name of
method at all, cannot, in reality, be anything else than
absolute empiricism, disguised under the frivolous garb of
mathematics. Pushed to its extreme logical consequences,
it will tend to make all rational medication radically disappear from medicine, by conducting the practitioner to
make chance trials of certain therapeutic measures, for
the purpose of noting down with minute precision the numerical results of their application. It is evident, on principle, that the continual variations to which all organism
is subjected, are necessarily even more pronounced in a
pathological, than in a normal state, as a result of which,
the cases must be even less exactly similar, whence results
the manifest impossibility of making a judicious comparison between two curative methods derived from data
furnished by statistical tables alone, independent of some
sound medical theory. No doubt some direct experimentation, restrained under proper limits, might be of great
importance to medicine as well as to physiology, but it is
precisely under the strict condition that it shall never be
simply empirical, but that it shall always attach itself
either in its institution or in its interpretation to an entire
system of corresponding positive doctrines. (A l'ensemble
systematique des doctrines positives correspondantes).  Notwithstanding the imposing aspect of the forms of exactness, it would be difficult to conceive of an opinion in.
therapeutics more superficial and more uncertain than
that which rests solely on the easy computation of fatal
and favourable cases, to say nothing of the pernicious





132


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


practical consequences of such a manner of proceeding,
where one could not beforehand exclude any kind of attempt.
"It is really deplorable that geometricians have sometimes honoured with some kind of encouragement such a
profoundly irrational aberration, by making vain and
puerile efforts to determine, by their illusory theory of
chances, the number of cases sufficient to make these statistical results legitimate."--Cours de Philosophie positive par M. Auguste Comte. Tome 3m"e pp. 418, 420.
We must again remind Young Physic that M. Comte is
one of the first of living mathematicians, and one who,
more than any other philosopher, insists upon the prolongation of the mathematical method as far forward into
the more special and complex sciences as it can be made
to go.
There can be no greater contrast than that presented
by Dr Forbes, as a destroyer, and as a builder. Nothing
can be clearer, more precise, more acute, than his objections to the systems or practice of others; but when he
makes his own system known, he becomes vague and obscure in the extreme, and falls into declamation about the
medical profession being "grand and glorious in its essence,
aims, and aspirations!" Wearied, it would seem, with the
work of demolition, he sinks into the state described by
Horace, when he says, " Anditis? an me ludit amabilis insania?" and in the dim perspective he sees the future progeny of Young Physic flit past like Banquo's shadowy
race, but cannot catch or paint their lineaments.
The system which is thus faintly suggested in the article
of Dr Forbes is more fully expounded by Dr A. Combe,
in his letter " On the Observation of Nature in the Treatment of Disease." This letter is very remarkable for its
candour and high moral tone. It contains also much truth,
and shows that the writer, to some extent, perceives the
real cause of the backward state of medicine when he says





ON HOM(EOPATHY vid YOUNG PHYSIC.


133


that, "notwithstanding the ardour and success with which
facts are sought for, yet, inasmuch as the ultimate facts
remain unknown, the others lead to no useful result." If,
by ultimate fact, Dr Combe means the largest possible
generalisation-and this is the only idea that a disciple of
Bacon can attach to the phrase-then we entirely agree
with him, but we look upon the Homoeopathic principle as
being that ultimate fact which he seeks. Although to a
certain extent Dr Combe feels the necessities of medicine,
and truly says it is by the ascertainment of an ultimate
fact, that is, a general law, that we can advance our science,
yet the means by which he strives to reach the point of
vantage are as vague as his general conception of what it
would be, when gained, is just and exalted.
The system which Dr Combe expounds is founded on
a radical error in philosophy. His view is this:-If we
observe the progress of disease, we shall find that it runs
a determinate course; it has its origin, its growth, and its
decline; in these it obeys certain fixed laws given to it by
the Creator. It is for man to learn these laws-to interpret these laws, but not to interfere with them. Nature
alone cures, not man.  It is presumptuous in man to
usurp the prerogative of nature, and attempt to improve
upon her efforts. Man is the interpreter, not the master,
of nature. Such seems the general drift of his opinions,
as contained in the preceding article.
The great error contained in this view consists in confounding the so-called laws of nature with the laws of a
moral Creator. The tap-root of the false school of philosophy to which Dr Combe seems to belong, and which has
recently been fully expounded in many popular works, is
confounding the real obligation of man to obey the moral
laws of his Creator with his assumed submission to the
laws of the creation. The so-called laws of the creation
have no existence out of the mind of man. They are but
the summary expressions of his knowledge; they are but





134


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


the ultimate facts or laws he has arrived at. " Ultimate
laws," says Mr Mill, " are observed uniformities of nature
which cannot be resolved into more general laws."-Milf's
Logic, vol. ii, p. 3. All that they express, in any case,
is the constant relation of certain facts to certain other
facts. This is all that gravitation expresses. Because
gravitation is a law of nature, would any sane man argue
that therefore it ought not to be interfered with? What
is the whole active life of man, but a struggle with this
great law of nature? What is death but a sinking under
it-becoming obedient to it-being let down, pulled down,
we might say, in submission to this grand natural law?
It cannot, then, be argued, that because a process occurs
in obedience to a law of physiology or pathology, that on
that ground alone we ought not to interfere with it. It
must be shown that it would be inexpedient to the patient
if we did. This, which is the only real point at issue between us and the naturalists, Dr Combe does not attempt
to touch. He shows, indeed, that in certain cases it is
very hazardous to use the ordinary depleting measures;
but he does not even attempt to show that there are not,
or may not be, means which are innocuous, yet potently
beneficial. He does not show that there may not be a
science of therapeutics, or curing; but he implies, from
the position he at first assumes, that there cannot.
Miserable as are the conclusions Dr Combe arrives at,
we believe they are the logical consequences of working
out Dr Forbes' system; and for this reason we attach much
value to his letter, independently altogether of the high
and generous tone which pervades it, and which gives
great weight to its influence over others. If ever medicine
suffer utter degradation, it will be brought about by means
of this new school. The leaders of the profession are engendering a scepticism in medicine which, unless counteracted, will blight it to the core. Practitioners of physic
will become divided into two classes-the one believing





ON HOMCEOPATHY via YOUNG PHYSIC.       135
nothing, but yet acting as if they did, and giving the countenance of their high talents and acquirements to the
rankest hypocrisy; the other class believing anything or.
everything, but having no substantial grounds for their
belief: cold, cultivated sceptics will be the aristocracy, and
ignorant but energetic dupes of their own credulity the
democracy, of this noble and glorious profession. No
wonder that one of Dr Forbes' correspondents exclaims,
" What more melancholy fact can be presented to the mere
prescriber, when he first enters upon the duties of his bene-volent profession with the enthusiasm of unsoured philanthropy, than the continual assurance of the Nestors of the
profession, that the greater our experience the more
positive our conviction that we can do nothing?  And it
only proves the immense force of habit that, with such
convictions, we do not see men quit a profession which,
under such circumstances, requires a constant exercise of
hypocrisy, and a constant sacrifice of principle." There
are examples of physicians being so conscientious as to
make the sacrifice, and one of these is Hahnemann.
While the great majority of those who have expressed
their opinions on the state and prospects of medicine, agree
in the main with Drs Forbes and Combe, yet a few avow
their dislike at being thus consigned to the negative pole
of usefulness. The best exponent of the views of this class
seems to be Dr Bartlett, who says, " The seat, the character, and the tendencies of the disease being known, the
next thing to be done is to find out the best means of preventing, modifying, and of curing it."  To do tlis, lie goes
on to say, " We must know the effects and influences
which all substances and agencies in nature are capable of
producing upon it, and this we can know only by direct
observation of the effects themselves."  That is, we may
suppose medicine improved by a system of experimentation
with individual drugs upon individual diseases. This is
what another writer likewise proposes. Let us again apply





136


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


to some philosopher of acknowledged reputation, to ascertain what may be expected from such experiments when
not conducted in the light of some previous theory.
It most fortunately happens that the very case in point
is used as an illustration by Mr J. Stuart Mill, in his work
upon logic. That highest modern authority upon the subject writes thus:-" Let the subject of inquiry be the conditions of health and disease in the human body, or, for
greater simplicity, the conditions of recovery from a given
disease; and, in order to limit the question still more, let it
be confined, in the first instance, to this one inquiry, Is, or
is not, a particular drug, mercury, for example, a remedy
for that disease? *  *  *  When we devise an experiment to ascertain the effects of a given agent, there are
certain precautions which we never, if we can help it,
omit. In the first place, we introduce the agent into the
midst of a set of circumstances which we have exactly
ascertained. It need hardly be remarked how far this
condition is from being realised in any case connected with
the phenomena of life; how far we are from knowing what
are all the circumstances which pre-exist in any instance
in which mercury is administered to a living being. This
difficulty, however, though insuperable in most cases, may
not be so in all; there are sometimes (though I should think
never in physiology) concurrences of many causes in which
we yet know accurately what the causes are. But, when
we have got clear of this obstacle, we encounter another
still more serious. In other cases, when we intend to try
an experiment, we do not reckon it enough that there be
no circumstances in thce case the presence of which is unknown to us; we require also that none of the circumstances
which we do know of. shall have effects susceptible of being
confounded with those of the agent whose properties we
wish to study; we take the utmost pains to exclude all
causes capable of composition with the given cause; or, if
"forced to let in any such causes, we take care to make them





ON HOM(EOPATHY via YOUNG PHYSIC.


137


such that we can compute and allow for their influence, so
that the effect of the given cause may, after the subduction
of those other effects, be apparent as a residual phenomena.
These precautions are inapplicable to such cases as we are
now considering. *   *  *   Anything like a scientific use of
the method of experiment in these complicated cases is therejbre
out of the question. We can, in the most favourable cases, only
discover, by a succession of trials, that a certain cause is very
often followed by a certain efect."-Mill's Logic, vol. i., p.
529. We find, then, that logic as unceremoniously discards the experimental method proposed by Dr Bartlett,
as philosophy condemned the statistical method sanctioned
by Dr Forbes. Indeed, the two methods are very nearly
allied, the one almost invoking the other; and if they both
be abandoned, and if young physicians be not content with
being the mere spectators of disease, and superintenders of
the diet and ventilation, and revolt at the idea of hospitals
for the cure of the sick being nothing but museums for the
study of morbid natural history and registries of mortality,
to what side are they to turn for escape from the alternatives
presented to them? How shall they be followers of nature,
and yet energetic? How shall they know all that is to be
known, and not be sceptical, and do all that is to be done,
and not be dangerous?
If the simple observation of the natural course of disease;
if the application of the numerical method to all recorded
cures; if experiments with various medicines upon various
diseases, are each and all fallacious modes for the improvement of medicine, what conceivable method yet remains by
which it may be raised from its present uncertainty to become amenable to known laws, by which it may be worked?
The answer to this we have already anticipated at the
commencement of our article. The accumulation and complexity of facts in medicine rendering the inductive process
inapplicable, it is absolutely necessary, for the regeneration
of the science, that some successful hypothesis be made





138


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


which shall express the law of relation between the curative and some other discoverable property of a given drug,
by which we may know beforehand what we are to select
in a given case of disease. There has been but one such
attempt in medicine (for we need not stop to show that the
old Galenic maxim, " Contraria contrariis opponantur," is
not such an hypothesis, involving, as it does, the previous
ascertainment of conditions as impossible to recognise, as
they are incapable of being tested), that is, that medicines
tend to cure diseases similar to those they tend to produce.* This
is a perfect hypothesis for the circumstances, because it
embraces all the circumstances coming within the range of
medication, and it is possible to establish the truth or falseness of it by experiment. How vain and ignorant it is of
those who profess themselves philosophic practitioners, to
reject this proposition, and to stigmatise the practice thence
flowing, on the ground of its being at the first hypothetical,
is shown from the fact that all complex sciences have become perfect by means of some successful hypothesis.
What was Kepler's law of planetary motion, which has introduced such accuracy into astronomy, that the accession
of a new member to our system can now be infallibly predicted, but an hypothesis verified by calculation? What
was Dalton's atomic theory, which has given such systematic beauty to chemistry, but an hypothesis verified by
calculation? What was Torricelli's grand discovery of the
pressure of the atmosphere, which introduced a new era in
physics, but an hypothesis verified by an experiment?  It
is the same with Hahnemann's great law of medicine-it
is an hypothesis proved true by its results.
Had Dr Forbes and his followers been alive to the necessity of such a discovery, had they perceived that it was not
* We believe this is the most acurate way of stating the law of
Homoeopathy, and it would obviate many objections if this mode of
expressing it were generally adopted.





ON IHOM(EOPATHY Vid YOUNG PHYSIC.


139


a Bacon, but a Newton, that medicine stood in need of, they
would have formed a very different estimate of the grandeur of Homoeopathy; they would not have harped with
puerile pertinacity upon the assertion that Hahnemann was
mistaken in supposing that the symptoms of ague he felt
stood in relation of cause and effect to the doses of cinchona bark he had previously taken. They would have
perceived that it was of' very little consequence what gave
rise in the mind of Hahnemann to an hypothesis which, if
substantiated, would make medicine a deductive science,
instead of an empirical one; and they would have directed
all their energies to ascertain whether this hypothesis be
true or false; for, if true, it must for ever change the
whole character of their art.
There were three possible ways open for disproving the
truth of Homoeopathy: first, by showing that it was opposed
to some already established natural law; second, by showing that the facts on which it rested its claims for belief
were either false or too few; third, that when tried as a
guide in practice, it led to failure.
The first way was never attempted. No one has yet
ventured to assert, that the proposition that a medicine
tends to cure diseases similar to those it tends to excite, is
radically opposed to any general fact. Nay, were this the
place for it, it would not be difficult to demonstrate, that
this primary law of Homceopathy presents many striking
and interesting analogies with some of the most important doctrines that have recently been advanced by the
greatest writers in the various fields of physics, ethics, and
psychology.
Neither Dr Forbes, nor any of his school, have devoted
themselves to the task of undertaking the second way, and
showing that there is not a marked similarity between the
curative and noxious effects of very many drugs. Nay,
Dr Forbes himself admits, in these words, that there is
such a resemblance. " Indeed, it is supported by several





140


DR RUTHERFURD RUSSELL


strong analogies, afforded both by pathology and (allopathic) therapeutics."
The only other way which remained was to show, that
where this law had been applied for the cure of diseases, it
had entirely failed to effect its object. How far our opponents have succeeded in this, we leave those to determine
who have carefully and critically studied Professor Henderson's letter to Dr Forbes, as well as the evidence from
which his arguments are drawn.
Hitherto we have contemplated Homceopathy as an abstract scientific truth, "won from the void and formless infinite" by the genius of its discoverer-a truth which would
remain the same, although disease were to disappear, and
there were no occasion for its application to human affairs;
and we have considered the reason why the value of this
truth has not been appreciated by the foremost men in our
profession. But between such an abstraction and the requirements of daily life, there lies the province of art. The
truth might be revealed, but might remain for ever unprofitable to us, if we were not instructed in the mode of its application. Art is to science what action is to thought. The
discovery of the law of Homceopathy made medicine as a
science perfect; it required another discovery before an
element of perfection was imparted to medicine as an art.
Discoveries in art are of a wholly different kind from those
in science. They are simply empirical rules obtained from
observations or experiment, and proved true by experience.
T'hey never can have the same absolute value as fundamental scientific principles, nor are they susceptible of the
same amount of proof. The rules of art occupy, as it were,
a middle point between science and its application. They
rest upon a surface of fluctuating observations, and they
derive their coherence and stability from a source different from that of their origin. That source is the abstract
scientific truth to which they are united. In estimating
the value of these rules of art, it is necessary always to





ON HOMCEOPATHY Via YOUNG PHYSIC.


141


keep in view this, their double connection; and it would
be as unfair to judge of them, separated from their connection with the scientific principles which gives them
support, as it would be to insist upon a child living in its
mother's womb after the umbilical cord had been divided.
This is the injustice which has been practised upon the
rule of art connected with the science of Homoeopathy;
-the rule that medicines when administered in accordance with the principle "similia similibus," should be given
in minute quantities. If the proposition had been advanced
that medicines, in doses infinitely minuter than had even
hitherto been imagined, were capable of curing diseases,
as a simple fact of observation, it might fairly have been
met with the ridicule that has assailed it. But when advanced under the protection of a more general proposition,
it ought to have been always viewed as related to that general fact; and in that light, whether it be true or false,
it ceases to be ridiculous.
While, then, we charge Dr Forbes with committing a
fundamental error in philosophy, by not appreciating the
necessity of some general hypothesis by which the science
of medicine may be made deductive, we charge him and
his followers with a second error in judging of a rule of
art without taking into consideration the cognate scientific
principle from which it derives half its force. This misapprehension of the proper point of view, on the part of all
English writers, from which the system of giving small
doses ought to be regarded, is the less excusable, since
those who have adopted their side of the controversy in
Germany have admitted and given full prominence to the
fact, that the dose must vary according to the principle by
which the medicine is selected. " On the other hand," observes Dr Jdrg, medicines operate most powerfully upon
the sick when the symptoms correspond with those of the
disease. A very small quantity of medicinal arnica will
produce a violent effect upon persons who have an irri




14


DR RJTHERFUIRD R2USSELL


table state of the oesophagus and stomach.   Mercurial
preparations have in very small doses given rise to pains
and loose stools, when administered in an inflammatory
state of the intestines. Yet why," he exclaims, " should
I occupy time by adducing more examples of a similar
operation of medicines, since it is in the very nature of the
thing that a medicine must produce a much greater effect
when it is applied to a body already suffering under an
affection similar to that which the medicine itself is capable of producing?"
Another great error which the various writers upon the
subject have fallen into, when treating of minute doses, is
confounding the amount of force required to originate a
series of changes in the animal system, and that which is
required to modify those changes where already going on.
It is, if we may so express it, applying to a question of
dynamics calculations derived from data afforded by statics.  Contented as the disciples of Young Physic are
with allowing morbid processes to proceed without any intervention, and simply supporting the powers of life, that
the system may not sink under the continuance of the disease; and accustomed as they and all Allopathic physicians are to look upon therapeutic agents as operations beyond, or on the outside of, the sphere of the actual morbid
forces (the derivative system of medicine), they do not
perceive that, if it be possible to introduce a force within
the actual sphere of diseased action, that force will be incalculably intensified in its operation by acting on other
forces already in a state of preternatural and violent activity. A breath of air will deflect an arrow from its course,
although shot from   the bow of Apollo.    We do not
intend to dwell upon the point last mooted, partly because
* Materiellen zu einer kiinftigen heillmitellehre durch versuche
der Arzueien an gesuuden Menschen gewonnen und gesammelt von
Dr Johan C. G. Jirg, page 16.





ON HOM(EOFATHY vzi YOUNG PHYSIC.


143


our space is exhausted, and partly because they have already been fully and ably handled by various writers. We
would here recommend a recent popular work by Dr Henry
Madden, which contains a good exposition of this part of
the subject.
Before we close this fragmentary and elliptical paper,
the design of which has been rather to discover, if possible,
and to indicate the chief sources of the errors of our opponents, and in this very search to point to the refutation
of those errors, than to expose, by argument, the numerous fallacies which have marked their winding course
throughout the controversy, we wish to do full justice to
Dr Forbes. We look upon him as the ablest exponent of
the sceptical era in medicine. He expresses for the medicine what others have done for the philosophy of our period, which has been characterised as 1" an age of unbelief,
and yet afraid of scepticism."  By giving expression to
prevailing scepticism in medicine, Dr Forbes has rendered
an immense benefit to the profession; he has brought out
and made curable the hitherto latent psora. The element'of
faith which he would fain mingle with his confession of
general unbelief is too foreign to the rest of the system
to have any influence upon his disciples. The reform he
has so powerfully advanced will soon become a revolution
beyond his power to control. His influence for the future
will be purely destructive. But destruction of the bad
must precede construction of the good; and for having
with great talent and boldness attacked and shaken a
dynasty whose speedy termination is with certainty predicted by this revolt of its chief supporter, for having
rendered this service, and opened the gate of scepticism
for the admission of truth, we feel deeply indebted to him,
and we have no doubt that his school will prove to many
the halting-place between Old Physic and Homceopathy.





MEDICAL            TOOGOODISM
AND
I0M (E OPATHY.*
[For some time after the appearance of Dr Forbes'
article, which caused an immense commotion among the
medical profession, there was comparative inaction in reference to Homoeopathy, and nothing of any importance,
in a controversial point of view, was written by either
party till Dr Toogood, of Torquay, published a pamphlet
on the " fraud and folly of Homoeopathy," which called
forth the following reply from the pen of a metropolitan
physician.]
THERE is something fatal in names. The actions and
the characters of men have frequently been prefigured by
the names given to them in their infancy. The words
Alexander, Cmosar, and Napoleon, by which are known
three of the world's wonders, have a remarkable significance. Dr Guillotin gave his name to the instrument of
decapitation he invented, and the use of which has given
him a sort of sinister immortality. The epithet Uncle Sam,
well denotes the characteristics of our transatlantic offshoot; John Bull admirably expresses the character of the
English. Without dilating on this theme, it is sufficient
* From the British Journal of Homoeopathy, April, 1849.





MEDICAL TOOGOODISM AND HOM(EOPATHY.      145
to observe, that no name can be more expressive of the
professional instinct and impulse against reform than that
of the gentleman who has furnished our vernacular tongue
with a new and significant word. As the word Rome,
applied to a city and nation and empire, denotes strength
and stability; so the word Toogoodism, derived from the
name of Dr Jonathan Toogood, signifies that sturdy and
unrelenting conviction of a class, or of a profession, that
its present holdings, prescriptive advantages, and prospective hopes, are too good to allow for a moment the entertaining any proposal for any reform, or any important
modification, in its actual condition. Their old ways,
their good ways, are the ways for them. He is their pilot
that weathers the storm who the most strenuously opposes
any radical change, whether it be in the way of rapid progress, or of a new direction, or of a re-consideration of
principles. To each partisan of each class or profession,
the witty bishop's definition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy
applies. Orthodoxy is my doxy, and therefore right and
just and true; heterodoxy is the doxy of another, and
therefore a very improper and dangerous and dissolute
sort of thing. Homoeopathy is the heterodoxy of the
medical Toogood, Allopathy is his doxy. Let us beware
that we do not, in turn, make a doxy of our Hahnemannian doctrine. Mundis omnia munda. If we pursue any
truth in a truthful spirit, for the good of all, and not for
mere selfish and personal advantages, nor for the advancement of a class interest, we escape this reproach of bigotry
and illiberality.
The word Toogoodism we expect will become as current to express this bigotry and illiberality and hostility
to reform of a class or profession, as the words socialism,
chartism, and many another ism, which are used to denote
various classes moved by opinions and swayed by doctrines
which are peculiar to each, and which make up the orthodoxy of each.
L





146


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


In our last number, we briefly noticed Dr Toogood's
"Illustrations of the fraud and folly of Homoeopathy."
Whether he be an actual historical personage, or a mythical, as Niebuhr holds Romulus to have been, matters not.
For our purpose, his name is the best of him. We use that
as an impersonation of the breathing and yet vigorous hostility to our doctrine which still distinguishes our medical
Allopathic brethren. We refer those who take pleasure in
inky war to the tract of Toogood, and the reply of Aliquis.
Mr Sampson's paper is an excellent exposition of the
professional Toogoodism which opposes itself, tooth and
nail, to Homoeopathy. We mean this article to be a running commentary on his text; but we cannot forbear expressing our sense of his valuable and important services
to our cause. We should be glad to see his paper separately printed, and widely circulated; it now appears in
the annual volume (for 1849) of the British Homoeopathic
Association, which is a meritorious body acting in concert
with the British Homceopathic Society. The object of
this association is to diffuse among the public at large a
knowledge of the doctrine and practice of Homoeopathy;
and the present volume is a proof that this is modestly and
wisely done. In addition to lAr Sampson's paper, there are
Hahnemann's first essay on the Homoeopathic principle;
a paper on the Iomeopathic treatment of Asiatic Cholera;
and Mr Kidd's narrative of his Homaeopathic treatment of
the famine fever of Ireland in 1847. We have adverted
to this volume for the purpose of recommending our readers
and well-wishers to obtain as many subscribers as possible
for this association, the character of which is at once unobtrusive and energetic.*
Every reform, whether of the body politic, or of a school
of doctrine and practice, is, in fact, a revolution, and every
revolution is more or less an experiment: if it should be
* The British Homaoeopathic Association ceased to exist after
founding the London Homoeopathic Hospital.





AND HOMEOPATHY.


147


completed and established, it is an experience founded on
a series of experiments. These are valuable and durable
in proportion as they are based or not on the immutable
truths of nature; the science of mechanics, so far as these
truths were then known and applied, was as true in the
days of Archimedes as it is now.
During the process of experiment everything has to be
tested anew; old and new theories are to be sifted and
valued at their true worth; the exaggerations and obliquities and eccentricities that may have crept in are to
be got rid of; what is extraneous must be pruned; what
is sound and good must be retained. Sometimes a truth,
bringing with it vast consequences, has been grasped, as
by intuition, by some favoured seer; at another time, after
many experiments through many an age, some master-mind
appears, to whose comprehensive intelligence is assigned
the task of condensing, winnowing, arranging the materials
that many minds have for long been anxiously collecting.
Either of these, whether known or unknown to fame, is a
benefactor of his race; but it often occurs that those who
pass beyond the circle of thought embraced by their fellows
and contemporaries are misapprehended, persecuted, and
even despised by those who do not understand them. It
was the sense of being so misunderstood and undervalued
which induced Bacon to dedicate his Philosophy to posterity. Such men as Bacon and Luther and Hahnemann
have known how difficult it is to swim against the tide of
opinion; to carry out an honest, vigorous, human undertaking against the current of prevailing sects and the
eddies of a vulgar and indiscriminating prejudice. Of
this truth, every one who advocates a new principle, attempts to correct an old abuse, or withstands a long maintained oppression, is soon made painfully aware. Happy
is it for such great spirits as are appointed to such undertakings, when they can (self-centred, yet in humble dependence on the Infinite One, whose agents they are)





148


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


realise in the sanctuary of their inner being the fact that
a duty done, a righteous service rightly performed, is
itself the highest reward: all human recompense, fame
and honours and wealth, soon pass away, but
" The self-remembering soul sweetly recovers
Her kindred with the stars, nor basely hovers
Below, but meditates the immortal way
Home to the source of light and intellectual day."
The founder of Homoeopathy was of the order of spirits
we have described; his was a vigorous man's strong intellect, and stronger will, and still stronger heart.  He had
a vocation and a mission: he worked like a man; and he
left to his followers, longo intervallo, the task of filling up the
design he sketched with a master's hand, of following out
his plan, and of making his discovery more and more available to the well-being of his race. Not vain nor profitless
is this preamble, if it induces even one of our readers to reflect on the responsibility of all of his followers, each according to his degree and power, to do his best to promote the
Hahnemannian Reform of Medicine. It is no light thing
to profess a love of truth; nor can we lightly consider such
a subject as this-" Truths and their reception considered
in their relation to the doctrine of Homoeopathy."
The law of Homoeopathy-like cures like-it has been
repeatedly shown, was not discovered by Hahnemann, as
the law of gravitation was by Newton. The law was partially known, and partially acted on, before the Christian
era, and in all the intervening ages from that time to this.
IIahnemann's claim to originality, in respect of the law,
is, that he first demonstrated its general applicability to the
healing art, that it was a truth of nature-the law of the application of remedies for the cure of disease. His method
of applying the remedies, the dose, the fact that by minute
subdivision the medicines acted more in extenso, and more
appropriately, and the other fact, that certain substances
in themselves inert acquire medicinal virtues by trituration





AND HOMCEOPATHY.


149


with an indifferent substance; and furthermore, his explanation of the nature and character of chronic diseasesthese were his discoveries.  Multitudinous experiments
made by himself and his devoted adherents and disciples,
on the properties of a great number of medicines, their
provings of the various remedies, make up, in sum, the experience of the master-mind and of his acolytes, to which
he gave the name Homceopathy, to express the relation between the curative agent and the ailment or disease. It is
this collective experience, proposed as the basis at least of
a radical medical reform, not dealing with externals and
comparative non-essentials, but insisting on a re-consideration of principles, and of an entire re-construction of therapeutics, that the hostility of the soi-disant orthodox or Allopathic school of medicine at first pretended to ignore, then
denounced as a system of illusion, delusion, and collusion.
Let us then speak of Homceopathy, in the general sense of its
being an attempt at a thorough medical reform, as the discovery of Hahnemann. The public made up of individuals,
dependent for their general medical notions on the medical
body opposed to this method as an innovation, would naturally look on it with suspicion and mistrust. Their oracles
on this subject were not dumb, but all agreed in theirdenunciations of it with more or less vehemence as occasion might
seem to require. The very persons whom the non-medical
world look up to for guidance on a medical doctrine, from
the very nature of the case, were, as a class, the direct adversaries of the Hahnemannian discovery. This remark applies to every discovery of which we have a record; namely,
that the opposition to it has mainly and directly proceeded
from the orthodox and established ministers of the system
to which the new discovery may have applied.
Take, for example, the silversmiths of Ephesus (and
all men who get their living by a profession or trade are in
one sense silversmiths), and of those who were leagued
with them to prevent the introduction of the most benefi




150


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


cent doctrine that has been declared to man. The great
advocate of this new doctrine was resolved to stay in Asia
for a season. " And at the same time there arose no small
stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius,
a silversmith, who made silver shrines for Diana, brought
no small gain unto the craftsmen; whom he called together
with the workmen of like occupation, and said, sirs, ye
know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover,
ye see and hear that not alone at Ephesus, but almost
throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned
away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are
made with hands; so that not only this our craft is in
danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of
the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard this, they were full of
wrath, and cried out, great is Diana of the Ephesians. And
the whole city was filled with confusion. *  *  *  Some
therefore cried one thing, and some another. * * *
And when the town-clerk had appeased the people, he
said, ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth
not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of
the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down
from Jupiter."
This is an illustration, for all time, of the opposition any
class or profession is ready, as an orthodox or established
body, to make to any new discovery or doctrine which may
be applied to the modification or reform or re-construction of
its particular system. They erect it into a sort of visionary
temple, and to touch it in the way of alteration is to offend
their prejudices of education and custom and calling, and
so is something absurd or shocking in their estimation.
There are idols many, some of the individual and some of
the class. Every one has his chamber of imagery, if he had
the heart and the will to look into it with the purpose of
seeing those idol prejudices in their deformity, and of





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


151


breaking them in pieces: comparatively few, however,
dare do this, and some that have the courage have not
the will. And so this new discovery, that offers to let in
light on those prejudices, is scoffed at and derided, or
virulently opposed and rejected. It was hard, in the first
instance, to persuade the miners to use Sir Humphrey
Davy's safety lamp; and the West India planters will not
be persuaded, even now when they are being ruined from
the want of labourers, to substitute mechanical inventions,
wherever applicable, for manual labour.
The love of novelty is supposed to be a characteristic of
the human mind, and so it is where there are no strong
counteracting prejudices against the novelty. Then the
hatred of what is proposed as something new and antagonistical to preconceived opinions, becomes the rule. The
novelty of Homoeopathy has been adduced as an argument
against it. We know that the doctrine and the practice
are now more than half a century old; but still they are
new to some. One of the best informed clergymen of the
Anglican Church said not long ago to a Homoeopathic
physician, " The novelty of Homccopathy is to me a strong
objection against it;" to which it was replied, " On that
ground, then, had you been a priest of Jupiter Tonans, or
of Juno Moneta at Rome, when Paul preached there, you
would have rejected his doctrine because of its novelty."
This was an argumentum ad hominem which he could not
resist, and he withdrew his objection.
Professional men are not fond of indoctrinating their
clients with their professional knowledge. Those whio
play at physic with " Graham's Domestic Guide," and who
play at law as unsalaried magistrates and country justices,
have a very fractional knowledge of medicine and law.
But there is no subject of which the general public is so
ignorant as that of medicine; and thus they are compelled to take the opinion of their medical advisers on any
medical subject, and these we have shown are, from the





152


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


nature of the case, opponents of any new discovery like
Homaeopathy. The opposition of reforms and discoveries
is not, however, confined to those which apply to medicine.
We avail ourselves of Mr Sampson's able paper to enumerate some of the instances of that opposition. His first
selection is made from the records of moral progress.
The difficulty in persuading the legislature to modify
and mitigate the sanguinary laws for the punishment of
criminals, is his first instance. It is well known that
lawyers and judges, on whose opinion of the laws the
public chiefly relies, were the parties most opposed to any
amendment or mitigation of the worse than Draconian
code which so long disgraced the statute book of Christian England. " When Sir Thomas More, in 1529, first
ventured to question the advantage of putting men to
death for petty offences, the lawyers, it is said, all fell
upon him, and charged him with ignorance of judicial
affairs.  So true is it, that there is a propensity in all
professional men to resist every deviation from established
usages."
His next illustration is taken from the history of physical science. It is the familiar story of Columbus, who,
when he had matured his theory of the existence of a
Western Continent, offered his services to several maritime powers, whose " business was in the deep waters,"
with the view of ascertaining the fact. His offer was refused by those knowing navigators with scorn.  His proposition " was rejected as the dream of a chimerical projector."  So, in the annual summary of the progress of
medical science for the year in which Hahnemann died,
there were long obituary accounts of persons already forgotten, and at the end of them all it was carelessly observed,
"this year died also the theorist Hahnemann."  In the
case of Columbus, a monk and a physician persuaded
Queen Isabella to entertain his proposition; all the world
knows the rest.





AND HOMCEOPATHY.


153


Similar illustrations might be given from the history of
religious advancement. The odium theologicum has passed
into a proverb. Every one knows how strong are the feelings of class interests among different sects; and how those
who ought to love one another are in a position of hostile
demonstration one against another. The histories of Wicliffe, Huss, Luther, and many other worthies of the Church,
are too well known to be mentioned in this place.
Of "the starry Galileo and his woes;" of that Bishop who
was burned for asserting that there existed Antipodes;
of Oliver Cromwell, who prematurely died of ague because
his physicians would not consent to give him Jesuit's bark
(einchona), at that time newly made known in England;
of Harvey, stigmatised as a quack from one end of Europe
to the other; of Jenner, the despised of the medical faculty
when he first made vaccination known-who requires to
be told?
We give Mr Sampson's quotation of an admirable scene
from Miss Martineau's " Game Law Tales." It is an account of the reception of Harvey's theory of the circulation of the blood. It is in the form of a dialogue between Lords Holland, Seymour, and Southampton, a
clergyman, and a physician.
"' One object of old Parr's going up to court is, that
Harvey may study the case, and see if he can gain hints
from it for lengthening our lives.'
'But surely,' said the clergyman, 'it can matter but
little what Dr Harvey concludes and gives out about the
case of this old parishioner of mine, or any other case. No
one can have any respect for his judgment in the face of
the wild doctrine he gives out about the blood.'
'Does he adhere to that?' asked Lord Southampton.
'Yes,' replied Lord Holland, ' he will ere long publish
another tract upon it. It is astounding to see a man,
who seems otherwise rational and sensible, lose himself on
this one point. There is no making any impression upon





154


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


him; he persists as quietly as if all the wise people in the
world agreed with him.'
' Quietly,' said Lord Seymour; 'I thought he was a passionate, turbulent fellow, who thought all the world a fool
but himself.'
'Whatever he may think,' replied Lord Holland, 'he
says nothing to give one such an idea; on the contrary,
the most amusing and yet melancholy part of the business
is his entire complacency. He is so self-satisfied that nothing can move him.'
'Dr Oldham,' said Southampton to the family physician,
who sat smiling while this description of Harvey was given,
"you have looked into this business, this pretended discovery, what have you to say to it?'
'But little, my lord; it is not worth so many words as
just have been spent upon it. There is not a physician in
Europe who believes in this pretended discovery.'
'After examination?'
'Surely, my lord. Any announcement of a discovery
made by the physician whose merits have raised him to Dr
Harvey's post, cannot but meet with attention from a profession, whose business it is to investigate the facts of the
human frame and constitution.'
" Then known facts are against him?'
'Entirely. No point, for instance, is better understood
than that the arteries are occupied by the vital spirits,
which are concocted in the left side of the heart, from the
air and blood in the lungs.'
' And what says Harvey to this?'
' He controverts it, of course. Neither the opposition
of all living physicians, nor even the silence of Galen on
this notion of his, has the least effect upon him. It is sad
and pernicious nonsense, and ruinous to a man who, but
for this madness, might have been an honour to his profession. Of course, his opinions on any subject are of no
value now.'





AND HOMCEOPATHY.


155


'In the profession, do you mean, or out of it?'
'I believe there are a good many out of the profession who
listen to him, open-mouthed, as to every professor of new
doctrines; but it is an affair in which no opinions but those
of physicians can be of any consequence; and, as I said,
not a physician in Europe believes in Harvey's doctrine.'
'It ought to be put down,' said Lord Salisbury, to
which the clergyWian gave an emphatic assent; observing, 'that, in so important an affair as a great question
about the human frame, false opinions must be dangerous,
and ought to be put down.'
'And how is new knowledge to fare when it comes?'
said Lord Southampton. 'By my observations, Dr Harvey's
notion is so following the course that new knowledge iswont
to run, that I could myself almost suppose it to be true.
It has been called nonsense, that is the first stage. Now,
if it be called dangerous, that is the next. I shall amuse
myself by watching for the third. When it is said there
is nothing new in it, and it was plain to all learned men
before Harvey was born, I shall know how to apportion
to Harvey his due honour.'
' I thought, my lord, you had held my profession in respect,' said the physician, with an uneasy smile.
' Am I not doing homage to a most eminent member of
it, perhaps the most eminent in the world?' said Lord
Southampton; ' and it appears that I am rather before
than behind others in doing so. There is no man, not
even the greatest, who may not stand hat in hand before
the wise physician; and I, for my humble part, would do
even so.' "
This excellent scene so well describes the kind of opposition such a discovery as Homoeopathy has to encounter,
and especially from the medical faculty, that we cordially
thank Miss Martineau for it.
To proceed:-the experience of our own tiimes shows
that the same opposition is to be expected whenever any





156


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


discovery is declared which shocks the prejudices of a class,
and (through that class) of the public. The insensibility
to pain produced by mesmerism, was proved by many
authenticated cases in England, and very many in India,
in the practice of Dr Esdaile. The surgeons, great and
small, pure and general, laughed it to scorn. Sir Benjamin
Brodie went so far as to assert, that pain under operations
was necessary to the safety of the patient. Dr Elliotson,
the great medical mesmeric authority, was compelled to resign his offices in connection with the University College
of London. He was lampooned and libelled in all the
medical journals, great and small. The mesmerically induced insensibility was a pretence: mesmerism was a mass
of illusion, delusion, and collusion. The medical faculty
almost to a man rejected the discovery that insensibility to
pain could be produced by mesmerism; almost to a man,
refused to believe that mesmerism was, where indicated, a
curative agent. Animal magnetism, some said, was a
juggle; others, that it was trash and nonsense; others, that
it was diabolism. Great was the triumph of the other
medical officers of University College when Dr Elliotson
withdrew from their body. But, very soon after, a person
in America discovered that insensibility to pain under operations could be produced by atherisation..Ether was a
pharmacological fact-a Galenical virtue; this was a legitimate property of a legitimate remedy, and it is on record
that the first successful experiment in England to produce
insensibility to pain, from oetherisation under operation,
was performed at the hospital of that University College,
the medical officers of which had rejected with scorn Dr
Elliotson's proposition, that insensibility to pain under operations could be produced. The mesmeric power was not
in accordance with the trained ideas and the narrow range
of vision of medical men; but they believed in gaseous exhalations. Chloroform has now superseded aether; but
surgeons are averse as ever to mesmerism.





AND HOMC(EOPATHY.


157


This is an apt illustration of the bigotry and prejudice
of a class or profession, in respect of a new discovery which
they are not prepared from their education and conventional
notions to entertain; while they readily embrace one which
is in accordance with their general views, and which comes
within the sphere of their commonplace ideas. They can
understand the law of Homceopathy as being sometimes
applicable, but not as generally applicable; and they cannot tolerate the Hahnemannian doses, because the philosophical induction from innumerable experiments is quite
beyond their everyday habits of thought; so they reject at
once the philosophy and the experience.
The difficulty of overcoming a class prejudice is shown
by the opposition of the officers of the army and the navy
to the proposition to do away with the corporal punishment
of soldiers and sailors. According to them, the cat-o'-ninetails gives discipline and soldierly ability.
The opposition made to the benevolent views of Captain
Maconochie for the reform and moral regeneration of transported criminals-views amply borne out by the most
satisfactory evidence of their truth and reality-is another
instance of class prejudice. His results are admitted, but
the hereditary and septennial legislators will not legislate
in accordance with them.
It is well known with what difficulty those who have the
management and superintendence of the insane, were induced to try the effects of moral treatment-to do away
with instruments of confinement to one position, with
fetters and the scourge. All honour to Dr Conolly, Dr
Woodward, and the first few supporters of their benevolent attempts to introduce this happy change in the treatment of the sacred insane! The results are such, that
there is no fear they will ever again be submitted to the
cruel and barbarous usage which was their lot even a few
years ago.
These illustrations are sufficient to show the opposition





158


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


of men of a class, or of a profession, to any discovery or reform which is not in accordance with their conventional
customs, ideas, and principles. It is true that such a discovery or reform, if just and true, makes its way. A few
earnest spirits, who would not rather be wrong with Galen
or Dr Williams than be right with the author of a discovery
which the former had no opportunity of examining, and
the latter chooses to reject disdainfully without examination, take up, investigate, become convinced, and do their
best to promote such a discovery, say Homoeopathy. And
as the truth made its way in the case of the discoveries of
Harvey and of Jenner, so will it be in the case of the
Hahnemannian reform. The public are not justified in
rejecting it, because the great body of the medical profession in England disdain it. It was introduced into this
country in 1827. In 1844, the British Homoeopathic Society was established. The " British Journal of Homoeopathy," now in its seventh year,* is the organ of this doctrine. Its medical practitioners increase year after year.
It has modified materially the ordinary medical practice:
the lancet is much less frequently employed; the consumption of drugs is marvellously diminished; a more simple
treatment has been substituted for the heroical or savage.
Some of our remedies, not before used by the Allopathic
school, are getting into daily use. Our good public may
perceive from these signs that our doctrine and practice
are not the trash and nonsense our opponents try to make
them appear.
Take a few instances of the animus of the class opposed
to our progress.
A very distinguished metropolitan physician, and deservedly so, after having been for some time in attendance
on a young lady suffering from marasmus from mesenteric
As this was written three years ago, the Journal in question is
now in its tenth year.





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


159


disease, left the case as hopeless. The father called in a
Homoeopathic practitioner; she soon showed some signs of
amendment, is in good condition now, and is almost entirely
restored to good health. A few days ago, the Allopathic
physician met the father, and was surprised to learn from
him that she was so much better; but, on hearing that she
had been under Homoeopathic treatment, said, " Oh! the
improvement in her health is not from Homoeopathy, which
is nothing: nature has done it."
An Allopathic hospital physician was in attendance on
a gentleman suffering from neuralgia, diarrhoea, &c. As the
patient had told him he had before derived benefit from
the Homoeopathic remedies, and he found he could not bear
the ordinary medicines even in very reduced doses, he of
himself proposed that he should again try Homoeopathy.
The diarrhoea, which was his most distressing symptom, did
not recur after he took the appropriate Homoeopathic remedies; the Allopath went to see him, as a friend, every
three or four days; he acknowledged the amendment, but
would not allow that the remedies had any effect; and
when, after three or four friendly visits, he found the patient
and his family convinced that the benefit was derived
from the Homoeopathic treatment, he wrote him a letter to
assure him that Homoeopathy was a mere delusion. Some
little time after the patient died from cerebral and other
disease, and it is to be presumed that, in the Allopath's
judgment, he was done to death by Homoeopathy, though
he had himself left the case as hopeless.
The case of Malibran is another instance of the prejudice
we have to contend against. She had lived during more
than half her life in a state of constant excitement. Her
fine organisation and exquisite susceptibilities, for she was
a genius as well as a woman, were kept on a constant
strain by her professional ambition and the excitements
incident to her public career. She could not be kept in
check; her genius, and the love of the applause derived





160


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


from its exercise, were her spurs to exertions beyond what
nature could sustain for any lengthened time. At the age
of thirty-three, after the unbounded triumphs of a London
season, the concert in the morning, the theatre every night,
and the brilliant society, of which she was the most sparkling ornament, after the theatre, far into the small hours
of the succeeding morning, she went to keep an engagement at Manchester. She fainted at one of the performances, and was attacked with nervous fever; she was
attended by several of the leading Allopathic medical men
of Manchester of that day. She was bled; the heroical
practice was exercised on her. She succumbed. During
her London career, Dr Belluomini had always been her
medical attendant; he was sent for, and arrived not
long before her death, perhaps from twelve to twenty
hours. He saw and said the case was hopeless-but Homceopathy killed her! It was so advertised in the papers.
Thousands upon thousands believed it; some believe it to
this day. "J' etouffe," was her last utterance-and so tlhe
nightingale was stfled.
Let these instances suffice to show how far the prejudices
of even honourable men can carry them in their opposition
to an innovation they cannot stomach, to a proposed reform
that bears on their own profession when they are not prepared for it.
But many great men of the medical profession, though
they adopted not Homcopathy, have honourably distinguished themselves by declaring their respect for IHahnemann, and their conviction that his doctrine should be
carefully examined. We have pleasure in enumerating
the names of Hufeland, Broussais, Brera, and Valentine
Mott, among these happy exceptions. Some of the foremost men in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are now willing to make, have made, the same allowance and partial
acknowledgment of our method. These men, and others
like them, do not concur with the recorded opinion of the





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


161


Westminster Medical Society, that " Homoeopathy is a
tissue of absurdities offensive to common sense-the wild,
visionary, and ridiculous theory of a German enthusiast,
too absurd to merit anything like argument, and practised
by its disciples only from sordid motives." The late eminent surgeon, Mr Liston, did not so judge of it, nor Dr
Millingen, nor Dr Fletcher, the eminent physiologist and
pathologist. We quote, at length, from Dr Fletcher, his
favourable testimony:" Every day's experience furnishes us with examples of
the truth of the Homceopathic doctrine, at least in some
instances the several substances operating in producing
and curing, each its own class of diseases, sometimes directly, at other times indirectly or by sympathy. Do we
not continually give purgatives in the cure of diarrhoea, for
the purpose, as is erroneously supposed, of carrying off some
offending matter, the presumed cause of the discharge?
and how often is aloes, one of the most common causes of
piles, a means of effectually removing them when already
present? Among the diuretics, also, Cantharides, as well
as the turpentines and balsams, are not more effectual in
removing gleet and catarrh of the bladder when present,
than they are, under other circumstances, in occasioning
them. Among the diaphoretics, tartar emetic has, according to our own personal experience, excellent effects in
stopping a diaphoresis, effectual as it is, as everybody
knows, when no such affection exists, in exciting it. The
sweating sickness was treated formerly by diaphoretics.
Further, among the tonics, cinchona, the chief remedy of
intermittent fever, is said to be capable of producing it;
and indeed it was from noticing this effect upon himself
that Hahnemann was first induced to prosecute and sys.
tematise the theory in question. Tartar emetic also, which,
as every one knows, is one of the most efficacious means of
combating inflammation in general where it exists, is almost equally sure to produce it when it does not exist, if
M





162


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


given in large doses, when it is rather to be considered as
a tonic than as a nauseant, a diaphoretic, or a sedative.
But the medicine which is most illustrative, in its various
operations, of the truth of the Homceopathic doctrine, is
mercury. The occasional effects of this mineral in producing laryngitis, iritis, ptyalism, and numerous other inflammations and their consequences, are abundantly well
known; yet what remedy is so effectual in removing, as is
generally acknowledged, the two former affections, and the
third also, as was not long ago proved by Dr Duncan and
others?  Nay, the influence of mercury in curing lues
venerea is dependent probably on its power of producing
disease, if not identical with it, certainly very similar to it
in its specific effects on the throat, skin, bones, and other
organs. Lastly, among the narcotic medicines, the effects
of alcohol in removing, as well as exciting, delirium tremens,
in all its degrees, have been attended to, and are sufficiently
well known. Not only medicines, however, but other remedial agents, furnish equally conclusive evidence of the
truth, in certain cases at least, of the Homceopathic doctrine. Thus, what is the blacksmith's remedy when. he
has scorched his finger?-is it not again holding it to the
fire, for the purpose of drawing out the heat as he expresses it? And what is Dr Kentish's treatment of burns
in general?-is it not by heated oil of turpentine and other
stimulating applications, for the purpose, as he presumes,
of bringing the inflamed part gradually, not suddenly, down
to the line of health?  This is not the true explanation of
the benefit so derived, but the benefit is nevertheless unquestionable. Again, the occasional effects of electricity
in removing amaurosis, palsy of the tongue, &c., are no
less certain than the fact that these diseases have often resulted from electricity; and its effects in either producing
or removing nervous apoplexy, according to circumstances,
were beautifully illustrated on one occasion by Dr Currie,
who found that, by passing an electric shock through the





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


163


head of a rabbit, he could alternately stupify and revive it,
for an almost indefinite number of times. 4  *  *  Upon
the whole, Hahnemann's book is an original and interesting one, and displays more reflection in every page than
many of his decriers will evince in the whole course of
their life and conduct for half a century."
The good seed of Dr Fletcher's physiology and pathology was sown in a good soil. Had that excellent man
and scholar and philosopher been spared, his genial spirit
would have been delighted with the Homceopathic development that has been manifested in Edinburgh, where
he delivered his lectures, not the least of the great men
who from time to time have adorned that royal and classical city. Some of his pupils are in the number of our
most distinguished Homoeopathists.
The eminent Dr Forbes, late editor of the " British and
Foreign Medical Review," though he professed not to receive himself the Hahnemannian doctrine, yet spoke out,
in a very powerful article, in favour of the character of
Hahnemann and his school, and even acknowledged the
cures, though he tried to explain them on the ground of
our leaving our patients more to nature than drug-givers
do. What a condemnation of the drugging system! Let
us quote what he says of Hahnemann:" No careful observer of his actions, or candid reader of
his writings, can hesitate for a moment to admit that he
was a very extraordinary man. He was undoubtedly a
man of genius, and a scholar; a man of indefatigable industry, of undaunted energy, surpassed by few in the originality and ingenuity of his views; superior to most in
having substantiated and carried out his doctrines into
actual and most extensive practice. It is but an act of
justice also to admit that there exist no grounds for doubting that he was sincere in his belief of the truth of his doctrines, and that many at least of his followers have been,
and are, sincere, honest, and learned men."





164


SMIEDICAL TOOGOODISM1


This is very different language from that of Dr Toogood,
whose name has supplied us with the word Toogoodism.
Very different also is the language of Dr Forbes, in regard
to the Homceopathic system of treatment, from that of the
Toogood school of assailants.
"Homoeopathy," writes Dr Forbes, "is an original system of medicine, as ingenious as many that preceded it,
and destined probably to be the remote, if not the immediate, cause of more important fundamental changes in the
practice of the healing art than have resulted from any promulgated since the days of Galen himself. By most medical men it has been taken for granted that the system is
one not only visionary in itself, but that it is the result of
a mere fanciful hypothesis, disconnected with facts of any
kind, and supported by no processes of ratiocination or
logical inference. And yet nothing can be further from
the truth. Whoever examines the Homoeopathic doctrines, as announced and expounded in the original writings of Hahnemann and many of his followers, must admit
not only that the system is an ingenious one, but that it
professes to be based on a most formidable array of facts and
experiments. *   *  *  We think it impossible to refuse
to Hommeopathy the praise of being an ingenious system
of medical doctrine, tolerably complete in its organisation,
tolerably comprehensive in its views, and as capable of
being defended by feasible arguments as most of the systems of' medicine which preceded it.  *  *  *  As an
established form of practical medicine, as a great fact in
the history of our art, we must, nolentes volentes, consider
Homceopathy.   *   *   *   Not only do we see all our
ordinary curable diseases cured in a fair proportion under
the Homoeopathic method of treatment, but even all the
severer and more dangerous diseases which most physicians, of whatever school, have been accustomed to consider
as not only needing the interposition of art to assist nature
in bringing them to a favourable and speedy termination,





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


165


but demanding the employment of prompt and strong measures to prevent a fatal issue in a considerable proportion
of cases."
The late Dr Andrew Combe, whose reputation as a
medical philosopher is so widely diffused, is another of the
happy exceptions among medical men, who have written
or spoken wisely and fairly of the Hahnemannian doctrine
and practice. This is his language:"Let us scout quacks and pretenders as we may,
Homeopathy presents too strong a prima facie case to warrant our dismissing it with ridicule and contempt. * * *
As a matter of theory, supported only by argument, Homoeopathy produces no conviction whatever in my mind of
its truth or even of its probability; but, as a question of fact,
claiming to rest on the ' irresistible ground of its superior
method of curing diseases and preserving human life,'
and on the alleged experience of able and honest men, as
competent to judge as most of those who oppose them, I
cannot venture to denounce it as untrue, because I have
no experience bearing especially upon it to bring forward,
and we are still too ignorant to be able to predicate, a
priori, what may or may not be true in the great field of
nature. After the presumptive evidence which has been
produced, if I were now in practice, I should hold myself
bound without further delay to test its truth by careful
and extensive experiment."
Yet another instance of the fair and honourable interpretation of the claims of Homceopathy on the medical
profession for a candid and full investigation. It is the
testimony of Dr John Wilson, inspector of naval hospitals
and fleets, who, in his " Medical Notes on China," makes
this statement:
"In the cholera cases the doctrine of the ITomoeopathists, similia similibus curantur, is partly admitted. Whatever may be thought of the theory on which the practice
is founded, there is no doubt that the practice is often





166


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


highly beneficial. At the invasion of many febrile affections, involving important organs, and leading, if not
speedily arrested, to dangerous, perhaps destructive lesions
of those organs, it often acts with an absolutely curative
effect."
These examples of honoured and honourable men, of
high standing and great reputation among the Allopathic
practitioners, who favour Homoeopathy so far as to think
it worthy of a careful and determinate examination, should
satisfy our good public of Great Britain that the outcry of
the general body of the medical men against our doctrine
is not at all indicative of its being what they represent it,
but that their very opposition, as that of a class prejudiced
and resolved to condemn it, is an argument in its favour.
It has been declared to be nonsense; it has been pronounced dangerous; the next stage is that all should pronounce it to have been what was always known.
Nine-tenths of the men of every profession or class
are quite content with the knowledge of one's every-day
things; few endeavour to ascertain the value or the reality
of a philosophy that is beyond their normal comprehension.
Like the fruit-seller in Mahommedan countries, it is easier
for each of them to cry, " In the name of the prophet,
figs!" whether that prophet be Galen, or Coke, or Warburton, or Peel, than to investigate any matter of inquiry
for themselves. Nothing could be more direct or intelligible than that a medical man, for instance, should prove
by experiment whether such a doctrine as Homoeopathy
is false or not; but the vast majority profess, instead, to
condemn it without examination. This is the very essence
of Toogoodism. Two medical men in the year 1841 met
a common friend in the broad-walk near the spa of Cheltenham. This friend of the two physicians was a diligent
student of Homceopathy. He had been a personal friend
as well as disciple of Hahnemann. He began to discourse
of Hahnemann and his doctrine, and spoke wisely and





AND HOM(EOPATHY.


167


well of the great medical reformer, and of his peculiar
views and practice. One of his two hearers said, " I know
nothing of the merits of this practice, but I will certainly
inquire into it." He did so, and is now a well-known
Homoeopathist. The other of his hearers said, " I want
to know nothing about it; I know as much of my profession as I wish to know, or as any man needs to know. I
would not take the trouble to make any experiments of
the kind. I am sure it is all stuff and nonsense." He remains an Allopathist, and is a good specimen of that Toogoodism we have been endeavouring to illustrate.
In the " Confessions of a Homoeopathist," one is depicted
as everything that is vile and detestable: he repents at last,
and confesses himself to have been a villain. In some of the
medical journals, it is recommended that whenever any one
dies under Homceopathic treatment, the practitioner should
be indicted for manslaughter. Dr Jonathan Toogood says
that all Homceopathists are unprincipled charlatans. We
can afford to pity this pitiful way of treating a question
of immense public interest, and of profound philosophy.
There is no more certain sign of ignorance than the proclaimed and angry unbelief in, and rejection of, a thing,
because one does not understand it, and will not even take
the trouble to make the effort to understand it. The case
is worse in relation to Homoeopathy, for many a person
who could make nothing of its deeper philosophy might
satisfy himself, by experiment, of the truth of the practice.
When any person dies under HIomceopathic treatment,
there is immediately an outcry against the practice. Myriads may perish under the drugging system, but this is
the established way of doing to death. The friends of the
departed and the public should not judge from isolated
cases; it is a matter of figures: so many children, suffering from scarlatina, treated Allopathically, so many deaths;
so many treated Homecopathically, so many deaths. And





168


1MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


so also of any other disease. By this test we are willing
to abide. We know, to our cost, the unfairness, the dishonesty, with which our medical opponents treat us. A
few days ago, a clergyman, who is in attendance on a gentleman supposed to be past hope of recovery, suggested to
the medical attendant the propriety of trying Homoeopathy, as he had avowed that the ordinary treatment was
of no avail. " Sir," said this specimen of Toogoodism,
" never mention the subject of Homoeopathy to a surgeon"
-looking the while all the scorn he felt. Now, what
great harm would have been done in trying our remedies?
A patient is left as hopeless by an Allopathic practitioner;
a Homoeopathist is called in, and the patient dies. As a
matter of course, he was killed by Homoeopathy. At one
time it is said that there is nothing in our medicines: at
another time, that they are concentrated poisons. Last
winter, an infant was found in the morning dead, at Torquay, when there was every reason to think it was overlain by its nurse. One of the medical men of the place
was sent for to see it, and asked if it had taken any medicine lately? "Only a globule of Homceopathic medicine."
"Ah! those are dangerous remedies, strong poisons. What
was the medicine?" "A globule of chamomilla."  "Oh!
certainly chamomilla is not a poison."
We are almost ashamed to write such things, but they
show the animus of Toogoodism. Men of that ism endeavour, through thick and thin, per fas vel nefas, to abuse,
vilify, put down whatever they think is in the way of their
craft. What care they for divine philosophy? Good enough,
easy, well-meaning men, they would not hurt a fly that did
not tease them, but run a-muck-like a savage Malay,
creese in hand-against whatever offends their prejudices,
or seems to threaten their interest. This Toogoodism,
then, is a part of our poor human nature. We are sorry
for it, and would gladly see it amended.
A medical gentleman of Philadelphia, of considerable re




AND HOM(EOPATHY.


169


putation, and an Allopath, lately wrote to a friend in this
country who has recently embraced Homceopathy; and,
after expressing his regret for his adoption of the Hahnemannian doctrine, went on to declare to him that Homoeopathy was held in contempt or indifference in the United
States; that the persons who practised it were sent to Coventry, and never received into good society; and that there
were no men of any sort of respectability practising it. Constantine Hering, one of the most distinguished medical men
and naturalists in the world, a man of great genius and of
the most sincere and gentle goodness, so far as the word good
can be applied to any human being, lives and flourishes
in Philadelphia. He is a thoroughly truthful man, and
he told us some three years ago, when he was in Europe,
that the difficulty in the United States was not to get medical men to join the Hom=eopathic ranks, but to keep
them back from pressing prematurely and too rapidly into
our array. We believe, from all that we can gather, that
there are more than a thousand Homoeopathic practitioners
in the United States: yet this well-to-do Allopathic doctor
of Philadelphia laughs at the notion of Homoeopathy having made any way in those States. This is another instance of Toogoodism.
We think it must be manifest to all who will take the
trouble to examine the subject dispassionately, that the
great body of the medical profession must, in the first instance, almost as a matter of course, judging from the analogy and history of all similar discoveries, have rejected
Homoeopathy. It has been shown that some few eminent
men, from Hufeland half a century ago to Dr Forbes of
our day, have ever and anon proclaimed their belief that
it was a subject well worthy of the serious attention and
anxious investigation of medical men. During that halfcentury, this doctrine has been adopted and the practice
pursued by about three thousand duly qualified and welleducated practitioners, in Europe and America. It has





170


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


made quite as much progress as could reasonably have been
expected in Great Britain, since its introduction in 1827.
The public, then, can only come to one conclusion, if they
will use their own faculties of judgment and comparison
-that Homceopathy is a true doctrine, and the practice
worthy of an honest, careful, and extensive trial, to say
the least of it. Taken per se, the mere opposition of the
bulk of our medical men argues nothing against it, but
rather the contrary. The testimony of some of the most
able and enlightened, who have yet stopped short of embracing it, says much more in its favour than the blind
prejudice of the multitude does against it. We trust we
have fairly, though rapidly, sketched the present relation
between Medical Toogoodism and Homeopathy.      The
past history of our doctrine records the struggles of
Hahnemann and his followers, the ups and downs of the
conflict, and the triumphant issue in many places. The
struggle and the conflict are still going on in Great Britain:
the result cannot be doubted.
The Homoeopathic practitioners should be a compact
and united body, because union is strength. The friends
and patrons of Homeopathy among the public can aid our
progress by unity of purpose and a resolute will to have
the doctrine fairly tested. There ought to be an Hospital
and School of Homccopathy in each metropolis of the three
kingdoms-London, Edinburgh, and Dublin-and this
without delay. The non-medical adherents of our doctrine
are sufficiently numerous and wealthy to provide ample
funds for this purpose. This is a most important step that
should be immediately taken. It is a downright neglect of a
positive duty to let selfish considerations interfere with the
advancement of a public good. Homoeopathy is not for
the benefit of this or that medical practitioner, or for this
or that patient only, but should be diffused for the benefit
of all. Such towns as Liverpool, Birmingham, and Manchester, should each have a Homoeopathic hospital. We





AND HOMIEOPATHY.


171


ask for nothing but what is fair and equitable. Some of
our advocates say that in time our Homoeopathic practitioners will be elected to the hospitals and other public
institutions already existing. But when? Little do such
persons know of human nature and of the manner of the
election to such hospitals.  It were fitting that those
who have.been the pioneers of this doctrine in Great
Britain, through good report and ill report, should have
the satisfaction, before they depart hence and are no
more seen, to know that their labour has not been in
vain-that they.have testified worthily to an established
school of medicine. Those of high place, and possessed
of wealth almost realising an oriental dream, who have
for themselves and families derived incalculable benefit
from this method of practice, should be awakened from
their unconsciousness of the duty they owe themselves and
the public, and the Giver of their wealth, in this respect.
Life was not intended to be the voluptuous pastime of a
Sybarite, or to be passed in a sort of philosophical indifference to the well-being of society. Life is, or should be,
a series of struggles after good. The greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of people, is the true
rule of good government; the greatest possible amount of
relief from pain and physical suffering and disease, for the
greatest number of people, is the true rule of practical
philanthropy on a medical question.
In every town where Homoeopathy is practised, there
should be a branch society in connection with the London
British Homoeopathic Association,* and the object of the
main trunk and of each branch should be the obtaining of
sufficient funds for the establishment of hospitals, as well as
for the diffusion, by books, of the Homocopathic doctrine
and practice.
Let us be allowed to conclude this paper with a brief
* There is such a branch in Liverpool.





17 V


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


survey of medicine from our august Father Adam to the
present time. When man lived in Eden, there was no
place for medicine or the healing art; his body was then
incorruptible. But, when he was expelled from that garden of delights, he became subject to corruption and decay and death. The seeds of disease were then lodged in
his body, and from these, ever since, myriad forms of ailment, aberrations from health, have continually sprung.
In the beginning, simple herbs were the probable remedies
for most of these ailments; a traditional knowledge of this
or that simple being good for this or that ailment would be
handed down from father to son. Persons who live a natural life are not subject to what we call chronic diseases.
So that the Nomadic tribes of the East would not, in the
first ages, be perplexed with a great variety of disorders.
Among the native tribes of North America, even to this
day, the treatment of disease is by such simples as we have
indicated. If a person suffers from the poison of the
rattlesnake, they have their infallible remedy for it; their
simple remedies for all their ailments are essentially specific. Experience and the healing art so grew up together.
But in time, when men began to congregate and dwell
in towns and cities-when luxury came in with its baneful seductions, and science began to speculate and account
for experience by theory-the order of the healing art became inverted. Experience was in a great manner neglected, and the so-called science of medicine was founded
on various theories and hypotheses. It then became the
custom to theorise on diseases and their cure, and to substitute remedies in accordance with such theories for the
medicine of experience.
As theories became fashionable, simples were more and
more neglected, till at last they became exploded and forgotten among the nations called civilised. New and complicated prescriptions were introduced, more or less dangerous, requiring great discrimination and judgment for





AND HOMCEOPATHY.


173


their safe application; till medicine became as it were an
abstract science, out of the reach of non-professional persons; and this was the beginning of a separate class-physicians.
At the first, from their lofty pretensions, these were held
in admiration, as having a knowledge almost superhuman;
wealth and honours flowed in to them, and it became their
interest to make a mystery of their art; so that medicine
grew into a mystery. How influenced in successive ages
by astrology, astronomy, the mechanical and the chemical
philosophies, and a series of ever-varying theories, we stop
not to discuss. Those who would fain recur to the use of
simple remedies, as they founded their practice on experiments instead of theory, were called empirics. The legitimate physicians of course scouted them. They worked into
their polypharmacy, which appears to us so monstrous, all
manner of incongruous things, exotics from every region,
chemicals, and Galenicals, acrid poisons in mighty doses,
strange and mysterious compounds, wonderful prescriptions.
Great men and wise men and good men have never been
wanting to dignify this body of physicians, notwithstanding.
Hippocrates, Galen, Boerhaave, Caius, Sydenham, and
very many others, might be enumerated. Yet let any one
look at the writings of the best of them, and it will be seen
how such men even as these were subject to the tyranny of
their education and the barbarism of this polypharmacy.
Well, as the ages rolled on, a man was born and lived
and died, who was known among men by the name of
Samuel Hahnemann. He discovered that the order of
medicine was inverted, and he boldly and wisely returned
to the primitive custom-to the medicine of experience.
He at once dashed aside all the theories that trammelled
his predecessors and contemporaries. The fine-spun hypothesis was to him apparent for what it was, a profitless
jargon. He came back to experiments and experience. iHe
gave one medicine at a time. Hle said this remedy, in ac




174


MEDICAL TOOGOODISM


cordance with the law of healing, will cure such an ailment. If we can cover all the symptoms of such a patient
with such a medicine, he will be cured. He consulted only
common sense, experience, and the common interests of
mankind. "Like cures like" was the law of healing, as
illustrated by him, the Homoeopathic law. Every aberration from the normal state of health has its specific remedy,
if we knew it. Hahnemann's followers are bound to follow out his design. Polypharmacy, and medicines given
merely in accordance with a theory, are rejected by us.
Ours is the medicine of experience; call us, then, if you
like, in the classical sense of the word, empirics. Call
Homceopathy, if you choose, this medicine of experience.
We have thus in a few sentences contrasted Allopathy
and Homoeopathy. Allopathy having no law of healing of
general applicability, while Homoeopathy has: Allopathy
ever changing its pharmacy and its compounds of drugs,
Homoeopathy having a definite law for its guidance in the
choice of remedies. Homceopathy capable of taking in and
using all the real knowledge of all the medical schools from
Hippocrates to the present day; availing itself readily of
every accessory of science, and of experience; bound by
no contrarious theories; untrammelled by the tyranny of
the schools; while Allopathy is tossed about with every
wind of doctrine-to one thing constant never. We freely
confess that cures are often made, have been often made,
and so long as it lasts will be often made, by Allopathy; but
we believe that these cures are frequently to be explained
by the fact that the practitioners, quite unconsciously of
course, give medicines Homoeopathic to the cases. We use
all their drugs of any worth, and many medicines of whose
properties they are altogether ignorant.
We see no signs of the school of New Physic they were
called on by their Coryphceus to erect. We should be
happy to concur with them, if they would co-operate with
us, in the attempt to put their practice on a more satisfac




AND HOM(EOPATHY.


175


tory foundation. We respectfully and earnestly invite
them to study the writings of Hahnemann; to repeat his
experiments, and those of his followers.  We seek not theirs,
but them. We ask them to see whether or not they are
under the influence of the Toogoodism of a class, and then
to rise above it, and examine for themselves our doctrine
and practice.
While we write, the Asiatic Cholera is in England,
Scotland, and Ireland, fierce in some places, comparatively
mild in others. It is avowedly confessed that the resources
of Allopathy cannot meet this disease: the mortality is
great under any practice; but very much less under
Homoeopathic treatment than under Allopathic.* We put
it to our Allopathic brethren how they can fairly refuse
to test our remedies in such a disease.
We have not even the shadow of a doubt that the truths
of Homoeopathy will be received by a goodly number of
the medical men of these kingdoms at no distant date. It
is for their sake, and that of the living generation of our
fellow-subjects, that we are anxious our voice in favour of
Homoeopathy should be heard.
*The result of the treatment fully justified the anticipated success. See Russell's " Treatise on Epidemic Cholera." Headlan
1849.





THE
ROYAL COLLEGE
OF
PHYSICIANS OF         EDINBURGH,
AND
H 0 M 'E 0 P A T H Y.
THE sthte of comparative inaction of the medical profession, in reference to Homceopathy, was very distasteful to the " Lancet," which had been goading the different
public bodies to take some aggressive steps against the
pestilent heresy; the English colleges treated the plebeian
tribune with silent contempt; but in Scotland, historically
famous for persecution, the instigation to attack was not
thrown away, and the muttering precursor of the brooding
storm prepared by the College of Physicians was emitted
by the " Witness" newspaper of the 29th of May, in the following paragraph:" In our paper of Wednesday week, we gave publicity to
a rumour which had reached us from several quarters, and
to which the ' Lancet' gave strength by an article that we
quoted, to the effect that the Royal College of Physicians
of Edinburgh had resolved to expel from its body all those
who practise Homceopathy. Since then, we have seen the
resolutions referred to, and find them to be not nearly so
severe in their tone as the article from the ' Lancet' might
have led us to expect. They are not intended for publication, and, therefore, unless they find their way to the
public eye through the medium of some of the medical





THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND HOM(EOPATHY. 177
journals, we shall not be in a position to present them in
detail to our readers. It may be sufficient, meanwhile, to
indicate their general character, and to mention that they
were passed unanimously, at a very full meeting of the
College, and that the Royal College of Surgeons have since
adopted resolutions very similar in-character, so that the
medical profession may now be held to have spoken out as
a body on the subject of Homoeopathy. The resolutions
thus unanimously adopted are four in number. The first
asserts that the College, several years ago, declined to
admit into its body a Homoeopathic practitioner, and thus
publicly expressed its opinion of Homoeopathy; the second
states the regret of the College, that, in the face of this
known fact, one or two of its fellows, after being admitted
as regular practitioners, have endangered the reputation of
the College by becoming Homcceopathists, and calls upon
them to retire from the body, announcing that the College
repudiates them, and that from their connection with it
they can derive nothing else than a false position and a
spurious credit; the third resolution alludes to the fact first
announced by the Homoeopathists themselves, as to the
impossibility of practitioners of the two systems meeting
in consultation, and urging this as an additional reason for
their voluntary retirement; while the fourth hints pretty
plainly that the College has the power to take other and
still more decided steps, should they be so advised.
We cannot see that the practitioners of Homoeopathy
have anything to complain of. The resolutions, though
decided in their tone, are calm and dignified, the separation requested, the College asserts, has been virtually made
in fact, and almost every professor of Homceopathy, from
Hahnemann downwards, have filled their pages with abuse
and ridicule of the regular profession. It seems natural
that the men so insulted should decline their intercourse.
As for the public, they can still make their election. The
only possible way in which this decision can affect them is,
N





178


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


that, if they employ a Homoeopathic practitioner, they do
so knowing that they cannot in extremity avail themselves,
as has been too often hitherto the case, of the services of
the regular faculty; and further, that they are having recourse to a system which has thus been calmly and decidedly
considered by the unanimous voice of the most educated
and most accomplished practitioners in Edinburgh."
This may be considered as the first movement of the
Absolutists in the campaign of 1851, and it was immediately followed by the counter movement on the side of independence which the succeeding letters disclose.
DR HENDERSON TO THE EDITOR OF THE " WITNESS."
61 Northumberland Street, Edinburgh,
30th May, 1851.
MI  DEAR SIR,-Although I cannot but deprecate the
discussion of medical questions in the columns of a newspaper, and consider so public a notice of the miserable
squabbles and jealousies of medical men to be extremely
humiliating and disgraceful to the profession, I am compelled, by the repeated admission into your paper of offensive paragraphs from a pen on one side of what may be
termed the great medical controversy of the day, to ask you
to publish this letter, and the accompanying documents.
In giving publicity to the resolutions of the Edinburgh
Royal College of Physicians, I do not transgress that law
of the College which requires, that no fellow shall divulge
any transaction of the body which " may tend to the prejudice or defamation of the same," for these resolutions have
been substantially divulged already by the Medical Secretary of the College, who was, doubtless, the source of the
article in your paper of the 29th. Whether they are
" calm and dignified," as that article affirms, I leave with
confidence to the judgment of any educated gentleman.





OF EDINBURGH, AND HOMUEOPATHY.


179


On each of the resolutions I have a few words to say,
not of a critical kind, but plain statements of fact, which
I also leave with confidence to the judgment of the candid
and courteous reader. I would first, however, mention the
apparent cause of this new ebullition of the College. As
I understand the matter, what they term Homoeopathyprobably without knowing very well what it means-in
addition to its wide and increasing diffusion among all
classes of the public, has lately gained the support of a
Fellow of the College of Physicians, whose defection is
aggravated by the following circumstances:-That he was
not long ago the bitterest enemy of Homoeopathy in the
whole College,-that he had been for many years the
honoured treasurer of the Royal College,-that about two
years since, on his leaving Edinburgh for a new sphere of
practice in England, the College presented him with a
silver tea-pot, tea-kettle, or tea-urn-I don't know whichand a hundred pounds sterling, all in token of their high
consideration and affectionate gratitude.
On the first resolution, I would observe that the exclusion of the candidate to whom it adverts was far from
having been unanimous. In the wise and liberal minority
that voted for his admission were, I have the best reason
to believe, the late Dr Hope, the well-known Professor of
Chemistry, and the late Dr Davidson, who has not left his
superior behind him in the College.
The second resolution pre-supposes that the mere fellowship of the College gives a peculiar title to the confidence
and respect of the public. How far this is true, let the
reader judge from the following undeniable facts:-Ist,
The fellows are admitted by ballot, altogether irrespectively of their professional attainments, provided they have
acquired the title of M.D. at any British University,
even at St Andrews. Consequently, any young man who
graduates in this country is qualified for admission into
the College of Physicians. 2d, The College is composed,





180


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


for the most part, of the common medical practitioners of
the city, respectable in their station and character, it may
be, but not superior in these respects, any more than in
professional knowledge, to the ordinary practitioners of
other large towns. 3d, The title of Fellow of the College
of Physicians is not regarded in the profession as a considerable distinction, and is not thought to be the smallest
evidence of superior attainments. 4th, The advantages
and privileges of the College are chiefly these:-the reception by some Medical Boards of the class-tickets of such
fellows as choose to lecture; a news-room; a good library;
"a museum of drugs; a very handsome hall, where tea and
"a lecture of some sort are given once a-month; and the
right of regulating the practice of physic in certain parts
of Edinburgh, namely, to use the words of the charter, in
"the Canongate, the West Port, St Leonard's Street, and
the Potterrow."
The third resolution declares that no Fellow of the College can meet " Practitioners of Homceopathy" in consultation without dishonour! The President of the College,
who was in the chair when the resolutions were passed,
has been in the habit of acting in the very teeth of that
declaration whenever he was asked. Others have, I believe, done the same. But let not the reader suppose that
such consultations have been frequent, or that there are
many fellows of the College accustomed to be consulted by
any party at all. Three, or at the most four, compose the
whole number; and how much we are dependent upon
them for their professional aid may be gathered in some
measure from the fact, that I have had occasion to meet
with only one of them in practice for two years past,namely, with the President, twice, in his capacity as
surgeon. The increasing confidence of those who are
treated on the principle which the College affects to condemn, has put an end to such consultations; and I can
say with most significant truth, that the cases "in extre




OF EDINBURGH, AND HOMCEOPATHY.


181


mity" which resort at last to what I hold to be the better
method, vastly exceed in number those whose weakness
in'disease permits them to yield to the solicitations of friends
who are hostile to the safer treatment.
The article in your paper of the 29th concludes with
saying that Hommopathy has been condemned "by the
most educated and most accomplished practitioners in
Edinburgh." This may be true; but I have yet to learn
that it has ever been condemned by any man, in any part
of the world, who had the smallest title-by any knowledge he had of it-to utter an opinion on the subject;
and it is a melancholy fact that education and accomplishment should as readily play the "world-old tragedy" of
persecution for opinions and beliefs in the nineteenth century as ever did heathen darkness in the second.-I am,
yours very truly,
WILLIAM HENDERSON.
The following resolutions were transmitted to Dr Henderson by the Secretary of the College of Physicians, in
an envelope addressed to " Dr Henderson, Practitioner of
Homoeopathy:""At Edinburgh, and within the College Hall there, the
ninth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and
fifty-one years, an extraordinary meeting of the Royal
College was held, pursuant to a resolution agreed to
at the last quarterly meeting, and of which extraordinary meeting due notice was given by billets sent to
all the Fellows.
"Dr SIMPsoN, President, in the chair. Roll called, and
absentees fined.
"Dr ALEXANDER WOOD, the Honorary Secretary, reported the circumstances which led the Council to believe
that the time was now come when it was necessary to take
some steps in regard to those Fellows of the College who
had professed themselves Homceopathic practitioners.





182


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


"The following resolutions were moved, seconded, and
unanimously agreed to:" 1. That the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
did several years ago publicly express its opinion of Homoeopathy and Homoeopathic practitioners, by peremptorily declining to admit into its body a candidate for its
fellowship who belonged to that denomination, and consequently that no Fellow of the College can possibly be
ignorant of the light in which all those who practise Homoeopathy are regarded by the College.
"2. The College regret that, notwithstanding this decided expression of their opinion, more than one of its
fellows, after being admitted in a different character, have
endangered the reputation of the College by becoming
Homoeopathic practitioners, and the College express an
earnest hope that these fellows, seeing that they have
thus virtually separated themselves from the College, will
spontaneously sever their further connection with an institution which repudiates them, and from which they derive,
as merely nominal fellows, nothing else than a false position and a spurious credit.
" 3. The College feel the more bound thus to express their
opinion, inasmuch as those of the fellows who have become
Hommeopathists, or any other medical practitioners who
follow Homceopathy, must necessarily be aliens to the
other fellows, and to the profession at large; inasmuch as
no Fellow of this College, nor any other physician, can, by
any possibility, without derogating from his own honour,
and from the honour of the profession, meet practitioners
of Hommeopathy in consultation, or co-operate with them
in the other common duties of professional life.
" 4. That, although the College has hitherto not thought
it expedient to take any active steps for disclaiming those
fellows who have become Homceopathic practitioners subsequently to their admission to the College; nevertheless,
since it has the power of dealing summarily with those who





OF EDINBURGH, AND HOM(EOPATHY.


183


act in a manner so unbecoming the character of a physician, it reserves its right to exercise this power when it
shall be so advised.
" It was further moved"That the College having found it necessary at length,
and very reluctantly, to take action in regard to those fellows who, having entered the College in a different character, have subsequently avowed themselves to be Homceopathic practitioners, remit to the Council to direct
copies of this and the foregoing first four resolutions to be
transmitted by the Secretary to all such fellows as are now,
or may hereafter, be known to have acted in this way,
trusting that this may lead them to withdraw from the
College."
This resolution was also unanimously adopted.
DR HENDERSON TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COLLEGE
OF PHYSICIANS,
61 Northumberland Street,
12th May, 1851.
SIR,-I have to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a
series of resolutions adopted by the Royal College of Physicians on the 9th curt., and which, you say, you have been
instructed to send me.
Some parts of those resolutions are so intemperate and
insulting, as to be discreditable to the body from which
they emanate; and though you take pains to inform me
that the resolutions, as they stand, were unanimously
adopted by the College, I shall do some of the fellows
the justice to believe that they have so much good sense
and gentlemanly feeling as to be incapable of impugning
the honour of any one because lie differs from them in the
choice or dose of a drug; although they may, from absence
or inadvertence, have appeared to acquiesce in the sentiments of some less scrupulous associate.
To the framer of these resolutions, I would willingly con




184


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


fine the disgrace of what is outrageous in their tone and
tenor; but, as they are sent forth, in their present offensive shape, in the name of the College, I am precluded
from replying now to such parts of them as may fairly be
mooted among courteous and upright men, nor can I reply
to them at any time until the College shall address me in a
more becoming style.
The unusual title of "Practitioner of Homceopathy,"
with which you endorse your letter to me, is doubtless intended as an additional insult. Whether suggested by the
Royal College, or the spontaneous fruit of your own taste,
I receive the proposed indignity with composure; for I
fully believe, and have long acted on the belief, temperately, yet firmly, and undeterred by much misrepresentation and abuse, that what is termed the " Homceopathic
principle," is by far the most important and the most extensively useful of the principles, hitherto discovered, which
ought to regulate the practice of medicine; and if physicians are to be classed by distinctive epithets-as Homoeopathic, Allopathic, and Antipathic, according as they prefer one therapeutic principle or another in their practice
-I am abundantly satisfied, and the reasonable part of the
public will, I have no doubt, concur with me, that under
each designation, whether belonging to a Royal College or
not, there will rank the usual proportion of worthy and of
questionable men. Before the College commits itself further on this subject, however, I would caution it against a
difficulty it will encounter in the attempt at classification,
and the other measures it may have in view, by reminding it of the discussion which took place on the occasion to
which its first resolution adverts, in which it was strongly,
and no doubt truly, urged by a president of the very same
body, that those who were designated Homceopathists had
no exclusive right to that title, seeing that the Homa=opathic action of remedies was as distinctly admitted by the
profession at large as it was by them.





OF EDINBURGH, AND HOMGEOPATHY.


185


I write to you, of course, in your official capacity, and,
therefore, have the honour to be, your very obedient ser- vnt,
WILLIAM HENDERSON.
It may be proper to add, that the Secretary has acknowledged the title referred to above to have been given on
his own responsibility, while he has ingeniously regretted
that it should have been taken as an insult. It never was
so taken, but was simply asserted to have been intended as
an insult; and who can doubt that it was who has read the
resolutions.
W.H.
DR RUSSELL TO THE EDITOR OF THE " WITNESS."
Edinburgh, 75 Queen Street,
May 29, 1851.
SIR,-In the "Witness" of to-day, I observe an article
likely to give rise to serious misapprehension, from the following paragraph. After detailing the resolutions recently
adopted by the College of Physicians, it goes on to say" We cannot see that the practitioners of Homeopathy
have anything to complain of. * * * As for the public,
they can still make their election. The only possible way
in which this decision can effect them is, that, if they employ a Homeopathic practitioner, they do so knowing that
they cAnnot in extremity avail themselves, as has been too
often hitherto the case, of the services of the regular faculty."
Now, I for one am not entitled, nor inclined, to complain of this antiquated burgh-corporation making itself
ridiculous, although it outdoes the Pope and the Emperor
of China in the bravery of its words and the impotence of
its actions, as I have not the dubious honour of its fellowship. But that we, who practise Homccopathy, are in the
habit of receiving aid from the soi-disant "regular faculty"





186      THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


who constitute the College, when our patients are in extreme danger, is utterly false. I have now been in practice for ten years, and only once have I sought such assistance. I applied, in that case, against the patient's wish
(who was a female), to the Professor of Midwifery, who
at once complied with my request. The case was of a very
unusual nature, and half a century might elapse without
my meeting with such another.
On the contrary, it happens frequently that, when the
efforts of the old school are quite baffled, death seeming inevitable, we are called upon to try to avert the fatal termination.
I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,
J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL.
DR WIELOBYCKI TO THE EDITOR OF THE " WITNESS."
Edinburgh, 55 Queen Street,
June 22, 1851.
SIR,-You will not deny to me, a foreigner, the privilege you allow to your townsmen; and, therefore, I must
beg of you the indulgence of bearing with my imperfect
power of stating my case, reminding you that, though at
present this country is at the height of its prosperity, no
one knows but that, before long, you or your children may
have to plead their cause as exiles in a foreign land, and
in a foreign speech.
Although altogether unused to literary warfare, I was
very young roughly taught the use of arms; having, when
only sixteen years of age, taken a part with the rest of my
family in the last (1830-31) war of independence, which
terminated so disastrously for my country.  Forced to
assume a German name, I studied at Cracow, Bonn, and
Berlin, and obtained the degree of Doctor in Philosophy,t the la3t of these Universities, intending to settle in Cra




OF EDINBURGH, AND HOMIEOPATHY.


187


cow; but I was soon recognised, arrested, and imprisoned.
After undergoing many hardships, I escaped, and made
my way, through dangers of all kinds, to Hamburgh,
where I embarked for Leith, and so got here twelve years
ago. I was ignorant then of your language, but met with
great kindness; and, attending the University here, took
my degree as M.D., and was for two years assistant-surgeon at the now termed Royal Maternity Hospital. At
this time, the Homoeopathic Dispensary at Stockbridge,
conducted by Drs Black and Russell, was in full operation,
and having been treated by this system, when a boy, at my
father's in Poland, and having conversed with many distinguished Homoeopathic practitioners in Germany, I determined to attend it. I met with every facility and encouragement from the physicians, who have been my
steady friends all along; and, since then, I have been
unmolested in my practice. What I sought as an asylum
has become a home; and, before I purchased my present
house, I obtained letters of naturalisation, so that I am
now a British subject. My attention being directed to a
paragraph in your paper of May 29, and seeing letters
from Professor Henderson and Dr Russell denying the
statement therein made, I think it right to make some few
observations upon it and the documents published in your
paper of May 31.
As I had studied at the College, I supposed there might
be some analogy between the University College and the
College of Physicians. But I find this is an entire mistake. The University College, which gave me my diploma, is an institution for education. The degrees are
only given after years of study, and are the reward of industry. But the College of Physicians seems only to be a
sort of trade-guild, such as is common in Germany. For
example, the shoemaker, the tailor, and other mechanics,
have all certain guild privileges; and no one is allowed to
make shoes or trousers who is not a member of the Guild





188


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


of the town. This seems the same with this so-called
College; for it requires no examination from its candidates, but only the payment of ~100; and everybody who
has a degree from any British University is eligible. It
has a monopoly of the practice of some parts of the Old
Town, the Potterrow, and Canongate, &c.   It is true,
I find it stated in your paper, that it is composed of the
" most educated and most accomplished medical practitioners in Edinburgh;" but, as this statement is made by
one of themselves, of course it has no great weight; for,
possibly, the writer's idea of education and accomplishment are of a narrow guild character, not estimated by any
European standard.  It is certain that the preliminary
education required here is far less than what is thought
necessary to make an educated or accomplished man in
Germany, where Latin is in ordinary use in all clinical
teaching; whereas here a mere smattering of that language, and no knowledge of French or German, is often
met with among those who call themselves learned physicians, and, as such, would monopolise the right of practice, and repress the development of any new idea in medicine. It would be presumptuous in me to say what my
idea of a highly educated and accomplished physician
was; but I must say, that, if the paragraph referred to be
writ ten by such an one, it is very unlike the kind of composition which I was taught on the Continent as characterising your distinguished men of letters. However, with
that I have nothing to do. What passes for talent and accomplisnhment in one place, may not be so admitted in
other places; and you cannot always expect to have men
of European celebrity-such as Cullen and Gregory-presiding over your colleges.  But one statement in this
article is untrue, as refers to my practice, and I wish to
give it a public denial. In no case of extreme danger
have I ever called in the aid of any Member of the
SCollege of Physicians during the last eight years of my





OF EDINBURGH, AND HOMCEOPATHY.


189


practice. I don't know who the parties are who have
been too often in the habit of doing this. Professor Henderson says it is not he. Dr Russell says it is not he; and
I say it is not I. I think I may answer for my fellowcountryman, Dr Lyschinski. When in doubt, I have the
other Homoeopathic physicians to apply to, who, besides
being educated exactly as the Fellows of the College are,
have the advantage of a knowledge of the action of Iomaeopathy, so that there could be no reason for my seeking
extra professional assistance. It would be going from the
more educated to the less educated; for, in some parts of
Germany, when a person takes his degree of physician,
he is asked if he intends to prosecute Homceopathy; and,
if he does, he has to pass an additional examination; so
that Homoeopathic physicians are simply ordinary physicians, whether members of the town corporation or college or not, who, to the usual knowledge required by examining boards, have acquired, either in this country
or abroad, the knowledge of a more refined and difficult
system of administering drugs. And if the reverse had
not been stated in your paper, I should have imagined
that they, from this reason, would be the more accomplished, as they are certainly the more educated, of the
two.
Perhaps it would prevent future difficulties, if the College would mention what they intend to proscribe nextwhether all who practice mesmerism are to be excommunicated by the Edinburgh Vatican. If the principle of expelling every member who adopts a new method of practice is rigidly enforced, before many years are past, all the
members may be expelled, one after another, till one only
is left to reign in solitary grandeur over the hall and the
tea-table. Four fellows are included in this proscription; but the next auto-da-fe may be more handsomely
celebrated, if the mesmeric mania denounced by some of
the members, and courageously propagated by the Presi




190 THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND HOM(EOPATHY.
dent and one of the Professors, continue to prevail during
the dog-days.
I must apologise for this long letter. It is not easy to
acquire the art of concise writing; but, if I have made
myself intelligible, and said nothing offensive or improper,
1 trust you will excuse the faults, and admit the contradiction into the organ which gave such extensive circulation to a misrepresentation.
I remain, Sir, your obedient humble servant,
DIONYSIUS WIELOBYCKI.





OUR    COLLEGE     OF PHYSICIANS.
*
OuR readers already understand pretty clearly the
nature of the Homceopathic movement in medicine, since
we have thought it our duty as journalists to inquire concerning so striking a scientific phenomenon, and also to
lay the results of the investigation before the public. Not
that we presumed to enter on a scientific estimate of the
Homceopathic doctrine, for that would certainly have been
beyond our province; but we were anxious to know what
it is, who originated it, and by whom it is received, inasmuch as we were never done hearing of it in society. In
short, Homceopathy had become such a notable thing in
the world around us, that we were bound (as professed
teachers) to seek some information on the subject, and report our findings to our readers. They are, therefore, aware
that this Homoeopathy is essentially a theory of cure, propounded by one Hahnemann some fifty years ago, practised upon by a rapidly increasing minority of our own
doctors, and trusted in by all sorts of lay people, from his
Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, to his Excellency the
Chevalier Bunsen, inclusive of a rare variety of intellectual character. It keeps up dispensaries, founds hospitals,
edits journals, gains large private practices, as they are
called, writes books, and makes converts. Its professors
* From the " Edinburgh News" of June 7, 1851.





192


OUR COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.


are regularly graduated doctors of medicine, and its patients
are gentle and simple, learned and unlearned, men of
genius and men of none, Jews and Gentiles, but certainly
as fair an average of contemporary society as presently
rallies round any new cause. Whether, then, Homoeopathy
be a discovery, a half-truth, or one more medical error in
history (a thing we are not competent to decide, of course,
or even to pronounce an opinion upon), it is at least clear
that it is not a thing to be sneered down, nor yet an ignoble
creature to be thrust out of good men's doors. Indeed, it
seems too vivacious and aggressive to suffer much damage
at anybody's hands. To say nothing of some hundred and
fifty other practitioners, it has within these few years won
four of the Fellows of our College of Physicians to its stan"dard-Professor Henderson, Dr Neville Wood of London,
Dr IM'Leod of Benrhydding, and Dr Ransford of York,
the last of whom was lately the treasurer of the good old
institution. So much for the first part of our story; now
for the second.
The majority of the Royal College (for it is royal!)
could not stand this conversion of its learned fellows any
longer, it seems; and they have actually, within these few
weeks, passed a series of resolutions insisting (by implication) on the withdrawal of the new converts. They do not
expel them, indeed; but why?   Simply because the four
extruded fellows would be down on the College with as
many actions of damages, say to the tune of ~10,000 apiece; and the damages would assuredly be awarded. But
the said majority did their best right royally-they invented, worded, heard and adopted, the resolutions (formerly
quoted, p. 181-183).
Such is the series of memorable resolutions which draws
its slow length along the College minute-book, like an unmistakeable Alexandrine as it is-in our opinion, a clumsy
wooden substitute for a curt and manly vote of expulsion.
Such, too, as we learn from the " Witness," were the con




OUR COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.


193


tents of an envelope, addressed thereupon, not to Professor,
but to Dr Henderson, practitioner of Homoeopathy, by
Professor Alexander Wood, the honorary secretary of the
orthodox body under contemplation.
This College has now much more work before than behind it, we suspect. Mesmerism has always been in their
black books, and they must proceed speedily to thrust forth
Professor Gregory-perhaps even Dr Simpson, the president, good as he is at saving appearances, being a true a
posteriori man of science! Next comes phrenology and the
phrenologists; could Dr Bennet, or any other orthodox
fellow, not prove the former to be a humbug, and the latter
to be dupes and quacks, in the space of five-and-twenty
minutes, by any stop-watch in the kingdom?     Does
phrenology not modify a man's whole treatment of the
insane, and a portion of his therapeutic practice in general?  In sober earnest, the College is bound in its
duty to the public to insult phrenology and mesmerism
without delay. But it wont, for discretion is the better
part of valour. It has no particular taste for persecution
merely for persecution's sake. Like the tiger and the domestic cat, it is not brave; it only does brave-looking
things under the impulsion of hunger, under the pressure
of alimentiveness, as the phrenological fellows would say,
under the inspiration of avaritia vulgaris, or common greed.
Phrenology and mesmerism do not touch the regal pocket
yet; but Homoeopathy does, and it must be put down, for the
craft is in danger. There were clearly representatives of
Alexander the coppersmith, and sons Qf Simon Magus; but
it would have been better still if there had been even one
town-clerk of Ephesus at the fatal meeting. But they were
unanimous, for "a fellow feeling makbes us wondrous kind."
We need not say we deplore all this-the thinking portion of the public will despise it. Be Homzeopathy right
or wrong, this treatment of its honest and learned advocates is insolent, tyrannical, ignorant, vulgar, and utterly
o





194


OUR COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.


repugnant to the spirit of the age. As a fact, indeed, it is
impotent; but, as an example, it is infamous. It is an insult to the thousands of thoughtful lay adherents of Homceopathy, for they have conscientiously chosen their physicians. It is an insult to the public at large, for it is an
endeavour to dictate their selection. It is an insult to
mankind, for it is a tremendously feeble attempt to fetter
thought and will. It is an insult to science, for science
expires as soon as it is denied the air of freedom, and the
everlasting right of growth.
It is also a bungle-yes, an egregious blunder.    It
draws public attention to the subject. It interests people's
feelings of natural justice, patronage, good nature, and
sympathy, in favour of the condemned inquirers. It drives
the Homceopathists, both professional and passive, into
stricter leagues of resistance, aggression, and victory. In
one word, if Homoeopathy be an error, the world will one
day blame our College of Physicians for doing what they
could to consolidate and perpetuate it.
But if Homoeopathy turn out to be not an error?  If it
prove to contain some important germ of truth? If it be
yet destined, like the Copernican astronomy, like the circulation of the blood, and like vaccination, to eventual victory?
In brief, if there be a glorious immortality in reserve for it,
will not our learned doctors be found to have been fighting
against truth?  Will Edinburgh, in 1851, not be remembered in history, in that not impossible case, as the metropolis of bigotry and impotence? Will it not be chronicled
that-Professor Simpson in the chair, Dr Wood leading out,
Professor Christison moved, and our College of Physicians
adopted, these stand-still resolutions; while the " Witness,"
a Free Church organ of the time, bestowed its approbation
on them, and no journalist condemned them but ourselves?
Be it iterated and reiterated, and reiterated again, that
these resolutions are disgraceful in any event; but, in the
possible event referred to, they are worse.





OUR COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.            195
It is but fair to mention, that the "Witness" has done
Professor Henderson the justice to publish a letter on this
business; and a clear, pointed, manly letter it is. We are
not friends, far less partisans, of Homeopathy, except in
so far as respect for the intellectual and moral attitude of
its disciples, and the securing of a fair field and no favour
for all kinds of investigation after truth, naturally carry
us; but we can confidently assure the 'Homoeopathists of
Edinburgh, that their position in the sympathy and esteem
of their fellow-citizens is now better than ever. Let them
go on fearlessly-not as disputants, not as sectaries, but as
perpetual inquirers. If they find their doctrine wanting,
let them give it to the winds; if they find it sufficing, let
them stand on it as a rock. Conscience is more royal than
the College.





THE NEW           TEST ACT.*
MY LORD PROVOST AND GENTLEMEN,-Few of you can
have lived in such happy seclusion, as to have heard nothing of the medical disturbances which every now and
then arise to agitate our quiet city. Justly or unjustly,
the medical profession has the reputation of being wonderfully prolific of quarrels, and of indulging in a virulence
of recrimination on such occasions, from which most others
deem themselves debarred by considerations of propriety.
I have thus prefaced my statement, only to assure you that
the matters I have now to bring under your notice are
quite of another sort; otherwise, not being of that profession, I should not have felt called upon to meddle in the
business. What I have now to direct your attention to
appears to me, and I think will appear to many, at least,
if not all, of you, to be of great public importance to the
community and to the University; and I feel so sure of an
open ear as to everything which touches the welfare of an
institution so especially bound up with many of our dearest recollections, that I shall use no entreaties or arguments in order to obtain from you a patient hearing.
It is now matter of notoriety that the Royal College
of Physicians of Edinburgh has pledged itself, and each of
its assenting members, to have no dealings with certain
of its own fellows, or with any other physicians, although
* A Recent Conspiracy against the Medical Practitioners of Homceopathy and the Public, by the College of Physicians and the Faculty of Medicine: considered in a Letter to the Patrons of the University of Edinburgh, by an Alumnus. July, 1851.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


197


* also graduates of our University, who agree in observing
a doctrine and practice in medicine generally known as the
Homoeopathic. It is true that these resolutions state no
reasons for thus putting the medical practitioners of Homceopathy beyond the pale; and if, as I trust, I shall satisfy you that the principle, or rather the arbitrary rule of
communion inculcated by these resolutions, is a matter of
public concern, we shall have the more interest in inquiring, what the grounds can be upon which the College of
Physicians suppose so unusual a course of conduct to be
meritorious or defensible. It is the more necessary to call
your attention to these resolutions, as I regard them to
be essentially connected with other proceedings, more directly affecting the University, to which I shall presently
advert.
Few words will be required to show, that if one party,
or sect, or persuasion of the medical profession resolve that
they will not meet in consultation with any member of a
different party, or sect, or persuasion, the public are injured; and, as a question of principle, it cannot be decided
by counting the respective numbers. The proscribed minority may in this case be small; but let us once admit the
principle, and the effects may be disastrous. We may have
the whole body cut up into sects; and instead of, as heretofore, having free choice of the whole medical practitioners in Edinburgh, in case of desiring assistance in consultation with our usual medical attendant, we shall have
to consider to what sect he belongs, and how many members of it there are. In short, a supplemary list will have
to be published yearly in the Almanack and Directory for
our guidance, showing the actual state of parties. Suppose that Dr Henderson is my family attendant. He is
considered an excellent stethoscopist; he examines my
chest, and, as the result of such examinations and his
knowledge of the history of my health, comes to the conclusion that I am in a consumption, and orders me, with





198


THE NEW TEST ACT.


directions as to treatment and medicine, to Madeira.
Well, it is a long way and a serious change of life; and I
should like to have the opinion of Dr Alison or Dr
Simpson before leaving home. I tell Dr Henderson that
I wish a consultation with one of them on the, subject.
" Oh!" he replies, "that is perfectly impossible; neither
of them can meet with me without loss of character. So
the College of Physicians has determined."    " Why on
earth cannot they meet with you?" I ask. "Are you not
a graduate, and one of the medical professors, of the
University, a member of the College, and of reputable
private character?"  "I believe I am  all these," he answers me; " but the reason is, that I am a Homceopathist."
" And pray, Dr H., what may that long terrible word
mean? Is it the Greek for a liar, or a quack, or for what,
that it operates as an impassable bar to the benevolence
and professional zeal of other members of the College?"
" Oh no," he answers, " it is nothing at all so detestable."
"What is it, then, to be a Homoeopathist?" " Well, I will
tell you shortly what it means. It imports a belief in the
prevalence of a general law by which to be guided in the
selection of remedies; similia similibus curantur, expressed
technically; or, in plain English, that the substance which
produces in the healthy a resemblance of the disease will
cure it in the sick."  "And is this law universally repudiated by the other members of the College?"  "By no
means," he tells me. " In fact, I remember that, on the
occasion of the rejection (after a vote by ballot) of Dr
Black's petition for admission as a member, the President
said, that the Homceopathists had no right to the exclusive
use of the title, for that on occasions they all practised Homceopathically. Indeed, the truth is, that all the specifics
in common use are given in accordance with the Homceopathic law."
I ask again-" Is that all that is implied in being a Homceopathist?" "Strictly speaking, all," he answers. "Every





THE NEW TEST ACT.


199


physician practising according to that law is a Homoeopathist; but there is a farther difference in practice arising
out of this law: that we always give medicines in much
smaller quantities than they are otherwise usually given."
"Nothing more?" "Nothing more, I believe; for I don't
suppose that the practice of never giving but one medicine at a time, and of always testing the medicines upon
healthy persons before giving them to the sick, is deemed
seriously objectionable, however little practised, by the
other members of the College." "Then, the practical result to me is, that because you differ from most of the
other members of your College on the principle of selection, and on the right quantities of medicine (upon neither
of which, as I understand, the others are at all agreed
among themselves), I am deprived of the benefit of having
the advice of any of them?"  " Precisely so," he answers.
I shall waste no more words in establishing my position, that these proceedings of the College of Physicians
are of general concern; and it is not inadvertently, but
considerately, that I have described this transaction as indicating a conspiracy of the College against the public.
It appears to me a violation of all propriety, that a body
so constituted should pass such resolutions; and, as they
have done so, it is well the public should know it. If the
medical practitioners of Homoeopathy are thus insulted
by the College, no less are its lay adherents, among whom
are many of the most enlightened and influential of our
citizens. Nor is it to be supposed that these notable resolutions will affect those only who are now adherents of the
proscribed system. On the contrary, if, as will presently
appear, that system is rapidly becoming extended by daily
conquests, it would be rash to say of those who now regard
it with indifference or aversion, that they may not soon be
included among its adherents. Obviously, it is personally
unsafe for heathens to be consenters to the burning of
christians, until they can be assured that they will not





200


THE NEW TEST ACT.


themselves become disciples of the new advancing faith.
Besides, persecution in all forms, as the history of the nations has abundantly taught us, is a game but too easily
learned; and the weapons which we have forged for others ~
may ere long pierce ourselves.
Before asking your attention more particularly to the
terms of these resolutions, and to the proceedings of the
Medical Faculty of the University, I shall take leave to say
a few words on the history of the introduction among us of
the Homoeopathic system, and of its progress hitherto-a
progress so remarkable, that, where it does not lead to serious, calm inquiry, it is likely enough to lead to intense,
ignorant hostility on the part of the great body of practitioners; who will regard it as an intolerable, monstrous innovation, to be put down at all hazards; if possible, by force;
otherwise, by calumny.
That the language I have now used is not too strong,
will be readily confessed by all who are familiar with the
history of medicine. It is notorious, that one after another
its great reformers have suffered martyrdom at the hands
of their fellow-practitioners; and to the law that each remarkable improvement in medical practice has entailed
upon its author general obloquy and loss of practice there
are probably very few exceptions. On such a subject there
is no need to refer to authorities; but, in case of any doubting what I say, I shall quote a sentence or two from a recent paper by Dr Simpson, the present distinguished President of the College of Physicians.* I quote the following
passage the rather that it seems to me expressly applicable
to the large-minded, sagacious Hahnemann-undoubtedly
one of the most accomplished men of his day in science and
philosophy, whatever judgment may be formed of the
merits of his therapeutic laws. "From time to time,"
* " Etherization in Surgery." Part I. " Monthly Journal of Medical Science," September, 1847. Pp. 146-152.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


201


writes Dr Simpson, "in the march of medicine and other
allied sciences, some earnest and expanded mind conceives
and elaborates a great and novel thought, destined, in its
practical application, to ameliorate the condition, and promote the happiness, of mankind. But, hitherto, almost as
often as the human intellect has been thus permitted to obtain a new light, or strike out a new discovery, human prejudices and passions have instantly sprung up to deny its
truth, or doubt its utility; and thus its first advances are
never welcomed as the approach of a friend to humanity
and science, but contested and battled as if it were the attack of an enemy. Practical medicine, in its past career,
is full of instances illustrative of this remark." Of the
truth of these remarks, it seems to me there can be no reasonable doubt; and I am glad to find my views so distinctly
corroborated by the very learned and talented President of
the College.  Vaccination is the instance he makes choice
of in the paper from which I quote (and to which I refer
those who may be interested in the inquiry); in reference
to which, perhaps the greatest of commonly received modern
improvements in medical practice, "by which hundreds of
thousands of human lives throughout Europe are estimated
to have been saved," the author of the article adduces more
than abundant evidence that it formed no exception to the
general law of resistance and persecution-the intensity of
which may surprise some of our readers. Indeed, with all
the violence of denunciation directed against the Homceopathists by their fellow-graduates, we believe the following,
directed against Dr Jenner's great discovery, has hardly
been exceeded. "The vaccine," exclaimed one enemy of
cow-pox inoculation, "was the damnedest thing ever proposed; he wished the inventors were all hanged, and he
would give his vote for its being done."*     Again, Dr
*  Moore's Reply to the Anti-Vaccinists," 1806, p. 14. Quoted
in the paper referred to, p. 150.





202


THE NEW TEST ACT.


Simpson writes:- "The history of cow-pox is certainly
calculated to teach us this one lesson, that, in relation to
the truth of any novel doctrine or practice, such as vaccination or etherization, adverse opinions and pre-judgments
are-however strongly entertained, or however strongly
expressed-not in themselves adequate, as some at the present time would seem to believe, to decide the whole matter
in dispute, either in one direction or another." How far the
learned writer, who found it necessary to make such remarks by way of obviating opposition to his own greatly
beneficial innovation, the use of chloroform, is prepared to
apply them to Hahnemann's, I cannot tell. He was in the
chair, as President of the College, when the famous resolutions were unanimously passed; and I am not aware that he
has in any way disclaimed the part in their adoption which
will naturally be allotted to him. I should be sorry to
think that he has so imperfectly learned the lesson which
he was enforcing upon others, when he wrote the sentence
last quoted. Whatever he may do, I have no difficulty in
making such an application of his words; and I am confident that I carry with me the judgment of unprejudiced
and wise men when I say, that to pass such a sentence
against Homceopathy and its practitioners, without inquiry, or reasons alleged, on the part of the College, is
a course of conduct to be justly reprobated; that their decision on the matter is one of those "pre-judgments which
are not adequate to decide the matter in dispute," and
which are in truth entitled to very little respect. If it
shall appear, then, that the great therapeutic law proposed by Hahnemann, and alleged to be proved by induction, has met with strong opposition from the general body
of the profession, and has been denounced by colleges,
even with extreme violence of language; such facts will to
the cautious inquirer afford no sort of presumption against
its truth and final establishment. If it be true, of course
it will, perhaps after long waiting, but certainly ih the end,





THE NEW TEST ACT.


203


prevail; even if it be in whole or in part untrue, these are
not the legitimate or effectual means of proving its falsity.
If the system have no foundation in nature, careful, patient,
dispassionate investigation is the right way of showing it
to be so; and they will be only the foolish or timid, whose
judgments on the subject will be much influenced by the
iimpromptu denunciations of colleges. Like everything else,
it will stand or fall according to its true merits, which
only those can profitably pronounce upon who have fairly
investigated them; and there may be apparent such a measure of animosity as will disqualify for such an investigation those who would be otherwise deemed well prepared
for it. I have now, according to my promise, to say something of the introduction among us, and of the progress, of
Homceopathy.
Ten years ago, the name was almost unknown to the
public of Edinburgh; for it was in October, 1841, that
the inhabitants of Stockbridge were puzzled by the superscription over the door of one of the houses in that district
of the new strange word. The sign bore " Homceopathic
Dispensary." The institution was under the charge of Dr
Rutherfurd Russell and Dr Francis Black, who are stated
to have independently, but simultaneously, determined to
pursue in Edinburgh the practice of their profession, according to the system thus indicated. As they regarded
the mode of treatment they intended to pursue to differ
most importantly from the more common modes, they appear to have thought it only a duty to their patients to let
that be known by a sufficient designation of the institution.
Whatever may be thought of the prudence, every one must
admit the manly courage of such a course. For two young
men thus to throw down the gauntlet before their equals
and seniors; in a place where the practitioners of medicine
are so many and so influential as they are in Edinburgh, indicated either strong faith or reckless daring. The consistent zeal and perseverance of both these gentlemen, in





204


THE NEW TEST ACT.


the exclusive practice of the Homceopathic system, seems
to entitle them to credit for an unswerving faith in it.
They were young men at that time'; and both were graduates of the University of Edinburgh. I am led to understand from their associates and teachers that, as students,
they were distinguished for ability and industry; and it
appears that, after taking the degree of M.D. in Edinburgh,
they had the advantage of foreign travel, and of study at
one or more of the celebrated continental schools.
My only purpose in these personal remarks (for which I
hope to be pardoned by the gentlemen to whom they refer),
is to establish this fact-that it was by graduates of our
own University, and these noways inferior in status or
acquirement to other medical practitioners, that this
method of practice was first introduced into Edinburgh,
or, at least, publicly professed. The next medical practitioner of it who appeared on the field was Dr Wielobycki,
a native of Poland, who (as he states in a recent letter
to the Editor of the "Witness,"*), after having obtained
the degree of doctor in philosophy at the University of
Berlin, intending to settle in Cracow, was imprisoned, like
many of his countrymen, for political reasons; and, like
few of them, having escaped, made his way to Edinburgh,
ignorant of our language, about twelve years ago. Having
pursued his studies successfully, he obtained the degree of
M.D. from our University; and, after having been for two
years assistant-surgeon at the Maternity Hospital, began
to attend the Homoeopathic dispensary. The result was,
that he also became a confirmed convert to the new faith,
which he has now practised during many years; his abilities
and indomitable energy having secured for him, in spite of
all the disadvantages of a foreign origin and mother speech,
a large and lucrative practice; indeed, a strong position in
the hard-fought field of our Scottish metropolis. From Dr
* See ante, p. 186.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


205


Lyschinski, another native of Poland, and a graduate of
Edinburgh University, who has attached to himself many
influential friends, also a devoted disciple of Homceopathy,
there is no published statement to which I can refer. The
next convert whom I have to name is Dr Henderson. It is
quite superfluous to say anything on the head of Dr Henderson's distinguished acquirements. The fact that he was
selected by the patrons, out of all the candidates proposed
for their consideration, as the best qualified for the chair of
general pathology in the University, speaks volumes. It
is also quite notorious, and indeed appears from the certificates produced by him, that he held a very high place in
the estimation of the members of his profession, until he
was found to have been experimentally testing, and finally
to have adopted, the Homceopathic system. His " Inquiry
into the Homceopathic Practice of Medicine" was published
so long ago as 1845; and the large experience he has since
acquired, in a very extensive practice, appears to have
fully confirmed to him the convictions, which were the result of careful but more limited experiments on the subject
of the action of Homceopathic remedies. He began, and it
was his intention to have pursued, the practice of this method in the infirmary, as Professor of Clinical Medicine,
and one of the physicians to the institution; but, the
managers having requested that he would discontinue such
practice, he felt it his duty rather to resign, which he accordingly tells us he did, at the termination of the course
of lectures which he was then delivering. It is to be regretted that so good an opportunity of testing the value of
the Homoeopathic system should thus have been lost.
It seems unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire
how many other disciples from among the graduates of the
Edinburgh University the new doctrine can justly boast of.
I am told they are not a few. It may, perhaps, be worth
mentioning what is told of Abercrombie; that, some one
having mentioned to him that Dr Henderson was engaged





206


THE NEW TEST ACT.


in the investigation of Homoeopathy, he said something to
this effect-" I am glad of it; now we shall see whether there
is any truth in it;" and of Davidson, that he said to a friend,
that, had he been a younger man, he should have thought
it his duty to study the system. We have few, if any,
remaining who deserve to be named with such men as
these. It appears also, from a published letter of Liston's,
that, before his death, he had become convinced of the efficacy of the Homceopathic remedies.
If it be asked, What has been the progress of Homoeopathy among our laity? the question is not easily answered.
We learn from the last annual report of the Homceopathic
Dispensary, now before me, issued under the authority of
a most influential committee of management, that the institution was founded more than nine years ago, having
been in effective operation the whole of that time; during
which "there have been in all above fifteen thousand
patients entered on the books;" and, from one of the previous annual reports, it appears that patients have come
even from distant parts of Scotland for the sake of attending it. Looking over the list of subscribers to this institution, one would say that it is distinguished as containing
the names of many persons of the highest respectability.
It may be in the recollection of many of our citizens, that,
during the prevalence of cholera in Edinburgh (1847-48),
the physicians of this dispensary, with the assistance of a
resident house-surgeon, gave attendance at all hours, day
and night, for the relief of the poor; and the second annual
report states the returns communicated to the Board of
Health to show, that no fewer than 236 cases of cholera were
thus treated; the physicians visiting patients in all parts of
the city and its suburbs. The results of this treatment
seem to have been eminently beneficial.
But the system is not native to Scotland, although introduced among us by graduates of our own University.
It had been practised in England before it was practised





THE NEW TEST ACT.


207


here. Still earlier, it had been extensively practised on
the Continent.
It is now just one hundred years since Hahnemann was
born at Meissen; and in Leipsic, from which he wvas
banished, while as yet an " unaccredited hero," there is to
be a statue erected to his memory, during the month of
August, in one of the most public squares of the city.
There, as well as in Vienna and elsewhere, there have long
been in operation hospitals in which the practice is exclusively Homoeopathic; and the system, at first prohibited, is now distinctly recognised by the respective governments in Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, not to mention
the lesser German States. It has long been extensively
practised in Paris; and the distinguished M. D'Amador,
Professor of Pathology in the University of Montpelier,
has, for many years, publicly taught it, as yet without molestation. In England, its progress has been very rapid.
Ten years ago, there were probably not ten physicians
practising it. Now, as appears from an alphabetical list
appended to the last number of the " British Journal of
Homoeopathy," it numbers, in Great Britain and Ireland,
no fewer than one hundred and forty-eight medical practitioners.  Recently, two hospitals have been opened in
London and one in Manchester for the practice of it. I
have before me a copy of the constitution of one of those
in London, termed "the Hahnemann Hospital," with a
list of subscriptions annexed.  It is under the distinguished patronage of the Chevalier Bunsen, the Duke
of Hamilton, and the Earl of Wilton; and Lord Robert
Grosvenor is president; three of the five vice-presidents
being Members of Parliament.     I think you will agree
with me, that the adherents of Homoeopathy, among
whom   are included such variously distinguished men as
the Archbishop of Dublin, the late Dr Arnold, the Chevalier Bunsen, Principal Scott of Owen's College, the Marquess of Anglesea, and Richard Cobden, are not likely to





208


THE NEW TEST ACT.


allow themselves to be put down by the Edinburgh or by
any other College of Physicians. Perhaps some of our
courtly friends will be interested to learn, that last month
there was a grand bazaar in London, for the benefit of this
hospital, under the auspices of no less august a patroness
than H.R.H. the Duchess of Kent.
I have mentioned the "British Journal of Homoeopathy." It was begun in 1843, and has now reached the
ninth volume.   It is not popular, but strictly medical;
and, so far as I have had occasion to read it, will bear
comparison, I think, with the best of the other medical
journals. However that be, that a quarterly journal should
have been maintained for so long a time, is a fact, the significance of which I need not point out. As illustrative of
the wide extension of the same views in the United States
of America, I may mention that Radde, a publisher in New
York, has found it worth his while to reprint this journal,
and, as he states, to the large amount of one thousand
copies.
Such being the origin in Edinburgh, and such the present
acceptance of the Homoeopathic doctrines, I have no doubt
you will agree in my conclusion, that, whether true or false,
it has claims to respectful attention; if not for its own
sake, for the sake at least of those who are its resolute and
conscientious adherents and practitioners. I shall now call
your attention more particularly to the treatment which
it and they have lately received at the hands of our Royal
College of Physicians. The resolutions which afford the
text for my remarks will be found elsewhere (pp. 181-3);
but, indeed, after what has been already said, I think it
quite unnecessary to make many observations upon them.
Disregarding their clumsy, ungrammatical form and phraseology, the substance of them seems to be as follows:(1.) That the College had said before that it would have
no dealings with the Homceopathists; (2.) That it requires
those of its members who have adopted the forbidden views





THE NEW TEST ACT.


209


to resign; (3.) " Inasmuch as no fellow of this College, nor
any other physician, can, by any possibility, without derogating from his own honour, and from the honour of the
profession, meet practitioners of Homceopathy in consultation, or co-operate with them in the other common duties
of professional life;" and (4.) That unless they so resign
they may look for expulsion.
The first, second, and fourth I may take together; the
third I shall consider separately. The three together just
seem to amount to this-that the College never has tolerated, and never will tolerate, Homceopathists; the other
(3) expresses the only reason-because it would be in derogation from the honour of any fellow of the College to meet
a Homceopathist in consultation. How or why it should
be so, the College does not deign to inform us. Ipse dixit
that it is so-is not that enough for us and for them?
Not exactly, I am afraid. It wont do just to say, "I am
a better soldier."  We add-" Let it appear so; show us
in what respects you claim superiority, and we shall give
you all due honours. All that the public know in these
respects is, that you are the more numerous of the twothat, at the meeting referred to, you were even unanimous.
If you be many, and they be few, such measures taken
against a small minority may expose you to the charge of
cowardice, as well as injustice. And if it be the case, as is
alleged, that, in some five years, as many of your members
have become converts to the new faith so devoutly abhorred
by you, while, on the other hand, you have made no converts from their ranks, there is no great room for your
boasting. It is a mere matter of time and figures to calculate in how many years, at the same rate of conversion,
the majority will be on the other side; or, in how much
longer a period, should the threatened expulsion of all
converts be put in execution, your College will have become extinct by this process of exhaustion."
It appears, indeed, from the first resolution, which asP





210


THE NEW TEST ACT.


sumes that Dr Black's rejection, on a vote by ballot, was
upon the sole ground of his having made profession of Homceopathy-that, otherwise, he would have been admitted.
There was then no alleged inferiority in status, reputation, or professional attainment, except that lie had embraced this hated heresy. In short, the College says, that
the practitioners of Homceopathy are inferior to the other
members, because the other members are superior to them;
it all rests on their good opinion of themselves; possibly a
reason for great complacency on their part, but hardly a
sufficient answer to the Homneopathists. What if they say,
as some of them do in too unmeasured terms, that they are
the superiors, the others the inferiors? If the matter is to
be at all decided, we must have a more objective independent test than their respective opinions of their own merits.
Two obvious tests suggest themselves: the course of general and medical education attested by graduation, and
the relative success in practice. On the first of these, the
College has nothing to say. It cannot pretend, with any
plausibility, that its fellows are in any respect better educated than the practitioners of Homceopathy whom we have
named. Nay, on the contrary, the Homceopathists seem
fairly entitled, in this respect, to claim superiority, inasmuch as, besides being familiar with all the medical and
general knowledge required as the condition of graduation,
they have also acquired, as the condition of Homoeopathic
practice, familiarity with a detailed and delicate system
of pharmacy. On the other head-success in practicethe comparison is not so easy. This, however, it is right
to say, that the converts to the young faith are always
anxiously challenging the comparison, and, so far as in their
power, by the publication of hospital and other credible statistics, facilitating the inquiry. It will hardly be thought
to the disadvantage of Dr Wielobycki, that he was already
in possession of the degree of doctor in philosophy from the
University of Berlin, when he obtained also that of doctor





TIE NEW TEST ACT.


211


of medicine from our own. Were the College in a position to say, "We have not condemned Homoeopathy blindly;
we have made full, anxious trial of it, and found it wanting,"
then there would only be a conflict of judgments, neither being entitled ex facie to preference. If, on the other hand
the College cannot say this (and they have not said it), and
have not alleged any reasonable ground for their conduct
in this matter, are we not entitled to conclude that their
pretended superiority is mere insolent boasting, highly discreditable to themselves, and not likely to have much
weight with others? In one sense, it is true, that, to acknowledge the claims of Homoeopathy, is derogatory to
their " honour."  There is a vast swarm of contemptible
creatures hovering about the outskirts of that, as of every
profession-alas! some in the very midst of it, who will
praise this unworthy attempt of the College to crush by
force an advancing rival system, which they have not yet
overcome by arguments or experiments; and will be ready
with any required amount of aid in the form of calumny,
imputation of motives, invention of lies, to support their
friends within the College whom they are now loudly applauding. Who but the basest would receive " honour"
from such as these?
I have always observed, that the fires of persecution burn
brightest when men's faith is decaying. It is not he who
feels deeply the universal supremacy of truth, who will
lightly cry out, " Heretic! to the stake!"  Rather it is he
who feels that he leans on the people and things round
about him, and fears that, if these were shaken, his own
beliefs would be left without support. And it is worthy
of remark, that the energetic faith of the young school in
medicine stands remarkably contrasted with the powerless scepticism of the old. I say not that it will prove
itself to be altogether well founded-very probably not;
but I say emphatically, that, well founded or not, there
are those who believe in it, and, so help me God, I will





212


THE NEW TEST ACT.


do what I can to insure them free scope for their convictions.
It cannot have escaped your notice, that, in these resolutions, the College have given no definition of what it is they
mean to condemn.      I have already stated the Homoeopathic law to be, sinilia similibus curantur-" like cures
like."  Does the College, then, mean to commit itself to
the persecution of every member who at any time shall act
in accordance with this law?      Hardly, I suppose. The
other peculiarity of the condemned system is the smallness
of the doses. Will the College, in its sublime dignity, adjudicate upon each prescription?     Before they proceed to
the extremity of expulsion now contemplated, they may
find it necessary to pass acts or statutes against Homoeopathy, the violation of which shall infer that penalty. But,
in that case, they will probably have to be more explicit
than in these resolutions; they will have, I suppose, to define, with something approaching to precision, what it is
in practice which constitutes the capital offence. With a
view to see how the thing would look on paper, and not
trusting myself in a matter of such importance, I have
applied to the learned Paulus Pleydell, junior, and, by his
aid, have prepared the following two clauses of the required
statute, of which the Royal College is quite at liberty to
make free use in framing its anticipated laws on this subject.  The first clause runs thus:" 1. No fellow of this College shall, under the pains herein provided, prescribe, give, or administer, or cause to be prescribed, given,
or administered, to any patient, any drug or medicine which shall be
calculated to produce, or shall be capable of producing, or shall be
supposed to be capable of producing, in or upon the body of any person
in health, any symptoms, appearances, or effects at all resembling, or
similar to those which, for the time being, shall be seen, understood,
or imagined to be present in or upon the body of such patient."
The second takes the following form:"2. No fellow of this College shall, under the pains herein pro




THE NEW TEST ACT.


213


vided, prescribe, give, or administer, or cause to be prescribed, given,
or administered, to any patient, any drug or medicine in any other
smaller quantity than is indicated in Schedule A annexed hereto."
Note.-[Schedule A to contain a list of all known remedies, including chloroform and mesmerism, with the minimum dose of each, the
maximum being left to the discretion of each physician. Great care
will be required in framing this schedule, as there are many Homceopathic remedies in use, the qualities and powers of which are nearly
unknown to the members of the College; and it might be inconvenient were the minimum quantity indicated in any case a poisonous one.]
I cannot take leave of this branch of the subject, without
calling the special attention of the College to the remarkable statement of their late esteemed treasurer, Dr Ransford's "Reasons for Embracing Homceopathy," which I
have just been reading in the new number of the " British
Journal of Homceopathy." There are disclosures in it which,
if they do not throw light into the recent hidden recesses of
the College, at least make their darkness visible.
Leaving the College of Physicians to complete its statutes
against Homoeopathy, and to act farther in the matter as it
shall be advised, I will now call your attention to the second act in the development of this conspiracy; one directly touching the University.
It appears that Mr Alfred Crosby Pope (son of the Rev.
Mr Pope of Leamington, a man of high reputation) has
been pursuing his medical studies in Edinburgh. The certificates of the various professors, copies of which I have
seen, bear that he was " very regular" in his attendance on
all the classes; and I understand him to have the character of being a very diligent student. After having gone
through his first examination, and the greater part of his
second, without any dififculty, he was subjected to an examination by the Medical Faculty, in the month of June
last; and the following is his statement of what took place.
It is extracted from the 37th number of the " British Journal of Homceopathy" (July, 1851), pp. 512-14:





214


THE NEW TEST ACT.


" The Medical Faculty of this University have, it appears,
decided that if any of their candidates intend to investigate the merits of Homoeopathy, they shall be remitted
until such examination shall have satisfied them of the
fallacy of this proscribed system of medicine. I am, I believe, the first who has lost the degree of M.D. under
these circumstances; and, since this is the case, my friends
have thought it right that I should give as correct an account as possible of all that was said to me at the examination on this point: and therefore, without any farther remark, I will proceed to the matter on hand.
" During the first part of my examination, no reference
was made to Homceopathy; and it was not until after Dr
Christison had examined me on materia medica, and expressed himself as satisfied with me on that point, that
he put the following question:-He said (as nearly as I can
recollect), 'I have been informed, Mr Pope, by a colleague,
that you are intending to practise Homoeopathically; now,
I don't believe it; but tell me, is it the case '  I replied,
that I could not give a decisive answer, until I had fully
studied the subject, which I had determined to do, as I felt
it to be a duty, seeing that so many men of acknowledged
talent were daily becoming converts to this new system.
Mr Syme, who was present, then asked me if I would
burn my diploma, or return it to them, if I became convinced of the truth of Homceopathy. To which I replied,
that I saw no necessity for doing so, considering, as I
did, that my diploma was merely an attestation of the
amount of medical knowledge to which I have attained.
Mr Syme then said, that he could not see how any honest
man could practise Homceopathically, and call himself a
doctor of medicine of a university which repudiates him.
After this, Mr Syme remarked, that they had nothing more
to say to me there, but that they were quite satisfied with
the examination. When I had been examined on the remaining subjects, I requested the porter to obtain my dis




THE NEW TEST ACT.


215


charge for me, on which I was told to return to-morrow, at
4 P.M., when there was to be an extraordinary meeting of the
Medical Faculty. The next day I waited at the University
from 4 until 5 P.M., when the meeting terminated, and I
was informed by Dr Balfour, the Dean of Faculty, that he
was desired by the Medical Faculty to announce to me that
they were not satisfied with my examination, and, in the second place, that they were not satisfied with the line of
practice which I intended to adopt. I then said, that I did
not understand what was meant by the first part of the objection raised against me by the faculty, as last evening all
the examinators seemed perfectly satisfied with me. On
this, Dr Balfour told me, that I knew very well that I was
very deficient in medical jurisprudence and surgery, and
that I should at least require to be re-examined on these
subjects. I then asked him if the Medical Faculty would
require anything more of me than my examination, if I came
up again in July. 'Oh!' said he, 'we shall want to know
whether you intend to give the decillionth of a grain of
nux vomica, or one or two grains, which is the ordinary
dose.' Said he, 'You know quite well that we grant degrees here licensing to practise that system of medicine
which is at present established, and therefore we must
know whether you intend to do so before you can graduate.'
I told Dr Balfour that I had a perfect right to study what
I chose, and that I thought it my duty to study Homoeopathy. To which he replied, 'But what is the necessity,
if you are satisfied that you can do good with what has
been taught you, and particularly when you hold the degree of M.D. ' To this I replied, that if any one offered
me a method of treatment by which I had a greater chance
of curing my patients than that which was at present in
vogue, I should certainly feel it my duty to investigate it.
'Well,' said the dean, 'you must certainly know whether
you intend to practise Homoeopathically or not. You
must be quite decided on that point, and, as I am merely





216


THE NEW TEST ACT.


telling you what I have been desired to do by the Senatus,
I have nothing more to say to you.'
"After this, of course, I left. My remission, or reponement, is therefore grounded on a want of sufficient knowledge of surgery and medical jurisprudence, and on my
most decided determination to investigate Homceopathy
most carefully and impartially. With regard to the first
objection to my graduation, I wish it to be observed, that,
were that a real objection, I should have been apprised of
it on the evening of the examination, for I have the highest
authority for stating, that a rejection for want of knowledge
was never remitted to an extraordinary meeting of the
faculty, but done at once at the examination-two or
three professors club their heads together at the time,
and the thing is done. I had understood that Professor
Miller, who examined me on surgery, was satisfied with
me; but he has since informed me that I was 'rusty'
on some points. I can, however, honestly state, that there
was, I believe, only one question out of a great many that
he asked me which I did not answer.
" More than one of the professors has informed a friend
of mine that my examination was unexceptionable. But
Professor Miller stated to me, personally, that he had no
doubt they would pass me in July, were I convinced by
that time of the fallacy of infinitesimal doses; volunteering
this information out of private friendship, and hoping that
I would make no farther use of it; an amount of consideration which so much friendship and so little wisdom
cannot look for at my hands.
"The above facts are, I think, sufficient to prove that
it is not from a deficiency in professional knowledge that
I have been remitted, but solely on account of my fixed
determination to study Homceopathy.
" 37 Clemens Street, Leamington, June 21, ]851."
The following account of the transaction, which will be
found substantially the same as Mr Pope's, has been since





THE NEW TEST ACT.


217


published by the examinators in the "Monthly Journal of
Medical Science."-No. 128 (August, 1851):"Mr Alfred Crosby Pope, having appeared before the
second division of examiners of the Medical Faculty in
the middle of June, underwent the usual written examination on the practical branches of medicine and surgery,
and was afterwards subjected to an oral examination on
the same subjects. He had satisfied several of the examiners; but his surgical knowledge was evidently defective. While under examination in midwifery, he was asked
what doses of calomel, opium, tartar-emetic, and aloin he
would give in certain diseases. In reply, he stated correctly the doses usually given in medical practice; and,
when asked whether these were the doses which he would
himself prescribe, he replied that they were. He then underwent an examination on materia medica, the professors
of that branch and of clinical surgery being present. His
replies were satisfactory enough; the only objection of any
moment indeed being, that his doses of medicines were
somewhat large. The faculty having been furnished with
positive information that Mr Pope had avowed his purpose
to become a Homoeopathic practitioner after graduating,
it was determined that he should have an opportunity of
answering to the charge. The question was put to him
by Dr Christison, and the following are the very words of
the conversation that ensued:-' Well, Mr Pope, I am satisfied so far with your answers; but there is another point
on which I wish to be informed; and, as it is best not to
beat about the bush, I shall put to you a plain question,
in order that I may get a downright answer. I am told
by a colleague that he has been informed, on good authority, that it is your intention to become a Homocopathic
practitioner after you graduate; after the answers you have
this day given me, I feel bound to say I do not believe it.
Am I right?' To which Mr Pope replied, 'I am not now
a Homoeopathist; but, after graduation, I mean to inquire





218


THE NEW TEST ACT.


into the truth of it.' Professor Syme then remarked, 'Now,
Mr Pope, suppose that this inquiry which you meditate
were to confirm your belief in the truth of Homozopathy,
what would you do with the diploma received from us?
would you burn or return it? ' 'No,'replied he, 'I would
keep it.' 'For what purpose?' 'To show that I had regularly studied.' 'Stu4lied what? Delusions! Fallacies!
Nonsense! It would only show that you had misspent
four or five years of your life in studying what could not
possibly be of any service, according to your own view;
and I am sure that, on reflection, you must see how inconsistent it would be with common honesty or common
sense to use a diploma, after ceasing to entertain the principles which were professed in order to obtain it. But recollect, Mr Pope, I offer this remark to you as a friend, and
not as a professor.' Mr Pope then withdrew, and in what
remained of his examinations he made a satisfactory appearance, except in medical jurisprudence, in which, as in
surgery, he was defective. The case being a new one, it
was referred by the examiners to the whole Medical Faculty
for decision. Of the thirteen members, eleven were present. After considering the whole circumstances, the faculty unanimously resolved-' That serious doubts are entertained as to the soundness of Mr Pope's principles of
practice; and that on this account, as well as his insufficiency on some subjects of examination, he shall be remitted till the end of July, by which time he will have
had ample opportunity of making the inquiry into the
truth of Homceopathy which he says he contemplates.'
This resolution, which admitted of his graduating this
year, in the event of his satisfying the Medical Faculty,
was communicated to him in conversation by the dean.
Mr Pope, however, withdrew at once from the list of candidates."
The result then is, that Mr Pope has been rejected. It
is needless to say, that, if this has been done wrongfully, the





THE NEW TEST ACT.


219


wrong is of a most serious nature. That a student of medicine, who had pursued his studies in our University with
regularity and diligence-who had spent much money, and
more precious years, in preparation for a profession to
which he looked forward as his only way of acquiring a
position in society, and, indeed, the very means of living,
and who appeared just on the eve of obtaining the university degree, which was to be his title to enter upon that
profession, should have found himself suddenly stopped on
the very threshold by an obstacle altogether unanticipated
and unprecedented-this, you will admit, if a wrong, is a
very great one. I shall have to consider presently how far
the introduction of such an impediment can be justified.
In the meantime, let us look in the other direction, and
see how far Mr Pope's statement touches the honour of the
Medical Faculty, and, indeed, of the Senatus of the University.
If the rejection be PROFESSEDLY on the ground of his
having intimated an intention to investigate the merits of
Homceopathy, and if the investigation justified it to practise that system, such rejection may be undignified, inconsistent with the advance of medical practice, in violation
of all usage, eminently discreditable to the University, and
illegal, but the honour of the examinators will not be necessarily impugned. If, on the other hand, the real ground
of rejection was a supposed toleration or preference for
the Homceopathic system, and the professed ground be deficient knowledge in medical jurisprudence and surgery,
the honour of the University is seriously compromised.
It will be justly condemned for refusing degrees upon false
pretences. If such be its corruption that this is possible,
the public can have no security that it will not also grant
them on false pretexts; to those to whom indifference or inclination towards Homceopathy seems such a vice as to justify this extreme punishment, inveterate hatred of it may
seem such a virtue as to cover many grave deficiencies.





220


THE NEW TEST ACT.


I need not say to any honourable man, that, while it is
exposed to such imputations, our University is justly in disgrace-a disgrace which will attach also to the other members of the Senatus, in whose names the medical degrees are
granted, although all the guilt will rest with the Medical
Faculty.
I have not said that such guilt has been incurred; but
no one can help seeing that on the very face of Mr Pope's
statement it is more than suggested. I shall now inquire
what is the just inference from that statement-in the
meantime assuming it to be substantially true.
I say, substantially; for, in such reports of verbal proceedings, precise accuracy is not to be looked for; but it would
be very singular if one in Mr Pope's position misunderstood
the import of the dean's momentous communication to him.
That a student should, in such circumstances, venture to
make a false accusation against his examiners, seems to me
highly improbable; and all that is to be gathered of Mr
Pope's reputed character tends to the same result.
Upon this statement, then, it would appear that there
were two distinct grounds, solemnly announced by the Medical Faculty of the Senatus, of refusing a degree: insufficient attainments in two of the branches of study, and objectionable views with reference to Homoeopathy (or principles of practice, as they term it). It is certainly very unfortunate that these dissimilar grounds of judgment should
not have been so separated, that each might have been
dealt with singly; and were Mr Pope again to offer himself,
and to pass an approved examination upon the two unexhausted subjects, the question would then be the very
simple one-Whether or not the avowal of adherence to
any medical creed, or to any system of practice, as well as
the sufficient knowledge of medicine, be a legitimate condition of graduation for the Medical Faculty to impose?
But, although not in so pure a form as might have been
conceived, this question does seem to be sufficiently raised





THE NEW TEST ACT.


221


by Mr Pope's account of his remarkable interview with
the faculty; for, on his asking whether anything beyond
such an examination would be required of him      should
he again appear for examination, he was answered by the
dean, as the organ of the faculty, " Oh! we shall want
to know whether you intend to give the decillionth of a
grain of nux vomica, or one or two grains, which is the ordinary dose?" It is difficult to read this narrative without
coming to the conclusion, that it was not by inadvertence,
but by design, that these essentially distinct questions were
thus confused, else why, in violation of all usage, should
the judgment of the faculty upon the ordinary examinations of the candidate have been withheld, until the extraordinary meeting should put them in a position to give
judgment also upon the extraordinary question, which has
now for the first time, so far as is known to the public,
been made a subject of discussion. It is no fault of mine,
or of Mr Pope's (if his statement be true), that the faculty
have thus exposed themselves to the suspicion of having
acted unfairly; and, for my own part, I shall be exceedingly
glad to see the good name of the University cleared from
all the breathings of just reproaches which may have
sullied it. In so far as the candidate's rejection was bond
fide on the ground of deficient attainments, of course it
cannot be objected to. No wise friend of the Homoeopathic, or of any other system of medical practice, will censure the attempt to raise the standard of medical education.
It is to be observed, however, that the systems do not
come into conflict on either of the fields which Mr Pope
has to re-tread. Surgery and medical jurisprudence have
little to do with therapeutical pharmacy; and, as Mr Pope
had already passed his examinations upon materia medica
and the practice of physic to the satisfaction of the examiners, the questions put to him on the subject of Homceopathy and the administration of medicines cannot be understood as at all supplementary to his examinations upon





222


THE NEW TEST ACT.


those heads, but relate to an entirely distinct question,
which I now propose to consider.
It is not a little remarkable, that, simultaneously with
a very serious and general movement towards the abolition
of religious tests in the University, there should be an
attempt, on the part of the Faculty of Medicine, to introduce a medical creed or confession of faith, a profession of
adherence to which is to be required of candidates, as a
preliminary condition of obtaining degrees. The two certainly stand remarkably contrasted. Of religious tests, it
may be said that they have the sanction of ancient and
very extensive usage; that (however ineffectual they may
now be judged for the ends contemplated) they have, at
least, this rational foundation that they are connected with
an established church and a determinate faith; that they
aim at the expression of that which we are generally
agreed is, in substance, if not in form, abiding, and even
eternal; that they are neither arbitrarily framed nor arbitrarily imposed, being formal, well-considered documents,
an assent to which is known to all the world as the legal
condition of office. In all these respects, how different is
the other! This new test in medicine-an imposed abjuration of all intention to inquire into the merits of a
system of practice advocated as the best by an influential
and increasing body of our countrymen, lay and medicalis altogether an innovation; it has no rational foundation,
there being no established system of medicine, and no substantial agreement even among the so-called orthodox of
its practitioners-no permanency, its whole history being
a narrative of revolutions, so momentous that, even within
the memory of living men, it has been so greatly changed,
that it would be rash for any one to foretell that, fifty
years hence, there will be anything like one-tenth of the
present usual modes of treatment still in observance.
Hence, it has no written, formal creed or confession, to
be set before the eyes of the matriculating student, and





THE NEW TEST ACT.


223


to attend him along his course, as the recognised condition
of graduation; on the contrary, these examiners of the Faculty of Medicine have improvised this test; and it is still
unwritten and indefinite. Let them attempt to put it in
writing, with the necessary definitions, and they will be
the first possibly to laugh, if they do not blush for shame,
at the absurdity ofrthe result. Let them exhibit in detail,
define the prohibited practice, assign a minimum dose of
each known or unknown drug, and fix on the similar law
as the only one according to which remedies shall not be
given. Let them do this, and exhibit the result, if they
can and dare. At present, all we can learn-in detail from
this unwonted examination is, that the minimum dose of
nux vomica which can be given, without loss of character,
is one or two grains. For us laymen, whose bodies are the
subjects, this is not a very comforting rule. We should
rather have had the maxinum stated; and, since it appears
(on the evidence of Dr Christison) that three grains of the
alcoholic extract, or (on the evidence of Dr Trail*) that
fifteen grains of the powder of this common poison have
caused death, we may look with some anxiety to so liberal
a minimum  quantity. How near a poison-dose will the
maximum be?
It is very singular, that the examining professors should
have fallen into the blunder of supposing that any one
system of medical practice is either sanctioned or condemned by the University. According to Mr Pope's statement, Mr Syme observed, " that he could not see how any
honest man could practise Homceopathby, and call himself
a doctor of medicine of a university which repudiates
him;" and the resolutions of the College of Physicians contain language to the like effect. Mr Syme seems to think
the University is like a Pennsylvanian debtor thus addressing his creditor-" How on earth can you have the
* Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence. Poisons, Nux Vomica.





224


THE NEW TEST ACT.


face to claim anything from  me, sir? I repudiate the
debt!"  Happily for the credit of our Alma Mater, she
does not thus disown her lawful children. Her graduates,
whatever system of practice they may follow, are her acknowledged graduates still, and quite entitled to wear all
the hard-won honours she has crowned them with. Of
course, Mr Syme may repudiate the Homceopathists and
all their remedies; refusing, to his patients' great detriment, to prescribe aconite for fever, and arnica for wounds,
because they both own a Homoeopathic source. We are
told that Mr Syme asked Mr Pope if he would burn or
return his diploma (by which, we suppose, the certificate
of graduation or the degree was meant) if he became convinced of the truth of Homoeopathy? Indeed! Why so?
Would it then cease to be true that Mr Pope had made
good studies in botany, anatomy, pathology, physiology,
and all the other prescribed subjects, even in materia medica and the practice of physic, so as to pass the usual examinations upon each of them? and if all this was true, on
what intelligible ground should his degree be cancelled?
Mr Pope appears to have had a much juster notion than
his teachers of the nature and import of a degree in medicine, and, consequently, of what the preceding examinations ought to be; and it is worth noting how very nearly
his extempore remark, "that the degree was merely an
attestation of the amount of medical knowledge to which"
he " had attained," coincides with the more deliberate
statement on that point of Dr Christison's distinguished
predecessor in the chair of materia medica. When examined before the University commissioners (A.D. 1826), Dr
Duncan, jun., said:"With regard to the medical degree, I would say that
the medical degree of Edinburgh is purely professional,
and it is in high estimation both in this empire and in
its colonies, as is proved by the great number of individuals who come here to graduate. It is likewise in es

1





THE NEW TEST ACT.


225


timation on the Continent.    It is merely a designation by
which the public know that the individual has had a certain
amount of professional and general education, and has been
able to pass through a certain course of examination. The
doctors of medicine in this University acquire thereby,
however, no monopoly in the practice of medicine. There
appears to me great danger in altering the character of
this degree; but little danger would arise from increasing
the professional acquiremnents of those who obtain it, because
it is for these that it is valuable for the public; and, if these
were raised, it would become more valuable: ' but there
would be great danger in rendering it more literary or
scientific.' "--Minutes of Evidence, p. 235.
It will be observed, that Mr Pope did not, in this examination, commit himself to the pursuit of Homceopathy;
he only expressed a resolute intention to investigate its
claims. He was quite entitled to do more. The questions he was asked being irrelevant, his pertinent answers
to them   ought to have been held as irrelevant to the
examination.   Personal practice in the giving of drugs
is no legitimate subject of examination. As a mere student, he had no more lawful right to practise than any
other "unqualified" amateur.     In the prospect of soon
receiving a degree, he was quite entitled to say (nor could
the answer be objected to), that he did not know what
doses he would give. It was time enough for him to make
up his mind on that point when his advice was required;
and physicians would be wiser, and their practice more
successful, if, in determining quantities, as well as in other
respects, they paid more regard to the peculiarities of each
case, and less to apothecaries' recipes. But what if he did
not intend to practise at all-at least, not in the meantime? There is no improbability in the supposition of
such a case, which would occur oftener than at present,
were practitioners of medicine more anxiously conscientious in the matter of giving drugs. So far from its
Q





226


THE NEW TEST ACT.


being improbable, it is a case of usual occurrence. Speaking with reference to the age required of graduates (21
years), Dr Alison says:-" In regard to the age, I may
mention, that it cannot be supposed that a man of twentyone will enter at once into practice as a physician. If he
enters at all upon practice at that age, he enters as a general
practitioner, and is an assistant almost always to an elder
man."* Or, again, what if he be resolved not to copy, but
to outdo the Homceopathists, by giving even less medicine
than they do, after the lauded example of a distinguished
physician in Edinburgh (Dr John Thomson, we believe),
referred to by the accomplished Dr John Forbes, lately
Editor of the "British and Foreign Medical Review!"
If giving infinitesimal doses be bad, is the giving of none
worse, in the eyes of the learned examiners?   To save
his credit, must a physician give a dose in every case? Or
how often may he omit doing so with impunity? Or is it
only insisted for, that, if he does give a dose, it shall be a
stirring one?
But, putting out of sight all such puerilities, let us look
for a little at the bare principle contended for (implicitly,
for it is not distinctly avowed) on the part of the Faculty
of Medicine. It claims the right of authoritatively regulating, not the study only, but the practice of medicine,
and that even in the matter of the quantities of each to
be given.   Now, can anything be more absurd?      Our
readers have been already reminded (few of them need to
be informed) that the history of the practice of medicine
exhibits incessant change. Is that to its discredit? Not
so. It can only claim to be regarded as a science, or even
as a living art, by showing progress; and how can there
be progress without change?    The reproach which has
* University Commission, Evidence, p. 491.
t See No. xli., p. 254.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


227


been thrown upon the body of practitioners by the most
eminent among themselves has been, that it has always resisted progress; that it has been too slow to receive improvements; that it has been inert and stationary, scowling upon the more ardent and advancing of its members;
and that thus nearly all the great benefactors of mankind
in that department of action are remembered as having
been stoned by their fellows, whose descendants build their
sepulchres. Each reformer is an innovator. In this respect, Homoeopathy has no cause to complain of unusual
treatment. It is in truth honoured by being thus put in
the category of modes of practice prohibited or proscribed.
If it be true, like every great truth, it will have to fight its
rough way into recognition and acceptance; but, whether
true or not, it falls not within the authority of the Faculty
of Medicine so summarily to put it down. Before we pronounce anathemas, we ought at least to have a creed; for
how shall we know the False, but by the possession of the
True? No advance has ever been made in this world,
in any region of thought or action, by mere negatives;
which are*only valuable so far as they point to, or prepare for, what is positive. We live all of us, not by refusing errors, but by accepting truths.  If the Faculty
of Medicine of the University of Edinburgh be prepared
with a creed on which they can agree, for the detailed regulation of practice, by all means let us see it; and then,
having accepted it, they will have some rule by which to
reject what is contrary and heretical. Till then, there is
no orthodoxy and no heterodoxy in medicine. Each educated practitioner shall do that which seems good in his
own eyes.
When such novel agreement comes among them, one of
the very last parts of practice which it will reach, we may
safely affirm, will be the quantities of medicine. There is
no ancient recognised creed to fall back upon in present
doubts or disagreements; and there are no natural limits





228


THE NEW TEST ACT.


in the matter, except the causing death on one side, and
utter inactivity on the other. Between these extremes,
there is room for infinite variety. If the Homoeopathists
be supposed to approach the latter limit, some other practitioners go dangerously near the former. Will the Faculty of Medicine undertake to lay down practical limits
on either side, within those we have indicated, the transgression of which shall incur forfeiture of character? I
think not. But even could they now make such a rule, it
would be too late for the adjudication of Mr Pope's case.
It will not do to try a man first, and then justify the condemnation by an ex post facto law. There was no law of
the Senatus (and did not the examinators 7know it?) by which
they had right to reject a candidate, on the ground that
he had resolved to investigate, nay, that he had even embraced, with all his young strength, the Homoeopathic
system. So far as their " remission" rested on that ground,
they stand convicted of glaring injustice. What protection
is there to modest, ingenuous, devoted students against
such tyranny? If the Faculty of Medicine have rejected
Mr Pope yesterday, because he has a leaning towards Homoeopathy, they may reject Mr Pagan to-morrow, because
he confesses an intention to use chloroform, or not to use it;
or has no faith in the virtues of cod-liver oil; or believes
in mesmerism, or disbelieves it. Is Homoeopathy more distinctly an innovation than the use of chloroform, or than
mesmerism? Does Dr Simpson practise precisely as Dr
Hamilton did?   Or does Dr Christison teach only what he
was taught at college? If there be no law, there can be
no transgression; and, if the examiners are bound by nothing but their own particular notions of what is the best
practice, there can be no security that the student, who
was passed with eclat by one set of examiners, would not,
just for that very reason, have been instantly "remitted"
by another. If such doings are to be allowed, the ancient
credit of our University will soon be lost. It will have





THE NEW TEST ACT.


229


set itself against the advancement of learning, the progress
of science, the improved practice of medicine. If, on the
other hand, it be said for the examiners, that there is a
law of the University which justifies their proceedings, let
them point to it. We state emphatically, that they are
condemned equally by law and by uniform established
practice. It appears that the University commissioners
had under consideration to recommend the appointment
of other examiners in medicine, in order to relieve the
professors from that onerous duty. One or two more such
examinations might prove that the step was a necessary
one, for different reasons.
Before the authorities of the University (the Patrons or
the Senatus, as may be, one or both) are prepared to pass
any statutes for the exclusion of students who are favourably inclined, or indifferent, towards Homoeopathy, a good
many things will have to be considered. We can only
notice a few of these.   The general results of medical
practice will have to be examined, that these may be compared with the results of Homceopathic treatment, in order
to arrive at a just judgment on their respective merits;
and this will be a very serious, and possibly not a very
satisfactory, inquiry for the colleges. It can hardly be
entered into without the inquirers (if they be at all unprejudiced and competent) coming to the conclusion, that
the present state of the practice of medicine is such as to
admit of much improvement; and that the duty of all
practitioners is to look out anxiously in any quarter where
there may be promise of aid. It will have to be considered
that the fact is undeniable, that a large proportion, including many of the most scientific practitioners, have sadly
lost confidence in the virtues of medicines, as usually administered; and that the recorded testimony of such a man
as Dr John Forbes-late editor of the leading English
medical journal-is to the following effect:" 1. That in a large proportion of the cases treated by





230


THE NEW TEST ACT.


Allopathic physicians, the disease is cured by nature, and
not by them.
" 2. That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion, the
disease is cured by nature in spite of them; in other words,
their interference opposing, instead of assisting the cure.
"3. That, consequently, in a considerable proportion of
diseases, it would fare as well, or better, with patients, in
the actual condition of the medical art, as more generally
practised, if all remedies, at least all active remedies, especially drugs, were abandoned."*
Such a judgment is fully corroborated by that of our
late much respected Dr Andrew Combe, in a letter to the
writer of that article [25th January 1846].t   Although
certainly no Homceopathist, he writes as follows:"A few words now on Homceopathy in particular. I
am very glad that you have brought the question of its
truth and merits seriously before your readers; for, of all
methods of advancing the interests of science, that which
consists in the supercilious neglect of alleged new discoveries, merely on the ground that they differ from what is
already known, is assuredly the worst. *   *   But surely
we are bound not to be too rash in rejecting, without examination, facts and principles which come before us, attested by men of experience, skill, and integrity, and who
can have no motive for deceiving us. Judged of by the
standard of our own opinions, these facts and principles
may seem at first sight to be altogether absurd; but, if
so, the question then comes to be, is our standard itself
undoubtedly a correct one?    Or may it not be that ignorance has misled us to adopt it as infallible, and that it
would be wiser in us to compare both it and the alleged
discoveries with nature, before assuming either to be demonstrably true.
Again, "as a matter of theory, supported only by argu" British and Foreigu Medical Review. January, 1846. P. 257.
t See ante, p. 83.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


231


ment, Homceopathy produces no conviction whatever on
my mind of its truth, or even of its probability; but, as a
question offact, claiming to rest ' on the irresistible ground
of its superior power of curing diseases, and preserving
human life,' and on the alleged experience of able and
honest men, as competent to judge as most of those who
oppose them, I cannot venture to denounce it as untrue,
because I have no experience bearing especially upon it to
bring forward, and we are still too ignorant to be able to
predicate a priori what may or may not be true in the
great field of nature. But, after the presumptive evidence
which you yourself have produced, if I were now in practice, I should hold nmyself bound, without further delay, to test
its truth by careful and extensive experiments, because, where
truth is really our aim, the shortest and least encumbered
approach to it is always the best; and even a few well-defined and carefully-observed facts would carry far more
weight, as items of evidence, than volumes of general or
controversial reasoning. * * View the question as we may,
one of three things must be: either Homoeopathy is true, or
it is false, or it is a mixture of truth and error. Let us
suppose the worst, and hold it to be false in its foundation,
and false in its superstructure -what harm can result
from putting it to the test, and ascertaining the fact demonstrably? None whatever, but, on the contrary, much
good. MTe shall at least have gained the power of giving a
direct and authoritative negative to its allegations, which we
shall then prove to be fallacious, and which have been
suffered to reign and diffuse themselves for thirty years,
from the absence of direct counter-evidence by which to
rebut them. We shall thus be able also to put the profession and the public on their guard with some chance of being
listened to, and shall have obtained the inestimable advantage of keeping our own minds open to the admission of
new truths, and of showing that, in our estimate of evidence, and in our conclusions, we are actuated not by any





232


THE NEW TEST ACT.


mean jealousy or dogmatic assumption of authority, but
by the single and simple desire of advancing the interests
of science and humanity to the best of our ability."
You will observe this to be a very different conclusion
from that to which the conduct of the College of Physicians
and of the Faculty of Medicine points. But Dr Combe had
calmly considered the subject; we have no reason to believe
that the members of either of these bodies had done so.
They rather, on the other hand, remind one of the proceedings of a jury not remarkable for impartiality towards
the accused: of whom the first said, " I see clearly that this
man is a heretic;" the second, "Away with such a fellow
from the earth;" the third, "I hate the very look of him;"
the fourth, "I never could endure him;" a fifth, "Hang
him, hang him;" yet another, "A sorry scrub;" "'He is
a rogue," said Mr Liar.
In regard to such a statute as would exclude practitioners of Homceopathy from any of the benefits connected
with a degree in medicine, one of the first questions to be
answered is, Cui bono? Whom would it advantage? for, of
course, neither the Senatus nor the Patrons would be accessory to such a step in order to gratify the odium medicnum of the faculty. It would not benefit the University,
for the students thus excluded would pro tanto diminish
the total number attending the University, whose character
also for liberality, and free inquiry in science, would inevitably suffer damage. It would not advantage the public;
for, if (putting out of view all baser considerations) it be
quite certain, according to the law of probabilities, that, so
long as there is a large and influential body of lay adherents of Homoeopathy in this country, there will also be
practitioners, it is clearly for the gain of the public that
the practitioners shall be well instructed in medical science,
so as to be more likely to come to a better mind, if now
under a delusion.   Another advantage is, that the professors of the heretical system are likely to be less secta




THE NEW TEST ACT.


233


rian if, during their college-days, they receive instruction
and pursue their studies in the company of their orthodox
coevals. I do not imagine even the most bigoted opponents
of Homoeopathy to be so blinded, as to suppose that any
possible system of exclusion or persecution will exterminate
all medical practitioners of a system which claims among its
lay adherents in England such a class of men as is indicated
by those who have been already named. If, then, practitioners of Homceopathy there must be, surely the more they are
under a liberal system of medical education the better for
all parties, except those (not to be spoken of here) whose
base aim it is to depress their professional rivals, that they
may thus gain for themselves an apparent elevation.
Of the evil effects likely to follow from the conduct of
the Medical Faculty, one of the gravest remains to be
noticed-I mean, the corruption of the students. Were
an enemy bent on devising a snare by which weak consciences might be entrapped, a more crafty and ruinous
one could hardly be invented. A student, whose whole
prospects in life are dependent upon his obtaining a degree, appears for examination before a tribunal which has
declared that any intention of practising or investigating
Homceopathy is an insuperable bar.   His conscience tells
him emphatically that duty demands that he shall examine
the proscribed system, perhaps confess himself already a
believer in it. He is asked, " Have you any intention to
practise Homceopathy, or to study it?"    What shall he
answer-Yes! or No?     On the side offalsehood, is professional reputation, success, emolument; on the side of truth,
dishonour, disappointment, possibly starvation; and it will,
perhaps, be hinted to him that really there can be no duty
in the matter; that he may do very well with the lessons
he has already learned.  If his teachers thus become the
tempters, shall we wonder if he falls? and how shall we
expect truth, moral courage, elevation of sentiment, in a
profession which is thus entered with shame?





234


THE NEW TEST ACT.


In concluding this subject, I shall only add, that it
seems to me that no right-minded man can read Mr Pope's
narrative without deeming it to call for either a specific
denial or an explanation on the part of the Medical Faculty. At present, they lie exposed to very grave charges;
and, if I may trust altogether in the reporter's accuracy,
there were things said by members of the faculty, the moral
nature of which I will not trust myself to characterise.
Any denial or explanation from them will, of course, be
as specific as the charges are; and I shall be exceedingly
glad if they are able to clear themselves from   all just
blame. We shall learn, at least, on their own authority,
what were the real grounds of Mr Pope's "remission."
Unless they deny the statement in toto (which I cannot
suppose), they will have to explain how Homoeopathy came
to be mentioned at all on the occasion referred to. In the
meantime, any satisfactory explanation on this point seeming to me impossible, I cannot avoid the conclusion that
their conduct in this matter was eminently illegal, cruel,
and unjust.
I now come to the third act.
I have already considered the insolent attempt of the
College of Physicians to discredit the practitioners of Homoeopathy, and to dictate to the public their own arbitrary terms; thus combining to defraud us of medical services to which we are justly entitled. Next, I have disclosed the plot by which it was proposed to exclude
from University honours in medicine every candidate who
should show any partiality towards that system. I have
now, lastly, to bring under your notice the recent movement of the same Medical Faculty in the University, with
the aim of expelling a professor who was appointed to the
Chair of Medicine and General Pathology, on very high
recommendations, and who has, during some nine years,
discharged his duties ably and faithfully, to the credit of
the University, and to the satisfaction of the public. Re




THE NEW TEST ACT.


235


solute in their determination to extirpate the growing
heresy, our medical friends have left no means untried, but
those of experiment and conclusive refutation. First, they
resolved to disown those who had already graduated; next,
to allow no more graduates; and, lastly, to oust one of
the medical professors, whose honest conversion to the
heresy has been intolerably mortifying to them.
That Dr Henderson is a man of high professional reputation and of acknowledged ability, there can be no doubt;
and it can as little be questioned, that he particularly excels in the diagnosis and description of disease, which renders his testimony as to the effects of Homoeopathic remedies peculiarly valuable. The Medical Faculty no doubt
felt that, while one of the professors of medicine was a
Homcceopathist, with whatever loudness and frequency
they might repeat their cry, that the practitioners of Homocopathy were not scientific or " regular" physicians, but
mere quacks; even those of the public who knew nothing
personally of their merits, would ascribe such language
to the want of manners and good feeling, and merely add
such expressions to the already crowding instances of
"God's great gift of speech abused;" that, to quote from
Dr Ransford's Reasons, " to call Hahnemann and his followers quacks, is merely to say that which is false." It
was, therefore, of extreme importance to the play that Dr
Henderson should be got rid of. Fortunately, our University is not so constituted that the other members of
any one of the faculties can degrade a professor whose
teaching happens to be obnoxious to them; else it would
be a curious jumble. In the Medical Faculty, one would
hardly be well in, before they began to speak of putting
him out. Dr Simpson would have been expelled long ago
for his chloroform; Dr Gregory for his mesmerism.*
* It would be unfair to Dr Simpson not here to connect his name
with Dr Gregory's, although he has recently called by a different





236


THE NEW TEST ACT.


Well aware of this, the Faculty of Medicine has not attempted a direct vote of expulsion against Dr Henderson.
Its course has been a little more circuitous. At a recent
meeting (24th June, 1851), resolutions to the following
effect were carried unanimously:--*
" 1. That the public profession of Homceopathy by the Professor
of General Pathology is inconsistent with the efficient discharge of the
various duties which belong to that chair, and is calculated to injure the University as a Medical School.
"12. That the Senatus Academicus be requested to transmit a copy
of this resolution to the Patrons of the University, together with
the expression of a hope, on the part of the Medical Faculty, that
some step may be taken to avert the danger which is thus threatened
to the University."
Although the latter resolution modestly suggests "some
step" merely, I can have no doubt that what is aimed at
is Dr Henderson's removal; for the terms of the first
resolution exclude every other reading. Had the teaching of Homccopathy within the College been the alleged
grievance, it is intelligible that a less formidable visitation
might have been effectual; if irregular, he might have
been solemnly censured by the Senatus. But the ground
of offence is " the public profession" of it.     For this,
besides expulsion, there seem only two conceivable remedies. Either, continuing to believe the Homceopathic system to be the best, Dr Henderson may be urged to cease
to profess it; but I am sure the members of the faculty
cannot intend to propose to those whom I am now addressing the execution of a function so dishonourable: or
it may be supposed that the powers of persuasion which
belong to the members of council will be adequate to
name, and proposed to explain by a different theory, the phenomena
of animal magnetism to which he bears witness.
"* See Dr Henderson's Letter to the Patrons of the University, on
these resolutions. Edinburgh: W. P. Kennedy.





THE NEW TEST ACT.


237


achieve Dr Henderson's re-conversion to orthodoxy, where
the eloquence of his brothers of the Medical Faculty have
failed in doing so. It would be a singular disputation, no
doubt. However credible such a meaning might be, if the
proposition come from another quarter, I can hardly suppose it to be the meaning of the faculty. Thus, the only
probable reading of these resolutions which remains to me,
is that which regards them as expressive of a desire, on
the part of the Medical Faculty, that the patrons will take
steps for Dr Henderson's degradation from the chair he now
occupies.
And so that resolution was carried unaninzously by the
members ofthe Faculty of Medicine within the University of Edinburgh, during the latter half of the nineteenth
century. Thus, on some future day, may the historian of
science record his astonishment that until so late a period
there was no freedom of inquiry and practice, even in medicine, within the metropolitan University of Scotland.
For my own part, I wish to say very little about it; I am
heartily ashamed for our city and Alma Mater. Unanimously! Was there not one, among so many, liberal and
bold enough to utter an indignant manly dissent? Among
the medical professors of Edinburgh, is there not one remaining of the good old stock?
I am not fond of unanimous resolutions, because very
seldom (unless when they are merely superfluous) they
seem to me to express a true unanimity. There is often
a dangerous cowardly gregariousness which leads public
bodies to avoid division. A majority, perhaps even a resolute minority, thus appears as the whole. Had the flock
but been divided, one cannot tell on which side the most
would have been found; and I have observed of gregarious
animals, that, when one of the flying herd has got heart to
turn and stand at bay, he is not left to stand alone.
Having with one voice, if not with one mind, adopted this
resolution, the next step was to bring it up to the Senatus,





238


THE NEW TEST ACT.


to be by them accepted and transmitted to the Patrons.
Its authors seem to have thought that there was to be no
difficulty with the Senatus; that any reputed heresy in medicine, although admittedly not taught within the University, which had thus received final sentence from the Faculty of Medicine in solemn conclave, could not but be instantly condemned by the members of the Faculties of the
Arts, Law, and Theology. Especially by the last; "for
was there not an obvious analogy-a clear identity of principle in the two cases?"  Is it possible that any member
of the Senate can have really argued so? It is averred, but
can it be true? I believe it; and the argument I think a
very logical one. There is wanting only an admitted premiss, and the conclusion cannot be questioned. Given an
authenticated medical " Confession of Faith," required by
statute and usage to be signed by all the professors of medicine, and it will follow that they must teach accordingly
within the College. But alas! for the conclusion of the
matter. They had come without their bond; and so forfeited not only the pound of flesh, but what more will have
to be paid by way of public penance for so grave a crime.
No medical creed had ever been heard of in the Senate;
and the Faculty of Medicine were in such haste to bring up
their resolution, that they had neglected to prepare one.
And so the matter ended; not one member of any of the
other faculties, as I understand, showing any inclination for
the business. The motion is stated to have been withdrawn, as having been irregular by defect of due notice.
The next notice of such a proceeding will, no doubt, contain a distinct reference to the new creed, which we shall
all be curious to see. Even then, I cannot imagine how
they propose to get over the difficulty, that the alleged
heresy is not taught within the University. We shall wait
with much interest to learn what their next step is to be.
In the meantime, I claim their thanks for thus directly communicating to the Patrons their benevolent, liberal inten




THE NEW TEST ACT.


239


tions in the matter, which it was their purpose to make
known through the Senatus.*
So, for the present, ends the third act of this conspiracy. I have been informed that in other quarters steps
are being taken with a view to its farther development; but
I shall not detain in my hands what I have already written
until the completion of the fifth act. Should it appear necessary, I may have something more to say on the subject.
In the meantime, I am anxious that what has already taken
place should be publicly known; thus, what is to come will
be the better attended to.
Hitherto I have assumed the position of stern, unequivocal opposition to the various proceedings on which I
have found it my duty to comment. At the same time, I
believe myself to have in no instance transgressed the right
limits of such controversy. I have made no personal attacks, and have imputed no unworthy motives. The questions of this nature which appear on the face of Mr Pope's
statement are not of my suggestion. I shall be the first
to regret if I have misrepresented any of these transactions; but, as I have founded my judgment and my arguments upon the authentic records, by embodying these in
this letter, I have put my readers in a position to correct
for themselves any errors into which I may have fallen.
I am very unwilling to end this letter without adding a
few words of earnest friendly remonstrance. Did I feel less
than I do the high dignity of the physician's vocation, and
remember less how many great and true men have laboured
in it, painfully and magnanimously, for the good of mankind, I should be less affected than I now am by the conduct to which I have had to refer. If I had little faith
* Mr Syme, the mover of the resolutions, afterwards brought the
matter before the Patrons, in a memorial signed by himself alone.
See Town Council Proceedings, December 16, 1851. See also Dr
Henderson's Letter thereon to the Patrons. W. P. Kennedy.





240


THE NEW TEST ACT.


in the past achievements or future possibilities of medicine
as a science or as an art, any discredit which might be attached to it would hardly move me. I confess it is far
otherwise. Believing that there are great conquests in
reserve for it, I cannot regard with indifference the erection
of ill-considered barricades which will inevitably retard its
progress. Their. builders, no doubt, intend that its progress in one direction only shall thus be impeded; but the
introduction and culture of such a spirit in science tends
necessarily to its stagnation. Science advances by growth,
not by mere accretion; and to obstruct its free expansion
in any part is to dwarf it. If I think it probable, judging
from its history, that the Homoeopathic system is destined
to exert much influence on the healing art, I have no doubt
at all that the attempt to repress it, or any other practical
system honestly pursued, by means of insults and penal
measures, will only degrade medicine; for, observe that
here, as in higher things, such means of repression have
no necessary, no natural relation to truth; for once that
they are used on her side, they will be at least ten times
employed against her.
It may be thought that Hahnemann and his disciples
have not contributed much as yet towards medical science;
but will any candid and well-informed observer refuse to
admit that they have contributed something? Is it nothing
to have insisted on the exact observation and detailed recording of the action of medicines? Are there not new and
valuable remedies now coming into common use, which
they introduced? Has not the general practice of the profession, as regards the use of drugs, been, during late years,
sensibly affected by the infinitesimal doses? Let them be
quite sure that they have assimilated into the body of medical science all the nutriment to be derived from this
source, before they contemptuously and permanently sever
themselves from it.
Again, if belief in the efficacy of infinitesimal doses be a





THE NEW TEST ACT.


241


delusion, is it so very hurtful? In the present state of the
art of healing, when so many of its distinguished practitioners have to record a decrease of faith in drugs, with increased experience of disease, is it not greatly safer to give
too little medicine than too much?    And if it be a mischievous delusion, to be discountenanced, and, if possible,
dispelled, are obloquy, persecution, contempt, insult, directed against its sincere and earnest votaries, the means
which duty or wisdom urges for its defeat or extinction?
On the contrary, does not all history teach us, that, instead
of dissipating any vaporous form of belief, the uniform
effect of persecution is to crystallise it into permanency?
Let the practitioners of Homceopathy continue mixed with
the general body of physicians, and, if the system be false,
the stronger truth which the others hold will ere long supplant and exterminate it. Let them be put out of communion, and, by external pressure, condensed into a distinct sect, having no intercourse with the rest of the profession; then, true orfalse, it may be safely predicted of the
system, that it has a long life in prospect. From that time
forward, its young alumni will seldom come into close contact with the other forms of medical belief; they will be
nursed in separate institutions; in which, during their whole
course of instruction, it will be instilled into their receptive minds, that the Homceopathic is the one all-inclusive,
all-sufficient system of knowledge and practice in that department of the profession; and he will, indeed, be zealous
for orthodoxy who has much hope of reclaiming them after
such training. Even now, in consequence of the proceedings of the Colleges and the Medical Faculty, some of the
adherents of the persecuted faith have begun to agitate
for such exclusive institutions.
Let the persecution advance, and certainly it will result
in their establishment. That such a consequence would be
highly injurious to our universities, and to the general
education of the students of medicine, I have no doubt.
R





242


THE NEW TEST ACT.


If the Homceopathists get into their own hands the power
of granting degrees in medicine (which will obviously be
necessary if the University degrees are denied to them), they
will be enabled to affect the general body of practitioners
far more widely than they now can; and, like all young licensing bodies, they will be tempted to lower the standard
of education. At any rate, they will thus come into distinct competition with the old-established colleges. I cannot suppose those who are now engaged in the crusade
against Homoaopathy to be indifferent to this result; and
I might wonder at their present tactics, were I not aware
that an insolent contempt of their advancing opponents
conceals from them the serious nature of the contest.
The course of Homceopathy exhibited in its history
might correct their judgment. So might familiarity with
its literature, or, still more, personal intercourse with the
more distinguished of its professors. It is singular, that
the President, and the other members of the College of
Physicians, who had recently an opportunity of meeting
with Dr Arneth, of Vienna, as a specimen of the Continental Homoeopathists, should not have formed a juster
estimate of the system and its adherents, than their resolutions express. There are those, too, living among us,
whose ability, acquirements, and disinterestedness, daily
teach the same lesson. If we will shut our ears against the
truth, it is true we can do it; and the truth in her advance
will then pass us by; nay, but if we will not go out to seek
her, prepared to do her homage, although she appear in
meanest clothing and in lowliest places, we shall hardly
find her. If we make up our minds beforehand, in what
form, from what quarter, with what accompaniments her
approach is to be, our pre-judgments will be our only conclusions.
Finally, I adjure our medical friends, as they regard the
dignity of their profession, as they desire the advance of
science, as they value sincerity and ingenuousness, as they





THE NEW TEST ACT.


243


confess allegiance to the laws of nature, which will receive
no dictation from man; above all, as they would not be
found doing injustice and cruelly oppressing the innocent;
in short, as they feel the claims of highest Duty, I adjure
them to pause ere it be too late, and willingly to retrace
their steps, lest ignominiously they may afterwards be
compelled" to retreat from their present false and discreditable position.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord Provost and Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
AN ALUMNUS OF THE UNIVERSITY.
P. S. --The following resolutions were subsequently
adopted unanimously by the Royal College of Surgeons of
Edinburgh:"1. The College having considered a series of resolutions
transmitted by the Royal College of Physicians, in regard
to Homceopathy, feel called upon to express their opinion
that the system so designated being entirely inconsistent
with the principles professed by candidates for the diploma
of the College of Surgeons, any fellow or licentiate who
practises it, or countenances others in doing so, by meeting
them in consultation, will justly incur the disapprobation
of the College.
"2. That a copy of the above resolution be transmitted
to the Royal College of Physicians."
We cannot desire a better reproof of the narrow bigotry
of our Scottish College than the following resolution of the
Council of the Royal College of Surgeons of England:"That the Council have attentively and repeatedly considered the various communications which they have received on the subject of Homoeopathy; and, after mature
deliberation, have resolved, that it is not expedient for this
College to interfere in the matter."





REASONS
FOR
EMBRACING HOM(EOPATHY.*
HAVING been known until within a comparatively short
time since (especially while holding office in the Royal
College of Physicians of Edinburgh) as a determined opponent of Homceopathy and its disciples, and now coming
forward to avow my conviction of its truths, and my desire
to assist by every legitimate means in their dissemination,
I think it a duty to give my reasons for thus changing my
opinions and practice.
In common with many of my professional brethren in
Edinburgh, I questioned the possibility of the Homceopathic preparations containing any medicinal properties
whatever; because, in the first place, the most carefully
conducted chemical analysis failed to detect their presence, except, perhaps, in some few of the tinctures; and,
* By Charles Ransford, M.D., Edin., Fellow of and lately one of the
Examiners in the Royal College of Physicians, Licentiate of the Royal
College of Surgeons, formerly one of the Medical Officers of the Royal
and Western Dispensaries, Secretary of the Anatomical and Obstetrical Societies, Member of the Medico-Chirurgical, Extraordinary
Member and President of the Royal Medical and Harveian Societies
of Edinburgh, Physician to the York Homceopathic Dispensary.
Extracted from the " British Journal of Homoeopathy." No. 37.





REASONS FOR EMBRACING HOMOEOPATHY.


245


secondly, because, even if they did exist, so material and
palpable did we erroneously suppose disease to be, it was
impossible (so we argued) that substances so attenuated
could exert any influence upon the human organism.
Still, with all the apparent difficulties and absurdities (as
we styled their doctrines), our patients resorted to these
heretical practitioners-and generally assured us, to our
ill-concealed mortification, that they received benefit at
their hands. Notwithstanding our prognostications of the
ephemeral nature of the system, it continued to increase in
favour, and its disciples were to be found amongst the
most intellectual and calm thinking members of society.
We said one to another, what do these men give to their
patients?  One physician informed me that tartarised
antimony in small doses, would act as a sufficient aperient, and doubtless that this was the preparation exhibited for the purpose in cases of constipated bowels.
Ashamed am I to confess, that I and others utterly
ignorant of the subject, and refusing to inform  ourselves by actual experience, not merely suspected but
asserted, that men of unimpeachable integrity gave ordinary drugs, under a feigned name, for the purpose of
producing certain effects. In whatever else we differed,
we cordially agreed in denouncing the entire system as
quackery, delusion, and imposture, and, as a necessary
consequence, excluded its professional advocates from our
societies, whether scientific or social. We did not stop to
ask, whether there was or was not truth in Hahnemann's
proposition; if there existed a law for the administration
of medicines; but our vials of wrath and contempt were
poured upon the devoted heads of his followers, for the
unpardonable innovation of administering drugs in inconceivably minute doses. We probably should not have
evinced such an amount of irritation at the simple announcement similia similibus curantur; but to attempt to
cure acute disease by such unheard of means was so ab




246


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


surd (thus we in our ignorance spoke and wrote), that
none but fools or knaves would trouble themselves with
the brief investigation necessary to prove the falsity of
Hahnemann's notions. We never could separate Hahnemann's law from infinitesimal doses, although we might
have been informed by a tyro in Homoeopathy, that
Hahnemann practised according to his promulgated law, for
years ere he adopted the practice of minute doses. Without trying the effects of remedies upon this principle, we
publicly declared the entire band of Homoeopathic practitioners (most of whom held legal diplomas, many of
them from our Alma Mater) as unworthy of our society;
by these acts we virtually, if not really, asserted that they
were banded together to propagate a delusion and a fraud.
What a proof this was of our own extreme credulity! and
of the "characteristic obstinacy of the medical profession."
The conscientious, highly educated, and accomplished
follower of Hahnemann, whose only object was to substitute in therapeutics, certainty for uncertainty, order for
confusion; this man, I repeat, was treated as a Pariah,
an outcast. Homoeopathy was always pronounced to be
on the wane; nevertheless, we found to our cost thatit took
from us our best patients; we fondly hoped that these misguided people would after a little time return to their former orthodox creed and practice: but, no, they not only
deserted us, our cathartics, sudorifics, alteratives, derivatives, blisterings, bleedings, et hoc genus omne; but,
charmed with the superiority of their new favourite, in
the most unkind manner, they persuaded others to follow
their example. The Homcopathists were bold enough to
open a dispensary, and, strange to behold, the poor flocked
to it; we had comforted ourselves in the belief that, whatever whim the aristocracy might choose to pursue, the
poor would certainly not become converts.
The young and talented members of our school of me




FOR EMBRACING HOMCEOPATHY.


247


dicine embraced and enthusiastically advocated the principles and practices of Homceopathy, and asked us to explain how it was that the proportional recoveries of cases
of Asiatic cholera and pneumonia (proved to be such, not
merely by the advocates, but likewise by the opponents of
Homceopathy), in Dr Fleischmann's hospital, at Vienna,
so far outnumbered those of the Allopathic or old school
practitioners. These figures were extremely awkward,
we were comparatively powerless in the treatment of
Asiatic cholera, at least in its advanced stages; whilst
the Homoeopathists were often successful. The Vienna
hospital was a public institution; any physician might
visit it, and not only ascertain the truth or falsehood of
the statistical returns, but also see the effects of the infinitesimal doses. We would not be convinced. Not being
able to deny the recoveries, we attributed them to the
more healthy site of the hospital, the more abundant
supply of attentive nurses and of comforts to the sick,
and with these so-called reasons we dismissed the statistics of cholera. Those of pneumonia remain to be accounted for: we satisfied ourselves with asserting that
Fleischmann was not skilled in auscultation, that slight
cases of bronchitis would be set down as pneumonia and
be classed amongst its cures. Mr Wilde, a surgeon, editor
of the "Dublin Quarterly Journal," and author of the
work, " Austria and its Institutions," who is not a Homoeopathist, states that he witnessed the treatment of cases
of pneumonia in Fleischmann's hospital,.and that these
cases were as acute and virulent, as those which had
come under his observation elsewhere; that whilst the
mortality for 1838 was not more than five or six per cent.;
three similar institutions on the Allopathic plan showed
a mortality as high as from eight to ten per cent.
In answer to this, and the testimony of Dr Balfour, as
published in the " British and Foreign Quarterly Review,"
we comforted ourselves that pneumonia was curable with




248


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


out drugs, that this was the secret of the cure, and not the
administration of Homceopathic preparations. A little reflection would have convinced us that this was a somewhat
dangerous argument to broach, by men ordering calomel,
opium, tartar emetic, leeches, venesection, blistering, &c.,
&c., for, however disposed we were to talk thus amongst
ourselves, we never adopted the laissez-faire mode of practice when our patients required our professional assistance. And it cannot be denied that such arguments (if
they be worthy of the name), were they sound ones, tell
more against Allopathy and its advocates, than against
Hahnemann and his followers, inasmuch as the former
used violent means which they consider to be unnecessary.
Such a mode of reasoning has been not unaptly likened
to a man passing a sword through his own vitals, in order
to injure his adversary.  But any testimony, however
strong, however clear, was unavailing to us: the mists of
prejudice-deep-rooted, inveterate prejudice-shrouded
our mental vision as with Egyptian darkness; every misrepresentation was had recourse to, and satisfied us; we
despised Homoeopathy, called Hahnemann a cheat and a
nostrum vender, clutching a non-authenticated piece of
gossip, and delivering upon this a verdict, the evidence for
which would have been deemed insufficient by any twelve
intelligent and unprejudiced persons, and which, even if
it had been true, could not have tested the merits or demerits of the Homoeopathic law. Had we really been desirous of knowing Hahnemann's character, in its moral as
well as its professional relation, we could have been sufficiently informed by men of reputation, his contemporaries
-yet not Homceopathists.
Marmaduke Sampson, Esq., in his very able essay entitled, " Truths and their Reception, considered in relation to the Doctrine of Homceopathy" (a work as well as
others of the same talented writer, by which my impressions upon the subject were greatly strengthened), has col




FOR EMBRACING HOM(EOPATHY.


249


lected a number of testimonials from well-known persons
in various parts of Europe.
The venerable Hufeland acknowledged the highest personal respect for Hahnemann. Valentine Mott, the eminent American surgeon, says-" Hahnemann is one of the
most accomplished and scientific physicians of the present
age." Dr Uwins and Mr Kingdon, of London, considered
that Hahnemann was worthy of the thanks of the profession, for his unwearied industry in ascertaining the properties of medicines.
Dr Sigmond speaks of him as a man of high intellectual
attainments, of great sagacity, of inflexible courage, and
of unwearied industry.
Dr Forbes bears a similar testimony, and we are inclined to think that the evidence of these gentlemen is
sufficient for the purpose.
My suspicions that Homccopathic medicines had really
some action, were first awakened in 1844, by one of my
patients, an Oxford student, calling upon me during
the long vacation.  This young gentleman had been
for several years under my care for a heart affection,
which had caused himself and his family considerable
anxiety. Consultations had been held with practitioners
of high standing in Edinburgh, and he had been actively treated secundum artem, by depletions, digitalis,
counter-irritants, &c. &c. He told me that, since he had
last seen me, he had been under the care of a Homoeopathic physician. " Well," was his but ill-pleased
doctor's reply, "you did not experience any effects from
his sugar-plums "   "Pardon me, doctor, the effects
were very perceptible." This answer appeared somewhat
strange: is it possible that a decillionth of aconite can
produce any sensible effect?  He passed away to Oxford,
his physician remaining unconvinced, attributing the consequences of the remedies to something given clandestinely: a refuge to which I and those like minded with





250


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


me invariably betook ourselves; and I remained obstinate, notwithstanding that my patients continued to desert me for the Homceopathic 'practitioner. Occasionally
we heard of a death occurring in the practice of our rivals.
This furnished ample scope for our eloquence. The man
has been murdered! a case of inflammation has terminated
in death! of course, what could be expected?-the man
was not bled; we spoke and wrote as though a fatal termination was a novelty amongst us Solons of the Allopathic
school. Then one of our brethren exulted over a performance of his own, which we all maintained satisfactorily settled the question of the action of infinitesimal
doses. This worthy doctor actually did a Homceopathic
physician the honour of sitting at the same table with
him, at the house of a mutual friend; their worthy host's
hospitality had the effect of somewhat dispelling the frigidity of the sapient Allopath, who, after dinner, accosted
his erring brother, and asked him for an inspection of his
pocket medicine case. It was immediately handed to him.
Selecting the tube labelled nux vomica, he had the hardihood to pour the contents into his palm, and swallowed
them, looking for the approving smiles of the assembled
guests. This was too good an incident to be lost; we, in
our absolute wisdom, proclaimed it far and wide. Do you
still persist in believing that these globules contain what
they profess to do? If they really consisted of nix vomica,
do you not suppose that some visible result would have
followed the swallowing of so many? These were the
queries put to our Homceopathic unprofessional 'friends;
11professional, observe, for otherwise the solution of the
apparent difficulty would have been very easy. For it is
only under certain morbid conditions that these medicines
act by their peculiar affinities. A child, at the time not
susceptible of the disease, may be exposed to the contagion
of scarlatina, small-pox, or other of the exanthemata, without contracting the disease; yet a similar exposure, a





FOR EMBRACING HIOM(EOPATHY.


251


month afterwards, may be followed by the development
of the malady; or three men might be bitten by the same
rabid dog, and but one of them sicken with hydrophobia;
would any one from this deny the malignity of the virus?
Besides, it is a well ascertained fact that small doses of
medicinal substances will frequently produce more powerful effects than larger quantities of them. To test the
action of infinitesimal doses, is purely a matter of experience, and it is in the power of any one to satisfy
himself on the subject. We also attributed the so-called
cures to the effect of imagination; although many cases
of recovery from acute diseases, in children, could not
with any fairness be attributed either to mental or moral causes; but the fact was, we would not allow that
Homoeopathy could cure, and it was therefore settled
by us that it should not. All cures were attributed to
any cause but the right one, although recoveries under
Allopathic remedies were readily enough allowed to be
the effect of the remedies employed, nor, in spite of
our assertions that diet alone would cure disease, did we
ever trust to it exclusively in severe maladies. The press
now began vigorously to send forth its productions upon
the subject; but, although a reader of the surprising
effects narrated, scepticism was yet in the ascendant. In
the summer of 1848, I was led by circumstances to join
a highly respectable practitioner in Alnwick, and I
with great regret left Edinburgh. In the quiet locality
to which I now removed, I ceased to think of Homceopathy, and hoped to pursue my vocation unmolested by
that pestilent heresy; although, occasionally meeting with
it amongst the higher classes of society, nothing else in
the town or neighbourhood induced me to pay any greater
attention to its claims; nor, indeed, to trouble myself
about it at all, further than to lend to the few who advocated its principles certain publications opposed to them.
But I could not avoid reading of the opening of hospitals





252


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


for the reception of patients labouring under acute disease, and of the invitation to the medical profession to
witness their treatment. This course of proceeding seemed
to be a somewhat unusual one for quacks to pursue, and,
besides this, ever and anon I received communications
from friends and former patients, many of whom I knew
to 1ave been once opposed to Homceopathy, But who now
informed me of the benefit which they had received from
it.  I also observed that the number of well-educated
medical practitioners practising upon the Homceopathic
principle was yearly on the increase.  I remembered
that when a student at the Ecole de Medicine in 1831, there
was but one Homeopathic practitioner in Paris, Dr Quin,
and that he removed to London. Contrasting that state
of things with the present (1849), 1 remarked that in
London there were upwards of thirty Homoeopathic practitioners; in Paris a considerable number; throughout
Germany, its birth-place, and under the sanction of the
reigning powers, it was rapidly increasing; that in America they were to be counted by hundreds. That amongst
these practitioners were men of unquestionable character
and reputation, many of whom had for many years successfully practised according to the old system; and many
others who determined to try whether there was any,
and how much truth existed in it, had their doubts removed so far as to there being action in the infinitesimal
doses.  Space will not allow of my giving a list of
them; I will mention the names of some in Britain:Dr Uwins, Mr Kingdon, Dr Millingen, and Professor
Listen, in London; Professor Henderson, in Edinburgh;
Mr Ramsbotham, Mr Smith, and Dr Wright, in Huddersfield-the three latter adopting its practice exclusively.
Dr Uwins and Mr Kingdon brought the subject before
the London Medical Society, the latter detailing several
cases in which the Homceopathic remedies were of signal
service. The thanks which these gentlemen received for





FOR EMBRACING HOM(EOPATIY.


253


their attempt to diffuse information upon this subject
amongst their brethren in a legitimate manner, were
rudeness and reprobation. Dr Uwins was assailed as a
madman, and when Mr Kingdon had concluded his interesting paper, one member said, that " he thought that all
Homoeopathised patients were cured by nature"-another,
that he did not believe in it-and a third, that " it was all
humbug;" and, as an appropriate finale to the proceedings of this meeting of philosophers, a tacit understanding
was come to, that the subject should never again be mooted
in that assembly. I found that the profession in Edinburgh and London resembled each other in the opposition which it offered to a proposed improvement in therapeutics. I acknowledge that, so far as I am concerned,
I was as much to blame as any of them; and the only
reparation which I have it in my power to make, is this
confession of the melancholy fact. These circumstances,
coupled with the increasing want of confidence in the
ordinary practice, led me to the determination of secretly testing the monster, and of publishing the results
of my trials. I believed that by so doing, I should be
convinced of the fallacies of Homoeopathy, and that any
doubts of their existence would be speedily dispelled, and
my mind set at rest. My determination to test it was
strengthened by attentively considering the letter of my
late ever to be lamented friend, Dr Andrew Combe,
whose writings are so widely known and so justly appreciated in Europe and America. Dr Combe had no cause
to serve but that of truth. Truthfulness was his characteristic. I knew but too well, that, so far as the uncertainty of medicine was concerned, I could scarcely
be worse off, for professional intercourse (and this was
considerable) with many eminent practitioners had not
tended to increase my confidence in drugs nor in medicine generally; nor did Dr Forbes give me comfort,
when he issued his celebrated number of the " British and





254


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


Foreign Review, containing the well-known article entitled " Homceopathy, Allopathy, and Young Physic." In
order to take my first step with every precaution, I acquainted my friend Dr Russell of Edinburgh with my
difficulties, and received from that gentleman every direction for the proper investigation of the Homoeopathic practice; I likewise went to Newcastle, and introduced myself to Dr Hayle, who received me with his wonted urbanity, and advised me, if I wished to be speedily convinced of the power and efficacy of Homoeopathic preparations, to select for trial acute cases of disease. I returned and commenced my investigations, carrying them
on in such a manner, that, with scarce an exception, my
patients were ignorant of my proceedings, and did not suspect any deviation from ordinary practice, save that they
were agreeably surprised to find themselves cured and relieved by medicines tasteless and colourless. The result
of my first trials utterly confounded me. Acute inflammatory cases, of such a description as are by consent of
all authorities in medicine ordered or recommended to be
treated by bleeding, either general or local, and other debilitating measures, yielded much sooner to the Homoeopathic remedies appropriate to each case.
So soon as I was convinced that the Homoeopathic preparations, administered according to the Homoeopathic
law, were more efficacious in curing acute cases of disease
than the 61d method of practice, I corresponded with several of my medical friends of the Allopathic school, mentioned my experience on the subject, and requested their
opinions. Not one met the case on its merits; one ridiculed
the idea that such effects could possibly result from a decillionth of aconite, &c.; another dismissed the subject
very summarily by saying, "that he knew nothing whatever of Homoeopathy, but that he considered the administering of such small doses in really dangerous cases to be
a trifling with human life;" another's response was to this





FOR EMBRACING HOM(EOPATHY.


effect-" I have seen some narrow escapes from Homceopathic treatment."  One friend, whilst opposing Homoeopathy, made this somewhat remarkable admission-" I have
no doubt but that patients will get well sooner under the
Homceopathic treatment;" a fourth saw no objections to my
continuing the investigation secretly, believing that a return to my " first love " would be the result of a more extended experience.
Several of my patients of the higher ranks asked me
whether I was practising Homoeopathically. I replied in
the affirmative, but added, that as yet my mind was not
sufficiently decided upon the matter; they did not care
how I treated them, providing I did so conscientiously;
and all my medical correspondents urged me not to proclaim my "perversion" (so they termed it) until a few
months longer should have passed away.
Numerous cases, each one treated by myself alone, convinced me that all my preconceived opinions upon Homoeopathy were erroneous, for it was to the action of the
remedies administered that the results were due.
The diet was not altered in the case of children at the
breast, nor in the cases of those adults unconscious of my
treatment could imagination have exerted the slightest influence.
But even if these powerful auxiliaries have assigned to
them an undue share of influence, I would ask my Allopathic brethren, whether they believe that imagination will
cure cases of acute disease, the rapid subsidence of which
under Homoeopathic remedies is astonishing, and can be
attested by thousands. Or will diet, however restricted
and well regulated, be effectual for the same desirable end
(and let it be observed, that cases of infantile bronchitis
have come under my practice where no alteration of diet
could have been made), and the disease only began to
yield (and then did so) upon the administration of the
Homceopathic medicines. But if this line of argument be





256


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


persisted in by our brethren, or the assertion that the vis
medicatrix naturce is the cause of recovery, we reply-be
consistent, then, do not continue to administer the nauseous and hurtful compounds to your unhappy patients, if
you think that the disease can be removed by the combined influences of diet, imagination, and nature; do not
injure their stomachs by calomel, jalap, and other potent
drugs; nor resort to bleeding, blistering, nor such like
violent measures. Surely, those who in sincerity advance
such arguments, would do well to ponder whether they
may not easily be turned against themselves, and the subjects of such unpleasant experiments may with reason
say, gentlemen, leave us to the more agreeable remedies of
imagination, diet, and nature.
But I have been not ajlittle surprised of late, to find
that the once oft reiterated objection to the employment of
Homoeopathic remedies in acute and dangerous cases, has
been succeeded by attempts to frighten my patients, by
telling them, that although the seat of disease may be, and
is, reached by Homceopathic remedies (for the evidence of
this is beyond dispute), yet that this is effected at the expense of the constitution. Some of my patients informed
me, that medical men told them by way of warning that
the Homceopathic medicines were virulent poisons, and that
although they removed disease, they undermined the patient's system, and shortened his life! One lady assured
me so, and another was told that if she persisted in taking
the remedies which I prescribed for her, she would die
suddenly. Happily these ladies (who were both my patients) were women possessed of ability and will to exercise their reasoning powers, and therefore they disregarded
such ridiculous modes of setting aside the question. I
told them that if the remedies were poisons, doctors of the
old school administered the same in much larger quantities: also, that Hahnemann, who proved so many medicines upon himself, lived to the age of eighty-nine.





FOR EMBRACING HOMIEOPATHY.


257


A lady, the sister of a friend of mine, a highly respectable Homoeopathic physician, was gravely told by a gentleman in large practice, that a pain in the region of the
heart, with which a lady is troubled, has been caused by
the belladonna given to her by this physician; at another
time this same practitioner asserted that this very belladonna was " nothing."
Strange, indeed, it is that such contradictory assertions
should be made, but we must leave the task of reconciling
their discrepancies to the authors themselves.
But another objection is also started, viz., that the majority of the profession is opposed to it; so were the London College of Physicians to Harvey's doctrine of the circulation of the blood. Vaccination likewise was received
with distrust, and was opposed. Mr Sampson, in the
work before quoted, has shown how those of authority in
various departments-such as banking, the post office, the
law-have ever been the active opponents of measures of
undoubted reform, affecting their own vocation, and that,
therefore, it cannot be a matter of surprise that (for reasons easily divined) Homoeopathy should meet with a similar reception from members of the medical profession.
It is not to the credit of our island, that, while the doctrines of Homceopathy have arrested the attention and become the study of many learned and experienced medical
men in Europe and America, Great Britain is the only
country where it has been noticed only to draw forth the
most opprobrious invectives. It will not be satisfactory to
assert that Hahnemann's theory is absurd and novel. Dr
Millingen (not a Homoeopathist) asserts, in his "Curiosities of Medical Experience," "that Hippocrates laid
down in his aphorisms the incontrovertible fact, duobus
doloribus simal obortis, non tandem eddem in parte, vehementur
alterum obscurat," A. 46. To a certain degree it was upon
this assertion, which the experience of ages has confirmed,
that Hahnemann founded the principal and most import8





258


DR RANSFORD'S REASONS


ant point of his doctrine; but, going much farther than the
Father of Medicine, he affirms that similar diseases effectually remove each other. For centuries practitioners have
been acting Homaeopathically; the exhibition of specifics,
in fact, being nothing else. Specifics are known to produce symptoms similar to the diseases they cure. To increase the number of these specifics, has been the laborious
and singular study of Hahnemann and his disciples, a study
of which Haller had first given the example; and the same
author justly states, "that our safest, perhaps our sole,
guide in the study of disease, is the group of symptoms,
that become more and more perceptible during the course
of our investigations."  Even were we to discard the
theory, we cannot so deal with facts. Let us not care so
much about the correctness of his theory (for the history
of medicine affords the almost constant substitution of one
theory for another), as the success of the practice. I ask
the unprejudiced medical inquirer to read attentively the
" Essay on the Homoeopathic Treatment of the Asiatic Cholera," and the "Narrative of a Mission to Ireland during the
Famine and Pestilence of 1847," by Joseph Kidd, surgeon.
Those essays will be found in a volume published under
the superintendence of the British Homoeopathic Association, by Samuel Highley, 32 Fleet Street, London.
What were Mr Kidd's auxiliaries for treating the malignant typhus, and yet how marked was his success, as
proved by the convincing testimony of clergymen and
others who had no interest whatever in supporting the
Homoeopathic practice?
My own experience for nearly eighteen months, the
irresistible evidence brought under my notice in my researches made alike in the writings of those opposed as
well as of those favourable to Homoeopathy, furnished
facts upon facts, until an overwhelming array presented
themselves. I felt that, although there was nothing to
prevent my continuing to practise now and in what manner





FOR EMBRACING HOM(EOPATHY.


259


I chose, I was fully convinced that the Homceopathic
principle was the correct one, and that my own success in
practice upon that principle was the most marked in the
history of my professional life; I felt that the only honest
course to adopt was the avowal of my belief. I knew
that, by so doing, I should draw down upon myself the
anger of my former professional friends, that would, for a
time at least, endanger my professional reputation, and separate me from all existing professional ties. On the other
hand, I dared not relinquish those remedies, or the mode
of administering them, which I had found so efficacious in
curing rapidly and safely so many forms of disorders. I
was told that, to avow myself a Homceopathist, would be
to take a step fatal to my reputation as a scientific physician, but the words of Dr Baillie (as truly a scientific man
as any of his successors) were strongly impressed upon my
mind, " Tell me what will do my patients good, and I will
give it to them."  Estimating so highly as I do the Homceopathic practice, it will not be considered a matter for
surprise that I should consider it my duty resolutely to
defend it, and diligently to propagate it, and this I am determined to do, uninfluenced by the frowns or even threats
of those with whom I was not long since on terms of intimate friendship. My only wish is the removal of the prejudice which prevents their investigating the subject; an
investigation which, if pursued with a determination to
arrive at the truth, I am convinced must result in a firm
belief of the greater certainty, and therefore incalculable
superiority, of the Homceopathic practice in the removal
of disease; or, if this be not practicable, at least, of the
more effective relief of suffering.
To call Hahnemann and his followers quacks, is merely
to say that which is false. A system of therapeutics which
is based upon observation and experience, which has been
tested by various persons in different parts of the globe;
these persons publishing to the world the results of their





260      REASONS FOR EMBRACING HOMCEOPATHY.
investigations, these results agreeing remarkably with one
another, can this with justice be called quackery? It pretends not to possess a universal remedy for the various
ills that flesh is heir to; it does not conceal its remedies;
on the contrary, it publishes them without reserve, and invites all the members of the medical profession to test its
truth or its falsehood for themselves. Take aconite, for
example, in infinitesimal doses, administer it as we have
frequently done to an infant at the breast, so as to exclude
any supposed effect of the imagination, it will be found to
be an indisputable fact that this medicine, in this very
minute dose, will subdue inflammatory action more effectually, more quickly, more safely, than any other known
means. Every practitioner may convince himself of the
truth of this assertion. It was the testimony of so many
enlightened and honest men, professional and unprofessional, that first led me to investigate the subject, and
others I believe will from similar reasons be led to adopt
a like course; what the result will be, it does not require
to be told. Truth will prevail.





FULMINATIONS AGAINST IHOMIEOPATHY.*
THERE must be some truth in the Homceopathic doctrine
of the efficacy of minute doses. In Edinburgh, the favourite hauht of medicine and medical practitioners, there
are only five Homoeopathic doctors-a number scarcely to
be detected by microscopic inspection among the swarms
of licentiates who jostle each other in the streets; and yet,
it appears from a batch of pamphlets recently sent to us
from the modern Athens, their presence has excited a consternation among the orthodox medicos, the effects of which
might supply worthy matter for the pen of a Swift, or a
MoliBre, or a Rabelais-who was himself a physician.
The first fulmination against the Homoeopathic heresy
in Edinburgh emanated from the College of Physicians.
These learned Thebans, in full divan assembled, passed a
series of resolutions, in language such as has rarely been
adopted by an anteprandial meeting.  After premising
that no person could be ignorant of the light in which the
College regards Homoeopathy, they declared that all fellows who became Homoeopathic practitioners "endanger
the reputation of the College;" that they become "merely
nominal fellows," "and hold a false position and spurious
credit." They further protested, that all such renegades
from the true medical faith " must necessarily be alien to
the other fellows and to the profession at large," inasmuch
* From the " Spectator."





262      FULMINATIONS AGAINST HOM(EOPATHY.
as "no fellow of his College, or any other physician, can
by any possibility, without derogating from his own honour
and the honour of the profession, meet professors of Homceopathy in consultation, or co-operate with them in the
other common duties of professional life." The practical
application of these dogmas was a broad hint to the black
sheep against whom they were levelled, that they ought
forthwith to resign their fellowships. The Council of the
College were directed to transmit copies of the resolutions
to all known offenders; and their secretary, catching the
peculiar spirit of courtesy that inspired them, subjoined to
the name of Dr Henderson, in the copy transmitted to that
gentleman, not his legitimate title of " Professor of Pathology in the University of Edinburgh," but the designation
" Practitioner of Homceopathy"-which the doctor, without any desire to disclaim it, might warrantably object to,
on the ground of the animus which dictated its selection.
Fielding's Colonel, mad on the point of honour, with his
favourite phrase of "the immortal dignity of man," is
thrown into the shade by the more than Castilian punctilio
of the Edinburgh physicians. These gentlemen, it appears,
would hold it degrading to assist a fellow-being struck
down by apoplexy, if a Homceopathist held him in his
arms. And Fielding's Mrs Slipslop could not have emphasised the words " low creatures" more felicitously than
the secretary to the College did the title "practitioner of
Homoeopathy." Judging by their anti-Homoeopathic resolutions, and forgetting for the moment their many real
claims to respect, one might fancy the Edinburgh physicians to be a cross-breed between a Brahmin, with all his
pride of caste, and a lady's-maid, with all her airs and
minauderie.
But the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh were resolved to outdo their neighbours of the College of Physicians. Soon after the latter had promulgated
their resolutions, a student of medicine, suspected of Ho




FULMINATIONS AGAINST HOMIEOPATHY.


263


moeopathic leanings, underwent the examinations preliminary to the obtaining of a diploma. The professors expressed themselves satisfied with his answers, till it occurred
to one of them to ask him whether it was true that he
intended to practise Homoeopathically? The candidate
for medical honours replied that he could not give a decisive
answer till he had studied the subject; which, he added,
he had determined to do. He was then asked whether, in
the event of his becoming convinced of the truth of Homoeopathy, he would burn or return his diploma. He
replied, that, considering the diploma a mere attestation to
the amount of medical knowledge he had attained, he saw
no necessity for doing so. He was then given to understand that the faculty would not pass him until he became
convinced of the fallacy of infinitesimal doses. Habit has
reconciled men to the practice of exacting from licentiates
of theology solemn declarations, not merely that they believe, but that they will always continue to believe, certain
doctrines; but the Edinburgh Faculty of Medicine is, we
imagine, the first that has exacted from a candidate for a
diploma a vow always to believe in a certain medical
theory, and adhere to a certain mode of medical practice.
The professor could afford to smile at the impertinence of
a college who had no power to remove him from his chair;
but the luckless student was deprived by the faculty of
that diploma which he had fairly earned by industrious
and intelligent study. The College could only show their
teeth-the Faculty could bite.
The position assumed by the medical Canutes of Edinburgh is ludicrous.  They are endeavouring by a new
test act to arrest the arising tide of medical inquiry and
experiment. They would deserve to be laughed downthe only treatment adapted to their case-even if their
proceedings affected Homoeopathists only. For, whatever
those gentlemen may think, I-omowopathists are quite as
much entitled to fair play, and the common courtesies





264      FULMINATIONS AGAINST HOM(EOPATHY.
which gentlemen of education practise in their intercourse
with each other, as Allopathists or any other pathists.
But the mock-heroics and oppression of the Edinburgh
doctors have a wider range of application. The artillery
they have been playing off against Homoeopathy might be
turned upon any other doctrine or practice against which
they happen to be prepossessed. The progress of medical
science can be retarded, if not arrested, by allowing corporate bodies to exact promissory vows against entertaining
any new opinions. But cui bono, even to the obstructors?
In our parallel theological experience, enforcement of tests
has best served to thin the Established churches.





HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.*
POPERY is not confined to Rome or to Oxford, it being,
in fact, an apotheosis of self, and self possessing, in this
great free kingdom of ours, a copiosa felicitas of putting
on as many dresses as there are characters in the mighty
masquerade of human life, it pervades all the departments
of social existence. In our senate, it represents a patriot
bowing his neck with graceful reluctance to the patronage
and emoluments of office; in the church, it sighs "nolo
episcopari;" even in the various spheres of philanthropy, it
sometimes surreptitiouslypresides over those orbits in which
revolve other interests besides " refuges" and soup tickets;
while in the severer and higher regions, such as those which. this empire boasts, of physic and of law, it assumes the shape
of public spirit, and enters its indignant protest against the
unreasonable demands of those who think that, in the one,
justice concerns itself exclusively with securing the rights of
the community; or, in the other, that a patient can presume
to recover by any treatment, or any scale of doses, except
those prescribed by the London and Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia. Such is self-ever constant, and yet ever Protean.
It flourishes now in units, and, anon, these units, multiplying and reproducing themselves, grow into the thriving
corporation of a many-headed ego; but, whatever or whoever is its exponent, it is always true to the description of
* From the " Christian Times."





266


HIOMOEOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.


it in sacred writ: " There is one, and there is not a second."
But our readers will naturally ask, What has all this to
do with Homceopathy or Allopathy? We will tell them.
Everybody knows that, within the last dozen years, a medical practice has been creeping into notice, asserting the
pretensions of a legitimate science, but undertaking that
department commonly called " therapeutics," in a manner
so entirely different from what has been regarded as appertaining to the ordinary privileges of prescriptive authority, that many of the affiliated and dependent allies of the
old system have taken just alarm, lest the hereditary consumption of drugs should be abridged, and thus the craft
by which many rise to wealth should be endangered. The
heavy shot of the prerogative battalions have been found,
in various critical skirmishes, to be no match for the quiet,
unpretending, and yet matchless skill with which their
guns have been answered and silenced by the pigmy pieces
of the new school. The Cowes Yacht Club have done
"koutou" to the lines of the "saucy" America, and Messrs
Bramah have honourably, though under protest, paid forfeit to the great Yankee picklock. In these cases, the
vanquished were foolish enough to let our cousins from
the United States have English fair play-that is, a fair
stage on which to beat them if they could; and this they
did, incontinently, unmistakeably, much to their credit;
and we, for ourselves, congratulate them on their laurels,
only wishing they may challenge us again, and be as manfully met again. But verbum sapienti--the old medical
school are not thus prepared to put on a green livery; they
know better; and, accordingly, instead of taking up the
gauntlet thrown down by the followers of Hahnemann, and
choosing umpires to decide on the merits of their respective systems, they have, with a proper pride, which is refreshing, and entitles them to the gratitude of every dispensary in the kingdom, from " Savory and Moore" down





HOMCEOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.


267


to the " Galen's Head" at the Ultima Thule of the land, not
only ignored their pretensions, but have determined to cut
the whole community dead, and absolutely to scout even
their personal acquaintance"Now this is noble, and bespeaks a people proud
And jealous of their honour "yes, the Medical Faculty of the Universities of St Andrews
and Edinburgh, backed by the Royal College of Physicians, have resolved to refuse the degree of doctor of medicine to all students who will not pledge themselves not
to practise Homoeopathy, and the Provincial Medical and
Surgical Association of Brighton, assembled for the purpose of promoting the interests and advancing the science
of their profession, deliberately issue a manifesto, which is
declared to have been adopted unanimously, wherein they
state, "that Homoeopathy, as propounded by Hahnemann,
and practised by his followers, is so utterly opposed to
science and common sense, as well as so completely at variance with the experience of the medical profession, that
it ought to be in no way or degree practised or countenanced by any regularly educated medical practitioner;"
that "it is derogatory to the honour of the members of this
association to hold any kind of professional intercourse with
Homoeopathic practitioners;" and wind up by declaring
that, "in proposing these resolutions, they are actuated
by a strong sense of the importance of the subject in its relation both to humanity and morals." How people dare to
be cured of long-standing maladies by such a set of empirics, is for them to settle with the old doctors; nevertheless, the new school are not altogether satisfied with this
proceeding, and, indeed, we ourselves cannot help thinking, perhaps simply enough, that it would have been more
generally acceptable, and more in accordance with the idle
prejudices of the English character, if the M.D.s had done
what the Yacht Club and Messrs Bramah did-that is,





268


HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.


summoned their rivals to a fair trial, and let the public see
who were right. However, this they have not done, and
we think that the pretenders have got up a case of which
at present we cannot foresee the end; but we somewhat
surmise that, after all, this heresy may succeed, for that it
is making formidable progress is notorious; and it is within
our own knowledge that a family recently at Brighton,
wishing to consult one of the misguided leaders of the proscribed sect, was told that his hands were so full that he
could not make an appointment without a day's notice.
This is disheartening to the cause of the " real old original
XXX" Esculapian College. Moreover, the Homoeopathists are arrogant enough to say that they will have a
charter of their own, and are daring enough to put their
pretensions into a plausible shape as follows:" Medicine, as a science, includes the anatomy and physiology of health-the chemistry, natural history, and botany of the materia medica-the anatomy and physiology
of disease, and the theory of therapeutics, or the operation
of remedies; and, as an art, it consists of rules for distinguishing diseases, and for the selection of remedies appropriate to each. Now, of this category, the first seven contain facts and doctrines quite as valuable, in the eyes of
the Homceopathist, as in those of the common practitioner.
There is, then, but one department of the science of medicine, in which the two systems can be at variance. And,
in the art, of the two sections into which it is divided, the
distinguishing of diseases and adaptation of remedies, the
former is common, in all its details, to the two systemsthe latter alone can be the subject of any controversy."
With such specious arguments as these, we may well
tremble lest Homoeopathy may be palmed upon society,
just as vaccination and gas-lighting have been, notwithstanding, from historical recollections which we published
in a former number of our journal, we showed that they
also were proved by most respectable authority to be-what





HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY.           269
the same kind of authority has predicted of Homceopathy
-" utterly opposed to science and common sense."
But we must stop. We hope our readers will excuse
this trifling on our part; but we really have no heart to
treat the subject in any other light than as one that is to
be laughed at for its effrontery; while at the same time
we feel convinced that this senseless crusade is calculated
to do immense good to the cause which it designs to crush.
The earth would go round in spite of the pope; and we
may be sure that, if pain and human woe are relieved by
Homoeopathy, the emancipated sufferers will persist in
preferring heretical ease to orthodox anguish. The successful system will circulate round the centre of truth,
whether it be in physic or in physics.





THE
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
AND THE
HO M   EOPATHISTS.*
TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
THE essential principle of Popery, up to the present
hour, to a most woeful extent prevails in the high places of
Medicine. Our corporate medical bodies are the inveterate foes of the grand principle of Protestantism-the right
of private judgment. An ignorant and infatuated world
has been, time immemorial, deeply in love with art and
mystery, of which it has had its fill; and most dearly has
it paid for the luxury. It has been unwittingly amused
with sounding names and dazzled by splendid pretensions.
It has had the science, art, and mystery of government,of divinity, of law, and of medicine; and the professors of
these several sciences, arts, and mysteries have, as their
indefeasible right, laid claim to the privilege of acting
wholly without any consultation with, or control by, the
parties interested in their respective operations. They
have, to a vast extent, drank deep into the cup of Popery;
they have demanded implicit confidence from mankind.
To doubt, was to be condemned as contumacious, and subjected to appointed penalties. Thus the interests and the
concerns of liberty, property, physical health, and eternal
* From the " British Banner."





THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND HO1M(EOPATHISTS. 271
life, were to be left to the sole and exclusive care of those various corporations! Such was the ancient state of things;
and such, to a large extent, it is now, in our" most enlightened age." There is, upon the whole, but little abatement
either on the side of the privileged or of the multitude. The
arrogant and outrageous pretensions of the potentates are
but little lowered, and the great majority of a foolish world
are well pleased to have it so. Hitherto, but a small portion of mankind have understood the right and duty ofexercising private judgment in this matter; they much prefer
taking everything upon trust. There are, nevertheless,
specialities; the position of the various objects to which we
have referred is not everywhere alike. In various countries, but more especially in our own, there is a considerable measure of emancipation as to the science of government; men, in large numbers, think and speak with tolerable freedom concerning the character and the conduct both
of the legislature and the executive powers. In regard to
the " science of religion," it is the same, especially in the
portion of society called Nonconformist, or dissenting. As
to " law," it is not so; things there stand much the same
as they did generations back; the bulk of men are wholly
ignorant of the necessity, the value, beauty, and glory of
just law, and the wrongs and miseries to which a portion
of them have from time to time been subjected by unjust,
oppressive, and cruel enactments, and by the iniquities
which have blended with the administration of them. But
it is worst of all in the matter of "physic." There, system
gives place to system, and school to school; and yet the
advocates of each system, and the professors of each school,
for the time being, lay claim to a monopoly of medical
wisdom, and treat with summary vengeance, to the extent
of their ability, all those who attempt innovation!
On a former occasion, we were induced to take up the
subject of Homocopathy, as coming legitimately within the
province of humanity-a chief department of our official





272


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


labours. We were then prevented from completing what
we had to say, on behalf of the public, by the papal invasion and the commencement of Parliament, which absorbed
both our space and our thoughts, and we have now been
led to return to it sooner than we intended, by the extraordinary course pursued by the Scotch Universities, which
have commenced a deadly war against the Homoeopathic
practitioners. The Royal College of Physicians, of Edinburgh, has determined to give diplomas to no man, whatever his talents or acquirements, who has the slightest
sympathy with the Homceopathic system, and to withdraw
such diplomas from all its fellows who may fall into the
heresy. Now, it will be allowed that this is a very extraordinary measure, and such as the public cannot witness
altogether unconcerned. The doctors exist for the public,
not the public for the doctors; and therefore this is a matter
in which the public, having the chief, if not the sole stake,
are entitled and required to exercise a judgment. This
right, for them and ourselves, we now assert, and act upon
it as the great principle of Protestantism, which applies
not less to medicine than to theology. It may be that these
Scottish Universities are acting a part which entitles them
to the universal thanks of the nation, or it may be that they
are acting a part which ought to subject them to universal condemnation; we hold, therefore, that this is a point
which ought to be determined. Now, we are not going to
enter into the matter medically; this is not our business;
but the great question is one with which we hold ourselves
competent to deal.
Is it demonstrated by experience that Homoeopathy
cures, at the very least, one-third more patients than the
old school? So say the Homoeopathists. Is it true that
the Government of Vienna, probably impelled by the.
Allopathists, at first denounced the introduction and practice of Homoeopathy, and that they were subsequently
prevailed upon by one of the Austrian nobility to permit





AND THE HOM(EOPATHISTS.


273


the establishment of an hospital-by way of experimentand that, in the said hospital, which was opened about the
time of the cholera invasion, for cholera patients, and that
the Government medical officers, themselves the opponents
of Homoeopathy, reported that, while two-thirds of those
treated Homoeopathically recovered, two-thirds of those
treated by the ordinary methods in the other hospitals
perished?  Is this true?  Is it true that the Government
reports of this extraordinary result led Count Kolowrath,
Minister of the Interior, to repeal the law interdicting the
practice of Homoeopathy? Is it true that Dr Wilde says, the
Government reporter, and opponent of the Homoeopathic
principle, reported to the Government that "the statistics
show that the mortality is much less there (in the Homoeopathic Hospital) than in the other hospitals of the city." Is
it true that Knolz, the Austrian Proto-Miedicus, published,
reports in 1838 which exhibited a mortality of but five or
six per cent. in the Homoeopathic Hospital, while three similar institutions, on the Allopathic plan, show a mortality
as high as from eight to ten per cent.
It is stated by the advocates of the Allopathic system,
and the opponents of Homoeopathy, that the latter system
may succeed in concealing its imposture in the sluggish
stream of chronic maladies, but that in acute diseases,
which demand immediate remedies, it is impotent. Now
is it so?  It is j ust, if report may be credited, the very reverse! From tables before us, prepared by Professor Henderson, of the Edinburgh University, it is shown that in
909 cases of inflammation of the lungs, treated upon the
established system, no fewer than 212 died-that is, nearly
one out of every four-whereas, in 299 cases treated on
the Homoeopathic system, only 19 died, or one out of every
fifteen cases. In 111 cases of pleuritis, treated upon the
established plan, 14 deaths ensued, or about one in eight;
whereas, out of 224 cases of the same malady, treated Homceopathically, there were but three deaths, or little more
T





274       THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
than one in a hundred cases! Again, in 21 cases actually
occurring in the Edinburgh Infirmary, upon the established
plan, there were six deaths, or more than one in four;
whereas, in 105 cases of the same malady treated Homceopathically, there were but five deaths, or one in twenty-five
cases!
Now, we ask the Royal College of Physicians if these
things are so?  It will surely be allowed that there is at
least a case made out here for inquiry. These statistics are
facts, or they are falsehoods. If falsehoods, let their falsehood be arrived at; if facts, let the Royal College of Physicians explain, and vindicate the course they have pursued.
We now proceed with a case in point.
We inserted a paragraph last week to the effect, that the
Senatus of the University of St Andrews had threatened
to withdraw a diploma from Dr Hale, of Norwich, because
he had avowedly adopted Homoeopathic principles, and expressed our disbelief in the allegation. We now, however,
begin to entertain fears that it may, after all, have been
true; for, from a letter which we have since received, we
find that a like course has been adopted by the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh. This letter originated in
the issuing of a series of resolutions by that distinguished
body relative to all practitioners of Homoeopathy, constituting fellows of their college.  These resolutions were
passed May 9, 1851, at a meeting expressly convened for
that purpose, and with entire unanimity.
The manifesto was left to exercise its own effect on the
minds of the fellows of the college; they are to understand
this as a significant hint either to recant or withdraw, and
that, failing of this, they will be expelled.  Such fellows,
then, may do one of three things-they may renounce their
Homceopathic principles, or, at least, desist from acting on
them; or they may wait in silence their expulsion; or they
may defend themselves by protest or otherwise. Dr Macleod





AND THE HOMCEOPATHISTS.


275


has preferred the last course, and to crown his reasons for
so doing, is the object of this very able, copious, and temperate pamphlet. The doctor lost no time in doing what
he has done, although he apologises that it was not done
earlier.  The resolutions were passed on the 9th of May,
and the pamphlet bears date the 28th of June, and is ad"dressed to Professor Simpson, President of the Royal College of Physicians.  A copy of the resolutions, it seems,
was sent to Dr Macleod, among the other gentlemen who
had fallen into the Homceopathic heresy. At first, he was
disposed to disregard the denunciation, and to deny the
authority of the requisition; but it seems such a use has
been made of the resolutions, as to compel him to speak out;
in consequence of that document, " disreputable imputations" regarding every one who has embraced a new theory
have been recklessly made. The author, in proceeding
with his defence, gives the history of his own studies,
which is certainly such as few can boast; at any rate, not
many have had more extensive opportunities of study. He
commenced his career in Edinburgh, where for years he
devoted six hours a-day mainly to the business of the dissecting-room for nine months in the year, and laboured
"with zeal in the Royal Infirmary for upwards of three years,
performing nearly all the weights and measures made
there during that period.  He went the round of the
hospitals, when the physicians were not there regularly,
for several years, watching and examining for himself every
case of interest; he assisted in the examination of almost
all the bodies of those who died in the hospital.  In a
word, he did all that was deemed necessary or practicable
thoroughly to master the science of medicine as it is taught
in that far-famed school; yet so unsatisfactory was it, in
many respects, that he determined to renounce drug or Allopathic practice, and to devote his energies to the study
and teaching of anatomy and physiology. Circumstances
arose to call his attention to Homceopathic practice: hav




276


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


ing, nevertheless, his doubts about its law, he determined
to proceed to Vienna, that he might examine the subject
at the Homoeopathic Hospital in that capital, and this he
did for four months, studying at the same time the negative
practice pursued by Dr Skoda and the Allopathists under
one of his colleagues; and, after carefully comparing the
results during that time of these several modes of treatment,
he was forced to the belief, that the Homceopathic was the
most efficient, the negative or do-nothing the next, and
the Allopathic not only the least so, but the most dangerous,
and that even in the most skilful hands. While at Vienna,
the doctor, full of zeal and insatiable in his thirst after
knowledge, met with some persons who called his attention
to the subject of Hydropathy, from which they had received
personal benefit. Determined to sift this matter to the
bottom, he set off to Grafenberg, and spent the autumn
and the winter with the renowned Preznitz. Having thus
extended his views of men and things, he returned again
to Scotland, a believer in the efficacy of minute doses, when
properly administered, in the cure of many diseases, and
also satisfied that water, for divers maladies, was a powerful medical agent. Declining several situations which offered, he accepted the office of physician to the establishment of Benrhydding, where, he says, " I have spent some
five happy years in discharge of the duties of my office, and
have enjoyed the privilege of treating no fewer than 6000
cases."  Dr Macleod goes on to complain of those men in
the profession, who have chosen to take part in this controversy; insinuations of the most unworthy descriptions
have been, and still are being, lavishly scattered, with a view
to damage, at all hazards, the repute and authority of the
objects of their displeasure.  He then proceeds with an
elaborate argument, into the character and merits of which
we cannot enter, since it lies beyond the scope of our present article. It is, moreover, of a nature somewhat technical. Passing over this, then, we proceed to that which coh




AND THE HOM(EOPATHISTS.


277


cerns us, and with us all mankind. Our present object
is to remark on the closing, and, as they may be designated,
the practical portions of the pamphlet.  The author tells
the president that he considers such a display on the part
of the College, as eminently hazardous to its future reputation, unjustifiable in its present position, and by no means
calculated to exert any beneficial influence in furtherance
of the public safety. Dr Macleod has shown that whatever
unanimity there may be among the physicians, and as to
the truth of Homceopathy and its practitioners, there is very
little as to their own medical practice. Not satisfied with
defending himself and his brethren, he becomes, in his turn,
assailant, and he here displays a capability, if he chooses to
exert it, of carrying on the war with no feeble hand. The
Royal College issued a ukase, stamped with authority; Dr
Macleod meets it by the calm statement of a few facts-facts
of a nature the most damaging to anything like science or
consistency. The following will speak for itself:" No man, no society at least, seems to me entitled to interfere authoritatively with the honest efforts of others to
attain some object of public importance, unless it can be
shown either that the same end has already been attained,
or that, through some better process, success is at hand.
It ought to be held as a canon that, until science has reached
its ultimate laws, it is essentially free; so long as the knowledge of these laws is in the distance, no hand of authority
ought to be laid on the inquirer who is struggling to attain
it.  Now, sir, of that empirical system  which in this
country we find pitted against our rational therapeutics, I
mean to say little more. I have already shown its extraordinary looseness as an empirical scheme; and I have
asserted that it is losing ground yearly; I have called
attention to the fact, that the use made of it in practice is
so various, that, apart from the books in which its formula
are written, nd one can say with certainty what it is. Let
me narrate merely one or two circumstances that came





278


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


under my cognisance years ago, as illustrations; and then
I shall ask again, what is really the value of the system, in
virtual defence of which our college has felt it necessary
to put on at present so hot an antagonism, and to send
forth these denunciations? Formerly-I do not know if it
is so now-there were several fever wards in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, of which three fellows of the
Royal College of Physicians had the charge. One physician had the top ward, another the middle ward, and a
third the low ward. It happened that, on the same day,
three young persons of nearly the same age, ill of typhus
fever, were admitted into the hospital. The disease was
of equal severity in each, and the stage of complaint the
same in all. What was the treatment, think you, pursued
in those three cases, by the three fellows of the college?
Of course it should have been the same, at least if the system be correct; for the physicians in question would choose
the best. But, sir, it was not the same. He in the top
ward bled his patient with lancet and with leeches. He in the
middle ward physicked his patient with drastic purgatives;
and if he saw a large, comfortable effect, he gave praise,
and was content. He in the low ward, again, gave whisky,
wine, and opiates. What was the result of such deplorable
freaks? I refer you to the Statistic-book; I have no doubt
you will find it there!"
Such was the practice in what long claimed to be
the first medical school in Europe! Such is the system
which demands the homage of mankind, and which pours
the bitterest scorn upon men who venture to think it unsatisfactory, and long for something better! But we must
leave the three physicians, and turn to the doctor's account
of the two professors, which runs thus:" In the University, formerly, two professors used to lecture, on alternate days, on clinical medicine. It happened
once that each had at the same time under his care an acute
case of pericarditis. The professor, who lectured upon his





AND THE HOMEOPATHISTS.


279


case on Monday night, said, in substance, as follows:' Gentlemen,-As to the treatment of this disease, it has
been the practice to give large doses of mercury, so as to
bring the constitution under its action; and, to effect this
as rapidly as possible, small quantities of opium are usually
combined with it. This practice I, however, believe to be
erroneous; for I have observed the progress of the disease
unchecked, even during profuse salivation.  The most
efficient remedy-in fact our sheet-anchor-in this disease
is tartar emetic. You will have noticed the large doses I
have given of this remedy, and yet the patient seems not
to suffer from it. In fact, the constitution of this disease,
as in some others, has a remarkable tolerance for tartar
emetic.  When the lecture was finished, I left the hall,
fancying I had learned some great truth, and knew
better than an hour before how to save life. On Wednesday evening during the same week, in the same hall, and
to the students, the other professor lectured. The lecture
was devoted to the acute case of pericarditis under his care
in the hospital. After describing the case, and giving a
sketch of the character and progress of disease, he spoke in
substance as follows:-' Gentlemen,-It is a remarkable
thing that there should be any difference in regard to the
mode of treatment to be pursued in a disease such as this. I
believe it is the Italian and French schools which advocate so very strongly the employment of tartar emetic; but
I would strongly urge you to put no confidence in this remedy; for, if you do so, you will lean on,a broken reed.
Our sheet-anchor in this disease is mercury; under the
action of which you must bring the patient as soon and as
freely as you possibly can-even bleeding is of little importance in comparison with the use of mercury. The two combined-i.e., mercury and blood-letting-is of course best,
but at all events use mercury, and never trust to tartar
emetic.'  What effect was produced on the minds of the
students by such opposite teachings, I cannot say. I can,





280


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


however, speak for one. He walked down into the noble
quadrangle in bitterness, and gave involuntary utterance
to the words, 'No wonder that Sir James Mackintosh
forsook the study of medicine!'"
Now, it is to be remembered that such was the teaching
of the college in the experience of Dr Macleod.  Is it
marvellous, therefore, if the effect was what he represents
it to have been? and is it strange that he should resent
the conduct of the Royal College towards himself and his
I-Homceopathic brethren? Was it possible that such teaching could command the respect of young men of intelligence and reflection, who were anxious to ascertain what
is the truth-who were averse to walking in the dark,
while performing deeds connected with death and life, and
whose honourable spirits revolted at the thought of practising on the credulity of mankind? Dr Macleod next
inquires of the President of the Royal College of Physicians, What is likely to be the effect of the ukase on
the country? and on this point he sets forth a series of
thoughts which are worthy the attention of all whom the
matter concerns:
" In the first place, what effect can follow from the resolutions, on minds already favourably disposed towards the
denounced doctrines? Let us notice how Homoeopathy
now stands, and the nature of its hold on opinion. Has it
been accepted only by the ignorant? Is it professed only
by quacks and impostors? Let not the college be deceived.
Our leaders should not shut their eyes to the fact, that the
system in question is assented to by thinkers as enlightened
and acute as any in this age, and that its disciples are not
of the multitude. Is a man like Bunsen, for instance, or
Archbishop Whately, or, indeed, any one who can probe
more than skin-deep, likely to be deceived by the superficial but meaningless unanimity of that ballot-box?  The
list of its professional cultivators, too, notoriously contains
the names of as reputable and instructed physicians as





AND THE IIOMWOPATHISTS.


281


any in Europe. Not one solitary practitioner, I believe,
will that unhappy decree turn from his course; nor will it
shake the faith of a single patient who has tested the system by experience. Then, again, as to the general public.
Is it not the most probable result of a simple authoritative
decree like the one we are considering, that it will rather
rouse prejudice against it?  Those tales of futile and frequent exactions of this sort, in former times, are rife enough
to reach and fill the general ear; and, on the face of present circumstances, there is nothing peculiar, nothing to
satisfy any one that the old blunder has not been repeated.
The decree, I have said, is simple and unattended. It is
an utterance from authority regarding certain matters still
under inquiry; and it is nothing more. It is unaccompanied by any effort at persuasion, or by the faintest promise of service in the way of clearing up existing difficulties.
One great, one inestimable service, the College might have
rendered; nor is it yet too late. It is a service, likewise,
in perfect harmony with our English idiosyncrasy, which,
as I have said, is averse to generalisation. I refer to the
establishment of a great hospital, wherein the operations of
the new system of cure might be seen and examined by
all; furnishing alike to the student and advanced practitioner the only true means of reaching correct judgment
on a matter of paramount professional as well as public
concern."
Here it comes out-the facts were known before-that
his excellency Chevalier Bunsen and Archbishop Whately
have embraced the Homeopathic doctrine, and in them we
have two of the most enlightened men of the age-the one
of the church, the other of the world-the avowed disciples of the system which has been denounced by the
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
Nor is this all; there can be adduced the names of
3000 practitioners, very many of them of the first mark in
Europe, and not a few chief professors of the universities,





282


THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS


and physicians in the courts of kings. But a Bunsen and
a Whately in our own country are but types of a numerous class of educated men who entertain similar views.
Amongst that class will be found, the Duke of Hamilton,
the Earl of Wilton, Lord Robert Grosvenor, Principal
Scott, of Owen's College, Manchester, the Marquis of
Anglesea, and Richard Cobden. What Dr Macleod calls
the "decree" is, in our judgment, not simply idle-it is
foolish. No men of sense would think the less of the system, and the multitude will think of it all the more. Persecution is always patronage amongst Englishmen. We
reiterate our oft-repeated suggestion-a point to which we
are happy to find Dr Macleod referring-that the question
is not to be settled by mere authority. The professors of
the new system appeal to facts, and on the ground of facts
they must be met. We have said we laugh at the globule,
but we are rendered serious by the contemplation of the
facts, numerous and well-attested, which are from time to
time coming before us. On this point, we have been alike
amused and pleased to find that most able man and distinguished physician, the late Dr Combe, as quoted, using
the very words used by ourselves, in former articles: his
high science and our mere common sense conducted us
respectively to the same conclusion. The Homceopathists
are in earnest; they clearly believe their own doctrine,
and they are rapidly placing themselves in a position
which will bring matters to an issue. They have already,
in London, two hospitals, both in full operation, which are
open to the visitation of the general public and the whole
Medical Faculty; while, from period to period, the results
are being published to the wide world. It is, we contend,
but just to give them a fair hearing. In the face of England they stand forth in the capital, and say, "Send us
patients labouring under every malady known to human
nature, and we undertake to deal with them on Homoeopathic principles, and to produce effects more satisfactory,





AND THE HOM(EOPATHISTS.


283


and, for mankind, far more beneficial, than have hitherto
been realised from Allopathic practice." Can anything be
more rational, more candid, more decisive? But we must
give the closing paragraph of the letter, which constitutes
a personal appeal to the President of the College of Physicians, who appears to have been one of Dr Macleod's
college companions and early friends:"Concerning your own action in these recent deliberations, I know positively nothing; but I shall not question
the sympathy of one who has never been blamed for resisting novelties himself; who has perhaps introduced
more serious and startling courses of practice than any
other contemporary British physician; who is certainly not
bound by formulae of colleges, but, on the contrary, who
has ventured, on the strength of his own will and resources, to walk all but singly along a most perilous path.
Recollections of former times also re-assure me. Were I
to arrange and compute the value of their influences, I
know not-if I have erred-how far I might not plead in
palliation Te Duce.  You have not forgotten that small
room, approached by the long passage, where our lamented
friend, Dr John Reid, once lived and studied.   Free
speech was there, free thoughts, and criticism unchecked.
Youth passes, and with it many dreams and impulses.
"We think, when we begin, that we are to storm the world,
but, alas! the world too often storms us. Many find it
safest to capitulate, and permit themselves to be sold.
Still, all these early impulses are not foolish. For myself, I would cherish, as before, fair hopes of success and
auspicious fortune; but, foremost, that old and firm resolve, to remain, whatever betide, by honesty and intellectual independence."
These solemn words form a meet conclusion to this very
able epistle, by which the College of Physicians, of the
orthodox system, have gained nothing-Dr Macleod and
the Homoeopaths a great deal. The pamphlet will prove





284 THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND HOMCEOPATHISTS.
a valuable advertisement to both; and we vouch for it, no
man, with a fair portion of intelligence, can read the letter
with care and candour, without forming a favourable
opinion both of the writer and of his subject, and without concluding that he has made out a sufficient case for
further inquiry. Let this be granted, and we ask no
more; for we repeat, in conclusion, that all we ask is justice, and that we, the British people, have the deepest interest in the question; and we have every reason to be
dissatisfied by the conduct of the established practitioners
in attempting by mere authority to suppress the new system. We shall return to the subject.





THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.
Resolutions passed by the Provincial Medical and Surgical
Association, at a meeting held at Brighton on 14th August,
1851.
" 1. That it is the opinion of this association, that
Homceopathy, as propounded by Hahnemann and practised
by his followers, is so utterly opposed to science and common sense, as well as so completely at variance with the
experience of the medical profession, that it ought to be in
no way or degree practised or countenanced by any regularly-educated medical practitioner.
" 2. That Homoeopathic practitioners, through the press,
the platform, and the pulpit, have endeavoured to heap
contempt upon the practice of medicine and surgery, as
followed by members of this association, and by the profession at large.
"3. That, for these reasons, it is derogatory to the
honour of members of this association to hold any kind of
professional intercourse with Homoeopathic practitioners.
" 4. That there are three classes of practitioners who
ought not to be members of this association, namely:
first, real Homoeopathic practitioners; second, those who
practise Homoeopathy in combination with other systems
of treatment; and third, those who, under various pretences,
meet in consultation, or hold professional intercourse with
those who practise Homocopathy.





286


THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


" 5. That a committee of seven be appointed to frame
laws in accordance with these resolutions, to be submitted
to the next annual meeting of the association.
"6. That the thanks of the association are eminently
due, and are hereby given, to the Presidents and Fellows
of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of
Edinburgh, for their determined stand against Homoeopathic delusions and impostures.
"7. That the thanks of the association are also due,
and are hereby given, to the Universities of Edinburgh and
St Andrews for their resolution to refuse their diplomas to
practitioners of Homoeopathy; but the association feels
imperatively called on to express its disapproval of any
school of medicine which retains among its teachers any
one who holds Homoeopathic opinions.
" 8. That these resolutions be printed, and transmitted
to all the medical licensing bodies and medical schools in
the United Kingdom; and that they likewise be inserted
in the "Times" newspaper, the "Morning Post," the
" North British Advertiser," " Saunders's News Letter,"
all the British and Irish medical periodicals, and in such
other journals as the council may sanction, upon the recommendation of the branch associations."
The prefixed resolutions, embodying the collective wisdom, we are told, of 300 medical practitioners, and much
praised by the medical journals, seem to require few comments from us. At the same time, we might be blamed
for arrogance, were we merely to proclaim dissent, without
stating the grounds of it, from the deliberate judgment and
conclusions of so large a number of our professional brethren. We are the rather called on for reasons of dissent
that reasons of affirmation are offered by these resolutionists, who in this respect differ from some other bodies which
have spoken on the subject. We are aware, too, that we
should be doing great injustice to so numerous and influential a society, were we not to take it for granted that the





THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


287


reasons thus publicly alleged for the position its members
have resolved to assume in future towards ourselves, and
all others of the medical profession who adopt to any extent
the Homoeopathic system, are in truth the best reasons that
can be alleged. Taking this view, we feel it our duty in
a few sentences to propose, seriatim, with all becoming modesty, for the consideration of our readers, what remarks
occur to us on these resolutions.
And generally we observe, that in these, as in all the
other recent fulminations against Homoeopathy (so far as
they have come under our notice), we have to complain of
the want of due precision. Homoeopathy is eo nomine condemned, and its practitioners are denounced; but what
conception the word Homceopathy represents in the minds
of those who have been accustomed to use it as a stigma,
and not as a definition, we have no means of discovering.
That they regard it as something to be abhorred and
avoided, is plain enough; but that they have any distinct
notion of the peculiarities and characteristics which distinguish it from all other doctrines and practices in medicine which are likewise to be abhorred and avoided, does
not appear in these resolutions, which imply no knowledge
of Homoeopathy, except that the system so named was propounded by Hahnemann. Accordingly, no attempt is made
to distinguish between things so widely apart as the similar
law and the infinitesimal doses, even with a view to their
separate condemnation. With every anxiety to do full
justice to all our opponents, even to the most virulent and
unreasonable of them, we must observe, that these indefinite denunciations expose those who make use of them to
this remark, that they appear far more anxious to burn
their brothers and rivals the heretics, than for the sake of
truth to extinguish the heresy. Had this been their pure
object and motive, they would, no doubt, have felt it necessary to be much more explicit; to show in what precise
respects the system was untrue which they were condemn




288


THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


ing; thus using means to reclaim those whom now they
only persecute. In popular journals such indefiniteness
might be pardoned, but not in the solemn resolutions of a
medical and surgical association, and we must request our
readers to keep in view throughout the following remarks
this radical pervading vice.
I. If Homceopathy be " utterly opposed to science and
common sense," its vitality is very inexplicable. One or
other it might be and yet live; but not both. Popular
beliefs may be opposed to scientific truth; the discoveries
of science may seem opposed to common sense, and yet be
largely received and credited; but here we are told is a
doctrine equally opposed to both, and yet, as we know, and
as these resolutions imply, widely believed, practised, and
rested on.  Our next remark is, that, in stating Homoeopathy to be opposed to "common sense," the resolutionists appeal to the popular judgment on the matter; a
tribunal of which the medical journals have lately affected
to speak with great contempt. Having already with us so
many persons distinguished for scientific attainments, and
for the possession of an uncommon measure of common
sense, we shall wait, with hope and patience, for the mature
popular verdict.
We are further told that Homoeopathy is "completely
at variance with the experience of the medical profession."
This reminds us of Hume's argument against miracles: he
said they were contrary to general experience, the truth
being that they are beyond it; general experience not embracing the conditions under which they profess to appear.
So of the curative effects of infinitesimal quantities of medicine given in accordance with the similar law, it may be
truly said, that they are beyond the general experience of the
medical profession; it cannot be truly said that they are in
any respect contrary to it. There is no doubt a very general experience of the effects of medicinal agents, given
neither according to the Homoeopathic law, nor in minute





THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


289


quantities; there is a more limited experience of their
effects when administered in accordance with the Homoeopathic law, but in large quantities; there may be some
experience of the impotency of infinitesimal quantities
given otherwise than according to the Homceopathic law;
but with what show of truth can it be said that there is any
general experience of the effects of minute quantities, given
in accordance with the Homceopathic law, unfavourable
to such administration? On this point we refer our readers
to Hahnemann's " Medicine of Experience."
In conclusion, on the first resolution we remark, that
there are no tenable grounds for alleging Homceopathy to
be opposed to science, or to common sense, or to medical
experience; and that the contrary opinion of the Provincial Association is the unhappy consequence of prevailing
ignorance on the subject thus rashly pronounced upon.
II. To the statement in the second resolution, we give a
deliberate and explicit denial. It may be quite true that
Homoeopathic as well as other practitioners have spoken
with disrespect of the existing general practice of medicine;
and some of them may have done so indiscreetly and immoderately-following too closely the example of those
who have aimed at overwhelming Homneopathy and its
practitioners with obloquy; but that in extent or intensity
the vituperative language retorted by the disciples of
Hahnemann at all nearly equals that which the other members of the profession have directed against him and them,
is obviously and ludicrously untrue. It is too plainly the
wolf accusing the lamb. We cannot imagine which of our
fellow practitioners are referred to as denouncing medicine
from " the pulpit." Should any of them have been allowed
to practise so irregularly, it is a matter for the bishops.
That the most intemperate of Homceopathists has ever
extended his condemnation to " surgery," we cannot believe, at any rate it is beyond all our experience; nor can
we conceive any empirical rule for the administration of
U





290


THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


drugs which can greatly affect the reduction of a dislocation, or the amputation of a limb, or any other of the
principal operations of surgery.
On the other hand, we could quote examples without
number from the writings of Homceopathists, evincing
their high respect for medicine, which they have done so
much to advance in some of its branches; but at present
we must confine ourselves to one extract, and it shall be
from a work which appeared some years ago under the
hands of the editors of this journal; and on the testimony there borne to the great benefits of medicine, and
the veneration due to the long line of its promoters, we
still heartily concur.
" It has been asked, in the second place, If Homceopathy
be true, how can the cures effected in the Allopathic system be accounted for? The very nature of the objection
would have prevented our noticing it at all, did we not
gladly embrace the opportunity of entering here a protestation: that we advocate Homceopathy as the best system
of therapeutics we know of, but by no means as peremptorily exclusive and condemnatory of all others. That it
is destined in the long run to work into methodical arrangement and harmonious simplicity the whole mass of
facts and complex multitude of doctrines, which enrich
and at the same time encumber the paths of medical
science, must be the best cherished hope of all such as believe Homceopathy to be founded in nature and borne out
by experience; but there is more than an objector's ingeniousness in this roundabout way of representing Homoeopathists as laying a claim to the absurd character of
healing monopolists; or it requires more than a child's
simplicity really to suppose that, should Hahnemann's
system be true, the cures of Allopathy become a sphynx's
riddle, past (Edipus's finding out. The glories of medicine, of Allopathic medicine, stand recorded in Time's
book, whose leaves are centuries, whose characters are the





THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


291


doings and sufferings of mankind; universal conscience
and universal gratitude bear witness to its beneficial working from the remotest ages down to the present generation.
With feelings of reverence do we look to the past; tradition and authority are both venerable, though neither
infallible in our eyes. We defend our cause, and only
turn aggressors, in so far as self-defence renders it necessary; we demand the liberty of opinion and the right of
choice that we respect in others; we put in a claim for
admission into the academical pale, in behalf of a system
which professes to court whatever severest ordeal and
scrutiny may be imposed upon it, as the condition of its
right of citizenship; we long to inscribe a new glory in the
annals of the science, whose humble but conscientious vctaries we are, and to add-a new boon-a new blessing-to
those that medicine, through every succeeding generation,
has bestowed upon suffering humanity. But who ever
presumed to mark out the boundaries of medical industry
and success? Is there not an infinitude of possible lines
between two points, although the shortest be but one?
Or did our objector never bethink himself that something
analogous possibly attaches to the Allopathic system,
wherein notorious differences of speculative and practical
views in eminent men are far from being constantly attended by a corresponding disproportion in the ultimate
results? There is as much ground for being sore puzzled
at sailing vessels having crossed, and crossing, the Atlantic,
because steamers now do so at an increased rate of velocity."-" Introduction to the Study of Homceopathy."(Pp. 15-17.)
III. This resolution professes to be based on the preceding ones, stating the conclusion to which they have led.
We have already shown, we believe to the satisfaction of
all candid readers, how utterly groundless are the statements in the former resolutions; and with these foundations must also perish this superstructure. But even were





292


THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.


it otherwise, could it have been alleged with any truth that
the Homceopathic practice is unscientific and senseless, and
that its adherents are distinguished even in their profession
for speaking with contempt of other modes of practice than
their own; still even these grave faults will not justify
such a schism as the resolutions propose to enforce. It
is quite plain that any blame justly attaching to the disciples of Hahnemann, upon such grounds, rests also upon
many of their opponents, and the disastrous effect of carrying out to its logical consequences such a system of excomunication will be to split up the body of medical practitioners into a congeries of isolated individual atoms.
IV. The next resolution needs no answer. It exhibits
the extremity of professional hostility against Homoeopathy; for it excludes not only those who are themselves
tinged with the heresy, but all who, even from charity and
large-heartedness, have any intercourse with the heretics.
VI. We beg leave to concur in a vote of thanks to any
who shall appear to have made a " determined stand
against Homceopathic delusions and impostures," which
none can be more anxious to put an end to than ourselves;
but we are at a loss to discover in what respects either of
the Edinburgh Colleges has merited such an honourable
distinction.
VII. It will surely be time enough for the Provincial
Association to tender its thanks " to the Universities of
Edinburgh and St Andrews for their resolution to refuse
their diplomas to practitioners of Homaeopathy," when they
shall have so resolved respectively. Hitherto the governing
body of the University of Edinburgh has shown no inclination whatever to countenance the late irregular proceedings of its Faculty of Medicine; and of St Andrews,
we do not yet know that the recent doings there, with reference to Homceopathy, have any authority but what is
derived from the autocratic fiat of the professor of all medicine in that remarkable school.





THE BRIGHTON PROTEST ANALYSED.         293
Having now laid before our readers these resolutions,
with our comments upon them, we leave the matter to
their judgment; confidently expecting their concurrence
in this conclusion, That we have great reason to congratulate ourselves that the most pleadable reasons which can be
alleged in justification of the recent proceedings against us
are so illogical, insignificant, and untenable.





A LETTER
ADDRESSED TO
DR ROSE CORMACK.*
"Not all the coronets and mitres in England can give dignity to an error, or transform a lio
into a truth; and, layman though I be, I hesitate not to proclaim  in this public Christian assembly that the sermon (MIr Everest's) from which I have quoted is replete with quackery, heresy, and impious doctrine.",,, (Dr Cormack's Speech at the Brighton Anti-Ilomeopathic Congress.)
SrI,-A friend has just placed in my hands the "Medical
Times" of Saturday, August 16, containing a report of a
speech made by you at Brighton last week to the Medical
and Surgical Association, in which you refer to a sermon
published by me some months ago. I beg to return you
my most cordial thanks for it. I can assure you very sincerely that I take it as a very kind thing of you to do.
That sermon was falling into what I am to suppose you
agree with me in thinking to be most unmerited oblivion.
You have generously advertised it for me all over the
world without putting me to any expense; and I must be
allowed to say, I think this is very handsome conduct on
the part of one who differs decidedly from my views. I
was in some perplexity to make my sentiments known, and
you descend, the Deus:cx manchind, and relieve me.
The great satisfaction I feel at having my sermon thus
resuscitated and brought under the notice of so respectable
a meeting, is certainly somewhat qualified by the language
you apply to me and it. Not that I object to being abused
"* By the Rev. Thomas R. Everest, Rector of Wickwar. London:
William Headland.





3MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO DR ROSE CORMACK.  295
-quite the contrary-by an Allopathic doctor; but there
is a melancholy reflection connected with you, sir, and that
is that you are the son of a clergyman! Naughty words
must have been very cheap where you came from, sir, for
you have laid in an elegant assortment of them, and I
presume there are "plenty more to be had at the same
shop: country orders executed with diligence and despatch." But where can you possibly have learned such
naughty words?   "Blasphemy," "impiety," "lie," "heresy," "quackery"-in what filthy pool did you find all
this mud? I am not much in the habit of seeing your
medical journals, and so perhaps it may be only my innocence that causes me to wonder at it, for it may possibly
be all normal and correct there; but I do know something
of the "interior" of clergymen's families; and ind.eed I
must confess not to have, as yet, heard any such words
there. Alas! sir, it is another of the charges against the
dreadful art in which you have been initiated, that the
education necessary for it and the studies preliminary to
it harden the heart and petrify the feelings. How sad it is
to reflect that perhaps there was a time when you, sir, were
an ingenuous youth, who, educated by a pious father and
gentle mother in the faith and fear of God, were accustomed
to hear of that blessed charity which thinketh no evil, and
taught to restrain thy tongue from speaking it. Alas! alas!
sir, the atmosphere of Allopathy does not suit these soft
plants.  Anatomy, dissection, and their kindred studies
have changed many an amiable man into-something that
I decline to characterise, and will not imitate.  I will
practise towards you, sir, that which I see in those sons
of clergymen who are brought up as clergymen, and which
has not been quenched in me by learning Hlomoopathy.
I pity and forgive you.
I have, however, a few words to say to you. Permit me
to begin them by telling you a short story. Once upon a
time, it is said, there lived in Dorsetshire an eccentric old





290


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


farmer whose name was Cawse. The rooks used to give
the old man a great deal of annoyance, alighting on his
wheat-fields and committing great havoc there; but he
was rather indolent, and bore the annoyance as patiently
as he could for some time. At last, one morning the rooks
had gone what the Irish call " beyand the beyant," and
Farmer Cawse could stand it no longer; so he seized an
old gun, crept slily along the hedge, and fired, not at any
individual among them, for he was a humane man, but
" promiscuously into the lot," as he said. The rooks rose
as one bird, cawing very loudly, on which the farmer was
heard to say with great exultation, Ah! Cawse! Cawse!
indeed. Thee mayst call me what names thee do plaze,
thee mischievous rascals, it do do my heart good to hear
thee, vor I do learn vrom thy chattering as I have peppered zum on ye, and vrightened all the rest."
You will say, perhaps, sir, that the story is a stupid one,
and quite out of place here. It may be so; I will not defend it. You say I am everything that is base and bad
and vile and shocking. I am very sorry for it, and hope I
may mend by and by. You say the Homceopathic doctors
are quacks and impostors. Let it be granted. And you
say that all the archbishops, bishops, peers, members of
parliament, clergy, and, in short, all those who believe in
Homceopathy-who you tell us are many in number-are
knaves and fools. Very well, sir. I will concede to you,
if you like, that all those children born into the world who
may be suspected by their mothers' vigilant obstetric attendants of any leaning to H omoeopathy in the.)palo post
j'uturi'in state, should have their necks twisted in infancy,
so that Allopathy may have a chance of being left at peace.
But we cannot bring about this same desirable wringing
of necks. And there is a great public, which cares neither
for you nor me, and merely says, when it reads your wellflavoured philippic, "Pooh! it's only another case of
'Farmer Cawse!' the doctors abusing those who have





DR ROSE CORMACK.


297


)een peppering and frightening them." Don't you think,
3ir, you would produce more effect on this great inert
public, if, instead of calling me names, you were to do that
which you have been taunted, provoked, and dared to do,
over and over again for forty years past, and which I now
again dare you to do; that is, publish an account of the
experiments you have made with Homoeopathic medicines
on Homoeopathic principles?
You have delivered yourself of a very bitter invective
against Homoeopathy and me. I think it is but fair play
that I in my turn should be allowed to deliver myself of
a few pages of common sense against your art and you.
It is not a fair match, it is true; for mere idle abuse
goes for little, as the case of Goliath of Gath shows-a
history which you, sir, being the son of a clergyman, have
no doubt read, though without being much edified by it as
it would seem. But I did not provoke the match. If
Allopathy receives any damage, you are responsible, sir;
I wash my hands of it altogether.
Suppose I am taken suddenly ill in London, far away
from our " medical man;" if the art you profess has any
certainty in it, there ought to be one normal mode of treatment, one correct mode, and one only-and all who deviate
from that must be wrong. Is there such a normal mode of
treatment, sir? You know the contrary. You know that
the treatment I get depends on mere chance. Dr This
will put me into cold water, Dr That into hot; Dr Somebody will prescribe bleeding, Dr Otherbody orders calomel.
The Green Door is for mild aperients, the Yellow Door for
tonics and bracing. This side of the way compounds forty
medicines into one dose; the other side of tlie way says
all medicine is humbug, and gives you bread pills. Dr
East says you must be lowered; Dr West says you must
have "good sound sherry, sir, and mutton chops." In
short, take the twenty "medical fellows" that live nearest
you, and you shall find twenty professors of the same art





298


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


all professing different views, urging each of them a different practice, founded on opposing hypotheses and irreconcilable theories. Every doctor has a pet system of his
own, and is, in the eyes of himself and his whole circle, infallible; and the law covers the whole set of contradictory
systems with its broad Trgis. Once give a man a DEGREE,
and the law then canonises all he does: if he bleeds, pronounces it to be right to bleed; if he forbears to bleed,
says that bleeding was not necessary; protects him if he
gives calomel; protects him if he eschews and abhors it;
protects him if he burns your skin off, or scalds it off, or
blisters it off, or leaves it on; protects him if he gives tonics;
protects him if he gives aperients; protects him if he gives
drastic purges; protects him if he gives "good old sherry,
you understand, and mutton chops;" protects senna infusion, castor oil, strychnine or bark, taraxacum, cod-liver
oil. Caprice rules the destiny of the sick. Chance is your
only certainty. You know nothing of what treatment you
are to meet with if you consult a doctor, save only that it
depends entirely on the individual into whose hands you
may fall, and that the law will protect him whatever he
may do! Doctors differ; and if so, common sense says,
"some of them must be wrong;" but the law says, No!
all are right. Whether it be Dr A, who holds one set of
opinions, or Dr B, who holds the diametrically opposite
ones, or Dr C, who has nothing in common with either of
them-no matter! What each does is right. Whatever
great man is called in, and whatever great system he follows when he is called in, he acts exactly as nature intended he should act.
Now, sir, you can hardly expect us much longer to put
"up patiently with this sort of confusion. A sick man does
not want theories, neither does he much interest himself
to hear Dr Pshaw call Dr Pooh an ignorant man. Your
patient wants certainty. He wants this-that, go where
he will, apply to whom he will, when he is ill he shall get,





DR ROSE CORMACK.


299


for the same symptoms, the same remedy. And has he not
a right to expect it at your hands, sir? And has he not a
right to be dissatisfied if Dr Greendoor orders him one system, Dr Yellowdoor another system, and Dr Bluedoor a
third system? May he not reply, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, I want that medicine which is a specific, or the nearest to it, for my pains and aches; spare me your theories."
Permit me now, sir, to reason a little further with you.
Whoever will turn an attentive and inquiring eye to the
ways and works of that Almighty Creator in whom we live
and move and have our being, as far as he in his great
wisdom and mercy has permitted us poor blind mortals to
see of them, cannot fail to be struck very early in the study
by this fact-that in all his dealings with his creation he
operates by general fixed laws, equally applicable, when
the circumstances are similar, to all times, climes, and
cases. Matter tends to matter, for instance, so far as we
know, all over the universe, by a law, the expression of
which is the same everywhere; that is, that the force
varies inversely as the square of the distance. The laws
of motion, as discovered by Newton, atomic attraction,
chemical combinations, the expansion of steam, electrical
phenomena, all reveal to us the same fact-all show us the
mighty " I am that I am," developing his glorious works on
harmonious and fixed principles, acting according to certain definite and fixed laws, and laying down, for the governance of his vast works, certain positive and settled rules:
so settled are they, that we call them laws of nature. Not
that we suppose the Almighty to be bound by laws, bu4
that the tendency to order in the Divine operations is so
strong, that when once a principle has been adopted it is
not departed from; indeed this would seem to belong to
that all-truthfulness which is an attribute of the Deity.
Ignorant human nature might err as to the advisability of
certain principles, and suppose one to be better to-day, another to-morrow.  Not so. the All-seeing, All-truthful





300


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


Deity! Seeing at one glance all possible combinations and
events, the Deity has decided at once on that principlewhich,
for them all and in them all, is the wisest and the best! He
does not operate as the blind Pagan supposed his lubberly
Jupiter to act, by fits and starts, now in a rage, now in a
hurry, now in a jest-locally, partially, fortuitously, irregularly. No! the Christian's God, as revealed in the Bible
and as read in his works, acts ever on one gigantic uniform
plan, by means of serious, permanent, universal, abiding
wisdom: unerring, unchanging, developing its acts and
workings in general laws generally diffused over the whole
universe. Particular and isolated phenomena are, then, in
reality comprehensible under, and the result of, one of
those laws, and derivable from it if we possessed the general expression or formula of it. And every art, moreover, which man has discovered and practises is founded
on this assumption; for they all depend on certain laws of
nature, and on the certainty that those laws of nature,
once discovered, remain invariable as long as the circumstances and conditions of them remain invariable. Your
dyer mixes his colours in their fixed and due proportion;
unless some new term has been introduced into the equation, the resulting hue is the same to a shade that it was a
century ago. Your steam- boat crosses the Atlantic to an
hour, your engine bites its way along your rail to a second,
your rifle-ball falls truly within the bull's-eye at a hundred yards, your shell with a given charge strikes the flagstaff at a mile-because the laws that regulate the expansion of steam and powder, and the falling of bodies, vary
not. Your sailor sets his fortunes and his life on the
steadiness of the needle, and is not deceived; your merchant trusts to the electric telegraph a message, which, if
wrongly sent, might ruin him: in short, turn where you
like, you find God's laws sure and from everlasting to
everlasting, and man never deceived when he trusts to
them. Heaven and earth may pass away, but his Word





DR ROSE CORMACK.


301


and his laws will never pass away!-no, nor vary, nor
alter, nor swerve, nor fail, nor diminish, nor increase, nor
decay, nor deceive! And let us clearly understand this
fact, that every one of our necessaries, comforts, luxuries,
appliances, appurtenances, or usages-all we enjoy, admire, employ, use, do, or have-is owing to our having,
by more or less labour, investigated certain of the laws
which God has ordained, and placed ourselves in the condition to benefit by their operation. Some of these laws
are obvious, and have been investigated and applied in the
very early ages of the world; others during the career of
the generations of man; others more lately; thousands
more remain no doubt to be discovered, and each, as it
is discovered, to be applied so as to advance the happiness
of man, and speed the march of civilisation. For man, in
the rudest state of society, makes but few of' these laws
subservient to his purpose; in the most advanced state,
many. And whenever and wherever man wishes for certainty, improvement, social or industrial progress, or indeed physical amelioration of any sort, lie can find it (out
of' God's revealed Word) nowhere, and by no means other
than by applying his mind to collect facts in sufficient
quantity to furnish him with indications from which to
deduce the general expression of the law, that is, the general formula which embraces and applies to the case in
question.
In one branch of human knowledge alone, amidst all
those to which these observations apply, is this plan not
followed. I repeat that there is but one single branch of
human learning, in any way connected with the laws of
God, in any way referring to, or relating practically to,
or bearing on man's comfort, in which this plan is not followed, and never has been followed, and there, of course,
everything is dark, pathless, unintelligible, and uncertain.
I speak, of course, of the law of cure of disease. What is
the law of cure?  What is the formula for it?  What is





302


0MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


the general expression for it? Is there no such thing?
From the highest point to which balloon ever reached,
fling forth a stone into space, and I will give you an expression by which you may find its place to a foot at any
moment of its fall. S-rm T2. So the Almighty does
his work! Now, Dr Rose Cormack, how do you do
yours? Produce your rule!
All the winds of heaven once careered across the Atlantic Ocean in confusion and lawlessness; cross gusts,
opposing currents, conflicting storms-there never was
such a scene of wild and inextricable disorder as was
presented by a West India hurricane. There were calms
and the most destructive storms within a few miles of each
other. Here, beyond the power of language to convey, the
tempest raged and roared, and tore to pieces the noblest
vessels that by misfortune fell within its sphere, while,
within an easy distance, old tubs of colliers lay like logs
on the waveless sea, and spread all their flying kites in
vain to catch a breeze. Since the day when IEolus hurled
his spear against the prison of the winds, and let out at once
all the breezes, there never was more confusion; and many
generations of stolid captains of merchantmen, and smart
men-of-war's men, too, tied on their sou'-westers, in the
full conviction that God had made no way for escape out
of all this wilderness of winds. At last there came a man!
and he began to collect facts and compare them.   He
learned the direction in which trees fell during the coming and during the passing typhoon; he got ships' logs in
numbers; he traced their courses on his maps; he found
the contemporaneous position of many; he found how the
wind took them, and how it left them; and, after years of
patient exploration, he enunciated the expression of the
law of storms which God had laid down:-" Storms
advance turning on their axes as they go." And now
the heaviest captain among them knows how to trim
his sails so as not only to escape destruction, but even





DR ROSE CORMACK.


303


to convert the once-dreaded hurricane into a favourable
breeze.
So works the Almighty; and so can genius, from the
very midst of chaos and confusion, get the clue to it all.
And then we find that all that we "fools and blind"
thought was interminable and inextricable disturbance,
is in reality fixed order, which cannot be disturbed, and
is so certain, that it may be expressed in a general formula applicable to all cases.
And now, Dr Rose Cormack, where is your formula?
We have got it for every art but yours. Produce it. I
challenge you to do so. Is it blister everybody?  Certainly not; you burn some, and scald others. Is it salivate
the universe with calomel? No, sir, that was once almost
your law in the good old Abernethian days, and it may be
so still in the country; but it is assuredly given up wherever the light of knowledge has dawned. Is it, "Always
purge everybody?" Purgamus agros purgamus agrestes?
Not quite; though the practice (which has nothing to recommend it but its antiquity and facility of application) is
in many places pretty general. Is it "Bleed all mankind?"
Those days, too, are passed. The patients died under their
cure so often that the practice could not be maintained,
and only lingers now amongst plethoric oxen, farmers, labourers, and fatting calves.
What, have you no law of cure, then? no general formula to embrace all cases? nothing to enunciate at all?
What! have all the years since Hermes Trismegistus not
availed to communicate to you the general expression for
the law which the Lord has laid down to regulate the application of medicine to malady? Do you really and truly
suppose that here, and here only, man is sent to sea without
a compass? Shall a body projected near the earth always
describe a parabola? Shall comets pass away into outward darkness and measureless space, and yet return, like
a playful child gambolling round its parent?  Shall the





304


MIR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


falling meteor's path be laid down on a line of iron from
which it may not swerve by one hair's-breadth? Through
all the mazes of the moon's devious track, shall the very
moment of the greatest obscuration during an eclipse be
predicted a thousand years beforehand-yes, and the people to whom it shall be visible?  Shall the very eccentricities of the wild whirlwind be found to follow a definite
method in their capricious perverseness?  Shall, in one
word, the eye of God find wherever it rests adorable order
and unswerving harmony, excepting only in one place-and
there cure be left to chance-medley?
Rest assured, sir, that God hath not forgotten to be gracious. There is laid down by Infinite Goodness for man's
use a clear, positive, distinct, and definite formula for the
administration of medicines. That the professors of the
art have not found it, is quite true; that the madge owlet
knows as much of the quadrature of the circle as they do
of that law, is quite true; they missed it as the cuckoo
missed the nightingale's song, that is, because he went on
saying, "Cuckoo! cuckoo! did you ever hear such a clever
cuckoo, cuckoo?" for ever, and drowned all other notes in
his own foolish noise.
But a man has lately died, sir, whose profound wisdom
has discovered this law of which we have been speaking,
and has enunciated it in such a general expression as includes, when the necessary corrections are applied, all possible cases of disease, so as to render the cure of them
simple and easy. You and your friends abuse that man
as much and as often as you can; but I can assure you,
that if you or they had been acquainted with him you
would speak otherwise of him. You never spoke to him
or heard him or saw him probably. I lived on terms of
the greatest intimacy and friendship with him for several
years. Reserved to most people, to me he was communicative; and I believe very few people indeed have ever
enjoyed so many opportunities of knowing Hahnemann





DR ROSE CORMACK.


305


thoroughly as I have. Well, sir, I who did know him
well tell you, who did not know him at all, that he was perhaps the most amiable, virtuous, conscientious, high-principled man that ever lived. I speak not of his vast genius,
his wonderful stores of reading, his prodigious memory:
his writings will best say what he was in these respects;
and if you will condescend to read them you may judge
for yourself. But I know him, besides, to have been the
most honourable, noble, benevolent, and truth-loving man,
perhaps, that ever lived. And having thus borne my testimony to his character, I will next, with your permission, proceed to tell you how he happened to discover this
law of cure. His father, sir, had, as he himself often told
me, brought him up to love the truth above all things in
this world, and was continually inculcating on him this
maxim, "Never take anything for granted, nor receive
anything in any science as a truth, until you have investigated it for yourself." I have no doubt, from my own
knowledge of Hahnemann, that he readily enough imbibed the maxim. After having passed through the usual
studies with great credit to himself, he took his degree,
and began to practise as a medical man. "It soon struck
me," he has said to me, " that I was called on to admit, in
the practice of medicine, a great deal that was not proved.
If I was called to attend a patient, I was to collect his
symptoms, and next to infer from those symptoms that a
certain internal condition of the organs existed, and then
to select such a remedy as the medical authorities asserted
would be useful under such circumstances. But it is very
evident that the argument is most inconclusive, and that
room was thus left for many serious errors, and so I determined to investigate the whole matter for myself from the
very beginning." It was in the midst of poverty, in one
little room which contained his whole family, in a corner,
separated from the rest of them by a curtain, under every
discouragement, and with a hungry family to maintain by
x





306


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


hard drudgery in the intervals of his own investigations,
that he set himself to his task. It may perhaps give you
a better idea of the man himself, if I mention that, when
I once asked him why he smoked, he replied, " Oh! it's
an idle habit, contracted when I had to sit up every other
night in order to get bread for my children, while I was
pursuing my own investigations by day." I then learned,
on farther inquiry, that, having resigned his practice as a
medical man, he was compelled to earn a living by translating for the booksellers, and had, to enable him to continue his investigations, adopted the plan of sitting up the
whole of every other night. I think, sir, you will say that
he will find admirers, perhaps, but few imitators. And
now, sir, will you permit me to discuss awhile those investigations, so cautiously undertaken, so anxiously pursued through so many laborious years, uncheered by one
single mark of approval from any one of the thousands of
his profession. They cried then, as you and your meeting cry now, "Delusion! delusion!"  Ay, sir, the delusion of yesterday is becoming the faith of to-day, and
that which your predecessors mocked at, and you storm
at, is become to millions as necessary as the air they
breathe.
Now do you know at all, sir, the manner in which this
most able and cautious man set himself to work to investigate the general expression for the law of cure?  Why,
he studied the severe philosophy of Bacon, and from it he
learned to accumulate facts and discard theories.  He
found the art of cure entangled in all kinds of hypotheses
-hypotheses of which each age saw many rise, become
fashionable, and die, to give place to new ones. He found
there was no basis of certainty for any theory or opinion,
so he rejected the whole useless mass, and determined to
have no theory at all.
Thie world has been so often informed of the manner in
which he began his discoveries, that I presume it has





DR ROSE CORMACK.


307


reached even yourself; yet suffer me to refer to it once
more; it may not be altogether without profit,
Dr Cullen had just published some accounts of the extraordinary cures of various kinds of ague by cinchona. The
man whom you despise so much was employed in translating his work into German for the booksellers, for, having
given up a profession which he could not conscientiously
practise, he was very poor, and his thoughts one day fell on
the subjects he had been reading. He thought, "Why
does this substance cure these maladies?" Alas! he could
get no answer to the question; all was as dark before him as
it must be to you, sir, at present. The question was dismissed from his mind, but in vain; it returned with renewed force. He procured some of the substance in question. He examined it, tasted it, weighed it; but there
was still no answer. " The depth said, it is not in me to
say; and the sea said, it is not in me." He took his hat,
wandered forth alone, and meditated on the subject alone
for hours, and all in vain. At length he thought, "A certain quantity of this inert-looking powder will make strong
a man who is attacked with a certain sort of weakness,
and arrest his periodical shivering and concomitant sufferings; will it make me stronger, I wonder, if I take it?"
He began a course of it, and one evening, after having
taken a quantity of it for several successive days, he was
attacked with shivering and other symptoms of intermittent fever, attended with much weakness and loss of appetite. He stopped his daily doses; his fever went away,
and health returned. He tried it many times, and invariably with the same or similar results.
Now, sir, observe, if you please, " fact the first." Cinchona gives a healthy man an intermittent fever, and cinchona cures intermittent fever in the sick. Do you think
the mode of investigation adopted by Hahnemann was unphilosophical, incautious, untruthful? Then, sir, that is
Homceopathy; and whenever you give quinine to the weak,





308


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


you go back to the very elements of the science, and adopt
that very system which you abuse. And there is not one
of you all who does not in this manner every day imitate
the very man whose discoveries you ignore while you employ them. You are, one and all of you, Homceopathists,
and you one and all practise Homoeopathy, wherever you
can; and nothing but your ignorance of the properties of
those medicines which the law has empowered you to distribute prevents you all from practising pure Homoeopathy
in every instance where you are called in.
But the wise man whom you abuse did not stop here.
He was not one to generalise too soon. He exhausted the
powers of cinchona on the human frame by repeated experiments on himself and his family, and then set to work
to repeat the same experiments with various other substances in succession. Do you think that in these laborious inquiries, in which his whole business was confined
to collecting facts, he was acting like a charlatan or like a
wise and cautious philosopher? You call him a charlatan
-so do they all; and you and yours are no doubt all honourable men, if not very wise ones. But would not Bacon,
if he were alive, say that he had chosen the only true
path to discovery?
The result of all experiments made with all kinds of medicines in succession was simply this, that whatever irregularities of action (or symptoms) any substance whatever
introduced in the -healthy, those same symptoms it would
invariably cure in the sick. The law of God comes out at
once in bold relief.
LIKE SHOULD BE TREATED BY LIKE.
And is there not in the beautiful simplicity of the formula something that looks like truth? Is there not something truthful in the whole proceeding, from the first conception of the idea, through all the long and painful
accumulation of facts, until the result of the whole is con




DR ROSE CORMACK.


309


densed into one expressive, comprehensive formula tersely
enunciated, but embracing the whole range of medical
science, and including every possible case?  Sir, I appeal
to you. Can you understand nature's language? Can you
doubt whose hand it was that stamped creation with the
indelible words, "Like cures like?"
Sir, there are two paths-two possible paths-but two
possible, and no more, by which the application of remedies
to disorders may be followed out. You have followed one
of those paths; Hahnemann chose the other. His path was
Facts, your path is Theory. He was a great philosopher,
you are, I fear, a very small one. He was a wise man, a
profound scholar in every branch of human learning, a very
deep thinker, a most unwearied reader, and a most benevolent man. It is your misfortune, perhaps, sir, and not
your fault, that you are none of these things. Permit me
then to explain to you, and others like you, the difference
between your system of medicine and his.
A medicine is merely a substance which, when received
into the system, disturbs its working. A medicine is merely
any agent which possesses the property of making a healthy
man ill; and if advantage be taken of its disturbing powers,
and they be rightly applied and directed, changes illness to
health as it changes health to illness. You and your school
proceed as follows to find out how those powers of disturbance are to be applied so as to produce order:-You visit
a patient, you examine and inquire, and then you proceed
to diagnosis; that is, to pronounce that certain internal
changes, whether organic or functional, have occurred.
This is theory the first; and it is open to all kinds of
errors, and admits of the most grave objections. Having
determined to your own satisfaction what nobody wants to
know, that is, the nature of the change that has taken
place, you proceed to give to that changed state a name.
Herein is contained theory the second.  Your attempt to
name diseases is utter nonsense, fdr unless all the symptoms





310


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


are identical, two cases of disease cannot be identical. This
theory also leads you all into interminable errors.  And
having got the name, you choose that remedy, or those remedies, which your respected predecessors in the art have
said or taught should be given to such a name of disease.
This is theory the third  and it is full of all sorts of fallacies, and is of itself quite sufficient to account for the
miserable results of your practice-the many deaths, the
few cures, the lingering cases.
Such is your system, sir. It stands like a milking-stool,
on three legs; each leg is a mere theory, and a mistake in
any one of your theories upsets the poor patient. Hahnemann followed a different plan. He collected the changes
of which a patient complained, and chose that agent which
produced similar changes in the healthy. If the doctor
knows what that is, and will apply it in right doses, he
has done all that medicine can be made to do. You have
no law of cure at all. Tom told Dick, who handed it over
to Harry, that cod-liver oil was good in phthisis! Jenkins
informed Robinson, who told it to Brown, that he had
heard from the celebrated Stiggins, that dandelion was a
fine thing in dyspepsia! How can you go to sleep, Dr Rose
Cormack, with such a miserable assortment of rubbish in
your head? Is it in such terms as these that nature's laws
are enunciated?
The consequences of all these childish hypotheses are
most terrible. Medicine, or treatment, which has reference
to an imaginary state, and it is imagined will be serviceable in that imaginary state, is prescribed in sad reality.
Symptoms caused by that treatment ensue; the patient
gets an accession of suffering; he sees and knows nothing
of that magic relief so often communicated instantaneously
by dynamic remedies when properly selected. No one can
distinguish between the symptoms caused by disease and
the symptoms caused by the doctor's treatment; the patient
dies, or recovers after a long convalescence. But the wors





DR ROSE CORMACK.


311


part of the story is quite unknown, which is this, that a
treatment which has no reference to the complaint always
sows the seeds of future malady; and he who might have
passed his life without any need of medical aid, if he had
never called in a doctor, having once had the misfortune to
do so, imbibes disease from those hands at which he sought
cure, and must call in a doctor again at some future day.
You seem to imagine, sir, that it is a sufficient answer
to all these things to abuse me and call me naughty names.
I tell you of facts. Try them, if you like, and give us the
results. But how are these facts altered by calling him
who speaks of them a naughty name? Do you think, sir,
that by pelting with mud him who is sowing good seed, you
can prevent that seed from germinating?
You dare do it, I have no doubt; indeed, why should
you not? nobody minds your naughty names; the humble
individual who is now addressing you the least of all. But
there is one thing you dare not do; that is, make experiments to disprove Hahnemann's facts and deductions, and
publish the results. THAT you dare no more try than you
dare try conclusions with a locomotive.
I propose, at some future day, should God spare me, to
address to you a second letter respecting chronic diseases
and infinitesimal doses. I. am sorry to say I am far too
busy to do so just now. Permit me, however, to tell you
another little story. Two boys, Smith and Thomson, went
out to bathe; Thomson was unfortunately drowned while
bathing. On Smith's return to school, his master reprimanded him severely for not having tried to save poor
Thomson; on which Smith said, in a tone of virtuous indignation (much like that of your late speech), "Please, sir,
I might perhaps have saved poor Thomson; but, if I had,
I must have lost my gallipot, and where was I to get another,
I should like to know?"
Now, sir, the human race shall not die uncured because
your gallipot is in danger.





312


MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


A few words more, and I have done. You may wish to
know, perhaps, why I mix myself up in these matters. Believe me, when Itell you most sincerely, that it is not because
I am ignorant of what I am likely to gain by it. Honour
and emolument, patronage and praise, do not grow by the
side of THIS route. Truth is like a stone set rolling down
a steep; it crushes all those who oppose it, and many of
those who are cheering it on its progress. Abuse during
their lives, and a small amount of posthumous mention, is
all that man ever awards to those who labour for truth;
equally indifferent to each of them, I desire no better
fate than has ever been awarded to such as myself. But
the fact is, that, after having spent several years near
Hahnemann, in habits of great intimacy with him, when I
took my last leave of him before he died, I asked him
what I could do to repay in any way all the kindness I had
received from him, to show my gratitude for all the instruction he had given me, the truths he had taught me,
the delightful hours I had passed in his society. He put
his arms round my neck, and said, " Do as much good as
you can to those amongst whom you live."
He died shortly afterwards, sir, and then I lost the best
friend that man ever had. The great solemn truth he discovered, like a stone thrown into a lake, is spreading its
ripples all over the world; and with some little practical
knowledge of it, and not forgetting his last words to me, I
endeavour, according to my opportunities and ability, to
lend it such weak aid as I can. Amongst the poor of my
own parish I find it very useful. I can cure, and do daily
cure with it, and have, for these some years past, cured
with it, diseases for which, with all respect to you, your
poor conjectural art can do nothing at all. I have had
many opportunities, through many years, of witnessing its
beautiful action in all kinds of suffering and disorder, and
I am constantly curing with those medicines, administered
on Homceopathic principles, which you, who knw nothing





DR ROSE CORMACK.


313


of the matter, say are inert-disorders for which your art
may have invented a name, but has discovered no remedy.
"Yes, sir, while you are speaking washy speeches against
Hahnemann and me, I am sending away cured cases of
disorder which your authorities declare to be incurable.
For indeed there are few disorders incurable, excepting
only such-and these I meet with, sir, pretty often-as
are induced or perpetuated by the injudicious and improper administration of Allopathic medicines; and believing,
as I most sincerely do, what is usually called Allopathyeven extensively as it has of late been modified and
amended by the slow introduction of some of Hahnemann's
principles into it-to be a most pernicious error, and most
fatal to the well-being of man, I am not disposed to object
to your speech. On the contrary, sir, I deprecate nothing
from you but your conversion and co-operation. What I
do fear from you gentlemen is not open antagonism, but
forced conversion, to a grand science which your previous
education has totally disqualified you from comprehending;
an advocacy, from compulsion, of that which you do not
love, which you cannot manage, and which you may stifle
by embracing it though you cannot destroy by abusing it.
There were magicians, it is said, in olden times, who could
not conquer Christian knights in fair open warfare, but by
entertaining them, and breathing on them, they changed
them for a time to apes, satyrs, owls, and swine. Entertain Homceopathy, sir, and beneath your breath the sweetest
of sciences will be changed probably into something that
its discoverer would not recognise-a compound nondescript, combining all the errors of one system with all the
difficulties of the other; resembling the new art in name,
and the old one in doing good to nobody but the doctor.
Meet it with the open warfare of argument and experiment, and you fall powerless and prostrate before it. Pelt
it with plenty of mud, refuse degrees to those who wish to
examine it, persecute it well-and in ten years more your





314


3MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO


profession will be extinct. For in whatever corner you
lock up the wisdom you may have acquired in your passage through life, add to the stores there this one little
piece, I beg of you-if you medical men do not practise
Homoeopathy, non-medical men will. And if once you let
that practice begin, indeed, sir, it will take a great many
speeches to stop it.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
THOMAS R. EVEREST.
WICKWAR, August 27, 1851.
We doubt much if Mr Everest, when he put his hypothetical case, illustrating how prone doctors are to differ,
was aware that the fact had received a kind of numerical
certainty through the endeavour of a whimsical old gentleman, of whom the following anecdote is related, from personal knowledge, by Dr. Ilering, of Philadelphia:" Whilst travelling in Germany," says the doctor, "I
one day came to a village, the proprietor of which invited
me to spend the night at his house, in place of putting up
at the inn. He was a rich old getleman, a great original,
always an invalid, having ennui and good wine to a great
extent. Learning that I was a young medical man, about
to commence my travels, he told me he would sooner make
his son a hangman than a doctor. On my expressing surprise at the observation, he produced a large book, saying
that it was now twenty years since he first became ill in
body, but not in mind; that two doctors of celebrity,
whom he then consulted, had quarrelled about his disease,
and that, consequently, he had employed neither of them
nor their medicines, but that he had registered the affair in
his book. Then, after finding that the disease did not get
better, he set out on his travels, resolved, if he could find
three doctors who perfectly agreed upon his case without any
hesitation, to allow himself to be treated by them; but





DR ROSE CORMACK.3


315


never by any other. For this purpose, he had consulted
at first all physicians of any reputation, and afterwards
others whose names were less known, but having, in spite
of all his sufferings, never abandoned his first resolution,
and keeping an exact account of every consultation in a
book for the purpose, he never succeeded in finding any
who agreed respecting his case. Accordingly, not having
followed the advice of any, he still remained an invalid,
but he was still alive. As may be well supposed, the
book cost him a pretty sum of money.
"This book had the appearance of a ledger in large
folio, and was kept in the form of tables. In the first
column were the names of the physicians, amounting to
477; in the second, those of the disease, with explanations
concerning its nature; of these, there were 313 differing
importantly from each other; in the third column were the
remedies proposed-these consisted of 832 prescriptions;
containing in all 1097 remedies. The sum total appeared
at the end of each page.
"He took up a pen, and said, coolly, 'Wont you prescribe
something for me?' But having no great inclination to
do so, I only asked if Hahnemann was not in his list.
With a smile, he turned to No. 301, name of the disease O,
remedy prescribed, 0. 'That was the wisest of the lot,'
he cried, ' for he said that the name of the disease did not
concern him, and that the name of the remedy did not
concern me, but that the cure was the essential point.'
'But why,' I inquired, 'did you not allow him to treat
you?' ' Because,' he replied, 'he was but one, and I must
have three who agree.'
" I asked him if he were willing to sacrifice some hundred francs for an experiment, in which case I should be
able to mention not three but thirty-three physicians living
in the neighbourhood, and in countries and parts of the
world widely separate, who should all be of one opinion.
IHe expressed his doubts, but at the same time resolved to





316   MR EVEREST'S LETTER TO DR ROSE CORMACK.
undertake the trial.  We then made out a description
of his disease, and, when the copies were finished, we sent
them to thirty-three Homeopathic practitioners. He inclosed a louis d'or in each letter, begging each physician
to name the remedies which were capable of curing, or at
least of alleviating, his disease.
"A short time since I received a cask of Rhenish, of
the vintage of 1822. ' I send you wine of the year 1822,'
he wrote, ' because twenty-two physicians agreed respecting my case. I thereby perceive that there is certainty in
some things in this world. I have got various works on the
subject, in order to gain information upon it. Out of about
two hundred medicines, twenty-two physicians have fixed
upon the same remedy. One could not expect more. The
physician nearest me has got me under his care, and I send
you the wine that I may not be tempted to drink too
much from joy at seeing my health improving from day to
day.'"





THE EAST versus THE       WEST.*
WE have lately had many communications addressed to
us on the subject of Hommeopathy, and the practice of
globular medicines and infinitesimal dosing, as it is called,
but we refrained from using them, as we could not well
understand the drift of the senders, and thought they were
either deluded enthusiasts or ignorant charlatans. We
have, however, altered our opinion somewhat on the matter, though not Homoeopathists either from conviction or
practice as yet, and our reasons for listening to the new
doctrines are as follow:-Firstly, we have had a series of
pamphlets and periodicals handed to us for examination
and perusal, which relate to this system of medical practice; and secondly, and more forcibly, we have watched
attentively for a considerable time the system of persecution and downcry that has been organised at home against
the practitioners engaged either as amateurs or as qualified
medical men in its spread and dissemination. The perusal
of the former has much amused and pleased us, and the
consideration of the latter has gradually fixed our attention
more and more, until at length it has engaged our sympathy and commanded inquiry. Wherever persecution
begins, a sense of right ends on the part of its promoters
and abettors, and the mind of an educated person is led to
suspect that that person, or body of men, or science, wliicll
* fIiro the " Morniug Chrouicle ': o Calcutta.





318


THE EAST verSUS THE WEST.


it is endeavoured to hunt down, is formidable by truth, a
conscientious advocacy of right and reason, and a superiority over the worn-out deceptions of the pack who are
hunting down their victim, and endeavouring to cover him
with ignominy or annihilate him by falsehood, misrepresentation, and persecution. All these are now at work in
England, and to what point? Not to protect the public
from empirics, men of bad reputation or broken down in
trade, trying to support themselves by delusion and chicanery, but against regularly educated men of the highest
grade of qualification, universally respected, and for years
distinguished in the medical profession, who, throwing
aside the shackles of education and prejudice, have been
bold enough to adopt and practise the Homoeopathic system
of medicine, giving up, in many instances, large practices
and great emoluments, for what they conscientiously believe to be a better system of medicine, more suited to
reason, truth, experience, and the human frame. There
can be no doubt that there is a strong and valuable deposit
of truth at the bottom of the system of persecution that has
been adopted towards these men, conscientiously giving up
what they have been educated to look upon as infallible
and confirmed in its truth by the practice of ages, and
still more conscientiously giving up the large emoluments
and high position to which its practice had introduced
them.
The perusal of the Homoeopathic journals above alluded
to has awakened in us a lively conviction of the great
value of the system of medical practice of which they are
the mouthpieces; if not to the extent its most sanguine
admirers and practitioners would go, at least so far as to
make us wish to see these matters calmly discussed, without abuse, prejudice, or violent language, which it strikes
us have in the present instance been all on the side of the
old-system gentlemen. People in the medical profession
are, it seems, beginning to think, and the public at large





THE EAST versus THE WEST.


319


are beginning to feel and believe, that the old system, and
the present system, of dosing human beings with enormous
quantities of nauseous and noxious drugs, is a barbarous
and a vicious one, and we agree with them, and are certain
that, if the practice and study of Homoeopathy should be
productive of no other beneficial result, they will at any
rate modify the disgusting, hurtful, and savage practice
which, as we have said above, is most painful to the patient,
sometimes utterly ruinous to the constitution, and not very
creditable, even in the most successful cases, as they are
called, to the medical practitioner.  The expenditure of
drugs to an enormous amount, both in value and quantity,
has killed many, has very seldom saved any, and must as
a system die out, giving way to partial Homoeopathy, or
an entire adoption of that system, if its enemies should
persecute it well, and so cause a quicker appreciation of its
value in the public mind, than would have been established
for a long time had it been treated with the indulgence
which is generally the fate of visionary schemes and
theories, devoid of truth and built on a shaky foundation.
It will perhaps be said that the publications to which
we have above alluded, are so many impositions, and full
of false cases and reports. We don't think so. Their
contents are apparently as true as the pages of their rivals
and traducers, and they are temperate, calm, and devoid of
abuse and ill words, which the others are not; and hence
another reason for suspecting that the right is on the side
of those who believe themselves best in the contest, and
show that they can afford to be good humoured and
calm.
It may be said that the Homceopathic system of medicine is not suited to this country and tropical diseases.
This is nonsense. If a system of medicine be founded on
truth and reason, it is suited to all climates, countries, and
seasons; if not, it is suited to none, and cannot be upheld
by its antiquity, wide prevalence, or its powers of persecu




320           THE EAST versus THE WEST.
tion, and its readiness to have recourse to them. Certainly
the fine old English system of medicine has been doing
wonders for the undertakers in Calcutta of late, and has
frightened many into an acquaintance with Homceopathy,
which they never before thought of cultivating, and which
has ended in their being entirely convinced of its truth and
superiority.





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS
FOR 1852,
TO BE DELIVERED TO THE MEDICAL GRADUATES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
BY THE
PROFESSOR OF MATERIA MEDICA PURA.
GENTLEMEN,-In offering you, according to usage, in
the name of the Medical Faculty and of the Senate of this
University, of which you have just become Graduates, a
few words of congratulation, counsel, encouragement, perhaps, too, of warning, I shall say little as to the general
considerations and influences which ought to have weight
with you during your future life; and shall confine my remarks almost entirely to one topic, which appears to me,
as it has appeared to the most distinguished of my colleagues and predecessors, of supreme importance. Still, I
cannot even name this subject, without using the present
opportunity to remind you of the high dignity of your vocation. As physicians, professing to be beyond other men
in possession of the power of healing, your advice will be
eagerly sought, often reverently followed, on the most
critical occasions; you will be admitted into closest intercourse with those by whom you are thus put in trust
of human lives; and you will often have to confess to yourselves, possibly with deep, hopeless anguish, how little is
the help you can bring to those who are looking to you
Y





322     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
with so full a faith. If any thoughts can compel you to
ardent, devout, persevering study, to the acquisition of all
that can add to your resources and make you better furnished physicians, surely they are such thoughts as these.
As his name implies, the physician is peculiarly brought
into contact with Nature, and only by perfect fidelity and
loyalty to her every lesson can he fulfil his duty. If there
be anything which he loves more than truth-as, for instance, wealth, social importance, professional, literary, or
scientific reputation-whatever else he may be, he never
can be a good physician. Again, it continually happens,
that, as the originating or modifying causes of disease, or
as otherwise brought under his notice through personal intimacy, the most delicate and difficult moral questions call
for his solution. Here, also, are high demands made; to
answer them there must be high moral attainments.
Lastly, his intercourse is with men in the most solemn
moments of birth, illness, death; and what solace, help,
blessing, may not the good physician bring!
The topic, gentlemen, to which I have now to call your
attention, is one on which my predecessor in this office
last year specially dwelt (in an Address which most of you,
being then students, may have heard or read); in many of
whose remarks I concur so entirely, that I shall repeat them
to you; others of them seem to me partial and insufficient;
and there are some from which I may find it necessary
emphatically to dissent; I mean therapeutics and pathology, in so far as it is essential to therapeutics.
On the occasion referred to, my predecessor said, "There
can be no physician without physic-no medicine without
therapeutics.  Pathology is a mere introduction to it.
The only true end of medical knowledge is the cure of
diseases.  But there can be no cure without remedies.
Neither can remedies be of any use unless you know them,
and how to give them, and what effects to look for from
them in health, and in disease, and in the thousand vary




PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


323


ing circumstances of disease, inherent as well as extraneous."*
Again, "It may perhaps appear at first view surprising
that such a subject should need to be pressed on your attention at the present time. But I appeal to yourselves,
whether it has hitherto received in the course of your
studies that share of your consideration which its relative
importance among the practical branches of medicine undoubtedly demands for it; or whether your ideas on the
actions and uses of remedies are as precise as they ought
to be, and as they are on other subjects. You know this is
not the case. And why? Simply on account of the difficulty of therapeutics; and because, of all the medical
sciences, it is the most unsettled and unsatisfactory in its
present state, and the least advanced in its progress."t
Once more, after speaking of the great advances made
during the last forty years in pathology, and of the comparative scantiness of the contributions made to therapeutics during the same period, there follows this pregnant
sentence:-" And as for the theory of therapeutics, embracing a generalisation of the actions of remedies, an accurate description of the physiological effects of each, a
just idea of their therapeutic influences, and a knowledge
of the conditions for employing them, we are little in advance of our predecessors thirty years ago."t
It is well, gentlemen, that you should ponder such statements. To those only entering upon medical practice,
these humiliating confessions of one of our most experienced physicians may seem highly discouraging. Yet,
if they tell no more than the truth-if they express the
mature judgment, not of one only, but of the very many
* Address, &c., p. 294. (" Monthly Journal of Medical Science,"
September, 1851.)
+ Address, pp. 294-5.: Ibid, p. 295.





324     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
among those who have had the best opportunities of practically testing the present usual modes of medical treatment,
I repeat, it is well that you should ponder them. So long
as you are content that therapeutics shall remain in its present amorphous condition, and look for no greater change
than the addition of an empirical remedy here and there,
possibly to be soon subtracted again, proving on farther
experience valueless, you will never bend your minds to
the subject with the intense continuous effort which is
quite essential to the discovery of a lasting foundation,
on which, gradatimbn et paulatim, a true system of therapeutics may be raised; and high honours will he have deserved from his professional brethren and from mankind,
who shall appear to have achieved and established such a
discovery.
Assuming, then, that some of you, at least, are prepared
resolutely to follow out this investigation, it is my present
purpose to suggest for your consideration one or two general principles, which may prove of great value as guides
in the inquiry; I shall not presume to force them upon
your acceptance, but I ask your candid, independent, deliberate estimate of their worth. I have only farther to
premise, that my remarks shall be confined to the action
of remedies, known or unknown, which belong to the class
of speciics, and that I shall leave out of view, at present,
those other various means by which diseases may be arrested, mitigated, or otherwise beneficially modified. It
is quite obvious, that, in so far as attainable, specifics are
greatly preferable to all other medicines; they are the
direct roads to cure, all others, at best, being circuitous.
In reference to the importance of this department of inquiry, I shall here take leave to remind you of the words
of my respected colleague, and your esteemed teacher, Dr
Alison:-" Our hopes of the increasing efficacy and usefulness of our art must depend on the progress which may
yet be expected in two lines of inquiry, in which our suc




PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


325


cess has as yet been only partial: first, on the discovery of
specifics, which may counteract the different diseased actions of which the body is susceptible, as effectually as the
cinchona counteracts the intermittent fever, citric acid the
scurvy, or vaccination the small-pox; secondly, in the investigation of the causes of disease, whether external or
internal."  To the first of these, especially, will my present remarks apply; although, not impossibly, they may
be found ultimately to throw light also on some at least of
the causes of disease.
We are now to inquire, gentlemen, by what course of
study or of experiment we may hope to increase the
number of known specifics. Study, without some guiding principle, can do nothing, I fear, in this direction; experiments at random little more. During many centuries,
the number of specifics which have been thus accidentally
discovered are so few, that we can hardly hope, without
better guidance, during our generation to add one or two
more to their number. Thus driven to look out for some
principle or rule which may direct our investigations and
render them fruitful, let us now consider whether our
general knowledge of Nature's operations, and the experience acquired in some of the branches of science, will not
afford us the aid we so much need.
And first, I shall call your attention to the close resemblance observed between the effects produced on the human
body by natural disease, and the effects produced by certain known foreign substances. On this point, it will be
sufficient to refer you to the frequent cases in which it is
extremely difficult to ascertain whether death has been
caused by natural disease or by poison; a difficulty often
only conclusively solved by the discovery, through chemical
means or otherwise, of the actual material poison. This
is quite in accordance with what might have been inferred
by rational considerations; for, unless the action of medicinal substances were of a like kind, or, so to speak, within





326     PROPOSED INAUGUTRAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
the same sphere as natural morbid action, there would
seem no possibility of direct curative power; the disease
and the remedy, having altogether separate courses, would
never come into contact. It may be here remarked, too,
that there are good reasons for believing a great part of the
diseases commonly ascribed to natural causes to have their
origin in the poisonous influence of foreign matter.
Next, assuming it to be admitted on all hands that there
are at least one or two known specifics, I observe to you that
it seems extremely improbable that there are not many
more unknown; that, inasmuch as a near resemblance of
most forms of natural morbid action can be produced by
one or more foreign substances, there is every reason to
anticipate that some one of these will be capable of counteracting each simple, well-determined, diseased action, had
we only the means of discovering the right one. From the
complications of diseased action, from individual peculiarities of susceptibility to natural morbid action, or to the
action of medicines, and from other causes, there may be
much difficulty in this inquiry; but it appears to me,
gentlemen, that any person capable of reflecting on the
subject will come to the conclusion that there are treasured
for us in Nature, in one form or other, specific remedies
for many of the ills which flesh is heir to, could we but
discover them!
Being then satisfied that the inquiry is not a hopeless
one, and may be productive of invaluable results, let us next
consider in what way it is to be made; whether there be
any fundamental principle which may be assumed as the
basis of our investigation.
Now, it seems to me that we have such a principle. I
think all analogy leads to the belief that the relation between the pathogenetic and the curative effects of specific
remedies is not casual and fluctuating, but essential and
constant; that each has the power of curing some certain
morbid action, just because it has the power of producing





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


327


on the healthy body some other certain morbid action, having a distinct recognisable relation to the natural morbid
action. We are not entitled to anticipate what that relation may be; but, assuming that such a relation exists, let us
now try to discover what it is, whether a relation of similarity, contrariety, or otherwise.
The data then being (1st) That many substances are
known to produce on the healthy human body organic or
functional disturbances of a like kind with those observed
in natural morbid action; and (2d) That some one or
more of such substances are known to be capable of curing,
specifically, such natural morbid action; the problem is, To
discover the law of relation between the pathogenetic and the curative action of such substances.
In order to solve this problem, we have obviously to find
some one or more substances, of which the pathogenetic
and the curative effects are both known, that we may have
the means of comparing these. Let us take one for an instance; and let it be the one named first in the passage I
have quoted from the writings of my valued colleague, Dr
Alison; I mean cinchona. The curative effects of this drug
we all know well; it is a specific remedy for intermittent
fever. With its effects on the healthy body you are probably
less familiar, such knowledge not being generally thought
important; but, for the purpose of comparison, it is essential
that we should be in possession of it. Pereira describes it
thus: " A febrile state of the system is set up, manifested by
the excitement of the vascular system and dry tongue, and
the cerebro-spinal system becomes disordered, asis shown by
the throbbing headache and giddiness."*  For our present
purpose, let us assume this description to be substantially
correct, and let us further suppose that the symptoms thus
produced resemble those observed to occur in intermittent
fever as nearly as, making due allowance for accidental
* "Materia Medica," vol. ii., p. 1404.





328     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
disturbances, we should expect, were the relation we are in
quest of a relation of similarity, and we have now obtained
what we have been seeking: we have solved the problem.
The law of relation then between the pathogenetic and the curative action of specific remedies will thus appear to be a relation
of similarity. Proceeding upon this, as a valid hypothesis;
at least, we might make further experiments, in order to
see how far it was true in regard to other medicinal substances; as we found our induction confirmed, we might
gain increased confidence in it, until, after large experience,
we might feel assured of its truth, and announce it authoritatively as a general law of specifics.
Such, it appears to me, gentlemen, is the mode of inquiry
dictated by sound philosophy, and therefore likely to be
productive of valuable results: I recommend it to your
earnest attention. In doing so, I have now to tell you
that you will enter on a path not all untrodden. Of him
who, so far as I know, was the first to tread it thoughtfully,
and in whose footsteps many zealous and noble-minded
votaries of medicine are even now following, I shall have
a few words to say to you. Shame, indeed, it is to us, that
at so late a day, and within the walls of a university, any
words of mine should be necessary that you might remember with reverence the name of Samuel Hahnemann.
Born at Meissen, in Saxony, just one hundred years
ago, of parents so poor, that, when yet a boy, he had to
find for himself the means of learning; with a mind so
bent upon it that nothing was impossible to him; teaching
by day that, with the utmost frugality, he might live to
study by night; with a true dutiful heart, he made conquest, one after another, of the sciences and literatures of
early and later times, until he became a master in them
all. To be a physician was what he aimed at-a true
physician; no idle, prating pretender; and he must needs
possess himself of all the various culture that could train
or furnish his mind. Especially was it his duty, having





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


329


first learned the languages, to make profound studies in
medicine, to become familiar with the thoughts and knowledges of her votaries from almost patriarchal to present
times, a duty which he nobly fulfilled. As became him,
too, he studied more particularly chemistry and the physiological and curative properties of herbs, and the other
materials of medicine; and in both these provinces of inquiry he achieved important discoveries. Nor was he unfamiliar with the practice of his art. Like others of his
time, and with equal success, he pursued it, but not with
equal contentment. Genius had given him a light, by
which he saw the darkness in which he and all his fellowlabourers were working, and thus he would work no longer.
If the chaos of medicine was not anyhow to be reduced"
into order, at least he would not by his meddling increase
the confusion. With such rare, earnest conscientiousness,
he abandoned the nearest surest means of living, and gave
himself to serious literature; in no time or country a ready
way to wealth. Yet, in all his studies, he never forgot his
vocation, and lay in wait for what light or help patient,
industrious, honest observation of Nature might yet bring.
I have only to add, that such was the original depth,
breadth, and texture of his intellectual being, that these
acquirements never overpowered it-that he " wore all this
weight of learning lightly, like a flower"-and then I ask
you whether we have not here such stuff as great Discoverers are made of. Nor will it, I trust, affect your judgment, even greatly excite your surprise, that vulgar minds
can see in all this no nobleness, nothing worthy of study,
veneration, love; that many, even eminent, practitioners
are found capable of publicly associating with the most
contemptible of impostors the name of one of the bravest
and best of men. Alas! in every age of this world's history
the ardent followers of truth have been the calumniated
few; and why should a different fate attend Hahnemann
and his followers?





330     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
Gentlemen, it were premature now to ask you to accept
as truth the discoveries of Hahnemann; but I may have
satisfied some of you that he is a man worth listening to;
and I shall only add on this head the testimony of one or
two whose words are likely to have influence with you.
Hufeland, in whose distinguished journal Hahnemann's
earlier papers were published, in a note to one of these, a
masterly criticism, entitled "Fragmentary Observations
on Brown's Elements of Medicine," which appeared without the author's name, writes as follows:-" These observations are from the pen of one of the most distinguished
of German physicians, &c., &c. *  *  *  We have here
the unprejudiced opinion on this subject of a practical
physician of matured experience and reflection."* From
Broussais and from Brera might be quoted observations to
the same effect. Valentine North, the great American
surgeon, who visited Hahnemann, writes, " Iahnemann is
one of the most accomplished and scientific physicians of
the present age."  Dr Sigmond, in his lectures on Materia
Medica and Therapeutics, says of Hahnemann, " I have to
speak to you of a man of high intellectual attainments, of
great sagacity, of inflexible courage, and of unwearied industry; who, amid difficulties of no common kind, has laid
the foundation of a system which, whilst it cannot but
create a few smiles at its singularity, is the work of great
erudition, much toil, and striking ingenuity."  Dr Forbes,
so well known as a talented physician, and as a man possessing a highly cultivated mind, writes, with regard to
Hahnemann, that " No careful observer of his actions or
candid reader of his writings can hesitate for a moment to
admit that he was a very extraordinary man. He was,
undoubtedly, a man of genius and a scholar; a man of indefatigable industry, of undaunted energy; surpassed by
* Hahnemann's " Lesser Writings." Translated by Dr Dudgeon.
Headland. 1851. P. 405.





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


331


few in the originality and ingenuity of his views, superior
to most in having substantiated and carried out his doctrines into actual and most extensive practice. It is but
an act of justice also to admit that there exists no grounds
for doubting that he was sincere in the belief of the truth
of his doctrines, and that many, at least, among his followers have been, and are, sincere, honest, and learned
men."*
To quote more such attestations would be to trespass
unduly on your patience; to many of you, even these may
have seemed superfluous; for one who has left behind him
so many volumes as Hahnemann, the fruits of his observations, study, and reflection, need not count much on other
attestors of his true merits. When you come to read these
works, gentlemen, as I have no doubt many will do, you
will find in them the unquestionable indications of a mind
highly gifted by nature, and variously enriched by cultivation. They seem to me to exhibit in a very rare degree
the union of philosophical power with practical sagacity,
and a spirit of unwavering truthfulness. In a literary
view, they must be placed with our best classical writers
on medical subjects. Yet these are but a small part of his
claims to your earnest attention; it is the testimony of the
living which will most move you. That Hahnemann is
now revered by thousands of the educated and thoughtful,
who, are not ashamed to call themselves his disciples, and
who regard him as one of the greatest discoverers in any
region of investigation-among whom are hundreds the
graduates of this University, or of other eminent schools of
medicine in Germany, France, Italy, England, the United
States of America-is a fact wlich will bear on your
minds with more weight of conviction than any opinions
of mine, or any other particular testimonials; and, when
you reflect that this veneration rests chiefly on the expe* "British and Foreign Medical Review."





332     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
rienced practical results of Hahnemann's discovery, you
will regard it as entitled to even greater consideration.
Having already made some observations on the character
of the discoverer, it is now time for me to say a few words
on the nature of the discovery, and the circumstances in
which it was made.
It was in the year 1790, while engaged in the translation of one of the works of our own Cullen, in which the
fever-producing powers of cinchona are noticed, that
Hahnemann first caught sight of the 'ational principle for
which he had been so long waiting. Cinchona is known
to cure ague; it is stated also to produce on healthy people
febrile symptoms. May not this be the indication of the
general law of specifics? So thought Hahnemann; and,
like other wise men, he did not then and there announce
The fact to be so, but patiently set himself to a laborious
ad careful examination of the morbific action of medicines
a, the healthy body. Among those he thus put to trial
were cinchona, mercury, belladonna, digitalis, cocculus.
Six years of the prime of his life had been thus spent before
he felt justified in publicly announcing the law of specifics,
which has earned for him so wide a fame-" Similia similibus curantur."  In 1796, in Hufeland's Journal,* under
the title of " Essay on a new principle for ascertaining the
curative powers of Drugs; with a glance at those hitherto
employed,"t did Hahnemann first promulgate to the physicians of his age, through the medium of the medical journal of highest reputation in Germany, what is now known
as the Homoeopathic law. Neither then nor ever afterwards did he attempt by popular writings to gather disciples from among the unlearned. In this remarkable
" Journal der Practischen Argniekunde," vol. ii., part 3.
1 Hahnemann's " Lesser Writings." Translated by Dr Dudgeon.
P. 295.





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


333


paper, after a very able criticism of the means of cure
in general use,'and an exhibition of the very unsatisfactory
nature, both of the process and of its results, he writes, "The
true physician, whose sole aim is to perfect his art, can
avail himself of no other information respecting medicines
than" First, What is the pure action of each by itself on the healthy
body?
" Second, WTlat do observations of its action in this or thlat
simple or complex disease teach us?
"The last object is partly obtained in the practical
writings of the best observers of all ages, but more especially of later times. Throughout these, the as yet only
source of the real knowledge of the power of drugs in
diseases is scattered; there we find it faithfully related
how the simplest drugs were employed in accurately described cases, how far they proved serviceable, and how
far they were hurtful or less beneficial. Would to God
* such relations were more numerous."
"But even among them contradictions so often occur,
one condemning in a certain case what another found of
use in a similar case, that one cannot but remark, that
we still require some natural normal standard, whereby
Swe may be enabled to judge of the value and degree of truth
of their observations."
"This standard, methinks, can only be derived from the
effects that a given medicinal substance has, by itself in
this and that dose, developed in the healthy human body."
Again. "We only require to know, on the one hand, the
diseases of the human frame accurately in their essential
characteristics, and their accidental complications; and,
on the other hand, the pure effects of drugs, that is, the
essential characteristics of the specific artificial disease
they usually excite, together with the accidental symptoms caused by difference of dose, form, &c., and by choosing a remedy for a given natural disease, that is capable





334     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
of producing a very similar artificial disease, we shall be
able to cure the most obstinate diseases."
You will have observed, gentlemen, that, in these sentences, Hahnemann strongly urged upon physicians the expediency of using all medicines singly; as thus only could
their proper effects be determined with any approach to accuracy. In a later paper, he has some very witty remarks
on the absurdity of the common compound prescriptions,
which I cannot here quote;* but I may read to you its
concluding sentences:" Know that two, not to speak of three or more, substances, when mingled together, do not produce the same result that might be expected from them if given singly and
at different times, but a different dynamical intermediate
action, whether you wish it or no. In that case, the systematic arrangement of your ingredients is of no avail, nor
the part you allot to the base and bases, to the acdjuvant and
adjuvants, to your corrective director, and excipient. Nature acts according to eternal laws, without asking your
leave; she loves simplicity, and effects much with one remedy, whilst you effect little with many. Seek to imitate
nature."
" To write very composite recipes, and several of them
in the course of the day, is the climax of parempericism;
to administer quite simple remedies, and not to give a second before the action of the first has expired-this, and
this alone, is the direct way into the inner holy place of
art. Make your choice!"t
Hitherto, these pregnant remarks have received only
partial attention. Something, indeed, has been already done
in the way of simplifying prescriptions, but how much more
is yet to be effected!
The publication, in 1796, of the paper first named
(which related especially to chronic diseases), was fol

* "Lesser Writings," ut supra, p. 400.


t Ibid, p. 404.





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


335


lowed at intervals by other essays and treatises, the earlier
of which appeared also in Hufeland's Journal, in which
Hahnemann's views were more fully exhibited. Thus, not
to mention others well deserving your notice, and contained
in the volume of his "Lesser Writings," already so often
referred to, there appeared in 1806 the "Medicine of Experience," in which he promulgated the general application
of the Homceopathic law, and in 1800 the " Organon of
Rational Medicine," in which he advocated its exclusive
use. In the beginning of the year 1805, he published, in
Latin, his experiments on himself and others with twentythree different medicines. In 1811, he issued the first part
of his "Materia Medica," and this elaborate work was completed in 1821.
Upon any detailed notice of these various writings, I
cannot enter here; but, in justice to Hahnemann, I must
not omit to mention, that, in publicly announcing this curative law, he failed not to point out how it was rooted in
the Past; showing, from the writings of Hippocrates,
Paracelsus, Stahl, &c., that, from ancient times, the truth
had been foreshadowed; that the law, although never before thus clearly promulgated and proved, had, in fact,
although unconsciously, been acted on throughout the long
history of medicine. Gradually a small but earnest band
of disciples gathered round him, with whose assistance he
was able to produce the " Materia Medica;" a work, the
very extent of which has been thoughtlessly alleged as a
reason for discrediting his discoveries in the sphere of the
action of medicines; as too great and various for even
the most long-lived and indefatigable of mortal men to
achieve.
What public and private oppositions, loss of friends, accession of enemies, contempt, calumny, persecution, Hahnemann encountered, before his great discovery met with
reception or even public toleration, it is not for me to narrate. Suffice it to say, that in this respect his lot was the





33G     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
lot of nearly all the great benefactors of mankind. And
now, in Leipsic, from which the living Hahnemann was
banished as an "irregular practitioner," publicly sits a
bronze statue, in perpetuam ejus memoriam.  Of the far
nobler monument which has been raised to his name, in a
host of devoted followers extended over the civilised
world, I have already had occasion to remind you.
In now recalling your attention to the mode of inquiry
for a general law of specifics, I would have you consider
how nearly Hahnemann seems to have pursued the track
which I ventured to suggest as a probable means of discovery. Through his preceding labours, an advance has
so far been made, that the first question for you to examine
is not, What is the law of specifics? but, Is the law of
specifics truly Homceopathic?  Is the relation between
the pathogenetic and the curative effects of medicinal substances a relation of similarity?  To this inquiry, then,
gentlemen, devote yourselves in such a spirit as becomes
the true votaries of science, the faithful cultivators of the
art of healing. You will find much help at hand-Books,
Hospitals, Dispensaries, Physicians. Those who have put
the question to Nature, and found her answer "yes," will
give you willing aid in your honest inquiries. I am not
advising you to accept their conclusion without patient
conscientious examination; only, not to refuse their assistance in putting it to the test. There is much help
to be gotten from the experience of your forerunners in
all such investigations; and of this help you may avail
yourselves without becoming their pledged disciples.
It may hardly be necessary to remind you that the close
attention with which, in this inquiry, you will have to study
the phenomena of disease and the actions of remedies, cannot fail to be productive of valuable results to yourselves,
even should you fail to find the pearl you are in search of.
I may forewarn you, that one part of their uniform experience is likely to deter many of you at the very threshold





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


337


-I mean the minuteness of their quantities of medicines.
I will not conceal from you, that, in order to examine with
any measure of candour the Homceopathic system as usually
practised, you will have to divest yourselves of prejudices
which often prove fatal to the ignorant or superficial.
Were I addressing a mob, I might think it necessary to
argue that Nature's instruments are not like brickbats,
which, in order to be effective, must be hard and heavy;
but, in addressing you, gentlemen, I am in a different position-being entitled to assume, on the part of my hearers,
no inconsiderable acquaintance with the silent stupendous
energies by which this order of things is maintained, and
particularly some familiarity with the usual phenomena of
disease. I don't need to remind you of the latent powers
of the smallest seeds, of the virulence of animal poisons, of
the infinitesimal quantity of vaccine matter which will affect
the whole system, and of such other analogous instances;
nor need I tell you that an athletic, robust man, after a few
moments spent in an infected atmosphere, comes out with
the germs of deadly disease; "so inconceivably minute
(to quote the words employed by my distinguished predecessor to prove the necessary impotency of infinitesimal
quantities of medicine), that no sense, no balance, no microscope, no chemical analysis, no human means whatever,
can discover the slightest trace of them in what is administered-that you can never have any surety of their presence, or any well-grounded assurance of their absencethat they defy the finite faculties of man to form even a
distinct conception of them, either with the aid of figures
and the eye, or with the help of a vivid imagination."
Nature is full of such analogies, and, as I cannot here enlarge on this topic, I refer you to a very interesting paper
on this subject by a writer distinguished for eloquence
and scientific attainments which appeared some years ago
(with several others also well deserving your attention), in
a little volume named "An Introduction to the study of
z





338     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
Homoeopathy."*   The paper referred to is one " On the
theory of small doses," by Dr Samuel Brown.
Having already urged on your attention the near resemblance observable between the phenomena of natural
diseases and the effects of drugs, I will now point out to
you that, if it shall appear to be the fact that infinitesimal
doses are curatively efficient, we shall have in this only a
further extension of the same similarity; which will be
even more apparent if the fact be, that quantities too
small to produce generally any noticeable action upon
healthy persons, are yet sufficient to cure some given disease-just as out of twelve healthy persons exposed to some
given infection, one only receives the fatal morbific influence.
In relation to this matter, I trust you will never forget
how great a hindrance to each of the sciences has been opposed by magisterial dogmatism; that in all such inquiries
we have to ask, not what can be, but what is; and that to
such questions nature answers often but in a whisper,
which reaches only the most watchful and docile of her
disciples. I will add, that the alleged curative powers of
infinitesimal doses rests on precisely the same kind of evidence
which attests the curative power of larger quantities; the
amount and particular value of the evidence bearing on
this point it is for you to examine. Plainly, the inquiry is
altogether confined within the range of experience; of the
powers of drugs we know absolutely nothing, a priori; ogly
we are quite entitled to expect in disease an increased susceptibility to the action of any medicinal substance capable
of producing on the healthy body similar symptoms. This
entirely accords with the history of infinitesimal doses,
which were introduced by Hahnemann, not in virtue of
anyruling theory, but in consequence of his observing that as
the quantities were diminished the cures were more certain.
* J. Leath, London.





PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


339


Having now said all that your time will allow me on the
subject of Homoeopathy, as a general system of specifics, I
shall conclude this address with a few observations on
certain tests or criteria, proposed as the means of enabling
inexperienced physicians to discover truth, and to avoid
"'the snares of imposture and byways of delusion," by
the application of which my eminent colleague concluded
the claims of Hahnemann and Homoeopathy to be demonstrably unfounded.
In the first place, it was said to be "undeniable that all
important discoveries in science at large are preceded by a
period of incubation, as it were, during which the world is
gradually prepared to receive them.  There appears a
fitness in the very time of discovery. Hence hints of the
truth precede its development; hence, too, a brief interval
of hesitation on the part of the public is quickly followed
by universal belief. Hence, moreover, arise disputed
claims of invention-a circumstance observed even in most
minor discoveries."
On this criterion, I shall only observe, first, that, so far as
it is justly applicable, it is of no practical value; and,
secondly, that it has no proper application to Hahnemann's
discovery. It is of no practical value, because to examine
the tangible product is a much easier and less fallacious
course, especially for the young, than to inquire into the
period of incubation, and thence certainly determine the
relation of the hypothetical discovery to all previous science.
It is inapplicable to Hahnemann's discovery, inasmuch as
he never stated it to be a novelty; on the contrary, his
great work is the statement of a law of relation, and belongs
to methodology: he is to be classed with Bacon and Newton-by no means with Watt and other inventors; and it
was not in a spirit of thoughtless levity or insolent boasting that he termed it " The Organon of Medicine."
To me, I confess, it is very strange that any educated
physician should imagine the history of medical science to





340     PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.
teach that the most remarkable discoveries in that region
have, after a " brief interval of hesitation," "met with universal.belief."  My colleague, the Professor of Midwifery,
in a recent paper on chloroform, to which I cannot do
better than refer you, told a far other and much truer
story.* Nor will it be doubted by those who have watched
the progress of truth, that the falling in pieces of the old
faith is the inauguration of the new; and thus the prevalent scepticism in medicine, among its most enlightened
votaries, is the extreme darkness which precedes and points
to the dawn of a better day. The next criterion is thus
stated:-" In the second place, all the true discoveries have
made way first among the votaries of the science most immediately concerned with them, and have become matters
of faith and interest with the public at large only in the
second instance. So has it been with therapeutics."
While this position appears to me, gentlemen, only very
partially true, and while the two instances first named in
support of it go far to refute it-I mean " the anti-variolous
property of vaccination" (which, as you are aware, was
established through means of inoculation, introduced into
Europe by Lady Mary W. Montague), and "the prevention and cure of scurvy" (which we owe to the regulations
and management adopted by Captain Cook, in his famous
voyage in the Resolution, afterwards published in the
"Transactions of the Royal Society," 1776)-it will be
perfectly obvious to you, after the preceding narrative of
the early progress of Homoeopathy, that the system which
I have felt it my duty to press on your attention has nothing
to fear from the application of such a test. Its first adherents were all scientific physicians..The third criterion hardly deserves serious notice. It is
thus stated:-" No upright physician ever attained great
"* " Etherization in Surgery." Part I. " Monthly Journal of Medical Science,' September, 1847. See ante, p. 200 (in New Test Act.)





PROPOSED* INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


341


success in practice on a sudden or at an early age." I
should be sorry, gentlemen, by giving in my adherence to
so rash a statement, to libel those of my colleagues who at
a comparatively early age attained eminence as practical
teachers or as physicians. It would be invidious to name
them; but you all know them, and know them to be among
the most distinguished teachers in our University. At
any rate, the criterion has no application to Hahnemann.
It suggests, however, the familiar thought that the progress
of improvements in all departments of practice has ever
been chiefly among the young, for very obvious reasons.
After middle age, the mind, like the body, is more rigid,
and less apt to put itself into new postures and receive
lessons in new processes. Again, it cannot but have occurred to you, that, without rare ingenuousness and mental
activity, an experienced mature physician will hardly consent to be again put to school, acknowledging his juniors
his superiors, that he may learn improved methods, and
acquaint himself with a large field of strange knowledge.
Whether, as is commonly said, the fact be, that almost no
physician above forty years old believed in Harvey's new
doctrine, I cannot tell; but of this I am sure, that the
story, if a fable, bears on its front a most intelligible and
instructive moral. Indeed, all such criteria, by which it is
proposed to divert your attention from urgent scientific
and practical questions, remind one of the old saying,
"Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet;" the aim of which
was, by a plausible but fallacious prejudgment, to exclude
the impartial consideration of immediate, paramount, unanswerable claims. I object altogether to such arbitrary formulas, by which we are asked to decide upon the merits of
new doctrines and practices in medicine.  Even when
applicable, they are indirect, cumbrous, unsatisfactory.
Notoriously, they have been amongst the most serious impediments to the reception of truth, which is by their
means evaded rather than repulsed. They arc quite op




342


PROPOSED INAUGURAL ADDRESS FOR 1852.


posed to the spirit of the inductive philosophy, being a
relic of scholasticism; and you will do well to be on your
guard against all such entanglements. In the pursuit of
truth dare everything-fear nothing but unfaithfulness;
and be sure that the firmer the grasp with which you lay
hold on the objects which from time to time demand
examination, the less likely are you to be deceived as to
their true character. Never be content to take an enemy's
account; rather make it your rule to wrestle with each
important doctrine in the persons of its ablest, if possible,
of its living, expositors; until you have done so, you cannot
know that you are its masters, and may only have been
wasting your strength in idle contest with some of its feeble
or even treacherous followers; making your own overthrow the more sudden and painful whenever one of its
strong men happens to cross your path. And remember
that we can do nothing against Truth: when she comes,
however disguised, it is always as a conqueror; and unless
we do her homage, and follow in her train, we shall either
be trodden beneath her feet, or be cast aside, disarmed,
helpless, contemptible. Gentlemen, make your choice.





TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS
OF
PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.'
'L Cessit immanis tibi blandienti
Janitor AU2E
Cerberus, quamvis furiale centum
Muniant ANGUES caput ejus, atque
Spiritus teter saniesque manet
Ore trilingui."-Hor. Carm.
IN Edinburgh the combat deepens. The last fortnight
has given birth to the pamphlets enumerated below; there
being one from each member of the medical triumvirate at
whose bidding the " regulars" have taken the field against
the practitioners of Homeopathy, with no advantage and
much dishonour. Professors Christison, Syme, and Simpson
* From the " British Journal of Homoeopathy."
1. Correspondence between Professor Christison and Dr George E.
Stewart, on Homceopathy.
2. The Memorial of James Syme, Regius Professor of Clinical
Surgery unto the Honourable Patrons of the University of Edinburgh.
3. Speech at the Medico-Chirurgical Society relative to Homoeopathy: with Notes on the peculiar theological opinions of some
disciples of Hahnemann; &c. By James Y. Simpson, M.D., &c.
4. Letter to the President of the Medico Chirurgical Society of
Edinburgh, on the recent Speeches of Professors Syme and Simpson.
By William Henderson, M.D., Professor of General Pathology.
5. A Letter to the President of the Royal College of Surgeons on
the late proceedings of that body, regarding Homccopathic Practitioners. By James Russell, M.D., F.R.S.E., F.R.C.S.E., &c.
6. Letter to the Honourable the Patrons of the University of Edinburgh on the Memorial of Mr Syme. By William Henderson, M.D.,
Professor of General Pathology.





344


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


appear before the public, resolute to put down I-Iomceopathy; by what means and with what success will be seen
presently.
With some differential circumstances, it will be found
that they stand substantially in one position. All tried and
convicted on their own confession and otherwise of having
given countenance to Homceopathy, compelled under the
sting of the "Lancet" to make their palinode with what
humiliating accompaniments it was thought expedient to
impose, they now appear before the public in Edinburgh as
the leaders of the medical conspiracy which is beginning to
attract general notice. Very unfortunately for them, every
step they have hitherto taken to purge themselves from this
contamination has only added to it, or brought on them even
more serious charges. If the council of the Royal College
of Surgeons of England had any difficulty in coming to the
resolution " that it is not expedient for the college to interfere in the matter," nothing will be more likely to satisfy
them of its unquestionable prudence than the exhibition
now made in Edinburgh by the three chief instigators of an
opposite course of conduct.
On their own confession, they are all guilty of countenancing Homoeopathy, for the resolution of the College of
Surgeons, moved by Mr Syme, expressly states, that to
meet Homoeopathic practitioners in consultation is to do so;
and certainly no less is implied by the previously adopted
resolutions of the College of Physicians, over which Dr
Simpson presides. Dr Christison, more judicious than the
other two, has made no attempt to efface this brand, which
the miserable struggles of the others have only affixed more
indelibly.
It is quite true that the position thus assumed by the
members of these colleges is altogether untenable; it is a
violation of established professional usage and an outrage
upon humanity: but they have sworn to it, and until it is
abjured must consent to be tried by it. They have been





PROFESSOR SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  345
tried and found guilty. Well aware that if to meet in con-sultation any physician practising homceopathically be to
countenance that system now, so it must have been a year,
or two years, or ten years ago, they have been using desperate efforts, under the lash of their inexorable tyrant, the
organ of the English medical mob, to make it appear that
in point of fact they have not committed this offence, or
have committed it only in a venial form, and are willing to
do penance to any required amount. But we must consider their cases in succession.
I. Dr Christison. Not duly estimating the truth of the
saying, that " if speech be silver, silence is golden," this
well-known toxicologist has appeared before his students
as the champion of orthodox medicine and the prompt
slayer of its young rival.  Experienced, yet not wise, in
his antidotal lectures on Homoeopathy, he allowed himself
to make remarks on the conduct of those of the medical
graduates of this year who were, at the time of their examinations, believers in Homoeopathy; for which one of
them called him to account-the result of which appears in
the pamphlet first named.  It is a result on which the
Professor of Materia Medica has no reason to congratulate
himself.
He has exposed his conduct, in thus referring to graduates of the University, to Dr Stewart's severe yet just
rebuke, being told that it was " highly undignified and indiscreet, as well as unacademical."  He has given Dr
Stewart an opportunity to proclaim the fact, that, of the
forty-five students who graduated this year, five were to his
certain knowledge believers in Homceopathy, and as many
more had a leaning to it, and he has "no doubt are now
daily becoming more convinced of its superior efficacy;"
and to announce, for the encouragement of other students
and to the confusion of the Medical Faculty, as follows:
" Indeed, so entirely satisfied am I that in such examinations
any questions tending to elicit a confession of belief, or of





346


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


intentions in reference to practice, are entirely out of place
and irregular, that I was quite prepared, had any such been
put to me, to decline answering them upon that ground,
and to abide the consequences, taking my appeal, in case
of necessity, to the Senatus and Patrons of the University."
This remedy was, however, unnecessary in Dr Stewart's
case; for, although convinced " of the importance of the
Homoeopathic law and of the efficacy of infinitesimal doses
given in accordance with it, on neither of these subjects was
he directly or indirectly asked any questions."
These are but a few of the consequences of Dr Christison's indiscretion. He has given his young and able opponent a fair opportunity to review in detail his lecture on
Homoeopathy, and conclusively to expose its weakness,
showing that by him, as by most of the other professors in
the University, the subject is " as yet unknown or misunderstood."  Upon any examination of Dr Stewart's effective
criticism we cannot now enter, and, recommending it to our
readers, must hasten on to the latter part, in which he
proves Dr Christison to have been plainly, although unwitingly teaching the Homoeopathic doctrine.  But before
doing so we must refer to one of Professor Christison's arguments, which may have weight with the ignorant, and
is a very remarkable instance how possible it is even for a
man of high scientific reputation to speak about Hahnemann's discovery, without having the remotest conception
of its true character. The objection thus appears in the
notes of the lecture on which Dr Stewart's remarks are
founded: "It takes a long time to establish a remedy in
regular practice." " Iodine has been known for thirty-one
years, and its action is still obscure. But in Homoeopathy
we are called on to believe that one sagacious man did at
once what many have been unable to accomplish in many
years."  In reply, Dr Stewart well remarks, " There is in
this no argument against Homoeopathy at all; although I
confess there is in it great cause for admiration of Hahne




PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  347
mann." No argument, certainly, against Homoeopathy;
and the very statement of the contrary proves that Dr
Christison had failed to see that, if Hahnemann's announcement was anything, it was the announcement of a law of
discovery, by which the specific application of medicines to
diseases can be known anterior to any such experience of
their action. Nay more; that not only is the investigation
simplified immensely by getting quit of the uncertain,
varying, disturbing element of disease, but, by the discovery of this law of relation between their effects on
healthy persons and in disease, the whole records of the
past, which narrate cases of poisoning or medicinal aggravations, become at once available as a practical repertory.
Thus, little as he may be thinking of favours in that quarter, Dr Christison's inquiries in the region of poisons become part of the handbook of Homoeopathic practice; and
were his experiments and observations conducted with a
more painstaking, minute accuracy, he might yet confer
serious obligations on the method of practice which it is
his idle purpose to put down.
Nor will Dr Christison be counted blameless for giving
publicity to the fact that the prophylactic powers of belladonna in scarlatina were discovered by Hahnemann-a
discovery made by means of the general therapeutic law
which it thus remarkably authenticates; and if Dr Christison would, on the ground of his medical doctrines, indignantly spurn the living Hahnemann as no fit associate for
him, with what fairness can lie take advantage of one of
the valuable discoveries in medicine in which the great reformer still lives, while he insults the discoverer in the
persons of his honest and able disciples. At any rate, is it
not plain that, by recommending the use of this medicine,
one of its many inestimable fruits, Dr Christison gives
public countenance to the Homoeopathic law?
We can refer to a few only of the passages in Dr Christison's writings, by which Dr Stewart has clearly proved





348


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


him to be guilty of teaching Homceopathy. They are
quoted from his Dispensatory.
1. Tartar emetic.-" Internally (writes Dr Christison
-p. 149) it produces inflammation of the alimentary mucous
membrane, and also, it appears, of the texture of the lungs;"
and per contra we find on the same page among the effects
of this medicine in small doses, " the cure of pneumonia,
pleurisy, and other acute inflammations."
2. Arsenic.-" A great multiplicity of secondary affections has further been observed, among which the most
frequent and most remarkable are, partial palsy, epileptic
convulsions, and dyspepsia with emaciation"-(p. 184); per
contra-(p. 136) "it is one of the standard remedies in
epilepsy;" and (p. 134) " is in small closes a tonic."
3. Kreosotum.-(p. 376.)-" In the human subject its
poisonous action has been sometimes manifested by nausea,
vomiting," &c.; per contra--" it allays vomiting from functional disorder of the stomach;" is also "valuable in the
chronic vomiting of pregnancy;" "and in the most obstinate of all kinds of vomiting-sea-sickness."
Of such examples of the Homceopathic action of remedies, Dr Stewart writes-the work referred to is full; and
leaving the Professor of Materia Medica to make what
terms of reconciliation may be possible with the English
demagogue, we now turn to our next subject.
II. Mr Syme.-No one is more zealous in this business,
or more indiscreet, than the Professor of Clinical Surgery.
Not content with moving in the College of Surgeons the
recent resolutions, by which he has condemned himself as
a countenancer of Homoeopathy, he was the mover in the
Medico- Chirurgical Society of a resolution to the following
effect:-" That the public profession of Homeopathy shall
be held to disqualify for being admitted or remaining a
member;" which came before the society on the 19th November last. From the discussion all strangers were excluded by a unanimous vote, and a report of the proceed




PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  349
ings was afterwards published by authority.*  No doubt
the society sadly wanted cleansing-it was deeply tainted
with Homoeopathy. We don't speak here of the conversions among its members to the system now proscribed,
which might be thought inevitable, but of much more direct countenance given. So long ago as 1842, a paper was
read to the society, the joint production of two well-known
and perfectly inflexible Homceopathists, by one of them
not then even a member of the society, but who was afterwards requested to join it, proposed, balloted for, and
duly elected. The paper we refer to was " on the Pathology of Typhus," and was afterwards published by the request of the editor, Dr Rose Cormack, then a physician in
Edinburgh, in the " Monthly Journal of Medical Science"
for April, 1842. This will serve for one instance of the
society's doings; the other we shall take is a very recent
one. In the number for June last of the " Monthly Journal
of Medical Science "-the sequel to that just referred to"conducted by Professors Christison, Syme, Simpson,
Goodsir," &c. &c.-we find the following:-" Article II.
Evidence of puerperal fever depending upon the contagious
inoculation of morbid matter. By Dr. F. H. Arneth, of
Vienna." (Read before the Edinburgh Medico- Chirurgical
Society, on April 16, 1851.) So our friend Dr Arneth
has been among them!-we are glad to learn it; they could
not have been instructed by a better Homceopathist. But
what comes of the character of the society?-what of the
consistency of the medical triumvirs of Edinburgh?  All
three were giving marked and public countenance to Homceopathy!
It will be admitted that this society had become of quite
Augean foulness in the matter of Homoeopathy; and, as it
had no Hercules, the two biggest men there (or most
zealous) set themselves to cleanse it, by turning into it
* "Monthly Journal of Medical Science." Dec. 1831. P. 581.





350


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


such a stream of vulgar nonsense, impertinence, and calumny as to make it no longer tolerable. It is quite true
that they have been nearly drowned themselves, and that
the mire of Homeoopathy sticks all the faster to them.
But what will not a man do for reputation?-and they
have a merciless taskmaster.
It is remarkable that the very announcement of Mr
Syme's motion, as indicative of a departure from the
scientific purposes for which the society was instituted, led
to the resignation of two members (sons of Mr Syme's
distinguished predecessor in the chair of clinical surgery,
to whose exertions its institution was in great part due);
Dr Rutherfurd Russell, already referred to as having been
solicited to join the society, although well known to be a
Homceopathist; and Dr James Russell, a much older
member of the profession, whose letter to the President of
the College of Surgeons (the fifth on our list) has been one
of the good results of the recent medical conspiracy. A
surgical case in which Mr Goodsir, professor of anatomy,
and another operating surgeon, had refused their services,
except on the condition of the dismissal of the patient's
usual medical attendant (who happened to be a Homoeopathist), avowedly on the ground "that the College of
Surgeons has in its corporate capacity interdicted its members from meeting Homceopathic practitioners," gave occasion to this calm, modest, effective protest against the
present cruel and insolent attempt of the doctors, by means
of combination, to dictate their own extravagant terms to
the public. The following letter to the Editor of the
" Edinburgh News" narrates the case referred to:" SIn,-The first example of the operation of the recent
resolution of the College of Surgeons, that none of its fellows should co-operate with a certain class of physicians,
has just come under my notice; and, as I consider it of
importance that the case should be tried at the bar of public
opinion by the principles of common sense and common





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  351
humanity, I beg of you to give it the benefit of publication
in your widely-circulated paper.
"A few nights ago, about ten o'clock, a respectable
physician was sent for in great haste to see a gentleman
just come from the country. He found his patient suffering from hernia, in great pain and danger. He administered some Homoeopathic medicine, and tried to reduce the
tumour (as the return of the protruded intestines is technically called). He failed, and nothing seemed left but an
operation. Not being himself an operating surgeon, he
went for Professor Miller, who was out of town. He then
went to another, comparatively unknown to the public,
who said he could not go without first consulting Professor
Goodsir; accordingly the physician and surgeon drove to
the Professor of Anatomy. The surgeon went in, and
talked for about half an hour with Mr Goodsir, and then the
physician was told that they could only go on condition
that he did not remain even in the house during the operation,
but gave up the poor sick man entirely to them. To save
his patient's life, the physician consented, and they drove
to the house of the sufferer. On examining the tumour
before proceeding to operate, it returned at once to its
natural situation, showing that the medicine, more true to
nature than the surgeons, had rendered their interference
unnecessary.
" Now, sir, allow me to make a few remarks upon the
principle of this surgical combination. The number of
operating surgeons in any town is very small; there being
not more than six in such a town as this, it is quite easy
for them to combine to effect any purpose they have in
view. If they have the right to extort, under penalty of
death, such an ignominious condition from a patient as
that he shall dismiss out of his house his medical attendant,
and perhaps only friend in the place, they may extort anything else they please. If he must abandon his physician
at the bidding of surgeons, may he not be compelled to





TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


abjure his faith, or to dedicate his fortune to some pious
surgical charity? If once medical mortmain be admitted,
it will prove infinitely more dangerous than clerical. The
surgeon holds present sufferings in his hand, the priest
only threats of future punishment. If the principle of such
a trade's-union be once admitted, the proud boast of medicine, that it is broad as humanity itself, and ignores all
differences of creeds, nations, languages, is at an end; and,
in some parts of Ireland, we may have Orange surgeons
who refuse to save the lives of heretical Papists, while,
in others, the Roman Catholic may recruit the ranks of
his church by victims won by the dexterous use of the
scalpel. As regards Homceopathy, it merely accelerates
the period when, among the number of the many graduates of our University who are embracfng the new
faith, there shall be found some of more than average
manual dexterity and anatomical knowledge, and less
than average sensitiveness of feeling, who will devote
themselves to pure surgery. As regards Professor Goodsir, we acquit him of any personal animosity towards Homceopathy, for some years ago he undertook to write pathological articles in the "British Journal of Homceopathy," and only desisted for fear of offending his less
liberal brethren; but we cannot justify this outrage of humanity, by the plea of his fearing the consequences of
breaking the college law, without admitting the same extenuation for almost all the cruel deeds under which this
earth has groaned, for fear is the parent of cruelty.*I am, &c.,                 J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL."
Mr Syme's speech on his motion was chiefly about him* We are glad to say that, since this occurred, another similar case
happened in the practice of a IHomceopathic physician, and that one
of the most experienced and skilful operating surgeons at once acceded to the physician's request, accompanied him to the patient's
house, and was prepared to perform in his presence any operation
which might be deemed necessary.





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  353
self and Homoeopathic practitioners; there was nothing
worth noticing about Homoeopathy. He referred to Dr
Henderson's statement of having met with him in consultation, in order to gainsay it, which he could not do effectually; and his unhappy attempt had the effect of giving
Dr Henderson occasion in his letter to the president
(No. IV. on our list) to establish his statement quite conclusively, and thus prove Mr Syme to be extremely inaccurate in matters of fact, and, on his own principles,
guilty of giving countenance to Homceopathy.
Mr Syme's speech contains, however, some important
admissions. He is acting under the sting of the " Lancet."
Referring to the statement already noticed, he says, "This
charge has been eagerly adopted by the London medical
periodical press, which, from week to week, represented
Mr Syme as guilty of the grossest inconsistency, in publicly opposing what he had privately countenanced."
Again, as to the examination of students, "As the member of a licensing board, he did not conceive himself entitled to reject any candidate, except on the ground of having failed in complying with the prescribed course of study,
or acquiring the expected amount of information."
If we understand his meaning, Mr Syme has changed
his mind since July last, when he took so remarkable a
part in Mr Pope's examination; and, should his colleagues
also have profited by their experience, such a scene is not
likely to recur for some time in the University of Edinburgh.
Had we nothing of Mr Syme's to notice but his speech
at the Medico-Chirurgical Society, we might think he was
mending; but a perusal of his memorial to the Patrons of
the University (No. II. of our list) must instantly dissipate any such delusion. We have already called the attention of our readers to the recent attempt of the Medical
Faculty to persuade the Senatus of the University to concur with them in an application to the Patrons for Dr Hen2A





354


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


derson's expulsion; to which modest proposal the Senatus
would not listen.* Nothing daunted, this pugnacious Professor resolved to make his singular application, which he
has accordingly done in the memorial of which the title is
quoted. We regret that the document, containing fourteen theses, is too long for insertion here; but we shall
give an abstract of it. Mr Syme humbly showeth, That
he has a direct pecuniary interest in the prosperity of the
Medical School of the Edinburgh University, in which degrees are conferred in accordance with certain regulations;
enjoining attendance on a course of lectures on general
pathology, which must be taken in Edinburgh, the only
medical school in which such a chair exists; the utility of
which has been matter of great doubt.  V. "That the
present Professor of General Pathology has, for some
years past, publicly professed the practice of Homoeopathy,
which is entirely opposed to, and inconsistent with, the
principles which he and his colleagues of the Medical Faculty have been appointed to teach." That, therefore, Dr
Henderson has been expelled from the Medico-Chirurgical
Society. That attendance upon such a course of lectures,
conducted by such a Professor, must be a serious obstacle
to medical graduation; and that the "existence of a Homocopathic Professor in the Medical Faculty" has been
used to create distrust of the soundness of the medical instruction given at the University, &c. That Dr Henderson
was appointed to hold his office ad vitamn aut culpam: that
there can be no greater fault than the profession of Homccopathy, and that, should this be doubted, the Colleges
of Physicians and Surgeons can at once remove doubt by
the expression of their opinion. Finally, the memorialist
humbly prays, that, therefore, the Patrons will 1" declare
the chair of general pathology vacant."
The modesty of this is unsurpassed, unless by its logic.
* See " The New Test Act," ante, p. 196.





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  355
Even were there the gravest grounds for proceedings, to
every one but Mr Syme it would seem highly indecorous
that a colleague should institute them, and that under the
influence of a personal difference: to propose that a chair
in the University should be abolished, that Mr Syme may
be avenged of his enemy. Then look at the logic of this
"insolent" memorial. It might be a reasonable ground
for such an application, could it be alleged that Dr Henderson's teaching was inefficient, because stupid, or inconsistent with established or generally received science; and
a very important question, which we cannot here consider,
would then be raised, as to the measure of liberty enjoyed
by University Professors in Edinburgh or elsewhere. But
the contrary is not denied, nay, has been expressly admitted in one of the recent numbers of Mr Syme's own
journal (June, 1851); at least, there is not one word in
this precious memorial on this, the only relevant point.
The alleged ground of complaint is not the teaching, but
the practice of Homeopathy. There is indeed one way in
which Dr Henderson's practice may be unfavourable to
his teaching of pathology, which we cannot pass over. It
is the province of the professor of general pathology to
teach the natural course of disease, organic and functional.
No doubt his experience of these may be affected by his
mode of practice. By giving poisonous doses he might,
no doubt, have better opportunities of witnessing their
morbid effects; but toxicology is out of his proper sphere.
His business is to know and teach the natural course of
diseases. If it be alleged that the practice of Homocopathy
is unfavourable to such a study, we may admit it; but it
can only be so because the course of diseases is effectually
cut short by Homocopathic remedies, and their full development prevented. Mr Syme is welcome to this admission. If, on the other hand, as Mr Syme assures us, the
Homeopathic medicines are altogether inoperative, Dr
Henderson, in making use of them, is in the best possible





356


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


position for acquainting himself with the natural course of
diseases, which it is his office to teach. By no possibility
can any proposed remedies be more absolutely inoperative,
unless in the way of exposing their author to merited contempt, than Mr Syme's ridiculous memorial. When the
report of the College Committee, to whom this curious
document has been remitted, comes to be considered by
the Patrons, we have no doubt they will tell Mr Syme that
they cannot interfere in the matter if they would, and
would not if they could.*
III. Dr Simpson. Guiltiest of all in the matter of Homaeopathy, and now at last confessedly so, is the Professor
of Midwifery. Following Mr Syme, whose argument as
well as motion he seconded, Dr Simpson tried to excuse
himself before the Medico-Chirurgical Society; but Dr
Henderson's letter convicted him, and Dr R. Russell's set
the matter at rest.  The reference to a joint opinion in his
possession allowed of no evasion. When his meetings in
consultation with Dr Russell had been thus brought into
notice, Dr Simpson suddenly changed his tone, and made a
full confession. In the letter to Dr R. Russell which is
appended to his speech, Dr Simpson writes:-" And do
not suppose, as your letter would seem to imply, that I am
in the least degree ashamed to acknowledge having met
*The following judicious report of the College Committee, unanimously adopted by the Town Council, justifies our anticipations, and
conveys a severe although just rebuke:"The College Committee having considered this memorial, in respect of the terms of Dr Henderson's appointment to the chair of
medicine and general pathology, and that no allegation is made of his
having failed to discharge his professorial duties in terms of his commission and of the royal warrant instituting the chair; and, farther,
in respect that the soundness of all new opinions in regard to medical
science can only be satisfactorily settled by the results of scientific
investigation and experience, the Committee, without giving any
opinion whatever on the subject of Homceopathy, beg leave to refuse
the prayer of this memorial."





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  35 
you at these cases in times past. *  *  *  But that is
entirely a different question from the question of meeting
you or other Homceopathists for the future, now that the
colleges have declared, in their corporate capacity, the impropriety of even seeming to admit in any degree the legitimacy of so-called Homceopathic medicine, by the members of our profession meeting at cases with practitioners
of Homoeopathy, for diagnostic or other purposes. In that
opinion and in that step, I most heartily concur." Indeed,
ashamed or not, he could not but confess that, acording to
the foolish rule to which he so heartily accedes, he had
given countenance to Homoeopathy. Evidence was abundant. Dr Christison's indiscretion had brought to light
one item, in Dr Stewart's words (Correspondence, &c., p.
19):-" Towards the, close of last winter's session, when
Dr Arneth of Vienna was in Edinburgh, he was in the
habit of attending Dr Simpson's lectures. On one occasion, in Dr Arneth's presence, I recollect that Dr Simpson
told his class of a case of vomiting during pregnancy then
under his care. He had launched forth in succession all his
Allopathic appliances-opium, naphtha, prussic acid, &c.
(I forget if chloroform was also used), but without relieving the patient. He had either taken Dr Arneth to see
it, or had told him about it, and the latter recommended
him to try either a quarter or half a grain of ipecacuanha,
I do not recollect which. He acted upon this suggestion,
and with decided good results. Dr Simpson made a remark to the effect, that this, no doubt, looked very like
Homoeopathy, but yet he was bound to acknowledge the
fact."
Aware that a confession extorted at the last hour affords
no claim for mercy, Dr Simpson has made his recantation
with abundant humiliating penance. For one of the most
talented, experienced, instructed, and influential physicians in Edinburgh, one of the Professors in the University, to have been doomed to publish such a pamphlet as





358


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


Dr Simpson's, will surely be held degradation enough,
even by the pitiless tyrant whose scourge urged on the
pen. Looking only to its certain effect on Homoeopathy,
nothing could be more satisfactory than to see one of its
greatest enemies writing such a book; but looking to the
character of the medical profession, which we will not disown or slander even in present circumstances, we cannot
regard this production otherwise than with painful regret.
Untrue statements, feeble arguments, and base insinuations
characterise it throughout; it shews not one sign of true
manhood. To any detailed criticism of such a tract we
will not stoop; but we shall notice very shortly a few of
the more prominent points.
Two reasons for the publication of this speech are stated
in the introductory note; one of them being Dr Henderson's letter, and the other Dr R. Russell's. In regard to Dr
Henderson's, there needs no more be said than that he has
conclusively established his statement, and forced Dr
Simpson to take refuge in the plea of non mi ricordo;
possible defect of memory not having been heard of in his
speech, in which he was on that point quite positive. The
correspondence with Dr R. Russell arose thus. On seeing in the " Monthly Journal" a report of Dr Simpson's
speech, Dr Russell wrote the following note to Dr Simpson:
"Dear Sir,-I observe, in the speech you delivered at
the recent meeting of the Medico-Chirurgical Society,
you speak of having met Homoeopathic practitioners only
twice, and, on both of the occasions, it was Professor Henderson. You must have forgotten that you have met me
several times, and that you signed a formal letter along
with me, beginning, ' We met this day in consultation.'
I take it for granted that you will use the first opportunity
of correcting this inadvertence, as, of course, its correction
will come with a much better grace from you than from
me. May I request a reply to this."
On the 9th December, not having received any answer,





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.   359
he again wrote, calling Dr Simpson's attention to his former note, and adding, that, since sending it, he had again
looked at the report of the speech, and found that it did not
contain, as he had thought, the express statement that Dr Simpson had met Hommopathic practitioners only on the occasions
particularly noticed, but that he still understood the speech
to imply as much.
We cannot quote the whole of Dr Simpson's letter, as it
contains a special reference to the cases in which he had
met Dr Russell in consultation; the publication of which
was a breach of professional confidence, meriting grave
censure; all the more that the fact being that Dr Simpson had visited patients with Dr Russell whenever he was
asked to do so, the particular nature of the malady in any
case was utterly irrelevant to the discussion. No one supposes that Dr Russell wanted Dr Simpson's opinion as to
the best Homoeopathic remedy, his utter ignorance of the
subject being perfectly notorious even before the issue of
this pamphlet. We shall now quote the first few sentences
of this disingenuous letter, requesting our readers to observe particularly how the inuendo conveyed by the words
in italics stand related to Dr Russell's second note, the substance of which has been stated.
"Dear Sir,-Since receiving your letter on Friday, I
have really not had ten minutes of spare time to answer it.
And, let me add (notwithstanding your second note of yesterday), I do not, after all, see how you could very well
expect me to take the trouble of writing a reply. For you
state,' I observe that, in a speech you delivered at the recent
meeting of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, you speak of having
met Homwcopathic practitioners only twice, and on both occasions
referred to it was Professor Henderson.'
"Now you must excuse me saying, and Isay it with pain,
that you never did ' observe' any such statement in my speech;
for no such statement exists in it.
"You add,-' You must have forgotten that you have





360


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


met me upon several occasions.' Not at all; but the subject of meeting or not meeting with you was not in any
way, I assure you, before the Medico-Chirurgical Society;
and even the remarks about meeting Dr Henderson were
only incidentally, perhaps improperly, introduced, when
the real matter of consideration before the society was, in
truth, a matter of principle, and not of persons; and when
the question was, not what we had done with Homceopathists in times past, but what relations we should have
with them for the future."
These passages, along with the one previously quoted,
embrace a great part of Dr Simpson's letter. In the concluding sentences, he presumes to express his opinion of
Homoeopathy, which he designates as "a system of consummate charlatanry." This leads Dr Russell in reply,
after noticing Dr Simpson's acknowledgment of the consultations referred to, to observe, " I shall be glad to
have your opinion on Homoeopathy after you have studied
it, and when you shall have acquired the courtesy of
style which is essential to conducting a correspondence
in the manner to which I am used, and from which I
cannot consent, even for your sake, to deviate."  That
Dr Russell's view of the import of the speech is the true
one, we think, admits of no doubt, and there is just as
little that so it was understood by the society; else what
possible object was there in detailing to the society certain
cases in which Dr Simpson had met Dr Henderson?
When Dr Simpson writes that "the subject of meeting or
not meeting with you was not in any way before the Medico-Chirurgical Society," he writes what is untrue, and
what he could hardly have written had Mr Syme's speech
been published here along with his own; for Mr Syme
had enumerated the Homceopathic practitioners of whom
he had any knowledge, saying of Dr Russell, "that he had
had no communication with him whatever for at least seven
years."





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.      361
From these extracts, our readers will be able to form some
notion of the character of this letter by the President of the
Royal College of Physicians, which, in its tone, style, and
objects, corresponds perfectly with the late notorious resolutions of that body. Of the other pages of this pamphlet, we
would observe that they are even more remarkable. Their
erudition may be in some measure estimated by an enumeration of all the authorities referred to, which we subjoin
in a note.* It might be thought that the man who has travelled from Tartary to Brazil in pursuit of Homoeopathy,
visiting on his way the Mormon Model-Settlement, must
be a very Humboldt. Alas! the perusal of this great work
on Homoeopathy by no means suggests the Cosmos: of high
science, order, or beauty, it bears no trace. It is rather a
Chaos than a Cosmos; yet, out of its most confounded confusions, we shall select for brief remarks a few points which
project out of the general darkness.
And, first, we observe, that the illustrious writer makes
no attack upon the essential principle of Homceopathy;
he nowhere refers to it as being absurd or untrue.    We
accept this as an admission that even the adventurous Professor of Midwifery was not prepared to deny its truth.
The authorities he quotes and the topics he touches do not
by any means approach that high region. Lost in the con* The Mormons or Latter Day Saints. Bradshaw's Guide to the Continent. Ueber die Nichtigkeit der Homoeopathie, Leipsic, 1840. The
Medical Gazette. The Lancet. Confessions of a Homoeopathist (an
impudent, coarse lampoon, which some of our readers may remember). M. Hue's Travels in Tartary, Thibet, &c. Whatley's Logic.
Dr Forbes' Review. Doctrine de l'Ecole de Rio, Paris, 1849. Dr
Wood's Homoeopathy Unmasked. Casper's Wochenschrift for March,
1845. Dr Schubert of Dramburg (no reference). Dr Cormack's
Speech at the late Brighton Meeting. A Sermon, preached in the
Church of St Augustin, Cheapside, by the Rev. Thomas Everest,
rector of Wickwar, 1851. Hahnemann's Organon (with reference
to Psora Theory). Mure's Pathogenesie. Pharmaceutical Journal
for 1851.





362


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


templation of the inexplicable fact, to which he calls the
attention of the society, of there being THREE Homceopapathic chemists' shops in Edinburgh, he never seems
rightly to get out of that sphere of thought. In his view,
a great mystery appears to involve the subject; for he cannot understand that the sale of these wonderful medicines
should be regulated by the vulgar law of demand and
supply.
The ignorance of Homoeopathy apparent in this brochure is unaccountable. That a man should have lived so
long among books, and read so many on all sorts of out-ofthe-way subjects, as Dr Simpson is reputed to have done,
and should never have read any one book treating seriously
of Homceopathy, is worth considering. If the great readers
at the head of the profession be thus, what will the underlings be? Knowing nothing of Homoeopathic literature,
or wilfully ignoring it, this ready writer takes his information from   such sources as " Bradshaw's Continental
Guide;" and having probably never read anyone of Hahnemann's writings, he forms his judgment of the opinions
and character of that remarkable man from what idle
rumours chance to meet him. Thus he concludes with the
author of the " Guide," that because the hospital at Leipsic
contained few beds, therefore Homceopathy must be getting
into disrepute in that quarter; both being alike ignorant
that that institution is one of the few hospitals in Germany supported by voluntary contributions, and that the
very fact of its existence proves much on the other
side.*  It would have been more to the purpose to tell
* The haste with which Dr Simpson has availed himself of every
statement calculated to injure H-omceopathy, without deeming it necessary to inquire how far it might be true, has led him to bring before the public a witness, whose character, when known, must seriously damage the cause he is called to support. In order to exhibit
the present state of Homceopathy in Germany, he quoted some idle
gossip (none of it apparently of later date than 1840) from "Brad




PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.       363
his readers that this year, in one of the public gardens
of the same city, with all due solemnity, a bronze
statue was raised to Hahnemann's memory; or that, in
London, two hospitals have beeen lately established,
containing together nearly    80 beds.     The public of
this country, unlike Dr Simpson, naturally attach more
importance to the state of medical belief at home than
abroad. Yet abroad, too, Homoeopathy has spread far
and wide; from East to West, as Dr Simpson reminds
us;-yes, embracing many climates and creeds. In these
circumstances, it is hard to hold Homoeopathy responsible
for the theological opinions of all its votaries. Finding the
authority of the Colleges laughed at by the public, he wants
once more to call in the Church to stay the advance of
science. Homoeopathists, he says, are heretics in theology
as well as in medicine; and adduces two examples to prove
shaw's Guide to the Continent." The chief authority given by the
writer, a Mr Lee, for his statements that Homceopathy was decaying in Leipsic, is a work, as he states, published by the house physician of a dispensary there, containing "an exposition of the system pursued," entitled, " Ueber die Nichtigkeit der Homceopathie"
-(on the Nothingness of Homoeopathy.) There was published in
Leipsic, in 1835, a work with the following title:-" Homoeopathisches Heilverfahren in chirurgischen Krankheitsfillen, nebst der
reinen Arzneiwirkungen eines neuen wichtigen Antipsoricum, von Dr
Julius Theodor Hofbauer"-(Homceopathic experience in surgical
cases, together with the pure action of a new powerful antipsoric,
" Osmium," by Dr Julius Theodor Hofbauer.) The alleged proving
and published cases were discovered and exposed by Drs Trinks and
Noack as a scandalous fabrication, which proved to be the work of a
man of the name of Karl Wilhelm Fickel, sufficiently notorious as
the only renegade from Homceopathy; to which the apostacy of such
a man could bring only honour. Such is the man on whose statements Mr Lee and Dr Simpson build their important conclusions.
If Dr Simpson wishes to hear more of this friend of his cause, we recommend him to apply, not to the medical, but to the police authorities of Germany, for the last accounts left him imprisoned for swindling. But truly, as Dr Simpson has found, " Poverty," even in
controversy, "makes us acquainted with strange bedfellows."





364


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


it. One of these is a recent French writer, of no authority with any one but Dr Simpson; the other a clergyman
of the Church of England. The sermon referred to we
have not read, and (even if otherwise competent) we can
form no opinion of its theological character from the scraps
Dr Simpson has quoted. We have, however, seen by the
same author a letter to Dr Rose Cormack,* on his recent
speech at Brighton, which Dr Simpson quotes with approval; and should Mr Everest think it worth while to
visit Dr Simpson's attacks on his theology or calumnies on
the subject of Hahnemann and Homeopathy with such a
chastisement as he inflicted on poor Dr Rose Cormack, the
Professor of Midwifery may have cause to repent having
ever meddled with the Rector of Wickwar. At the same
time, although the notion of making Hahnemann or Homosopathy responsible for all the theological vagaries of
his disciples, is too absurd to be treated seriously, we have
no objection that it be so, if only Allopathy have the same
measure. Thus Dr Simpson will get the credit of having
on his side Joe Smith and the Mormons (whom, presuming
too largely upon public credulity, he elaborately likens to
Hahnemann and his disciples); and those gentlemen, about
whose theology we don't know much, but whose doctrines
regarding property are seriously objectionable, whom we
see now and then referred to in the " Times" as committing robbery by means of chloroform. Could not Dr Simpson use his influence with these followers?
Of this same public credulity Dr Simpson speaks much,
and with unquestionable sincerity, else he never could
have hoped, by blindly endorsing them, to put into respectable circulation here old calumnies long since silenced
by exposure elsewhere. To this class belong the wonderful, almost romantic, stories of the poisoning of dukes and
other notabilities, with dreadfully powerful globules. If
* See ante, p. 294.





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  365
he believes the public to be in serious danger of this, he is
a remarkable instance of the credulity we are speaking of;
if he does not believe it, he is guilty of the basest false-,
hood.
For the educated non-medical public, Dr Simpson seems
to have a supreme contempt. They are quite unfit, he
says, to judge properly of such doctrines as Homceopathy
and Mormonism; on the one they ought to accept the
opinion of the doctors, on the other of the clergy. Yet,
after all, as we shall see presently, his final appeal is to
"common sense."   He thinks it necessary to tell them
"that men labouring under disease, even the most acute,
and, consequently, much more so when suffering under
slighter ailments, do not, as a general rule, die even when
untreated." With this truth the public have been long
familiar; nay, they know more-that, even when treated,
people do not generally die, although Dr Forbes's opinion
is becoming a very common one, that the benefit of average medical treatment is extremely problematical. We
are agreed that if people die under infinitesimal doses they
die by nature, not by medicine; under much other treatment the cause of death is doubtful.
Again, he says, "We have a confession of faith, and a
standard by which we can judge such men, namely, THE
STANDARD OF COMMON SENSE."    We are delighted to see
this; it is what we have always contended for; only let it
be the "common sense" of the thoughtful, the informed,
the candid, and we have everything to hope:: we fear Dr
Simpson's appeal is to the common sense of the most
vulgar. Witness a specimen of the logic of one who
parades Whatley's name (p. 13). "If a grown-up man
were gravely and seriously to assert to the world that two
and two make five, the world would be inclined to look
upon him as doubtfully rational, inasmuch as he defied the
principles of common sense. And when other grown-up
men now tell the world that they can cure this or that dis




366


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


ease with a billionth or decillionth of a grain of this or that
common and probably even inert drug, they express an
opinion perhaps even more intensely and directly absurd
than the doctrine of two and two making five." To argue
on any subject with one who does not distinguish between
the certain truths of the Reason, and the acquired empirical knowledge of natural agents, the powers of which we
cannot tell a priori, could serve no good purpose. What
the necessary healing quantity of any drug may be is a
matter of experimental investigation, not of abstract reasoning; and long lines of figures or other more popular illustrations, are altogether irrelevant to the inquiry. The
stars shine on us, although we can form no conception of
distances so great that billions are the units with which
the astronomer measures; and strong men, after a few
minutes spent in an infected chamber, come out with the
seeds of a mortal disease, "so inconceivably minute, that
no sense, no balance, no microscope, no chemical analysis,
no human means whatever, can discover the slightest trace
of them in what is administered."''
It is certainly remarkable that Dr Simpson should find
the action of infinitesimal doses more incredible than the
phenomena of animal magnetism.
It was to be expected that a man with Dr Simpson's
gross views of the nature of medicinal action, should scoff
at Hahnemann's profound (though, perhaps, erroneous)
speculations on the origin and transmission of disease.
No doubt Dr Simpson knows all about this hidden matter;
teaches perhaps as historical fact the pretty myth of Pandora's box.
Although well knowing that "regular" medicine has
plenty to tell of offensive nauseous remedies; that such
things as viper broth, snail soup, and spider ointment
* Professor Christison's Inaugural Address against Homreopathy,
quoted by Dr Simpson.





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.  3G7
(much recommended by Anthony and Cleopatra's physician, Dioscorides), had been held in veneration before
Hahnemann was born, Dr Simpson has yet thought it
worth while to notice with minute detail some not very
nice insect remedies which have been proposed (preparations of the acarus scabiei, &c.), but which we have neither
given nor taken; Dr Simpson may like the subject, we do
not-and shall here part with him.
Having now taken such a glance as our time has allowed
at each in succession, we shall make a remark or two on
the absurd position in which they all stand, and into which
they have misled their too thoughtless followers, by the
adoption of the recent resolutions. From our preceding
remarks, it is quite plain that physicians using the most
approved remedies cannot help countenancing Homceopathy; and it is obviously unjust, and will not be tolerated,
that equal privileges should be denied to members of the
profession whose discoveries are making valuable additions to medical science. When it is said that members of
the colleges will have nothing to do with practitioners of
Homoeopathy, the public will insist upon knowing what
that means. Throughout the discussion in the colleges,
indeed, the way in which the interests of humanity are
left out of sight, as altogether too insignificant a matter to
be thought of, has not failed to attract notice; and in some
form an early reckoning will be held. Within closed
doors, it may be sufficient to brand with a nickname the
practitioners of a more than usually successful and popular system of cure, and to doom them to expulsion from
common professional intercourse; but when the public are
asked to countenance the persecution, they will require
something more definite than a name. What then do the
resolutioners mean? Are they prepared to abjure all remedies that shall be found to fall under the Homocopathic
law? Will Dr Simpson never again cure chronic vomiting
with half a grain of ipecacuanha, or Dr Christison treat





368


TRIAL AND CONFESSIONS OF


pneumonia with small doses of tartar emetic, or Mr Syme
dare to use arnica? Is that their meaning? Or is it that
the small doses are the only ground of quarrel? In that
case a minimum must be assigned, the transgression of
which shall infer expulsion.  At present, in the mere
matter of quantity, there is more difference between the
high and the low Homceopathic dilutions, than between
the last of these and the small doses frequently prescribed
by Drs Christison and Simpson. If half a grain be too
much, may not Dr Simpson give '/4th of a grain, or '/th,
or 1/0ooth, or even 1/1oooth, without incurring banishment?
Of all possible spectacles, a grand schism in the medical
profession, on the sole ground of the quantities of the
drugs prescribed, is about the most melancholy; and
when such a disastrous course is violently urged by those
who, on their own confession, have made no experiments
with a view to ascertain in how small quantities medicines
are efficacious remedies, and against those who have had
large experience on the subject, leading to the conviction
that minute quantities are best, the measure can only
be regarded as the attempt of a dominant sect to crush
their advancing rivals by force of authority.  When
the matter is pushed to such an extremity, that the
patient may die while the operating surgeon is requiring the physician to repeat the articles of his faith, it
is surely time that the creed should be known, and the
shorter it is the better.  Let it be "in certis unitas, in
dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas!"
P.S.-Since these pages were written, Dr Simpson has
published a second edition of his pamphlet, on which we
can here make but one or two remarks.
Our first is, that we congratulate Dr Simpson on the
progress he has made in a fortnight; and, should he continue to press on with the same energy, he will soon be in
medias res of this controversy. He has already come to the





PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.    369
rough statement of the Homoeopathic law; the next time
we meet him he will have learned something of its necessary limitations and conditions, for he has now taken to
consulting the writings of credible Homoeopathists, instead
of judging of their opinions, as heretofore, from the statements of their most reckless calumniators. He has vet
hardly touched the surface of the argument; when he goes
deeper into it, we shall be glad to fight the battle once
more. Before he can be entitled to such consideration, he
must have learned to distinguish the Homoeopathic system, the extension and success of which depends upon no
secret remedies or local circumstances or personal influence, from the instances he quotes of individuals here
and there having for a time achieved wide and yet very
unenviable reputation as administrators of some one treatment. He must abandon his old vice, to which he still
holds, of classing Homceopathy with the pretended infallible universal remedies. To a thoughtful mind, it will be
quite apparent that nothing can in truth be more essentially unlike belief in one universal specific than faith in the
prevalence of a law of relation, according to which the remedies must be as indefinitely various as are the phenomena
of disease. Dr Simpson's own practice approaches much
nearer to that referred to than does the Homoeopathic; for
he applies the same remedy to many dissimilar states of
body, which any good Homceopathist would consider malpractice.
Dr Simpson has yet to learn that, although the Homoeopathic law be universally true, its application to practice
must yet be extremely difficult; and that thus occasional
or frequent failure no more proves it fallacious, than the
failure of ninety-nine out of a hundred arrows to pierce the
bull's-eye disproves the law of projectiles. Homoeopathy
is not more than fifty years old, and has much to learn;
yet the strength of its youth gives promise of a supremely
victorious manhood.
2B





370   PROFESSORS SYME, CHRISTISON, AND SIMPSON.
Audacious as ever, Dr Simpson not only denies the efficacy of small doses, but disputes the alleged provings.
Not only are the alleged cures by infinitesimals ascribed
by him to imagination, but the alleged effects of large
doses, taken for the purpose of ascertaining their action.
If Dr Simpson knew anything of the evidence on this subject, even he would hardly hazard such a line of argument.
Into the details on which he enters we cannot now follow him; but, rejoicing in the improved tone of his treatment of the subject, we must here part with him-leaving
to other hands, or another opportunity, the particular exposure of his many errors and fallacies. Before he can
be ripe for the discussion of this vital question, he will
have to spend more hours than he seems yet to have spent
minutes on its examination. Aware that it is the great
medical question of the day, he seems resolved to prosecute
it; and we hope to meet him again.





DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS
AT THE
SECOND CONGRESS OF HtOM(EOPATHIC
PRACTITIONERS.
HELD AT LONDON ON THE 23D AND 24TH JULY, 1851.*
GENTLEMEN,-It is now nearly a century since the birth
of the great man to whom we owe the reformation which
gives us our distinctive appellation and task; and a bare
recital of the leading events which have been more or less
caused or affected by the idea he first embodied and taught,
would more than occupy the space allotted to this address.
But it would be more profitable could we discover the
spirit which shaped itself in these outward effects, for it is
only by so doing that history becomes an oracle, directing
us how to act, and telling what we may anticipate.
The career of Hahnemann is too familiar to us all to require narration here. The features of his character most
important to bear in mind, when we attempt to estimate the
results of his life, are those which he derived from the
country of'his birth, and those which he shared in common
with all great actors in this world's drama.
Germany, that land of promise, of promise unfulfilledthat land which has so often given us a prince for our
throne and a monarch in the realms of thought-was emSFrom the "British Journal of Homoeopathy," Vol. ix.





372


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


phatically his fatherland. There he acquired that width
of culture and experience corresponding to his future elevation; thence he derived that simplicity, a frequent attendant if not essential attribute of high genius-a simplicity blended with lofty imagination, which delights to
recognise a symbolic significance in things of everyday
life. Thus, upon one occasion being visited in his retreat
at Ccethen by a disciple who had often heard of the garden
attached to his house which afforded him his only exercise,
being at the time unable from the hostility of his persecutors to venture beyond his own threshold, in reply to
the natural observation of " How s mall this much talked-of
garden of yours is, Hofrath," he observed, "Yes, it is
narrow, but (pointing to the sky) of infinite height." His
enemies could not interdict his ascent, however much they
circumscribed his rambles. And thus he became a
"Type of the wise, who soar but never roam,
True to the kindred points of heaven and home."
From the too great inclination of his countrymen to exalt
the ideal over the practical, what might be called a tendency to run to ghost, he was saved by an intense desire, inherent in all reformers,to give substantial reality tothe truth
he had won from "the void and formless infinite." To the
critical element so excessive in his time and country, and
which now threatens all creeds and systems with destruction, he united a faith firm as that of a former and greater
age and the zeal of a prophet, which, even in the act of
consuming the old and false, quickens into being a higher
and more enduring form of life. To this combination of
opposite qualities, to the profound abstract thinker, the
scientific inquirer united with the vehement preacher,
and the sagacious man of the world, do we owe one of the
greatest achievements recorded in the annals of science.
As Hahnemann's character, like that of all men whose
lives have told directly upon the human race, was essen




SECOND HOMOEOPATHIC CONGRESS.


373


tially national, so the development of his system in the
various lands where it took root presents distinctions
equally characteristic of their inhabitants. In Germany,
great in men and ideas, and little addicted to spontaneous
organisation, no sooner was the doctrine promulgated,
than it was partially accepted, exposed to the keen critical
acumen of its subtilising intellect, commented on with the
easy candour of philosophical scepticism, and when practically espoused it encountered the risk of being lost in
absurd extremes; for, while the Hochpotenzers waged war
with the Specifikers, both were warned from the camp of
the thirtieth regiment of regulars. And now we may even
descry in the distance the Homceopathic sceptic, which
seems to me the strangest of all anomalies. In short, in
Germany men prefer taking the watch to pieces to trying
whether it will go. Hence, notwithstanding the number,
ability, and industry of its adherents, the system has not
made the impression on its native land which it ought to
have done, and which it would have done, had the Germans
been a more practical nation.  Let us at the same time
frankly acknowledge our immense obligation to them, for
they seem destined to grow seed-corn which they may not
eat.  Vos non vobis is painfully applicable to this noble
race. Alas, that in the land which gave to us the art of
printing, the press should be gagged!
Although we are now in possession of a Homceopathic
map, by that zealous apostle of the cause who gave such
volcanic life to it in Sicily, yet we shall not venture upon
the " grand tour," but content ourselves by applying the
principles we have indicated to the progress of the reformation in Britain and America.   We unite these two
countries, for they are of one tongue and lineage. In fact,
America is the extreme development of Britain in one direction; more than rivalling its parent in energy and enterprise, and presenting almost in caricature those features
in which both they and we differ from Germany.





374


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


We may venture without offence to say, that this country, chosen by all the earth to rear the palace for the coronation of commerce, is pre-eminent among the nations.
But great as it is nationally, we look in vain for individuals who hold a corresponding pre-eminence among those
of other lands. The greatest state seems to have only
small statesmen.
The same holds even more emphatically true of America.
There as here, the excellence consists in the application
rather than the conception of ideas. Hence, as we might
have expected, Homceopathy was imported ready-made
into these countries, and put to use. The first to give it a
firm footing here was Dr Quin, who, with other rare qualifications for the task, was eminently a man of the worldsagacious, practical, adroit, and bold.  The very man for
England. Soon others rose, all more or less distinguished
by this vigorous, practical character, and whose success in
every case corresponded to the amount of those qualities
they possessed. Over the country in all directions there
sprung up practitioners, who with true English instinct organised institutions, such as dispensaries with a committee
of management, which now serve as so many centres of
independent growth and development, and are spreading
like a ganglionic system over the whole island. So that,
whereas ten years ago there was but one or two such institutions in the kingdom, there are now above forty, almost
all of which have a regular board of management, generally
comprising persons of great social influence, and are so far
independent, that in the event of the removal of the practitioner to whom they owe their origin, means would be
immediately taken to secure another. Like all British institutions, they have so much stability and plasticity, that
individual losses can no longer affect their permanence.
The number of patients who have been treated at the various dispensaries is now very great, certainly not less than
100,000. In America, too, there exist associations of all





SECOND HOMWEOPATHIC CONGRESS.


375


kinds for the promotion of Homceopathy, some of which
have even been sanctioned by the state and incorporated
by charter, and obtained the right of granting college degrees, as in Pennsylvania.
To the mere historian this is a pleasant sight, for it assures us that Homoeopathy of a icind has laid so firm a hold
of the practical English and American mind, that nothing
can now check its steady and rapid advance. It has twice
proved its power to combat the most deadly of modern
plagues, with an amount of success unparalleled by any
other method. The result of the Homceopathic treatment
both of cholera and yellow fever has greatly increased the
public confidence in the system, and won adherents from
the old school of physic.
There are now no less than three hospitals in full operation, all ably equipped with efficient medical officers, and
presided over by men of more than British lustre and renown. So that, if there be any truth in history, we may
predict for our reformation a future more abundantly triumphant than its brief past. For every day as it adds to
the bulk increases the momentum of the body.
But to us to whom the internal development of this great
truth is committed, there is much ground of anxiety. It
is by no means flattering to our vanity, that while it has
done so much for us we have done so little for it. We can
scarcely point to one original idea suggested, and to but
one important medicine added by us, nothwithstanding the
multitude of books which have been written both here and
in America. And it well becomes us to be modest in the
height of our success, seeing we owe it so entirely to the
ill-requited labours of others, many of whom are scarcely
known even by name. Far be it from me to presume to
say this in the way of reproof; I merely indicate it as the
natural consequence of importing a scientific discovery into
this intensely practical and unideal country. Probably the
numerous practitioners who have done so much to establish





376


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


and extend this truth, have been of more benefit than had
their time been spent in proving new medicines, or re-investigating the properties of those already proved.
But we are now entering upon a most critical period of
our history, and we shall require in the prosperity we confidently anticipate more wisdom to guide our course than
when we were insignificant in numbers and reputation.
The opposition we are experiencing from the practitioners
of Allopathy is quite out of proportion to any mischief they
conceive our system calculated to produce; and they seem
to be acting under the convulsive apprehension of speedy
personal extinction. Indeed their recent doings display an
amount of folly approaching to the state of the " quem Deus
vult perdere," and it requires no great prophetic power to
foretell the result. It would certainly have been more congenial to the better part of our natures, had the inevitable
process of the absorption and extinction of the antiquated
and feeble by the fresh and vigorous proceeded more gradually, and with a less mortifying exhibition of the mean
passions which lie dormant in every heart, and display
themselves when provoked by selfish fear and cupidity.
But this was not to be: and, in the age which boasts so
loudly of its enlightenment, liberality, and toleration, we
have seen the most celebrated medical University of Europe
stoop to an act of as base and cowardly persecution as any
which roused the eloquence of Luther against the perfidy
of the Vatican.
It is with profound regret we contemplate the ruinous
course adopted by these venerable institutions. Cato's famous sentence, "Delenda est Carthago," proved bad advice:
for with the fall of Carthage began the decline of Rome.
And we should gain infinitely more by a generous rivalry,
than by this bitter hostility between the two opposing
schools of medicine.  But we fear that to expect this
would be to confound the ancient St Andrew's Knight of
the Lance with the modern St Andrew's Day of the





SECOND HOM(EOPATHIC CONGRESS.


377


Lancet.* One thing, however, is certain, that as the Red
Indian, in spite of his tomahawk and scalping-knife, disappears more rapidly before the ploughshare than the rifle,
so the overthrow, or, what would be far better, the conversion of our antagonists will be more accelerated by our
peaceful development than by any aggressive measures.
True, it is not easy to bear with the "silent magnanimity of nature" the furious assaults of the incessant
scribblers in the medical press, to say nothing of the torrent of gibes and taunts to which we are daily exposed.
But now that "Punch," that London Puck, has volunteered his services to command the Joke-corps in this forlorn hope, we may expect to be relieved from the wearisome repetition of attempts at witticism by those whose
silly laugh is only now tolerated in society on account of
their obvious want of knowledge and good breeding. By
the by, "Punch" should clearly be on our side, for he
must claim descent from the Laughing Philosopher, and
Democritus was the first to announce the Homoeopathic
doctrine, in his famous answer to Hippocrates, who was
sent by his foolish townsfolk to cure of insanity the sanest
man of his day.
The rapid progress of our system, involving as it must
do the gradual reversing of our relation with the old school,
will endanger the loss of that wholesome stimulus which
makes each of us feel that he is at present working in the
field of a microscope, with the eye of anything but charity
fixed upon his actions. If this be withdrawn, there will be
considerable risk of the distance between the physician and
his patients being too much diminished, and that not so
much by the elevation of the latter as the depression of the
former.
So long as our whole strength is expended in diffusing
"* The Medical Faculty of St Andrews, which has suddenly become
so very sensitive of its reputation, consists of-one Dr Day.





378


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


rather than augmenting truth, we are tending to equalise
the amount of knowledge whose difference distinguishes
the professional and non-professional public. When we
read a popular treatise on Astronomy, by Herschel, we are
conscious that in his capacious mind there lie vaults of
wealth beyond what he has thought proper to produce for
our instruction, and the light he gives, though enough for
our unpractised eye, only confirms our previous estimate
of his unattainable elevation. But it is far otherwise with
popular works, written by those who have not yet obtained
the medal of the Legion of Science. The amateur, when
he has mastered his manual, imagines more or less foolishly
that he is equal to its author, and expresses his confident
opinion upon all matters contained therein.  This is the
natural consequence of the arithmetical aspect of our books
of reference. Once admit the principle that the selection
of a remedy depends upon the mere number of the symp-,toms it has in common with a disease, and it requires a far
less complex machine than that of Babbage to supersede
the necessity of calling in a doctor. It is not easy for those
just entering upon domestic practice, with plenary powers
derived from Jahr and Company, to understand how we
can admit in its fullest extent the value of the simple rule
as an unerring guide to the choice of the right remedy, and
yet maintain that its application is so difficult that even
HIahnemann, in the full maturity of his experience, exclaims: that he should feel inclined to worship as a God
the man who was thoroughly acquainted with all the virtues that lie in belladonna alone.  So that the complaint
of the Father of Medicine: Ars longa vita brevis, experientia
fallax, holds as true now as it did two thousand years ago.
Without wishing to wrap ourselves in a cloak of mystery,
or to assume the odi-profanum-vulgus air, it is quite obvious
that every art has its multitude of technical peculiarities,
which require the apprenticeship of a life thoroughly to
master, besides its simple laws, which may be under




SECOND HOM(EOPATHIC CONGRESS.


379


stood by any person who takes the pains to reflect upon
them.
The obvious remedy for this awkward approximation of
the two classes, is to set before ourselves a higher standard
of attainment, such as Hahnemann had. It is by working
in his spirit and towards his ideal that we are his disciples,
and not by servile copying of his written directions, much
less by implicit faith in the traditionary legends about his
miraculous cures. And, perhaps, I may take the liberty
of pressing on your attention the claims of the Journal with
which several of us are connected. It has been the anxious
wish of the editors that it should represent the growth of
our system; and, among the testimonies to the recognition
of its value, we have one more flattering than agreeable in
the fact of a reprint to the amount of a thousand copies
having been made in America.    I should hardly have
thought myself entitled to advert to this, had there been
an active scientific spirit manifesting itself in other directions, but I fear we are content with what we have attained
to, and perhaps nothing but a sharp reverse will teach us
that the end of growth is the beginning of decay; that not
to go forward is to go back; and whenever we cease to gain
we begin to lose. In the words of Goethe"Stumbleth he who runneth fast,
Dieth he who standeth still;
Nor by haste nor rest can ever
Man his destiny fulfil."
Now that, backed by so powerful and distinguished a
body of supporters, we have given a challenge to all other
schools by the opening of public hospitals, it is of the utmost
consequence that, excelling them in our special method of
treatment, we should equal them in our general attainments.
We cannot over-estimate the value of our hospitals; not
only nor indeed mainly on account of the statistical evidence they are calculated to afford, but as presenting a
field of observation to inquirers.  For medical statistics





380


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


are generally very fallacious. It is a common error to
transfer the certainty of numbers to the things they indicate but do not represent. Numerals are simple unchangeable substantives, and never vary in their material relations. Two is, and always must be, equal to two. But
when they become adjective, then this no longer holds true.
Two men are not necessarily equal to two men. It is a
common error to suppose that, because calculation is so
valuable in ascertaining the probable duration of life,
some similar process may be applicable to questions regarding the treatment of disease. This essential difference is overlooked, that in the former case the elements of
the calculations are extremely simple, and in the latter just
the reverse. We know that within a given space of time
all now alive shall be dead. It is no very difficult problem
to find the probable term of each life; although all we
can even here determine is the aggregate, not the individual period of death. But it is altogether different with
disease. Disease is not a thing, it is an abstract term for
a combination and series of changes occurring in a living
person. And if two men are not equal to two men, much
less are two sick persons equal to two other sick persons,
though all are ill of the same disease. When we speak of
two cases of brain-fever, we mean two individuals differently organised originally, subjected from their birth to
different influences which have modified and increased
their primary dissimilarity, and who have into the bargain
a morbid action going on in an important organ, and which
probably still more exaggerates their natural unlikeness.
Thus they may differ in every other respect and agree
only in this, that their brain is inflamed. And yet all
these enormous differences are overlooked, and they are
secured as so many equal atoms to be subjected to an endless process of multiplication and addition, and from data
thus imperfect are drawn, algebraical formula which we
are told are as certain as the propositions of Euclid.





SECOND HOM(EOPATHIC CONGRESS.


381


I do not wish to undervalue statistics, but merely to suggest the propriety of carefully limiting them to their legitimate sphere of application, which seems to me to have
been transgressed by some of our ablest physicians.
There are few of our reasonings for practical purposes
founded upon mathematics; but there is another kind of
evidence, far more accessible and equally cogent-the direct appeal to the senses. We do not recognise a thing by
enumerating its properties, but by a much more rapid and
subtle process. As no sane man can doubt, after a certain
number of times, that he can be mistaken in the appearance of a simple, obvious, and well-marked disease, so may
the same certainty attend the observation of manifest effects
of remedies when their operation is watched. Hospital
reports, especially tabular ones, are open to a thousand
objections; but seeing is believing, and any one who is
familiar with disease, and sees its course modified or arrested under our treatment in a way he never saw before,
cannot resist the conclusion that the result is due to the
means employed. Besides the conviction obtained by those
who observe for themselves, we cannot doubt but that the
fact of cultivated and trustworthy physicians attesting their
belief in the system from personal observation, has an invaluable effect in inducing others to pursue a similar course.
Nor is the advantage to the student entering the profession
to be overlooked. It becomes us to afford all facilities to
those who venture to oppose the tyrannical decrees of universities and colleges, and to give them every encouragement in the prosecution of those studies for which they have
to encounter the risk of degradation and insult. Every
hospital is a school, and while we should deeply regret to
see candidates for the Homoeopathic diploma separating
themselves before the termination of.their curriculum from
their academic fellows, yet, whether the degree is to supersede or to be superadded to that of the old school, it is quite
obvious that before long some examination into the quali




382


DR RUSSELL'S ADDRESS AT THE


fications of those who profess to practise Homoeopathy will
be demanded by the public and granted by the state. And
I trust that the claims of Edinburgh may not be forgotten.
We have already one Professor there, who is now doing us
valiant service; and I feel assured that the recent futile and
malignant attempt to deprive him of his well-earned position will more clearly demonstrate the fact, that, so far from
a profession of Homoaopathy disqualifying a teacher from
giving instruction in the preliminary branches of study, the
greater nicety of its therapeutics demands a more intimate
acquaintance with all the varieties of morbid action, the
laws of which constitute pathology. For if the system we
have devoted our lives to advance and improve be something more than a cabalistic spell muttered over fantastic
globules, if it be indeed one of the greatest thoughts of the
day, then it must assimilate to itself all true knowledge
and learning. If the sciences were ever necessary to medicine, they are more so now.  Truth fulfils, never supplants truth.  The value of the past is enhanced by the
present, as the revelations of the Old Testament could not
be fully understood till the promulgation of the New.
Indeed, it is one of the most gratifying reflections how
naturally all the cognate sciences and curative methods
arrange themselves round the central truth of Homeopathy.  Thus we welcome all the contributions of the
chemist and pathologist, as well as the instructions of
those who have studied the application of water in its various relations to disease, and all practical investigations
on that most mysterious of curative agencies-mesmerism
-which even in the cradle rouses such undue fears in the
timid, and excites equally exorbitant hopes in the credulous. In short, we give a hearty welcome to all appliances
which promise to eradicate the distempers or alleviate the
sufferings and prolong the life of the family of mankind.
We do not even fanatically refuse the measures employed
by our Allopathic brethren. (For though the Jews do not





SSECOND HOM(EOPATHIC CONGRESS.


383


study the New Testament, that is no reason the Christians
should not study the Old.) We find in the dietetic medicines, such as cod-liver oil, a valuable auxiliary to our
specific treatment. Much less do we reject the improved
methods of diagnosis, so elaborately and successfully cultivated by many Allopathic physicians, and one of the most
recent innovations in an important department of practice
has been largely tested and warmly advocated by one of
our most energetic and distinguished practitioners.
Indeed, we confidently anticipate the day when Homceopathy and Allopathy, and all such discordant sectarian
names, shall merge in one general system, and when there
shall be but one art of healing as there is but one'Hope,
one Faith, one Life, and one true Physician. To hasten
the advance of this glorious consummation, requires higher
attributes than any that science affords. It demands of us
to forget the petty jealousies which have done so much to
retard our progress, and that we should act with more
mutual toleration and larger charity.
Let us then unite in a higher sense than we have yet
done, helping and cheering one another in the arduous task
committed to our care, and above all things keeping each
his own honour unsullied; that thus we
May bear without abuse,
The grand old name of Gentleman,
Defamed by every Charlatan,
And soiled by most ignoble use.





A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.
THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.*
AFTER having done duty, like other provincials, for two
days at the Royal Bazaar in Hyde Park, we started for
Dover, to make the most of our brief holiday. Arriving
there at half-past eleven o'clock at night, we encountered
a scene of indescribable confusion. A multitude of porters
contended fiercely for the luggage, and the victorious party
having piled a cartload on a large barrow, set off, with a
speed and noise of a fire-engine, to the quay. The event
showed we had need of all our speed, for the boat was already off: we hailed it, and seeing what a multitude we
were, it put back to within a trunk throw of the edge; the
porters pitched the luggage on board, and we followed in
its wake, and in a few minutes we were on our voyage.
Being midnight, we asked for beds, and were directed to
the cabin. On descending, we found it filled by successive
layers of human beings, quite a model for a slaver. Perceiving an unoccupied crevice above the third tier, we
picked our steps, amid a polyglot of execrations from the
half-awakened mass of sleepers, to the edge of a sofa where,
in a profound sleep, lay an exhausted Sclav or Teuton, and,
making a pedestal of his chest, we reached our dormitory.
* From the " Edinburgh News," and " British Journal of Homoeopathy."





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


385


Passing through Belgium, by way of Ostend and Liege,
we hastened on to Cologne, and were soon upon the berhymed river. It is always a pleasant variety floating on
the Rhine, not so much on account of the scenery, which
has always appeared to us much overrated, but for the
abundance of amusing scenes the steamers afford. The
dinner on deck is a great treat. The sharper with his
large moustache, his low brow, keen eye, wide trousers,
and polished boots, brushing his hair, before the engagement, wit hs p, and aj uin his pocket-brush, and adjusting his whiskers at
the looking-glass on the back of it; then the resolute German, pleased at the prospect of a good long uninterrupted
edification; next the London party-the pursy old gentleman, out of all patience at the sour wine, weak soups, and
endless succession of anonymous and unintelligible fractions of fish, fowl, and flesh, while his interesting daughter
does her best to keep him in good humour, and tries to
speak German, learned specially for the occasion, to the
garcon, who, supposing it English, pertinaciously replies in
the Rhine dialect of that tongue. But we forget that most
of our readers are probably familiar with such scenes. Our
objection to the Rhine is its want of a background; you
see at once all that is to be seen, pretty headlands and
picturesque ruins, but nothing grand. The Danube is far
finer.  There we have always to the picture a frame of
snowy-peaked hills, which are delightful to the eye from
the contrast of light, and are a sort of stepping-stone to
the imagination into the remote unknown they bound and
barrier.
We left the Rhine a little way from Frankfort, and proceeded next day to Baden-Baden, en rcute for Switzerland.
But it was otherwise determined. The-evening of our arrival was calm and beautiful, but soon we felt the deadening sensation of an approaching storm. The clouds lay
like large slates upon the sky, and for some hours vivid
flashes of lightning leapt from edge to edge, without any
2c





386


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


thunder. As night closed in, we returned to our hotel,
and had scarcely reached it when the rain came down like
a tropical waterspout; it continued, along with thunder
and lightning, all night, and in the morning the roads
were impassable. A small brook, a mere "burn " on the
yesterday, was to-day a tumbling, roaring river like the
Rhone. The kitchen of the hotel was filled with water,
tables and chairs were floated away, trees soon began to
come down, and heaps of firewood. One hotel (the English)
was surrounded with water-its inmates had to be removed
in carts; streets had become canals, and invalids were carried on men's shoulders to the higher parts of the town.
What were the inhabitants about all this time?  Most of
them, wrapped in huge cloaks, with umbrellas over their
heads and pipes in their mouths, were contemplating the
work of havoc, and perhaps speculating on the laws of
hydraulics, only doing nothing. It was a strange contrast
to such a scene at home, exhibiting so strongly the little
power of self-help in the German character, and it might
well suggest an anxious thought of how this great people
were to work out their freedom.  What can be done for
a nation without a history and without a faith? Is it not
regeneration it needs; it has never been born. The German nation is an agglomeration of atoms bound together by
pressure from without, not a constellation arranged by forces
acting from within; and yet great even in its present chaos!
a huge leviathan unconscious of its might, on which twoheaded vultures strut, guzzle, and flap their regal or imperial wings.
So much for Baden, the most agreeable lounge and most
dangerous hell-trap in Europe, where gambling goes on
from night to morning; and under the gayest and most
fascinating surface there trickles incessantly a black rill of
crime and misery.
Our Swiss tramp being knocked on the head by this unsought water-cure process, for the roads and railways were





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


387


destroyed, we had nothing for it but to make for Leipsic
with all the expedition in our power. In our way thither,
we spent a night at Cassel, lately so famous for its bold assertion of constitutional freedom. It has suffered much by
the quartering of so many troops upon it, and it tells us
the sad lesson that a little state cannot be free unless
isolated by sea or mountains-a lesson which we fear
Hungary likewise teaches. We spent the following night
at Halle, with one of the most distinguished theologians
in Europe, and one of the most popular professors in Germany. He corroborated the observation we had long ago
made, that Protestant Germany was probably the most
irreligious country in the world. And it is in some respects the worst kind of irreligion, as it presents nothing
offensive to the taste of the moralist. Sentiment, morality, and mesmerism are equivalent to religion there;
they neither believe nor disbelieve anything beyond the
teaching of Goethe, " that noble dome lighted from beneath."
On our arrival at the Blumenberg Hotel at Leipsic, on
the morning of the 8th of August, we found some of our
English friends already there, who had come for the same
object as ourselves. The day was spent in visiting old
acquaintances whom we had known some ten years ago
when studying here; and in the evening we had our preliminary meeting. The following day was the chief diet
of this strange general assembly. The hall of meeting
was spacious, and tastefully ornamented with trees and
garlands; and the company assembled, to the number of
about onp hundred and thirty, presented a curious appearance to an English eye. They had come from all parts
of Europe. To begin with the most remote, there was Dr
Nunez from Madrid, physician to the Queen of Spain,
decorated with a broad blue ribbon, besides many orders
-quite the courtier in air and figure. Then we saw an
ardent disciple from Copenhagen, who looked rough and





388


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


tough, and fit for service in the hard north. From Rome
had come a German by birth, who had won a large reputation in the Eternal City. Our neighbour Hanover had
sent a polished deputy-physician to the Crown Prince.
Besides the representatives of the large cities, who formed
the bulk of the assembly, there were also men with huge
beards from the inland provinces of Hungary and Bohemia; and seated beside some pale and studious Northern
German, might be seen a gay and debonnaire inhabitant of
the south, whose dark moustache and easy carriage would
hardly have squared with our idea of professional decorum. This motley multitude were all attentively listening to an interesting paper which was being delivered
from the reading-desk, when a sudden explosion was heard.
The speaker stopped; most of the assembly rose. Another
louder than the first, and again another, and another! The
president thundered with his hammer, and entreated them
to remain; to no effect. A rush was made to the door,
and those who staid anxiously speculated on the cause.
Some said it was a new revolution; others, that it was a
gunpowder plot to blow all Homoeopathists into "sparables" in the twinkling of an eye. At length the tide
rolled back again, and it turned out to have been the
igniting of some powder canisters and fireworks in the
next house. After the sederunt terminated, the meeting
broke ul into little groups, to give and get reciprocal intelligence of the good cause. This was highly encouraging and satisfactory. In some places, as Madrid, it is
almost the prevalent method. The court physician is a
Homeopathist; many professors are so; there is a regular
Homoeopathic clinique, and students may take their choice
as to the system they wish to pursue. In Vienna it is
also very strong. There are two or three Homceopathic
hospitals, and a thoroughly equipped school for teaching
it. The Homceopathic practitioners in Vienna are probably the most highly cultivated physicians in Europe.





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


389


The physician to the King of Bavaria, too, we understand,
is a disciple of Hahnemann's; but he was not at the
meeting. In short, in many parts of the Continent the
Homoeopathic practitioners are so numerous, that, in announcing the arrival of a physician in a hotel, for example, if he is not a Homceopathist, he is called an
Allopathic doctor. This we have seen in a newspaper.
It was fixed that we should meet on the following day at
ten o'clock. The ceremony was to be at noon.
Accordingly at 12 o'clock the burgomaster and town
council of Leipsic, and the adherents of Homoeopathy,
marched in procession to the site of the statue, which is
excellently situated on the beautiful promenade that surrounds this charming town. The sun shone brilliantly,
and the good Leipsic burghers, with their fair wives
and daughters, had mustered in immense numbers to witness the imposing ceremony. As far as the eye could
reach was a dense crowd of citizens, and every window
that' commanded a view of the spot was thronged with
ladies and gentlemen. The police formed a way for the
procession, which was very long, consisting of about 300
or 400 individuals, to the enclosed space where the statue
stood, enshrouded in its long canvass veil. When those who
formed the procession had arranged themselves around the
statue, where they were joined by many elegantly attired
ladies, whose brilliant dresses contributed, along with the
garlands of flowers that were hung around, to impart liveliness to the otherwise sombre group of black coats and
white waistcoats. A Te Deum was excellently performed by
a band and chorus. After this, Dr Melicher stepped forward, and delivered the following impressive oration:" GENTLEMEN,-If it should appear presumptuous that
I should this day, in this place, amid such a numerous
audience, be the spokesman, I am indebted to several concomitant circumstances for this honour, but chiefly to the
confidence of my fellow-practitioners and the friends of





390


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


Homceopathy, who, at the meeting of the Central Society
last year at Liegnitz, did me the honour to elect me director
for this year, and confided to me all the business of promoting its original object.
"But the object of this society, founded at Cithen in
the presence of the master, on the 10th of August, 1829,
the fiftieth anniversary of the day when Hahnemann received his degree, is " the promotion and advancement of
Homoeopathy," for which end a meeting of HIomoeopathic
practitioners and non-medical persons is appointed to take
place every year in a different part of Germany, and under
a different presidency.
" This arrangement had been faithfully carried out until
the year 1848, when it became impossible; but in the year
1849 it was resumed, and has been continued until the
present day, which is the twenty-second meeting during
the twenty-three years of its existence.
" After having, as we believe, fulfilled all the cbnditions
of our statutes, there still remained for us a duty to perform
of a peculiar character, namely, to dedicate to our master,
Samuel Hahnemann, the discoverer and founder of Homoeopathy, a monument, in order that posterity might
make pilgrimages to it, and be enabled to look upon his
likeness.
" Athough this year the 10th of August occurs upon a
Sunday, yet the authorities of this city have given us leave
to celebrate our Sabbath this day, and on the spot which
they have politely given us for the monument of Hahnemann. If thereby we have justified our project and the
unusual character of our action on this day, yet perhaps
some one might ask us,' Who was Hahnemann? what did
he do? what great deed did he perform? and how is he
made the recipient of such great honours?'
"4 Samuel Hahnemann, the son of a poor painter on porcelain, of Meissen, studied in this town of Leipsic, and first
publicly enunciated his new method of treatment at the





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


391


world-renowned university of this city, which has already
educated so many heroes of science. At an early period
he discovered remedies which would alone have served to
transmit his name to posterity. Though there may not be
anything very extraordinary in the fact of nature's highpriests searching for and finding out medicinal agents for
the cure of the sick, yet Hahnemann peculiarly deserves
the gratitude of science and of all humanity, which none
of his predecessors can share with him, and which is and
will remain in all ages his own property. He discovered
what had long been sought for in vain, the general fundamental therapeutic rule, and expressed it in three words,
'similia similibus curantur'-like cures like. Conscious of
the greatness of his discovery, well might he say with
Gellert:'Die Wahrheit, die wir alle nithig haben
Die uns als Menschen gliicklich macht,
Ward von der weisen Hand, die sie uns zugedacht,
Nur leicht verdeckt, nicht tief vergraben.'
The revelation of this truth was the occasion of much
annoyance to him, for hitherto hatred (contraria contrariis)
had been the chief rule in medicine. He was abused, he
was persecuted; Germany became intolerable to him, a
German, so that, in place of his earthly remains, we could
only deposit his works in the foundation stone of his monument. And yet it was he who shook and destroyed the
foundation of the old school of medicine, so that it is now
compelled to construct a new building; and yet it was he
who at length led men to a system of diet and regimen consistent with nature; and yet it was he who taught us how
to bring up a new race that should have a healthy frame and
a healthy mind. Thus he is not only a reformer of medicine,
but rather a reformer of all human society: his doctrine a
religion, and its practice a cultus.
" Thus Hahnemann, by the power of his doctrine, which
is founded on natural laws, has obtained for Homoeopathy





392


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


the rare distinction that it is not the exclusive property of
his fatherland, Germany-not the exclusive property of
Europe; but that it belongs to the whole world; for all
languages name him-from the north to the south, from
the west to the east, all nations acknowledge the master,
Hahnemann.
" What doctrine can boast of such an extensive, such a
blessed, such a magnificent and lasting success? These
are the reasons for his obtaining a monument, to which all
nations, but especially the German people, have contributed
the requisite funds, in order to give him a feeble testimony
of their fidelity, gratitude, and veneration.
" Because Hahnemann was a citizen of Leipsic, because
it was here he discovered Homcopathy, and the first Homceopathic institution was founded in this city, which was
chiefly supported by the generosity of its citizens; for these
reasons is his monument erected here.
" That monument is completed: it stands before you; a
veil alone conceals it from your sight. Remove the veil!"
At these words, the veil in which the statue was enshrouded fell to the ground, and the metal likeness of
Hahnemann stood forth to view, amid a joyous flourish of
trumpets and the cheers of the assembled multitude. The
vocal chorus sung an ode composed for the occasion, after
which Dr Melicher resumed:" There are, no doubt, many among you, my esteemed
hearers, who knew Hahnemann personally. Is this not a
striking likeness of him? Is this not he, on whose thoughtful brow Pallas Hygieia has stamped the revelation of Homeopathy? It is he; and the artist has represented him
sitting after the ancient style, as though he were engaged
in writing his motto, 'Aude sapere!'
" So let his statue stand in honour of his services to
science and art; let it testify to posterity, that these services were recognised in his own time; let it stand as an
incitement to all who tread the toilsome but remunerating





Ina
0-&Vic
A'
CfA         A









THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


393


way of truth; and let it be commended to the attention of
all who derive pleasure from the-works of plastic art.
" To you, esteemed fathers of this beautiful city, who so
kindly granted all our requests, I am commissioned by the
founders to deliver to your protection this simple monument, which I do by this deed. May it be till the remotest
times an ornament to these walks, a source of joy to your
citizens."
Thereupon Dr Haubold stepped forward and read aloud
the deed, conveying the statue over to the authorities of
Leipsic, which was beautifully written in the highest style
of the caligraphic art, and ran as follows:SAMUEL HAHNEMANN,
born the 10th April, 1755, at Meissen,
died the 2d July, 1843, at Paris,
Doctor of Medicine:
To Him,
the Founder of Homoeopathy,
the Central Society of Homoeopathic Practitioners
erected at Leipsic,
the centre of Germany, the birth-place of his Discovery,
on the 10th of August, 1851,
this bronze Monument,
in grateful recognition of his immortal doctrines,
and his invaluable services to medicine.
This was accomplished in the following manner:1. By means of a committee consisting of Dr C. Haubold, Dr F. X. Melicher, and Dr Fr. Rummel, who chose
as their artistic adviser Mr Augustus Stiller of Berlin,
architect to the King of Prussia.
2. By means of the artists, Mr Charles Steinhaiisser,
who modelled the statue, and Dr Emilius Braun, who cast
it in copper by the galvano-plastic process-both of Rome.
3. The pedestal is of Silesian marble-after the design
of the architect, Mr A. Sttiler-from the atelier for statuary
of Hiller and Einsiedel of Leipsic and Dresden.
4. The erection of the monument was conducted by Mr





394


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


Geutebrlick, architect to the university, and executed by
Mr Purfiirst (as master-mason), and Mr Bach (as mastercarpenter).
The foundation stone of the monument was laid in solemn
silence on the 23d of May by the under-mentioned directors, and the monument was unveiled, and publicly delivered up by means of this deed to the worshipful magistracy of Leipsic on the 10th August, 1851.
Done on Sunday (the 8th after Trinity), the 10th of
August, 1851.
(Signed)   DR F. X. M'ELICHER, DR C. HAUBOLD,
SDR FR. RUMMEL,       A. STULER.
The deed was accepted by the chief magistrate, who
returned thanks, in the name of the town of Leipsic, for
the beautiful ornament to the town, and, addressing the
assembled citizens, he commended the statue to their
care.
Hereupon the aged Dr Stapf, the oldest and dearest
friend of Hahnemann, and the oldest living representative
of Homoeopathy, stepped forward, and deposited at the
foot of the statue a wreath of laurel. It was touching to
see the feeble old man, who seemed to be deeply moved by
the part he had to perform in the ceremony, as he tottered
forward with uncertain steps to bestow the emblem of immortality on the effigy of the dear friend of his youth and
manhood, with whom he had borne the scorn and persecution of an illiberal world, and whom he would ere long rejoin.
With the unveiling of this statue the object of our visit
ended, although once more we re-assembled at a grand banquet, where toasts were proposed between the courses, so
that it lasted for four hours, enlivened by brilliant music
and songs, in the choruses of which the whole company,
not less than one hundred and fifty, joined. We may give





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


395


one Latin song, which was
dentsGaudeamus igitur,
Dum conjuncti sumus:
Hahnemanni hospites!
Bibere ut veteres
Ecce! Nostrum munus.
Ubi sunt, qui itidem
Fortunati erunt?
Abeas ad humiles,
Ipsi certo principes
Nobis invidebunt!
Vita brevis, longa ars!
Cous senex docet:
Procul sit hnc regula,
Regnent hodie pocula,
Vinum nunquam nocet.
Vivat artis conditor,
Et defunctus vivat!
Cujus stat memoria,
Immortalis gloria,
In -ternum vivat!


very popular with the stuVivant ei similes
Simili curantes:
Vivant artis vindices!
Vivant almi principes,
Artem honorantes!
Vivant et contrarii
Contrariis curantes!
Facultates medice
Omnes schole clinice
Deus providebit.
Apage compositum!
Adjuvans in basi,
Corrigens, Excipiens,
Medicinas dirigens,
Requiescant pace.
Floreant Specifica,
Sulphur et Sabina,
Aconitum, Phosphorus.
Floreat in omnibus
Homceopathia!


The next morning witnessed the dispersion of most of
those who had come to Leipsic in order to be present on
this interesting occasion.
Among the Homoeopathists present at Leipsic, and who
assisted at the meeting of the society, and the ceremonial
of the unveiling of Hahnemann's statue, we may mention
the following:Germany was represented byDr Stapf, Dr B3iinuinghausen, Dr Rummel, Dr Haubold, Dr Melicher,
Dr Schmieder, Dr Wiirzler, Dr Schneider, Dr Weber, Dr Riickert,
Dr V. Meyer, Dr. Cl. Miller, Dr Leder, Dr Rentsch, Dr Rath, Dr
Gerster, Dr Hartlaub, Dr Davidson, Dr Kiesselbach, Dr Hirschel,
Dr Trinks, Dr Wolf, Dr Tietzer, Dr Altmiiller, Dr Fielitz, Dr Patzack,
Dr Bamberg, Dr Schubert, Dr Bolle, Dr Reil, Dr Baumgarten, Dr
Link, Dr Schwarze, Dr Gross, &c. &c.





396


A TRIP TO LEIPSIC.


England was represented byDr Drysdale, Dr Russell, Dr Dudgeon, and Mr Hering.
Spain byDr Nunez, physician to her most Catholic Majesty, and Knight of
the Order of Charles III.
Austria sentDr Wurstl, Dr Caspar, Dr Schreter.
BohemiaDr Hofrichter of Prague.
ItalyDr Wahle, of Rome.
DenmarkDr Pabst of Copenhagen.
It was a matter of considerable astonishment that
France, which is in such immediate connection with
Germany by means of railways, had furnished no representative from among her hundreds of Homoeopathic
practitioners.
And now let us say a few words on the monument which
has just been consecrated to the memory of Hahnemann.
The height of the figure as it sits is six feet; it is formed
of pure copper made by the galvano-plastic process by Dr
Braun of Rome, from the model by Steinhaiisser of the
same city. The pedestal is of grey marble, highly polished,
and standing on three granite steps; the whole is surrounded by an elegant railing, on the larger pillars of
which Aconite and Arnica are represented. The monument stands in a large open space in front of the Hotel
Blumenberg, and with the Stadt Theatre on its right; on
its left is a beautiful shrubbery, and the space in front is
clear to the distance of several hundred yards. Between
it and the theatre, runs the road which leads from the town
to the favourite resort of the worthy Leipsicers, the Rosenthal. The same road also leads to the large Allopathic
Hospital, and to the Ophthalmic Hospital, so that students





THE HAHNEMANN JUBILEE.


397


frequenting these must pass the statue.  The pedestal of
the statue bears the following inscription:
TO
THE FOUNDER OF HOMQEOPATHY,
SAMUEL IIAIHNEMANN,
BORN APRIL 10, 1755,
DIED JULY 2, 1843,
BY
HIS GRATEFUL DISCIPLES AND ADMIRERS.
Judged as a likeness of HIanemann, the statue is universally acknowledged to be excellent, but as a work of art
we cannot bestow on it unqualified admiration.
So terminated this memorable festival-memorable on
any hypothesis of Hahnemann's character. There has
lived no man in this century who could attract from so
great a distance such a band of mourners round his tomb
-men of every nation in Europe, of every variety of mental development. The spirit of Hahnemann is likely to
prove more than a match for our medical bodies. " For
thought is more powerful than parks of artillery; and were
it yesterday, or were it a thousand years ago, writes and
unwrites Acts of Parliament, moulds the world like soft
clay."  The thought of Hahnemann will outweigh the
deeds of his opponents. It will run the same course here
as in Germany-be neglected, patronised, opposed, reviled,
partially accepted, and, after this generation has passed
into silence and oblivion, universally adopted.





PROCEEDINGS


OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL OF EDINBURGI
IN REFERENCE TO HOM(EOPATHY.
ON Tuesday, the 6th of January, 1852, the following
Petition and Letter were laid before the meeting of the
Town Council:Unto the Right Honourable the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council,
Patrons of the University of Edinburgh, the
PETITION
of the undersigned, Graduates of the said University, and others,
Humbly sheweth,
THAT your Petitioners, deeply impressed with the importance of providing adequate instruction for those who are
to become practitioners of medicine, and of securing that
University degrees in medicine, which are public attestations
of the studies and acquirements of those who receive them,
shall be granted simply on the ground of such studies and
acquirements; and feeling a deep interest in the progress
of medical science, and in the prosperity of the University
of Edinburgh, as one of the principal medical schools in
Great Britain, desire earnestly and respectfully to direct your
immediate attention, as Honourable Patrons, to a matter
connected with the granting of degrees in medicine in the
University of Edinburgh, which has been forced upon the





PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


399


notice of your petitioners. The facts upon which your
petitioners found the present application appear in the
following document, with reference to the examination of
one of the students of medicine, issued by the authority
of the Medical Faculty of the said University, and published in the "Monthly Journal of Medical Science"
(No. 128):" Mr Alfred Crosby Pope, having appeared before the
second division of examiners of the Medical Faculty in
the middle of June, underwent the usual written examination on the practical branches of medicine and surgery,
and was afterwards subjected to an oral examination on
the same subjects. He had satisfied several of the examiners; but his surgical knowledge was evidently defective. While under examination in midwifery, he was
asked what doses of calomel, opium, tartar-emetic, and aloin
he would give in certain diseases. In reply, he stated
correctly the doses usually given in medical practice; and
when asked whether these were the doses which he would
himself prescribe, he replied that they were. He then
underwent an examination on materia medica, the professors of that branch and of clinical surgery being present. His replies were satisfactory enough; the only objection of any moment indeed being that his doses of medicines were somewhat large. The Faculty having been furnished with positive information that Mr Pope had avowed
his purpose to become a Homoeopathic practitioner after
graduating, it was determined that he should have an
opportunity of answering to the charge. The question
was put to him by Dr Christison, and the following are
the very words of the conversation that ensued:-' Well,
Mr Pope, I am satisfied so far with your answers: but there
is another point on which I wish to be informed: and, as it is
best not to beat about the bush, I shall put to you a plain
question, in order that I may get a downright answer. I
am told by a colleague that he has been informed, on good





400     PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


authority, that it is your intention to become a Homoeopathic practitioner after you graduate; after the answers
you have this day given me, I feel bound to say I do not
believe it. Am I right?' To which Mr Pope replied,' I
am not now a Homoeopathist; but, after graduation, I mean
to inquire into the truth of it.' Professor Syme then remarked, 'Now, Mr Pope, suppose that this inquiry which
you meditate were to confirm your belief in the truth of
Homoeopathy, what would you do with the diploma received from us? would you burn or return it?' 'No,'
replied he, 'I would keep it.' ' For what purpose?' 'To
show that I had regularly studied.' 'Studied what?  Delusions! Fallacies! Nonsense! It would only show that
you had misspent four or five years of your life in studying what could not possibly be of any service, according to
your own view; and I am sure that, on reflection, you
must see how inconsistent it would be with common honesty
or common sense to use a diploma, after ceasing to entertain the principles which are professed in order to obtain
it. But recollect, Mr Pope, I offer this remark to you
as a friend, and not as a professor.'  Mr Pope then
withdrew, and in what remained of his examinations he
made a satisfactory appearance, except in medical jurisprudence, in which, as in surgery, he was defective. The
case being a new one, it was referred by the examiners
to the whole Medical Faculty for decision. Of the thirteen members, eleven were present. After considering
the whole circumstances, the faculty unanimously resolved
-' That serious doubts are entertained as to the soundness
of Mr Pope's principles of practice; and that on this account, as well as his insufficiency on some subjects of examination, he shall be remitted till the end of July, by
which time he will have had ample opportunity of making
the inquiry into the truth of Homceopathy which he says
he contemplates.' This resolution, which admitted of his
graduating this year, in the event of his satisfying the





PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


401


AMedical Faculty, was-communicated to him in conversation by the dean. Mr Pope, however, withdrew at once
from the list of candidates."
From the above statement it appears that, in requiring
from any candidate an explicit pledge, limiting his future
course of study and practice, the Medical Faculty have
made a fundamental change in the conditions under which
degrees in medicine have been heretofore granted; and
the petitioners believe that this has been done arbitrarily,
and without the authority, or even the knowledge, of the
Senatus or of the Patrons of the University: That your
petitioners are deeply convinced that this innovation, if
adhered to, will be highly injurious to the progress of
science and to the morality of the students, as well as
greatly detrimental to the usefulness and to the reputation
of the University of Edinburgh; and that those who find
themselves thus debarred from pursuing their studies in
whatever direction truth seems to call them, will'be driven
to other and possibly to foreign universities, or to separate
and independent institutions: That this proceeding on the
part of the examiners seems the more objectionable when
they are also professors in the University, and have ample
means, as teachers, of bringing under the notice of students
any facts or reasons which they may think important in
reference to medical doctrine or practice; and that the
attempt to protect and perpetuate their own particular
opinions, by the imposition of such a test, argues either
doubt of the stability of their own position, or a most unworthy distrust of the judgment or integrity of the medical
students of the University.
It may hardly be necessary for your petitioners to repeat, what must be quite familiar, that the art of medicine,
inasmuch as it is progressive, and dependent to a great
extent upon the advancement of the related sciences, is
continually liable to change; so that the wisdom of one
generation is the folly of the next; and that the endeavour
2D





402       PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
to prevent its free growth in any direction is unwise, and
cannot but be injurious.
That, with particular reference to the mode of practice
which the Medical Faculty is now attempting thus to obstruct, viz., that founded on the law of specifics announced
by Hahnemann, and generally known as the Homaeopathic
law, for the selection and administration of medicines, your
petitioners would respectfully represent to the Patrons of
the University that the belief in it has been, during 'more
than half a century, steadily and rapidly extending over
the Continent of Europe, and in the United States of
America, as well as in Great Britain, where, among the
physicians now practising in accordance with it, are many
of the graduates and one of the medical professors of the
University of Edinburgh: That, in several of the most
distinguished foreign schools of medicine, it has been distinctly recognised and taught: That there are public hospitals and dispensaries, both foreign and domestic, for the
exclusive practice of it: And that, in the opinion of your
petitioners, and in that of a large and influential body of
her Majesty's subjects, this system is calculated to exercise
a greatly beneficial influence on the art of healing.
Your petitioners, however, have no wish to obtain from
the Patrons the expression of any explicit preference for,
or approval of, the Homceopathic system; on the contrary,
the object of the present application is to secure the intervention of the Honourable Patrons of the University,
should such appear to be necessary, in order that any
undue attempts to interfere with the full liberty of the
students of medicine may be prevented in future; and that
the honour, independence, and distinguished reputation of
the University may be preserved.
In conclusion, your petitioners have to request that the
Honourable Patrons will cause the irregularity complained
of to be brought under the immediate notice of the Senatus
of the University, or will act otherwise in the matter as to





PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


403


their wisdom shall seem best.-And your petitioners will
ever pray.
EDINBURGH, 75 QUEEN STREET, Jan. 12, 1852.
Mr LoRD,-The petition which I have the honour of
delivering into your lordship's hands, for presentation to
the Town Council, is probably, both in number and weight
of names attached to it, without parallel in the records of
the city.
It has been signed by three thousand three hundred and
thirty-seven men, most of them heads of families. Among
the most elevated classes have been noted, nine PEERS, viz.,
the Earl of Airlie, the Earl of Wilton, the Earl of Roden,
Lord Gray, Lord Kinnaird, Lord Lindsay, Lord Colville
of Culross, the Earl of Erne, and the Bishop of Down and
Connor; five MEMBERS of PARLIAMENT, viz., Lord Robert
Grosvenor, Lord Newport, Mr Elliott Lockhart, Mr John
Ellis, and the Hon. C. P. Leslie; one hundred and fourteen
PHYSICIANS and SURGEONS, thirty-one of the former Graduates of the University of Edinburgh; two hundred CLERGYMEN (one of them being the Rev. Alfred Pope, Leamington, the father of the aggrieved student); forty-eight MAGISTRATES; seventy-one MILITARY and NAVAL OFFICERS.*
Great as the numbers and important as many of the
persons are, they form a mere fraction of those interested
in the object. The agency employed to procure signatures
to this petition was only occasional and gratuitous, and in
many productive quarters no efforts whatever were made.
Many friendly to the object refrained from signing; some
because they thought the Town Council could do no good in
the matter; others-and these the most influential-on the
ground that the University having issued its manifesto
"* Additional names having been sent after the petition was presented, the numbers of the different classes have been increased; but the
total number who signed the petition has not been altered, so that this
is somewhat short.





404


PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


against all students intending to devote themselves to Homoeopathic practice, our strength ought to be directed towards the establishment of a separate institution for their
education, or at least of a board of examiners, with power
to grant degrees in medicine.
Your petitioners assent to neither of these views. On
the contrary, it seems to us that the Town Council, as representing the community and invested with large powers
within the University, is the legitimate and appointed
authority for the redress of any public wrong which may
occur there, even should it be of such a nature that they
can give redress only indirectly; and we are of opinion
that any separate institutions will be premature, until all
efforts to secure free use of those now existing have failed.
At present the general impression on the minds of the medical profession, the students, and the public is, that our
University has declared all who intend to practise according to the principles of Homoeopathy inadmissible to graduation. This impression may be erroneous-I believe it
is so; but it is yet inevitable, so long as there is no public
disavowal of the obvious and just inference from the public
statement of the Faculty of Medicine in regard to Mr
Pope's examination, embodied in the petition. And equally
inevitable will be the consequences; the honest and bold
students will abandon a school from which they are warned,
by hearing from the lips of the examiners that there is a
trap between them and their diploma, although not more
than one in ten may fall into it; while the timid and less
scrupulous will avoid the pitfall by disguising their real
sentiments. In either case, the University and the interests of medicine and the public will suffer serious
damage.
Representing as we do so considerable and influential a
portion of the community, we think ourselves entitled to
obtain, in some form, through your honourable body, an explicit assurance as to the intentions of the University in





PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.


405


this matter, and to know whether or not this unprecedented
Test Act is to be enforced against any students disposed
to study or to practise Homoeopathy; and we cannot for a
moment entertain the thought that the rulers of the highest
educational institution in the kingdom will hide their purposes in ambiguous phraseology.
To you, then, my lord, and the Town Council, we look
for a definite reply. We are prepared for either alternative; and according to the response shall be our future line
of conduct.--I have the honour to be, my lord, your most
obedient servant,
J. RUTHERFURD RUSSELL.
To the Right Hon. the Lord Provost.
LIST OF THE GAD)UATES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH,
TWhose names have been noticed among the signatures to the petition.


C. B. KER, M.D.
RICHARD FRITH, M.D.
HENRY R. MADDEN, M.D.
GEORGE ROGERS, M.D.
WILLIAM WRIGHT, M.D.
JOHN STEWART SUTHERLAND, M.D.
C. ACWORTH, M.D.
D. CRAWFORD LAWRIE, M.D.
NEVILLE WOOD, M.D.
GEORGE COCHRAN, M.D.
CHARLES RANSFORD, M.D.
WILLIAM GULLY, M.D.
J. S. MARSDEN. M.D.
SAMUEL BROWN, M.D.
D. WIELOBYCKI, M.D.


JAMES RUSSELL, M.D.
GEORGE E. STEWART, M.D.
WILLIAM TRAILL, M.D.
FRANCIS BLACK, M.D.
ROB. ELLIS DUDGEON, M.D.
JAMES DAVENPORT, M.D.
J. J. DRYSDALE, M.D.
JOHN BLYTH, M.D.
A. LYSCHINSKI, M.D.
J. R. RUSSELL, M.D.
WILSON CRYER, M.D.
*S. WIELOBYCKI, M.D.
*FRANCIS IRVINE, M.D.
*R. D. MACKINTOSH, M.D.
*F. F. QUIN, M.D.
*WILLIAM MACLEOD, M.D.


The names marked * did not arrive in time to be included in the original list.





406      PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
The petition having come under the consideration of
the Council on 13th January,
The CLERK intimated that another communication had
been received from Dr R. Russell, stating that fifty-four
other names had been adhibited to the petition, six of whom
were clergymen, four physicians and surgeons, three military officers, and two magistrates.
Bailie FYFE thought that all that could be done with
these communications was to send them to the College
Committee, in order that they might examine carefully
into the matter, with power to communicate their opinion
to the Senatus if they think fit.
Mr RIDPATH thought it was full time that the Council,
as patrons, should take up the matter. What right had
the Medical Faculty to ask a student whether he meant
to follow the trade of a clothier, confectioner, grocer, or
anything else. They had no right to ask any gentleman
whether he meant to practise Homoeopathy.
The LORD PROVOST said it was a matter of great delicacy and difficulty in the Council pledging itself to interfere in any way with examinations for medical degrees.
There could be no doubt that it was on account of his
Homoeopathic principles that Mr Pope did not get his diploma. If the Medical Faculty had refused to give him
his diploma without any reason, there would have been
less difficulty in the case. It seemed to be a very awkward
thing; but the awkwardness of the Council in interfering
with it was not less marked.
The matter was then remitted to the College Committee.
END OF THE MATTER.
On the 27th of January, the petition of graduates of the
University and others, complaining of an irregularity introduced by the Medical Faculty in granting degrees of





END OF THE MATTER.


407


medicine, which at a previous meeting of Council had
been remitted to the College Committee, was brought up
by the reading of that Committee's report. They (Committee), without offering any opinion on the subject involved in the memorial, directed the same to be transmitted to the Principal of the University, for the information of the Senatus Academicus.
Councillor RIDPATH did not think it would be proper
to pass over this subject in the way which he observed it
was now proposed to do. The Council, as Patrons of the
University, ought to take up the subject in earnest.
Bailie FYFE (College Bailie) could not agree with Mr
Ridpath, and expressed a hope that the matter would never
again come before them.  The Committee thought the
course which they had taken was the most judicious one
in the whole circumstances; and it was, he believed, substantially in accordance with the wishes of the parties who
got up the memorial.  They fully hoped that no more
complaints of this nature would come before the Council,
and, therefore, they considered the best plan was simply
to send the petition to the Senatus for their information.
Mr RIDPATH was satisfied with this explanation.
The LORD PROVOST said he had talked to some of the
professors on the subject, and he believed it would not
have been possible to have got even a small number to
reject any student on account of his Homoeopathic tendencies. HE BELIEVED THAT THAT WHICH CAUSED THE
COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DONE SOMEWHAT INADVERTENTLY,
AND HE WAS SATISFIED THAT EVERY STUDENT, WHATEVER HIS NOTIONS REGARDING HOMEOPATHY MIGHT BE,
WOULD HENCEFORTH FIND NO BARRIER TO HIS OBTAINING DEGREES.


FINIS CORONAT OPUS.





APPENDIX.
ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOM(EOPATHIC
STUDENTS AND PRACTITIONERS.*
MMBERS AND SUBSCRIBERS.


Ashurst, W. H., 6 Old Jewry,
London.
Anderson, F. B., Surgeon,
Richmond.
Atkin, Dr, Hull.
Allen, Wm., Shifferal, Salop.
Addicot, Rev. H., Taunton.
Apperley, David, London.
Accnes, Major, Cheltenham.
Aldons, Major, Bath.
Appleby, J., Manchester.
Allison, William, do.
Armstrong, E. J., Dublin.
Ashe, Rev. J.,     do.
Ashe, Henry,      do.
Armstrong, Rev. Mr, do.
Allshorn, G. E., Edinburgh.
Anderson, Rev. Wm., do.
Borras, Robert, London.
Betts, Edward, Great George
Street, London.
Bonser, Edward, Bristol.
Bohn, John,       do.
Bright, John,    do.


Buck, Henry, London.
Bollen, H., St Paul's Churchyard, London.
Bergman, A., 20 Amphill
Square, London.
Bergman, Phil., 12 Coleman
Street, London.
Browne, George, East India
House.
Bright, Henry S., Hull.
Boddy, Dr, Windsor.
Back, Thomas E., Dover.
Blakiston,  Sir  Matthew,
Landbrook   Hall,  Ashbourne, Derbyshire.
Butcher, F., 36    Conduit
Street, London.
Barton, J., 107 Great Russell
Street, Bloomsbury.
Burgess, Wilson, Worcester.
Brewin, Edward,    do.
Burlingham, Samuel, do.
Bollen, Henry, Salop.
Blake, J. D., Taunton.


"* All Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Secretary, Dr
Dudgeon, 82 Gloucester Place, Portman Square, London.





APPENDIX.


409


Buck, Henry, St James' Cot- Bower, Mr, Edinburgh.
tages.                   Bruce, Rev. John, do.
Boyde, Major-General, R.A. Brown, John C., do.
Bourke, Peter, Jersey.     Beckett, James T., do.
Black, Dr, Clifton.       Burnett, Mr,     do.
Branoker, Rev. R., Oakfield, Brown, Rev. D., do.
Clifton.                Black, William,  do.
Baxter, George, Kingston.  Bell, Melville,  do.
Barnard, R., Kiniton.     Chand, W., Bristol.
Browne, John, York.       Collins, T. P., do.
Boyle, Hon. Courtney A., Clarke, Dr John Say, CanonBath.                     bury, Islington.
Benson, G: Manchester.     Copeman, J. D., Old-FishBennett, W. R., do.          street Hill, London.
Bronley, R. W., do.        Carley, G., 27 Warton Street,
Boag, James,   do.           London.
Blyth, J. C.,  do.         Cave, Mr, Maidstone.
Bennett, John, do.         Clarke, Major, Windsor.
Booth, George, do.         Carley, George, 24 Warton
Banning, Joseph, do.         Street, London.
Bury, John,     do.        Church, J., London.
Boyer, Mr,      do.       Chandler, A. E., Hereford.
Brydon, James, do.         Colville, J., M.A., WorcesBagshaw, Rev. A. A., do.     ter.
Bodenham, Thomas, do.      Church, Thomas, Salop.
Burgess. W. R.,     do.    Capper, John.
Barnes, Mr,         do.    Capper, Jasper J.
Burchell, Rev. W. F., do.  Chapman, Dr, London.
Buckley, Geo.,      do.    Clamford, Captain R., R.A.,
Berry, H.           do.      Woolwich.
Baxter, Thomas,     do.    Compton, Edward H., WolBanks, Charles, Dublin.      ton-under-Edge.
Blest, Dr A. E., do.      Clarke, Thomas R., Russell
Burns, Gilbert, do.          Street, London.
Bryers, Robert, do.        Curoge, J. H., 17 Saldstury
Blyth, Dr,     do.           Place, Exeter.
Bartee, Dr R., do.         Cuarell, Rev. R., WestonBoyd, Rev. C., do.           super-Mare.
Black, Rev. G. Macartney, Curie, Dr, 17 Hanover Sq.,
Dublin.                    London.
Brown, James, Edinburgh.   Clifford, George, York.
Bonus, W.,       do.       Chapman, A. G., Brighton.





410


APPENDIX.


Colvin, A. J., 64 Gloucester Dixon, H., Manchester.
Square, London.        Doig, jun., D., do.
Calder, Lieutenant, R.N., Dernford, Rev. R., do.
Belfast.               Day, Arthur, Dublin.
Collingwood, John, Brighton. Doyne, Phil., do.
Cheeseman, John,    do.   Dwyer, Francis, do.
Chatfoelo, Dr Robert, LL.D., Drysdale, Dr, Liverpool.
Brighton.              Drysdale, Matthew, Dublin.
Cheeltham, C.D., Manchester. D'Aubrey, George,  do.
Clegg, G.,        do.     Dennistoun, J., Edinburgh.
Clegg, William,   do.     Davidson, G. R.,  do.
Crewdson, Robert, do.     Dodds, Thomas R., do.
Clayton, Joseph,  do.     Dalziel, D. B.,  do.
Champneys, Rev. H. S., do. Dickie, H.D.,   do.
Challender, jun., W. R., do. Edrasson, J., 12 AldermanCrawford, Mr A., Dublin.    bury, London.
Cowper, Henry A., do.     Edwett, Mr, Maidstone.
Cowper, Joseph,   do.     Evans, Thomas, Hereford.
Chambers, John,   do.     Edwards, P. Norman, HereCummin, Mr,       do.       ford.
Coddrington, Rev. Latham, Everest, Rev. T. R.,Wickwar.
Dublin.                 Emerson, George, Belfast.
Coddrington, J. G., Dublin. Eastwood, John, Manchester.
Clintook, Stanley,  do.   Edmondson, Richard, do.
Cochran, Dr G., Edinburgh. Edge, Alexander,  do.
Coventry, A.,     do.     Eastwood, Mr,      do.
Campbell, Rev. J. R., do.  Edwards, Alexander, Dublin.
Campbell, J.,      do.    Erne, the Earl of, Dublin.
Cooper, Thomas,    do.    Edmondson, Rev. George, do.
Campbell, Mr H.,   do.    Erskine, Wm., Edinburgh.
Cruickshanks, E.,  do.    Edmonstone, Rev. J., EdinDiamond, Aar., Bristol.     burgh.
Dublin, the Archbishop of, Ferris, Joseph, Bristol.
Palace, Dublin.         Freese, Henry, 12 Coleman
Dudgeon, Dr, London.        Street, London.
Dunn, T. P., Wooddreft.   Friend, George, East India
Dunsmure, John.             House.
Dale, Thomas, Emseote.    Flashman, George, Dover.
Darling, General Sir R., Fowden, William,   do.
Brighton.               Field, James R., 117 Fore
Dodson, J. W., Brighton.    Street, London.
Davies, Charles, Manchester. Field, sen., Mr, do.





APPENDIX.


411


Fox, Henry, Taunton.
Fox, Charles, do.
Fletcher, Ar., R.N., Jersey.
Farquharson, Major-General,
Oriental Club, London.
Frith, R., M.R.C.S., London.
Finlay, Mr, Cheltenham.
Finlay, Mr E.,  do.
Fearon, Dr, Birmingham.
Fawett, Major J., Brighton.
Fletcher, Mr, Bath.
Fletcher, Rev. R., Manchester.
Fetherston, Edward, Dublin.
Fetherston, Joseph,   do.
Fetherston, H. R.,    do.
French, Arthur,      do.
French, Rev. W. Le Poer,
D.D., Dublin.
Finlay, John, Edinburgh.
Grosvenor,   Lord   Robert,
London.
Grop, Henry, 12 Coleman
Street, London.
Gillerd, William, M.R.C,S.,
Clifton.
Groat, William, Dartmouth
Grove, Blackheath.
Gee, Rev. Robert, Brighton,
Devon.
Giles, A., Exeter.
Guinness, A., M.R.C.S., Exeter.
Georgii, Professor.
Griffith, Charles, Westonsuper-Mare.
Guest, Mr, Clifton.
Grant, Rev. J. H., Bideford,
Devon.
Gillson, Rev. Edward, Bath.
Grimshaw,   Joseph,   Manchester.


Gleave, J. 0., Manchester.
Gray, Thomas,   do.
Gray, L.,       do.
Garner, J.,     do.
Getz, A.,       do.
Gorton, Thomas, do.
Guinness, Arthur, Dublin.
Guiness, Ben. Lee, do.
Guiness, Arthur Lee, do.
Guiness, jun., Benjamin Lee,
Dublin.
Garnett, Samuel, Dublin.
Garnett, William, do.
Gordon, Rev. Mr, do.
Guiness, Rev. W., do.
Guiness, Arthur S., do.
Galwey, Robert,   do.
Going, Robert,    do.
Gage, Mr, Edinburgh.
Hook, Mr, Maidstone.
Heming, Mr, do.
Hackney, Nathan, Hull.
Hanson, Samuel, 15 Trinity
Square, London.
Hill, John, Ashbourne Grove,
Greenwich.
Hooper, William, Hereford.
Humfrys, William, Hereford.
Henderson,   Rear-Admiral,
Bath.
Hamilton, Dr, London.
Headland, 15 Princes Street,
Hanover Square, London.
Harris, Dr H. B., St Heliers,
Jersey.
Helleur, Philip, Jersey.
Hering, W., 38 Mortimer
Street, Cavendish Square,
London.
Hattersley, Richd.,Wickwar.
Hawker, Lieut.-General Sir
Thomas, K.C.H., Clifton.





412                  APPENDIX.
Hands, F., M.R.C.S., 23 Duke Janson, J., Exeter.
Street, Grosvenor Square, Jones, Ed., Cheltenham.
London.                 James, Rhodes, York.
Huggins, William.         Jones, E. Leslie, Bath.
Harmen, Thomas H., South- James, Horatio, do.
ampton.                 Johnson, J.,    do.
Howarth, William, York.   James, Lieut. Henry, R.N.,
Hope, George, York.         Brighton.
Hole, Admiral Lewis, Bath. Jones, Rev. R., Manchester.
Hewitt, Dr, Bath.         Jones, Mr,        do.
Hay, Captain John, Brighton. Johnson, W. R.,  do.
Harvey, Ch. T., Manchester. Jamieson, Rev. W., Dublin.
Harvey, Alderman, do.     Jones, R. Talbot,   do.
Heron, Wm.,        do.    Johnston, George P., do.
Handley, W.,       do.    Kingdon, B., Exeter.
Hollis, George,    do.    Knott, Mr, Maidstone.
Handley, Joseph,   do.    Kingdon, B., M.R.C.S., ExHarrison, W. P.,   do.      eter.
Huddlestone, Mr,   do.    Kenway, E., Cardiff.
Hallam, Eph.,      do.    Kenrick, Rev. George, 26
Harrison, jun., W. B., do.  Regent Square, London.
Hards, R. R., Dartford,   Ker, Dr C. B., Cheltenham
Holland, E. C., Manchester. Knowles, Dr, Manchester.
Hardy, G.,        do.     King, Rev. A., Dublin.
Hill, Rev. R.,    do.     Kent, Rev. Edward, do.
Houston, John, Dublin.    Laker, Thomas, Maidstone.
Henry, Lieut., R.N., Dublin. Laker, John,  do.
Higginbotham, Charles C., Laker, Mr,       do.
Dublin.                 Laurie, Dr D. C., Brighton.
Haig, Robert, Dublin.     Leadam, Thomas, M.R.C.S.,
Haig, John,   do.           London.
Hamilton, Alexander, do.  Lyte, H. Maxwell, Jersey.
Hall, Rev. Richard, do.   Laurie, Dr, Dunstable.
Hume, Alex., Edinburgh.   Laurie, Dr, 12 Lower BerkeHague, R.,      do.         ley Street, Portman Square,
Hawkins, J.,    do.         London.
Henderson, Dr William, do. Luther, Dr Charles, Bath.
Hamilton, M., do.         Lee, John, Manchester.
Ireland, B. M., Hull.     Lloyd, William, do.
Johnston, Thomas, do.     Leonard, Mr,   do.
Jewen, R. F., K.W., Windsor. Long, Mr,   do.
Jackson, Al., Dusley.     Lindsay, W.,   do.





APPENDIX.


413


Litter, Rev. R., Manchester. Morgan, Joseph, Hereford.
Longven, R.,   do.        Melton, Samuel J., do.
Lessey, Rev. T., do.      Morgan, Nathaniel Ross.
Laurie, Mr,    do.        Manwairing, Admiral, Bath.
Lindsay, G. H., Dublin.   M'Carlty, Rev. J., Jersey.
Lindsay, Mr W. J. C., do.  Macdonald, Professor, St AnLindsay, Hon. Captain, do.  drews.
Leighlin, the Very Rev. the Mackintosh, Dr R.D., 11 DixDean of, Dublin.         fields.
Luther, Dr W., Dublin.. Morgan, Daniel, 9 Vere Street,
Lyle, Thomas,  do.          Oxford Street, London.
Lyschinski, Dr A.         Meriton, J. D., Southampton.
Lang, John, Edinburgh.    M'Gregor, J. B., M.R.C.S.,
Laurie, Mr, Edinburgh.      Belfast.
Laurie, Dr James, do.     M'Dearnan, John, do.
Lindsay, Colonel, do.     Madden, Dr H. R., Brighton.
Molineux, F. More, Losely Macfarlane, J., Manchester.
Park, Guildford.        Mather, W.        do.
Molligam, Wm., Bristol.   M'Dowall, Dr,     do.
Matthiesson,Hen.,12 Coleman Molineux, Mr,   do.
Street, London.         Midwood, F.,      do.
Matthiesson, W. E., do.   Massey, Thomas,   do.
Marsden, Dr F. L., Gr. Moore, Jas., V.S., do.
Malvern.                Matthews, Dr,     do.
Madgnick, Mr, Canonbury Moore, J. H.,       do.
Park, London.           Moore, Mr,        do.
Martin, Edward, Richmond. Miller, Robert, Dublin.
Moore, Thomas A., Windsor. M'Gee, Rev. R., do.
Moore, Thos. Chas., do.   Massey, Hon. J., do.
Millet, Mr E., B.L., do.  Murray, Robert, do.
Markland, Thomas, Clifton. Medlicott, Rev. J., do.
Mackintosh, John,  do.    M'Laren, James, Edinburgh.
Metcalf, William, Dover.  Mucurb, John,       do.
Mummery, R. B., do.       Naisch, H., Bristol.
Metcalfe, Frederick, do.  Newman, George, M.R.C.S.,
Millard, J., M.R.C.S., 4 Lloyd  Glastonburg.
Square, London.         Newman, Thomas, Worcester.
Mason, Wm., George Street, Nelson, James, Emseote.
Greenwich.              Neold, J., Manchester.
Millard, Wm., 9 Dane Road, Norman, Conolly, Dublin.
Lee.                    Norman, Mr A.,    do.
Massy, Dr R. F., Worcester. Norton, Dr, Chester.





414


APPENDIX,


Nenagh, the Very Rev. the Rosenstein, Dr J. G., 3 WinDean of, Dublin.           town Place, Greenwich.
Nisbet, R. R., Edinburgh.  Raikes, R., Hull.
Oxley, Richard, Windsor.   Richardson, John D., Dover.
Ozanne, Dr, Guernsey.      Ritchie, Alfred, 4 Diamond
Oulton, Rev. W. P., Dublin.   Terrace, Greenwich.
Owen, J. S., Edinburgh.    Roth, Dr, London.
Poole, James H., Bristol.  Rowley,   Mr, 173     Castle
Page, Rev. L. F., Woolpit     Street, Reading.
Parsonage, Suffolk.      Rowley, Rev. W. W., WestonPine, Mr, Maidstone.          super-Mare.
Peck, M. C., Hull.         Rossiter, John, Weston-superParker, Rev. John, Danhill,   Mare.
Sussex.                  Ralph, Mr Greenhow, PeechPassurs, P. H., Dover.        hill, Cork.
Pamphrey, John, Worcester. Reynolds, Thomas, ShorePally, Captain J.             hampton, Bristol.
Palk,   Lawrence,   Haldon Ransford, Dr, York.
House, Exeter.           Robertson, Major L., Bath.
Pile, Rev. A., 9 Meridian Reason, William, Brighton.
Place, Clifton.          Rayner, T., Manchester.
Page, Rev. Thomas, Rugby. Robinson, Geo., do.
Peters, Edward,      do.   Rogby, T.,     do.
Polford, Mr, Brighton.     Raolton, John, do.
Parker, Alderman, Manches- Robertson, John, Dublin.
ter.                     Robinson, Robert, do.
Pope, Mr, Halifax.          Richards, John,   do.
Phillips, Edward, Manchester. Ratchiff, Rev. Rich., do.
Pope, A. C.,        do.     Russell, Thomas,  do.
Paul, Mr,           do.     Russell, Dr J. Rutherfurd,
Phippill, Robert,   do.       Edinburgh.
Potter, John,       do.     Russell, Dr James,  do.
Patrick's, the Hon. and Very Rutherfurd, Oliver, of EdgerRev. the Dean of St, 8      ston.
Christ Church, Dublin.   Ramsden, James,      do.
Pitcairn, Rev. David, do.   Russell, F.,        do.
Porter, jun., William, do.  Russell, Sir James, Ashestiel.
Parker, Mr,           do.   Sugden, Samuel, London.
Prior, Rev. John,     do.   Smith, F. J., 74 Old Broad
Prior, Rev. Hugh,     do.     Street, London.
Paisley,  John   H., Edin- Sandoz, F., East India House.
burgh.                   Selle, W. C., Richmond.





APPENDIX.


415


Smith, Robert, Richmond.
Simpson, Mr, Maidstone.
Sykes, David, Hull.
Stephenson, F. H., do.
Seaton, J.,       do.
Starr, Edward,   do.
Stalkert, Henry S., Dover.
Stalkert, Hugh, Dover.
Sullivan, J., 34 Sussex Square,
Brighton.
Sommer, E. V., Taunton.
Stokes, Dr A., Wickwar.
Stokes, A., Nailsworth.
Smith, Alfred, Dudbridge.
Sturge, Joseph,Weston-superMare.
Solly, Rev. H., Cheltenham.
Sutherland, Dr, Leamington.
Shaw, William, York.
Smyth, John, Belfast.
Sharp, William, M.R.C.S.,
F.R.S., Rugby.
Squire, R. D., Bath.
Sturdy, Thomas, Brighton.
Smith, Richard,   do.
Spinks, Thomas, Manchester.
Stanley, R.        do.
Scholefoeld, W.,   do.
Shaw, Mr,          do.
Slade, Rev. Canon, do.
Smith, A. H.,      do.
St Georgio, John H., Dublin.
St Georgio, jun., John, do.
Scriven, Dr W. B. B., do.
Stratton, John,      do.
Stratton,jun., JohnW., do.
Swanton, Thomas,     do.
Saunders, Richard,   do.
Saunders, Henry,     do.
Skinner, Capt. A. M., R.N.,do.
Stewart, Dr G.E., Edinburgh.
Scott, Robert,     do.


Swan, W., Edinburgh.
Schmitz, Dr L.,   do.
Trotman, W. H., M.R.C.S.,
R.N., 27   Park  Street,
Bristol.
Taylor, Mr, Maidstone.
Thompson, Thomas, Hull.
rhompson, William, Windsor.
rhompson, William, Hull.
rapp, John,        do.
rhomson, Dr    James, 16
Harper Street, Red Lion
Square, London.
Tollie, J. W., 4 Robert Street,
Adelphi, do.
Taylor, Captain M., R.A.,
Woolwich.
Tristram, Barrington, Park
House, Clifton.
Taylor, John, York.
Traill, Dr William, A.B.,
F.C.D., Belfast.
Turner, H. Manchester.
Tuckey, Dr C. C., do.
Turner, H.,    do.
Thompson, W. G., do.
Taylor, Robert, do.
Turner, Alex.,  do.
Thompson, J.,  do.
Thompson, T. H. Dublin.
Todd, H. W.,     do.
Turner, Richard,  do.
Thompson. George, do.
Taylor, William,  do.
Thoms, John, Edinburgh.
Viccars, George, Hull.
Venn, J., M.A., Hereford.
Vigors, Richard, Dublin.
Wilkinson, J. G., Sussex
Lodge, Finchland, London.
Wood, Dr., F.R.C.P.E., 10
Onslow Square, Brompton.





416


APPENDIX.


Welman, C. H., Taunton.
Webb, J. C., 5 Bedford Terrace, West Holloway, London.
Watson, W. D., Maidstone.
Waineswright, R. A., Islington.
Wright, W., M.A., Worcester.
Wheeler, David,     do.
Wolkinson, Charles, Clapham
Park.
Wilson, D., L.R.C.S.E.
Wilman, C. N., Taunton.
Wilkinson, R. C., Fore Street,
Exeter.
Wilkinson, Alfred, 37 Park
Crescent, Brighton.
Walker, H. T., Weston-superMare.
Whitmore, Major, Clifton.
Wheeler, Rev. M., Berkeley
Rectory, Frome.
Wilmot, Dr P. M., Southampton.
Wilson, Rev. Dr. Wm., do.
Ward, Robert, York.
Wilks, J. P.,  do.
Wilson, William, Bath.
Wells, V. M., Brighton.
Woolcott, Mr,   do.
Wilson, John, Manchester.
Walker, Dr Robert, do.
Waterhouse, H.,   do.


Walkden, Mr, Manchester,
Williams, James, do.
Wilson, Thomas, do.
Wildes, G.,      do.
Wolkinson, Richard, do.
Ward, William,   do.
Walker, Mr,      do.
Worthington, Beresford, Dublin.
Worthington, Thomas, do.
Warren, Latham C.,  do.
Warren, Robert A.,  do.
Warren, August. E.,  do.
Walters, Henry,     do.
Wallace, Thomas,    do.
Woolsley, Major,    do.
Wray, George Atkinson, do.
Webb, Robert,.     do.
Worthington, Alex.,  do.
Wilson, George,     do.
Walter, Dr William,  do.
Wilson, Thomas C.,  do.
Wielobycki, Dr D., Edinburgh.
Watson, Rev. Dr, Edinburgh.
Wigham, tertius, John, do.
Wigham, Henry,     do.
Wedderburn, John, do.
Yapp, William, Hereford.
Yeldam, Mr, London.
Young, Mr, Dublin.
Young, Samuel B., do.


It has been thought better to omit in the above list the names of all the ladies who
have subscribed to the fund.
From the way in which the names here given have been copied from the original,
it is feared that some appear incorrectly, while others may have been altogether
omitted. The whole will be incorporated in a full list, which the Secretary is preparing, to accompany a report of all the proceedings of the Association and a statement of its finances, a copy of which will shortly be sent to every subscriber.















JAN 18 1907


3 9015 00660 8569


'A                         i, I





.11-  -1 - -   -                           - - __ ý  -.    I   -    I       I - lr"ýý       '.ý"'.'w..   -;..- I.      I   I       I I..   ý 11.1;'. -.ý I      '!Erýl
-                                          -   ý ____.    -1 WI&U,-"     -    -   ý -, ý Pmz-  _-l'A-     '_ -   __      ý_.. 4"V.w'-N.ýý._'.* _.';. ý ý -. 11  -  -1 A., ý  ý   ý    ý   ý               *'-,
--                                                         -  -...  ý  -. -  ý -                              'k  -,.,;-.,  ---.r,,  -.  ý,  '-"  --
I                                                      -.-.                                   I        I  r, - - ý,. 1,, ý"
ý
-                                               -_                                 --l-1--. -      I    ý.. - -""           ý
- ý'            I                                                                 __-_         ---                                                                                     ý     I.., 1. - 'N:
ý     '.ý '_     -.           I                                                                                                               -.         ý: - -
-                 -I--,--- - -  -        __
-- ----.,    -         IT -..-   -   -                                I    -.-.1                          I
-   - - __                     -11.        -    - ý -...,-    -                                                                                                    I.
ý    0   -01- -   -    -              -.                                                                   im-_                                        I     I -. I.      ý. I __       I -         -    ____     '.
ý                        ___    -
1.  ý       ý-    _-_-F_3_77F==_T  -    -   '-   --=--                                     - - ý        -                        -     -  - - _____                                  ý..
_         ---__            - ý,      __-_-_T_=e_     -      _ý-- -       _- _       - - ___l -                                                               -_            _-_--_rr_-_-Tm_--;2ý_-_-Tv       ý                  I. ý     ý
-         ", _'.                           ý -"-.'___-.  -IF, -                      -                              -   - -.           -      __                 ý       I.1.
-                 - - -                                                    - nx;=_=ý__..  -               -              -  _         _           -       -                                                                   --- ____ I    I        -....    -,
-1      " =1'=. =' ýý7'=.Ztý-_     _- _-                        _... _      __        -           _'_                         I                     ý..         ý IýýIm,,=" =lm,                             1-1.1----l-                                        '                                             _            -1,
___   -                   __ _.-     ýý",,     -    ýý  I I.__ _-    1 - I, -                        - -,                __     I-                                                   -       I.. I.,
ýiý                                                                                                                                               -,    _                                        ýý
_.       __     _               ý.- -                                                  -                   -             f         '  ý4,A
ýý     -.,-I-           - ý. -  --    -I---      -                                                                       I       -_  ý.ý.
ýý              I -   _     ý ý '_,_    -   -- _z     ý                            - =- -                                                                           -.              ' q
I.--- -ý       -;.; t:?--ýC_ý   I,- -                                                                                    I   -   ' *    '..'.ý.
___                                 ýi..                                                                          __         I            '.              ý. I:::        _   r     _-  __   __== ý -.   I..     '           -.--.... ==  _  ___      tý:    7 __ý=-Týý         *ý: -                                                            ý ý    ý   ý.        -. ý "I   'i
__         ý;ýý           =-.... ý -.. -       -.    -                                  ýý -           ý                            I - 11..ýý.-       1;=' _-_ý,                       -,.,.                                   1,    ý ý3.
-Wý. - -          _          zjtzýg:ýýz - ýýtýaaý- - T - _-i2 = _=.L:='ýý21_1 ý__                              Mfý_                        I                     I ".,..,,. ý, 1ý,,I!' ý.... ý  -_.__=;ýý" _   ý=,     VE..'_' -        ý                 -                                                         -_ - -   ý.. I.. I I "I
I..       __ F`ý_' ý       zm7ýý-.=_             I ýt.                 I..           -'*     I
__.1                   - - -         '_a!R-_--'ý'-. 'i;; 't_.:  - 11-                         -            4EiEaý. I                            I.,    I.
ill '; 'ýý?_     "_;_`- _&';:ýý:  _"'.;;ýý.    ý "..ý  -   - v        ý                           - -    ý Z, ý -. =1 =r= ý =-'!.ý.__.. I,-  I             I 1.     ý! I I,,, -."'. 'ý..'_.!.'tr-'.._ 'k_ýw  -                                -_                - - __    =R.7        _'_ _"                               -                        I
I -    -I.I.-  _   1 z'nýz "I ý          ______.-                -   -              - i -_
I.- =                      ý                              =_=_                       ------        ý                            11..,   w I.,
ýý =                               ý         ___           -     __- __-;=-.=_. __ ý, ý
'la;'ýý'n',       " -,-,_17--75ý                                                                                            __Tý          4!6ý   1   _M    _t_ýý__     ý    7                -.__   __           -.. "     1ý     I    I   1,, ý
-,                      ýýz -                   =- _--
ýý                            =ý"_   ý __.=ýý____       -..... 1  --"ý7m       -2siý_-_--  ý..            t ý'
-         -               -.1                          -                     zm.'._                                        zz::_'n                                                         " 11  ý           I      -,,,..... "I.    -                       - I ý ýe '__                         _..                    I                                                                                               -   -.. -                                         _.          -    "                                  -1.                                                                                                  ýý
-   111-11  -                 ý__        '-1                      I=                                                        __       -                   ý.'ý'             I..        -
Z__"                          -     __ -              I----.-.-.                                        ==ý----_-v_-__F7:F7_'=, _'ý...
*I-                 -,::;7;ý, ý   1* '_==" -- -, ý         - _I'týý_ý____                                  -     -.--. I-  -    __       -                       =====ý                  -.4                                ý 'q. I"
t.ý_            ý -                 --_-.               __.'=_-_-_r                                                                                                      'z I I
-    -!    -                              n.,  ý
ý.     --_ -=r_-=-f=--ý.--:7'-                   iFE':3!-='V-='         N__--ý-       -,Z_ --ý..- Miýý             ý.                                                   11
"I....        _t=__ZZ'ý.AZ'_   t_::_-___.l__._'_:._            -1    -     I                                    I -. I.;'..            =.        ='ai-i..                      --       =                          -             l__:=z;7_ _1     - - =         ",-- -ýý=ý=i-ýý-R' "       - -, '             I,.;.::- -       E:ý =-.z
I.,,,, "I...ý_'_ --.ý::    I.        ý_EL_
- - -'--jtýý                     ý:9-ý ' "'*"- 15L.._;ýA;=_-;ýý_ -z- 'ý---;- -z.-                                ýiý          ý:.1 -   ý                   -,,,,..jjjý.""          -              -           %:      --                --
_...    ETN4'-',l.-_- -'='Tý-    --              '_-'ý M  -Oý:r_. ý:__:ý               -                        I                ___="ýý                                                            I... -.  -         I                                                                     n I-        Z==     ri -   __ -,                                        ý    -.             ý '
-'-ý            1=, -I 1                                                        -5.-.-.-            -
-                     74v- 1_2=Eaýý_.aý' _ý-                  ' ___, ýý77:0'=_:_ "ý70W2ý                i-9     ---             =                          I ý
-11,...                 7:f.. 'ý                                             -       I                                         -                               Sm, I I ',
1!               ý,;iý                                                   __:               -.., 'iý                 _             I.11 -                                         ý ý                                         _ý
I;z-  -   ' -  - - Z' ý C                                       '-`     - 7F--ý,REýW   t.-i=  ztrý.1-ý-.-.---=='it-=Zýý-71ý-'!-=` -f ~1  -Zyýi_;9ý       -' -                                   "
-,       Iý -1     _;Eý!         -    _;=         __"'ý     Uý!:ýý     ',. =."t*m=-.:_-x_=    - -    =-- Ir=      w nýa!ýEt_=_:tL_.:izK -_ ='..v --- 'ýý'"=--  - _ý,  ýý,- -'-.'l-_"AL-  -  -  ",  _--ý  -  'ýr _:  I=  X:' -., - ý' ý.
- --.Tr--,      ___           __ =========,:; ftm En         --;IF=-,:      ___'::;ý                                   M'ý. -     - -.             I
I                 - ýý' 1 I          ý r!.-          `ýý_'_.1-7ý;ýý              ýF      '..,ý.-., - -ý                - --,.= -:---". - *                        '
il         ý:ýý'-';-;'r_'_.;ý:ý-_ýý;-             ';Rý:                      Zýý't_!ý'ý =    'l 4 -............. - -  ==  in  t rý... -.....  -              -ý'__' "                     -                       ý                                                                        I ý-                                              I...... -
'-, -,t_ý, jýý      t_-_      - '2, 11 I      I  ý                      '=-.-       -  -7-                     -.                                    I
ý'L                  _11W.-,   - _" -   -    -,                 - - -,-=     ý,11-7,,ý  ---         '=      '4,                                                  ''              ý:             ci=_;7__
-,                      666 1   -.1.7,,,ýý: ý_ýý_   tt;=    ýý,                                              -   ý     -                               __ -                         I.. *  -, _ýt              I. -      ý I.,ý '.
11                            -        -                                                               _      - _'ýý;7ý1ý             -        ýý                                        ý                 I
-                                Z ___                                                                               __
ý=_-Pý:;ý.=--tF.-                            ýý   I            --     -    ---      m-         ý      N    ti%;;...,           ___      '.   _                              __
_   zr_ý                           --'..    - -         =ýýZ:ýrý-ý-ý,      ý "      -    *   --"ý.ý.aý.-             --     ---.-I *:-ý'ý'z                       ý   ý            I         ":,
_   --1 ý                                      =_ýý;.-                                                                      I
-.                                                              - -_.1.   - -.--. -      I   ý;   '_ý____=_1=_lU. -'Z:-_-'Z"'l'          ý=%=_=,      ýt                        I    'ý'
-   -?;;.'Zý4iýý-    -----":!7     -,              - "'.                                                                         I..%
Z-Hr'i-Eff-    _-ý--'ý_.  --.              ý_                                        -11       -                       ---;--=-_=l _.
-
-.                                __=_=_',                        -,--. --m7l.. - =1.;:;Izýx      'ý-'.  - -1.......--.;;Zt     -  -.         -.47-  - =--,   ý.,        ý.         ý,.          Fiýý.__    I __ý   '     ký;.ý                  -.         -
--:r!(-'-"_..      t_    __: _ __. -              1*
-   iý_j I=   _'ý _-:i=  _-  '_    '_%=T=._-ýý-::ý"_; '(v-                                                                                               ý:TF                           -,.    _,                      I     <
11.ý',  '_..         '  2_--'---:-:F   y A'!ý'T-"          -          -        T'g'i                 '.1,   7ýý          ".              -                                                    I
-:                     *J!ýý-ý:'7_  ý',!                    Xý,.. - ý -_4  -   ý               ý  ',     ý1,1         ý".__ý...-.,                ýý41-                    ýj      V, Z74 -f  I. L!'ýTmq'                                              __Zjýý;.. ý -         - '    i                  -
'.       --  -- ),---        -     -,   - '. ---  I.A
_____,.                                                                      14ý
I ý -          nr;t.'g      ý                                     i'ýFýni. ý::       -       I=.                                 ý 27ý' ýý?' _ý-4ýi,,2'ýýNz=.4;'
_'                  I.                              'ý          -,--,--I-       ' __.            -        -   -      '; -=-'-'4ýý 1,._z;;-__  -                ý  I            I        ý,,
Z_               '.ý  --                   AýZý:-ýA, vapý          -                      __=.'  r,  - - - ý. - -                                                          I.,
__...   - -.-ý7  - ýý--ý -ý 1......  =  _1  "_ý.  -  4;;'ýý   -                                                    ý         I
1.             -   a    ý_ ýZý*ý ý- Z' I    ýý-#ý 2_1 ý    --.7--,
_ý                                 _ý..' ý 'ý -                        -......        ý -..  -    -.--             - - ii -'Z;::_-zý'ý--            I,.
-        - -    - -, -  -  'x"_-z=.-               ý._ "I
ý_                       -    j;'Zý.F:Fr.-ýJ-_'T,---.-ýý.C_.     I                         - _ý
I              '_   ý                  _'_ ý-         ýý=-        S,          -1 -,
1  -7  _:'__7ZF':_;' ý                                                                                                                      I        -. -; ýý ý                            'r           ý Z_.;ý'7' -    '!ý'ý..
_... -                                 1-   _-..'ýtýý----_'.........          '
I,:-, "  _'. ý r                                -.   ýý. v ýýýý         I                                         --ý--    -ý:ý-;.,Ekr__4_;-ý -..-,;, -. -;--,r: tnfýz_.ýTt-  -1.1V   ---_                       I -'.;ýý."ý -  - - - -         1                                7=__ýý;'_    -, _ý..r__j.  _       - t: -7-;Cý'  11, r -, -,;r.            -                   *                                    __'ý_14 -                               -          I
-                                                       -    ý                                     w__ "    ý     _1ý -11                                                 I ý      -1                        1    _  1x__5ý-_..__    =;7-    __ý_ý.:                              ".
ýZ'i-ý;'!ý 'A Oil;.. " - -,       ý., ý -                r i.:.,       ýw.4ýLý"izý_
vi     '.. 1,             g, -;- ý;-ýýIj3ý-4ýý..-i              -            __      I, ý7_                                                 I        ý                51
4-1ý..ýý'-'. W..,f.      -, J. ý'ý.1.    -       ý__.ý';':ý_17.=  -I.-n   -It.* ýýX.J_---_---Tw-_                                H   q     1           2..'_"'ý?-. -ýý..    ý ý      -    -  I-    ý ý - - -.     I   i;'ý         -.1.   ý "-- "ýý:__  ý_., --l-F   t-'X--FT-. -I;- -                r-:1, m;7.i'ý        -        -     '                          'ý:"ý*7,:'ýýzý        ---.-,---. - ý ---                    ý     I     - -    'o
-                                    -: ' _'_'_ - - - -. ý I I.7Z'Týý';:.7":'_                              -1 -=='==     ýFir      S-      - -,                         -,      -ý_ 4ý - -    -1 _:tý     -,ý   ý=:LL-    -               '. -;           'n,,, -- __;-14ýi        I           I
_ýý--=-t;... -         ý4 C-    --   - - I - iý ý ý'ý ýr      _ý'i    _-ýZý.ýýFea7fý'7';..:_                  -     _''
'ý-U  ý5'-"v-          ý                    -ý;                  Zý_     -.ý.. I,._==!7r,:_                      I..
-     -'             -.. --'=!_vl       -.-,                                                                  T
I       __              I.=_      lj,.' _','-ý'ý:ý'. n, --tz _ý'      -,:t               -       - ý       ______'ký__ =___Nl.
ý;-t-_- ý'S-==ý==-_ýý'                           y     --, ý-.               iiE Fiý!EK==-                   - - ____j
--,=.      V,                    ý -                                        ':ý_-t,_-,  1  j  -,.r,;r
C. ---,D,.,r__17z','Týý';f      _.,                                             _ý   _.==I=-    - -.
---.--.-       _ýý't_'tr. -             _ ý,      __,,-;    'ý -IR-, Zý      ý-_K-ý                                                                     I          I   ý ý    ý ý
- __=;=      =ý -                                   ý                                    "'          '          '    ---.     Z,=-.;.,ýý,-.r.ýiý:;:.-zz=ýýýq--,";::*:ý  -7,
-          "    ij.;ý.3.'ý_'J_   -.. '.: ý    ý      -, -iýýH    -'!-.    -   -                                                                           I!
5, 4"-.4 -,I ýý                            -
I -           tý        " -   ý   '7ýkl 'ý 5ý` _. ýt..                                                                                                                       1ý
P,--      ' 't            -   _ý    ý'ý%ý___Aý_:ý_:=ýý;ýiýýiýil          _,,,,.-5f,,ý,t.r--,,tL"--,,',ýV.ý,ý"  C.ýjý - __  ý                           -
_.      '.77.    -              ýf    J-1- -.-C---.L,  -  _.L.
I. -    FTI..' 71.ý;ý.ýr_'_..                                                 ýý      l tz-  - -- '.' tt it,... -  ltý  ':ýý.  1,,.: -ý"eýý.4ý-- ltl X'ý:ý-' ýý.ýý -'i'Fý---ýýC-ý%=?ýtz;-,zr,ý:ý,-ý;ý'iý-Pi---m-7iý;;_ý-  -wý  I  -'
t.        _q                                                           -
_ý
a;ýý
_ýF =---        ':tý   itý&;;'-. UV -ý=-             it -      -.--'?!.-ý;=             ---*- -                                            -  - --                     -   i         -.
2ýý -  I.ý;;                        ýZý. &'ý ý_'"7%ý     ý'-_.'!-_'-'Z;ýýýý -   -- X-      ý-_- - - --.'           tn't-     _;:!FZ..        ý,:!:                           __i         "7! __'Y=*`y4Tl_' -  1ý -   I _.                       _ýý;ýýr_1141      ý    - '--ý'! -      --ýia_!.-     '. -.                            -                             -                  ý.                                                               I
'a                         -      - iL            hý    ý -.   - ___ -.-. ý       _'ýý_Tý'.1 ý&---;.ý'ýL, -ic --------.--I'--.ql __- - - I - "                                             llýý'ý:'-,,.
za= f zjýll    E        ý                                                                                           ý'
iz               --                          _                                                                 'ýUýýizF- ý-ý-;-==:-=             ý-.y.
';;n           -         _ý                                                                                                                        gý
--,.:%7i -.,-,-.. - ý"'T.      V7ý;'ý
-==                                                                              -ý     '%      -     - - - tj  -. F-ý--_-f!-.JFýg      -                        -                              li
---     'ýý-ý'=-            _-    -.' -,,..__ ___ ý,,,, -    -                                                ='vc-_    -ý. ýJ.Hf ý  'ý     Jr.-------,    ý, Q                                             '.Mý'7ý'-'_ý;iý;n-=, ýtý.t  = -,---.--. __irý.                     --.                 -.         I
P  i-   I                                                               I           -,_      - - ___ ------
--I';t         I __ ýý'i'7_7n--4ý1ýý'ýIýA____ 11."-,--,                              --4;--.4-ýi        -     -ýf=                                  -           ý         ý.-  _-                                                                                                    42-;ý-ý-ý     _'-  _
-         -     ýý'ý       t- -;l;i; -j.                                                                                     --.1%,_ -'I,-,.- ý'                                   I
_____ý_'.'___             -          -v- -ý.r.'_'!:.=ý=_=ý:
':ý?ý7        -  "-_ff:.ýý-:ijtl                    ý          _ý. ýýj                   - - -'.'                                   _:_Fl.-.iý                  Z,                                             14ý         -;'-ý_l_'-._- -                FUl      -.1- -.11.-.      ý                      I
-'=- - --       - ".. -                                                    ':=ýýAý--,L-       -,-,  -,                                    -             '
' '                                                                                                                                  -   ý.:ý                                     -       I
_r,.,-. -_
M -_ýý7ý  -                               ý'A.ý7ýý_,7ý--'--I--,,  -ý' _;- ýý' _'_77'  -Z71  I" ý- -..,:.        A"%                   '.w -                                               -77;-----
-1.  ==_- -.-.--     -   =._`ý           '                              '".F. -      -1 ý,;42m                              '                   '           '.iý I ý.- s,    _;m   ",.1..", -                 -             -.---  - - -      ""......  _-.1-- ý 1ý7ý     -   - L ", k7ý -  -                                       iiý!T.f;"ý_'_ -_r,             ý -.!ýý==-t..la:.
".",     -   -                                                                         -.".ý:":-_-'-';e_.V;,-, -::-_-_v;r-::HB____.-_7;ffj.41NýKf - __,,",--.,,,,,-"-.r-,.-.;t,-,ýý---ýý-,*,,--.,-e,,.-,,.--,-, _  I -          a      _-'ý4  f  -.- ý;ý'ý _._'...ial_' -.1" -  I---,-- 1_-ý__-ý,_-ý_!. -, 'ýia.-.'.-I -M..  - -1. Z.Výi_  ý
__'     -,-    r;__-_`,lIrL.l           -.1- -  -   _   -  -                                              -1-  'ý 'ý'i                                                ýý'-iý5-j                       -  -      ý'
_ý *11ýýIZOL..'Zzý=4-,ý;ý:,--ý;.,ý!:.ý.Z _#ZT7-_;m'ýý  --t-': 7ý1_.  "ý_                         r-ý' _1_-:ý.'-!;ý".M:!ý=Z.,=-ý=z;      ' qZilmrg-ýig=_,                         I
ý  -         ý7      '   'ýýtý -'_'ýý_,:ZtýýF_7'ý7ý._-, ý                                     ý_.It:         _X                                      _ljýý-;ý;ý                              -                  ýý-;i        1;'
-   - - ý V_ --- =:    - - - --- - -  -                               -t'.Zýý. '4jý-%          ail':X:ý::ý-'__' tý';t.t.,==1_1              I                    I   I
_Zý13    lv._'ý!w   -   7:m-:r 4ý,:ýJ;l ý' '    '-:ý7    -'-'--L I- '-tý-ý_,,,.I,-ý-='Zzý".-.ýtýi-iiý-.ýý'-.---r,---.-ýýýý.-t...... -  _7ýF              -    ----t
I~-. I -;iý'".. ý I.ý&ý.17,                             I                              -         jý;.
J-ýý. *:'7,7  - I..-, -  ___,.                          11                        -    ý '-;-   I.,.ýý t:,ýý*
_       _                                  ý_,7__                 -.               _r
_ý- I. =.,. __'.                       -           _-     _';-=ý   -       '.71-  ý  li__'ý7__'ý T*_.Z           -  I   -  I       -
I....                                                       "."'... -... ý - ", ý..,                _4                                                                           -
C.    - __ -    -..,-  - ý ý                                          --- - - li4ý- - - A......
-  A:1 V  7F-'7jý--:"':_                                      ý ______7         ---
- I=-,    '_'ýý?-I-       - - -.              -, iý                              -ýý-'<ýý.!ý   - - -     --   - ý. -1 -     -..
-1.-         _                                      x    z. ý'            - -i,;?,                                                             I. I.'ý 7ýýz
Z.:                            -v-                      4:4 " -4    -'ý"ý.'_:'-'t'_;;-Zý._ -'4-=z7zz-_ - Z_ý _-__-__ý,ý'r.ý71=-'..ý_u                                      'ý '-  -. _t iz- _"L -1-1-1 "I  -k  _Vý.  -  --.11  ==: -ý--=:  -  llý,
K- ", 4ý==ý-1t;`-1. t -Z -%r`      __  ý!ým                 - -                                       ý ", "-., -:- ý             _ýZý   7-  _ -    -                        -
1.                                          - -.                                     '_ _                   " *1,;ýýiýsý-lý'i!i:ý-t.ý:--zý.-L-.,--,r:ý--. -'_-__=_-ý  -  " -ý 'a    '.' -1-  - ý I -Eyl-   _.,     -_     _.,__,           1.....ý
I.1;ý;_z _ '&ý'.                                          --   V2    ý::=._'Iý_-.:'-t:r__...                              -  ý  Tý_'  ý 21,..
I,.=-r-ý'            ýX, -  I-   __ -__ I          -_ - __     -. 11. ------__.. -.-V----           --.-.,-.,;Iýz,ýý--cý-z.;ý.ILZ----,ý                 I                            la.
-   j -Nvz4ý.ý                           '""                    'ýý                                              ' "  - - `                    I ýý_7ýr -, _'ý. -,
_Iýz        ýý         iý' =    ý.                     --   ýý      -    -.,'--   -   i-_-.';-                                        I                                ==Z "
'ýK                            _' -       -    - ",.'ýt_'. _..
-                                                       e                      - ý     r               - n 77ý_                    _-, =-!11;ý      I-:!=-      -
ý _4_4Eý-; v,-.- -      -Zý ý XiF -:-"V-,-, A '-. 1ý1 ý:E *                                  -   -_-..              ýý          ý-ý                                            ý.    1-1-                           ý                           -:iýi7  '. -.Jýý;  '. -   -,, --    -            F7,--!        ý'... - -_. _ --- - -  == -ý'lrr-  -  'I ý  7=__' -.."-,.-  _.11 - ___  17  -
i-ý.                      *Z1, _"-:%5-7-4-_Z--;:Fý=:-    --       -        -     '?]7ý-'%-   __.:,,,  I - % - -  - -  _Tý' ý' ý::VE 'w                                                         J. ':ý                -T-vý-,A     -"A,    'ý'. rl     "ý                                                  =ý'ýý;ý    ý_-_       ______'.-. _V.   "M          - _-         ",   i - ý...           tr
_:r        ýý. nii!F: -                         -                              -         - " N7ý',      -- __j   -_ -- IF               ". -- _-..  - =  'ZLHý'.:zýzý_ ýZ- - -,  '-7,  ==:-,..ý;  I~  ý -.. -"  - - -  -'  -
Lý   -   z---:.---      I      i.', ý_.  "                        -_ " -                                   __.'     _____.___       _.:ýzýr:.=.          ý.,     I                        -1ý.'
" ý ý7- -, I -..'t-                                   tn       _'_-__._'_: 1.. -.-... -                            _1ý1_'..;_,_Ci;"ll.ll_!tlf-..-:..= f                                                     '--         " - - -.        ý   -
-                                     - __    -z-                                                                    1. -  _     -   -.':7ý -_ _                ý.-%ý 1',.1 ý     _....      -,ýý-,;ýýýýýý=-ý-.:-ZrK,:,",ý.:-,;, ý r        - -.- ý ý_- ----j= - -- -- t_-_:ý_'-*';LH'ýFý......:_."-ýIý'--`:-  Z-.7ý1 ýýY_:4ý_. 11-1 -                 I
';ýý-_'_ -  I  I  -  - r.   '.;.                                                                 -.,_
_-'.-..'lr'.l--         J:ý)'_14.:'."jf7FFfý-                                                -I.- -     -J       ý:   -Z it!-jFt_'tz:_.- ý..  _f  -  -                          I           I  -,
-k.?, 7ýýý7'ý'-ýý'Z-F*Yii--,-,-,:ý-,:,7=-ý-:-ýý-,!I-:7.,                                 Z_ _..r'z
_.'            -     -       -. ý' "ý..Y___ý=;7._ýý  _:t:ý_-ý=ý_!F47--ý11.1--  -.I.r-  -  t
- -.ýý     I;.:'.. -,;I-,i;-  - -    -Ft       -,ý  --    --_r--- ------ -           7t-.-i-TZ,.;;-ý%7_--,',rýL-'             -.Z'  -,.,.      ý'..
A,,ý   1                                                                                                                                                            1 LC
"I 6.1         -                                     _   ý,Sý     z, __ý,ý._.i.          -  -::                                                   ý;.
_ý:ý. -..;                   -1 -.1 -..'. -                      -_   -21;-i'7-.4_7-zEEL-:ý-tý-P_%                      ';
Ir.,-I- i-. __'.     "     -      '_;ý   ýF           -1 ý..'--         ý                                    Zý  'ýýz            i.                                                               __'ý
_.                  -0                                -                                tj-:Iz=ý' 713;4' 11 - -.1--   _-    _ I., __" __.'r.  -,
- r.           - -1                        - - ý    '_'_,kýf..   ---.       _                 -j  'ý. - -         _'. __                               ----       _ýý
Z' ý;4.z-  ý, ý  v,.,-                           -      -..' ý            I         ý     I    'ý
1,:='M. 7             'ý_   =_' _ý t"';'-x -,, - A, '-                                              _                                            -týI -    11- 1. -.11- I -_...
ýlr__T -.,    - ý    '   ---- 7-   -I-,'------ -IZYýý_ýTm_:v:,;--   '    _4'ýn ", '-,  "I __-ý  1-ýý:-,ý:1-ýtýzriý--,ýýýý;ýý.-.Zl--,.ýýýý.ýý-ýý-2--ýýý*ý:,    I.
_4        ýý'                               ý     -    _  _.-    _ý 7"                 4,                                'ýý'FFLý'.'   "?,.,       -,      -                 _4ý        ý. -   I iýý-'_'-.ý=.ý.ý.- ý,-t ai;ý=  -:  _:_.ý -                     -ýý       -...--'..,,
__i:.W;, F.   ý?:ý..=Z=--niýý'--eýi-ýý_.: ý_, -7:%LýFi=ý_-1:F,      -,:            I               1ý1.
-.-            -                     '                                              - -- =-+- ---ý;       5ý-='.1-.ý=-==--         ý'
IV                                                                   -   it- -'Z-7_.:a':;ý  ---  ', '.ýq='1!7                                                              1-.      b,            P-rn'                                       -                        ý                                                             -ýic itliýj;::"         "-T -   - - - -  ýý'- - -           I".7, - 1;7ý_ý -1            - --.' ",
ý'ý 1-  W"A* 'g..ý,           ýv          - Lý,_-_-:_      k p   -  "                               _Zý:ýZ]jýý -_.ý'M_ý7=ý                                                                 ý
a   ýý&_wý_'EýF';Ji'.,        - -'ýý:7        -,.   ýý    -;' -ý!,W;-7 - 4ý_-7i'  7, "           '. -                          '4  iiiý', -:ý  ýtz=
- ý' x           -     _                              ". ý - -_.::ýý,ýý'                                          -..ýý, ý  -S.-  '         I
'.    'ý7ý--T%--Iýý_.-;:' - ý' ý ý,.  -;"_ 't; _'         RZ._                _. ",-       ý -   -Rl__-.ýý.ýý-iiw4!iý  `ý'ý"
'. -=E=                -   -                       142-i74       q%ý-ý:ý-ý:4i-'-.ýý----  -- - --..'týEýn_ý_  - T,                         ý.'       =  =     zzlý
-T-1       -- - '         -    - r-,                                                                  tt           rýý                                      =ý_===l,-..ý;  I     ýý'=':V'T 'A --r-.- -,              -     2ý-Z  ý---_ý.-..:Zýr;' _  _:ýZ-ý--ýrý.--. ýw-,,:_,ý.",;ý:-ý."1:4..;-i.lz"ý*: J'-'ý  -  ýý  ';Ell-".!+_'Aýý;".;_44 ýý":'         -                        Nth    '73   ý:"_,      -  -  -.-     ý                 __- __. _tý' -  -   __:ý__.__      -                    ý                       ý       i,::_-';iFi-'Lý,=Zý_ý;  S4'x;aA    t_--'-;kz _:-ý-4--v-                    -   -               _W. __ý':ýý_'.ýý"._'ý;z - t'                               -iýý    -ýý  '
1=                     =     'C*174   ý-ý'.-     -                                 -7-;nwý -, I~. ". 1, - - -.. _m:                         -  _.ý ýý  "    -,                               -..    't "= -1-.'.1   I     -                                   ý-,:MT  Elj'ý3ý    t    -ý':'-_-._  __    _',
_71t - ___       -,F  Z-. --'- - --r
11.  '":ý_*Vv.ý'              -    ý:s.' lih, -7 1ý-;:,..-ý7uý_.:ý:_-=           =;zý__tz.;===_l.1
ý                                     'ýý     - -ýf --                 -ýý-7t--.--,,'ýý-4ý#ýýý',ý:-'.:-4.-:ii'ý--ýv.".-.i7l-2--ý7, ý  _  __'.                              '..=.=_-tý`.ýGrýý..:Z4.__ _ T':_:F7i     liý  vr. _., -                                                                        -.    -      - I      _1:1'ý.'_  I    ý-+;v                 p     ý         -_     1110;       ý                           -            -     _1_1%ý_==tmýý                               I
__:                                        ýj   ýa        "          -Z'ýý - ý - -,i-,-- - t:  t -  _ý`:4ý;_--!ý  - S  ý-  ýrwý     ';, -ýýt_ _11__ý_7'r__:                                                  1ý
__     k_.:ý_J_ ýý    '=ý.F^ ltý;...'    4., _'j.    K          - ' - ýý'-,.ýý     4ý1ýjt__-;I
'_  - "':                                                       -                       ' ýt' - __ -----!!- -'t-_ -":)ýLzý' -'W'ý_'-'W-_-';'  -.
-V  _: n; yg,Z-4-e-,ý E.,t.;ý-.,  -  - ------ ý -     - ý.v  -  -                          ý                                                  ý
'_ -   ' '    '     ýý                --i -                                                            ý=':---I- 16ý-"-'       -.
_F  rIM               ý',` J.; 7        'P-,.-,- _.                              _-:..4:__ _.-I.:T:'a=4444qpk...     ý
ýj,.             ý & ']ý 't    'I-__.='_._:_I.-     THýiitýnýý    ý  "        '       - %j',;_%.--lý_Aý    40_t'-.   _-ý, ýý _ý         ý-_ý                              - - -
ýt..                                                      I                                                       ýt  -"ý          1ý
H,  - =Z=',;ý ý. ý-ýý-ý' ý;-,2 uwýý                                            -              _ý.g- _x -;- - r-;ý=Výf.ýg"_'ý.                              --   V.',---        ",;iý-.4,'--"'ý=.ý-ýý:iýz7L-ý-Aý,-ý-c'-'ý,.-"--'--'----)--iý'--ý-jFEýitýý- ý`---  - t  _.   _,   ý   ý    -      _'.
=. - i -1                     ".        F.4;---ý  -W-i-'_                                                      _ý,, _:"   ý:.ý     -   _--,               7=-.==-                              1          ý
ý                    'i,.7=;,. _.'                                                   -,.,-"               -.1                  -    -_,:;: n li-.,  I.Iff:'-m::!7ý.- -;, -':ýý--4"".-47... ý. "'.9"; Z_'.ýý.ýý'                                      -    - ---..., -,-..3  - I ---  -    -    "'.ý.-.,.is:,                                                            Vý..V.     'r ý':L' Vý.        n  -;tý- -, I                                      I I;ý"'ý' --_ý -ýZrýt-4-.;:ý:-tiL4-,-:-=-.,F.-:ý- = ný
-                          I _ýý'               _INf:':-'::_:ý   -.,.l.   --;:; ý I f                                                   -,--- _- ý """:'%."f-'"_ Z ý;AýT. "'_            irl:t=                                                I            ý-.31-ý-' ý--;=--;t"'5   ý-.T-tv