attention or understanding, but seems to have contented himself with the réchauffés served up at secondhand by that great medical authority the Court Journal, we gladly acquit him of any charge heavier than that of "answering a matter before he heareth it." Hahnemann's use of Saccharum lactis was precisely the same as that of bread pills or syrup of saffron by the allopaths; with the advantage in his favour of employing a really inert material, whereas saffron sometimes exerts a powerful (but unsought) action. Every physician, whether homœopath or allopath, will acknowledge that if he is forbidden to employ "placebos," he may as well give up practice altogether.

We are next told (3)" that, except at Vienna, homœopathy is now comparatively little heard of in Germany and France, and that notwithstanding Leipzig is the head-quarters of this doctrine, the homœopathic hospital in that city, a small house in the suburbs, contains only eight beds, of which Mr. Lee, who lately visited it, found only two or three occupied, and it was never sanctioned by any individual of eminence in the profession.'

"Homœopathy is little heard of in Germany or in France,” and this is used as an argument to discredit it. Dr. Simpson had informed the Medico-Chirurgical Society that homoeopathy was "extending" somewhere or other, but that this was no proof of its truth. Here we are told that the fact of its not spreading is a proof of its vanity. Poor homœopathy seems in a sad plight. If it disseminates itself, that's nothing to the purpose, but only makes it the more like Mormonism. If it does not disseminate itself it is at once shown to be good-for-nothing. This is something like the game of "Heads I win, and tails you lose." But we have strong "historic doubts" as to the truth of Simpson's assertion that "homœopathy was little heard of in Germany and France." We have not got the statistics of 1851 before us, but this year (1873) we find there are 265 homœopathic practitioners in Germany and upwards of 400 in France; and if these have all sprung up during the last twenty-two years, it speaks well for the recent progress of the school. Moreover we should like to know for what reason Leipzig

is called the "head-quarters" of homoeopathy. Is it because Hahnemann was banished thence by the apothecaries? We know of no other title it possesses to the honour assigned it.

We are next told (4) "that the theory of homoeopathy is never carried out in practice, and indeed never can be from the natural impossibility of doing so." That the theory of homœopathy is rarely, if ever, perfectly carried out in practice is, we fear, indisputable; and it is perhaps impossible for fallible human nature in any particular case to insure the absolute homoeopathicity of the selected drug. It is still more deeply to be lamented that the theory of Christianity is never perfectly carried out in practice, and we apprehend its complete fulfilment is a "natural impossibility" to fallen humanity. Yet neither Simpson nor his biographer would, we imagine, have held this any disparagement of its value, but the reverse; and assuredly he who aims at the lofty mark of the "prize of our high calling" will, even if he fail, at least shoot far above the man who contents himself with a lower object. And so, though our approach towards perfect homoeopathicity may be but an asymptotical progress after all, yet we are on the right path, and our every step is a step in advance, which brings its own rich reward. As a matter of experience, we see, that, while we guide ourselves by the homoeopathic law, every new fact learned of pharmacodynamics adds its portion of certainty to our practice, and contributes its share towards the formation of a complete system. To the allopath, as we have seen, such remains merely an isolated fact, reducible to no law, and only accidentally, if at all, valuable in practice. Surely a theory, the only fault of which is that its perfect realisation is beyond our power, is at least preferable to no theory at all—especially when every step towards its realisation, however far it may fall short, is found by practical experience to be an actual gain; and for confirmation of the assertion that the allopaths are entirely destitute of theory or law to guide their actions, we need only refer to the words of Dr. Stokes quoted above.

Next (5), "Although different effects are theoretically

said to be produced by different dilutions, yet homœopathists themselves confess to effects quite the same from all dilutions." Why, of course they do, in different individuals, or even in the same individual in different physical conditions. Using language in its ordinary acceptation, we may say that very different effects are produced by two drops and two drachms of Tincture of Opium. Yet it may be a question, or in fact it hardly is a question, whether two drachms of Laudanum would have had more effect upon the late Mr. De Quincy than two drops upon a child of eight years old. Age, habitual use of a drug, sex, occupation, periodical physical conditions (as the menstrual period in woman), habits, position in life, inherited or acquired peculiarities, climate, and especially idiosyncrasy; all these exert so powerful and diverse an influence on different individuals and on the same individual at different times, that it would have been a miracle if "effects quite the same had "not "been obtained from all dilutions;" that is to say, if it had not been necessary, in different cases, to employ different dilutions in order to produce the same effect.

(6) "The supposed statistical evidence in favour of homœopathic practice is founded on false and disingenuous returns." This is mere assertion, and admits of being retorted on our opponents with perfect fairness. Nowadays, so far as we have ourselves seen, laudable pains really are taken to secure tolerably accurate hospital returns; but two and twenty years ago, whatever may have been the case in homoeopathic hospitals, the reports of allopathic hospitals, at any rate, were notorious for their scandalous carelessness and inexactitude, not to say mendacity.

Perhaps the best reply to this allegation will be afforded by a simple and precise enunciation of the facts upon which the statistics of the homoeopaths and allopaths were founded, in reference to the comparative mortality and duration of pneumonia in the two methods of treatment, since this was selected as the battle-ground. It is true that as we now know pneumonia to be a disease which normally tends to a spontaneous cure, it is not the one we should prefer at the present day in support of homeopathic

claims; still the following table, rightly understood, will amply demonstrate the perfectly ingenuous character of the homœopathic statistics, and the power of our mode of treatment in lessening the mortality and shortening the duration of this disease-not only as compared with the murderous bloodlettings and "tartarizations" of the ordinary school, but even with the more judicious expectant" treatment of Dietl.

Now, with regard to the above table we must note (1) the homeopathic cases were unselected, being taken in succession as they occurred in the case-books; (2) among the

complicated" homoeopathic cases are eight in which previously enfeebled and deteriorated health are specially noted; (3) although the proportion of female patients, as well as of those in whom the upper lobe was affected, is smaller than that in some allopathic statistics (as in those of Andral and Grisolle), this fact loses all weight as an objection when we remember that such cases are stated by Louis, Grisolle, and Briquet to be more fatal only on account of the advanced age at which they commonly appear. Hence, as the average of the ages in the homeopathic cases is considerably above that of the allopathic, the circumstance becomes unimportant; (4) in the homoeopathic cases the duration of the disease is reckoned from the commencement till the subsidence even of the physical signs, whereas Louis only reckons it until the patient is so far recovered as to be able to take nourishing food; and Bouillaud, still

more unsatisfactorily, only includes the time "until the characteristic signs of pneumonia and fever have almost disappeared, and when he had begun to give some bouillons;" (5) Louis purposely excludes forty-six cases which had occurred in his practice along with the seventy-eight given, because in these pneumonia had occurred in unfavorable circumstances, such as previous bad health; and, in the seventy-eight cases, he himself tells us "all were in a state of perfect health at the time when the first symptoms of the disease began "—in the homœopathic cases one third had been in bad health previous to the pneumonia; (6) it is true, the instances of double pneumonia are less numerous in the homoeopathic than in the allopathic cases, but then it is to be remembered that, by the acknowledgment of Bouillaud himself, this untoward complication was constantly the result of the venesection resorted to in the ordinary treatment, so that the comparative rarity of its occurrence under Tessier is a credit and not a disparagement to his mode of practice. To these observations on the above table we may add the following statement of Dietl "the average duration of pneumonia treated by venesection is 35 days-by Tartar emetic 289 days, and by the expectant method 28 days," i. e. 16 days longer than under homœopathy.

Simpson objected to the cases of Tessier, that, as one died of erysipelas which began 12 days after the pneumonia was cured, and two others (according to his statement, but only one according to the truth) died of consumption before leaving the hospital (although three months after the pneumonia had been cured), these cases ought to have been counted as fatal, and would have been so in the returns of allopathic hospitals. But, as Henderson justly remarks, we are not comparing the homoeopathic cases with crude hospital returns, but with the discriminating statements of individual physicians, who knew perfectly well when their patients died of pneumonia, and when of some other disease which had no connection with it. Another objection Simpson brings forward is, that as six of the homœopathic patients had been bled prior to the homeopathic treatment,