had hardly more space, but that in the second edition a case is cited from Grauvogl, in which an enchondroma of the hand was cured by the sixth dilution of this remedy. Why should not we have Dr. Dudgeon's case in this Journal, in which it proved so strikingly curative of inflammation of the lachrymal sac, or any other of the numerous instances of its efficacy to be found in our literature?

The remarks we have made upon Dr. Hempel's treatment of the antipsorics extend also to his mode of exhibiting such remedies as Lachesis and Apis. His prejudice against these agents is derived not only from the way in which they have been proved, but also from their supposed incapability of affecting the system when absorbed by the alimentary mucous membrane. So that he unwillingly assigns a good therapeutic virtue to Apis, but in his first edition utterly denied the curative power of Lachesis. In his second edition he a little modifies his tone. He cites three cases of gangrene in which the remedy in question proved efficacious; and, admitting them as "fair illustrations of the curative power of Lachesis in traumatic gangrene," proceeds as follows: "We do not believe that if, instead of endeavouring to foist Lachesis upon the profession as a sort of universal panacea, its advocates had confined its therapeutic use to traumatic gangrene, which constitutes the legitimate sphere of this poison, the scepticism which now weighs down its claims as a remedial agent would ever have been excited in the minds of our physicians?" Dr. Hempel must surely be aware that cases quite as good as those he cites can be brought forward to shew the efficacy of Lachesis in malignant angina, in affections of the heart, in inflammation of the cæcum, in chronic headaches, and a variety of other disorders of the blood and the nervous system. And what shall we say to his treatment of Naja Tripudians? No one can read the record of the provings instituted by (we quote Dr. Hempel) "Drs. Rutherford, Russell, and Stokes" (!) without feeling deep interest as in each prover the characteristic symptoms of the head, throat, larynx, heart, and intestines manifest themselves with greater or less intensity. Yet these admirable

experiments "do not" according to Dr. Hempel "seem to have yielded any very marked results." A brief summary of the symptoms elicited by Dr. Stokes is all that is given, and not a word is said of the cases of headache, angina, and heart-disease, in which this drug has proved so valuable.

4. Our last cause of quarrel with Dr. Hempel is this, that in the clinical portion of his book, too little proportionate space is assigned to homoeopathic experience. Frank's magazine is cited wholesale; but very little use is made of Rückert and Beauvais. The journals of the old school are ransacked for cases; but the European and American homœopathic periodicals seem to be to Dr. Hempel a sealed book. Now this is not as it should be. We are the last to complain of the free use of old-school experience. In many ways it is of the utmost value. But it is often very questionable whether the curative effects of crude doses represent the true specific action of the drug. There are mechanical and chemical, as well as dynamic actions in most medicinal substances; and the dynamic effects themselves are sometimes indirect rather than immediate. On the other hand, a cure wrought by an attenuated medicine is unquestionably an addition to our knowledge of its use as a homœopathic remedy, and is proportionably more valuable. We think, then, that in such a work as Dr. Hempel's the experience of the old school should be used only in the absence of recorded homœopathic results, or as a confirmation of these when existing. This mode of proceeding is important also as regards the matter of dose. There are some remedies-as Quinine for ague, and Mercury for syphilis, and Opium for lead-colicwhich, although perfectly homœopathic to the disease they cure, seem unable to vanquish it except when given in material doses. So long as we have nothing but allopathic experience of the efficacy of other, remedies, we have no means of knowing whether they belong to this category, or whether, like most of our medicines, they act best when at least to some extent attenuated.

We ask, then, of Dr. Hempel, should he have another opportunity of revising his work

1st. To modify the physiology and pathology he learnt as a student in favour of the fuller knowledge of the present day.

2nd. To introduce in their proper places the numerous pathogenetic and clinical records of the last fifteen or twenty years.

3rd. To give a fuller account of the curative results which have been obtained from the antipsorics and the serpentpoisons.

4th. To make a larger proportionate use of homœopathic clinical experience.

Again we say, we point out these deficiencies in no spirit of carping complaint. We have little doubt that, had we ourselves compiled such a work, there would have been as much or more fault to be found with us. We have no sympathy with the spirit which is content to stand idle itself, while it exclaims bitterly against the errors committed by those who stand forward to do the work that must be done. Dr. Hempel's labours, with all their faults, will embalm his memory in ages yet to come when the very names of his detractors will have sunk into oblivion.

MISCELLANEOUS.

A London Life Assurance Office converted to Homœopathy, by the Evidence of Statistics.

(COMMUNICATED.)

The month of December, 1864, marks an epoch in the history of homœopathy, the memory of which will be ardently cherished by every homœopath of the present generation; whilst, to this period will frequent reference hereafter be made, as that from which is to be dated a remarkably rapid growth of the system in public estimation.

On the 16th of December, 1864, there met together at the

Freemasons' Hall, in London, under the presidency of Lord Henry Gordon, a number of individuals-in no respect identified with homœopathy, but simply concerned in the promotion of their own pecuniary interests-to consider the bearing of this system of medical treatment on the health and life of the community. The parties referred to are the Directors and Shareholders of a company, entitled "The General Provident Assurance Company." The object of such institutions, is, we need hardly remark, commercial gain; and one of the principal means employed, is an investigation, conducted with scientific severity, into the duration of human life, with all the concomitant circumstances which tend to affect the health of individuals and classes.

Hitherto the actuaries of these valuable institutions have disregarded-and therefore omitted from their calculations-the very important consideration of medical treatment. The keenness of competition, however, which characterises every department of trade in the present day, and stimulates to their utmost extent the intellectual faculties of our men of business, has at length, made itself felt even amongst these very conservative establishments; and, as a consequence, we find, in the case of the general Provident Assurance Company, the actuary directed to make an investigation into the hitherto unexplored region of comparative medical treatment-with what result it is scarcely necessary to inform the readers of this Journal.

To some, at least, of the Directors of the Provident, this result, no doubt, presented itself in the light of a discovery; to none could it be otherwise than gratifying to learn, that their labour had been rewarded by the acquisition of data capable of being turned to very profitable account, in the following well-ascertained facts:—that persons treated by the homoeopathic system enjoy more robust health, are less frequently attacked by diseases, and when attacked, recover more rapidly than those treated by any other system; that with respect to the more fatal classes of disease, the mortality under homœopathy is small in comparison with that of allopathy; that there are diseases not curable at all, under the latter system, which are perfectly curable under the former; finally, that the medicines prescribed by homœopaths do not injure the constitution, whereas those employed by allopaths not unfrequently entail the most serious, and, in many instances, fatal consequences.

66

These data obtained, the Directors had but one duty to perform alike to themselves and to their constituents, which was to summon a meeting of their shareholders, and to lay before them the facts they had collected, and the decision at which they had arrived, viz., " to open a special section for persons treated by the homœopathic system, at a LOWER RATE OF PREMIUM THAN THAT CHARGED ON OTHER LIVES." And without a dissentient voice this proposition of their Directors was adopted by the shareholders of the General Provident Assurance Company.

Here, then, we have a testimony borne to the great practical value of Homœopathy which nothing can gainsay-against which ridicule and abuse, the only weapons by which we have hitherto been attacked, can avail nothing. It is not with "individual opinion" that our opponents have now to deal-not even with the opinions of such men as the late Archbishop of Dublin, the late Dr. Gregory, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh, or the late Dr. Samuel Brown, a man worthy to rank with the illustrious Faraday—all of whom lived and died in the faith of the truth of Homœopathy-and not to mention a host of other names of men, living and dead, in every department of literature, science, and art. It is not with individual opinion, we repeat, that our opponents have now to deal. They are now confronted with the result of an investigation directed to be made by a body of commercial men, for commercial purposes, conducted with that marvellous precision which has exalted the investigations of the assurance offices of this country to the rank of scientific verities—and endorsed by men whose intellectual faculties, when summoned to decide, must have been in liveliest exercise, seeing that they had to determine on a question in which they were without precedent for a guide, and in which their own pecuniary interests were deeply concerned. Well, the question has been decided, so far at least as one Assurance Office, with its Actuary, Directors, and Shareholders is concerned; and the fact cannot be concealed. It will not be long, therefore, we may confidently predict, before other offices will follow this example. But, however numerous may hereafter become the adopters of this innovation, let it ever be remembered that to the General Provident Assurance Company belongs the distinguished honour of being the pioneer in this movement. And never let the circumstance be forgotten, which gives life and vigour to the great moral of this narrative, that the decision arrived at was the