As regards the final working-up, I think it would be advisable to arrange it in the same way as the descriptions of separate diseases are given in modern compendia of specific pathology and therapeutics, for instance, in the excellent works of Wunderlich, Virchow, and others; namely, first to give exactly the anatomical description of the pathological state induced by the medicine in question; the reader thus obtains at the outset a general view of the where and in what manner the attack of the medicine has localized itself, which is of the greatest value in judging of the symptoms to be recorded, whether they be subjective or objective, and greatly assists in answering the question as to what are primary and what secondary phenomena. The results obtained with the help of organic chemistry, changes in the excreted matters-urine, expired air, fæces-it would be best to record, according to the example of Böcker, every twenty-four hours; the other symptoms according to the period of their appearance, continuation, increase and decrease, and so on.

I consider it indispensable to give full and separate details of each proving or poisoning as the case may be, but not to blend all into one. But in order that there may not be merely a tedious register, the author should constantly endeavour, as far as he can, to arrange the histories of provings &c. in sundry groups, according as they stand in closer or remoter connection with each other, for the purpose of mutual elucidation and completion-worthless cases should be altogether suppressed.

When the materials are, in this or some other manner, at last used up, it would be highly advantageous if the chief and fundamental actions of medicines were rendered specially prominent, the most constant subordinate actions enumerated, as far as possible with statement of their degrees of certainty; but even the most seldom recurring exceptional actions (so called idiosyncrasies) must not be overlooked.

In conclusion, shall a register of symptoms according to Hahnemann's form follow or not?

I think it should, and the courteous homoeopathic reader will readily agree with me: but since my proposal shall not, and can not have any party colouring, let me be permitted to remark that the non-homoeopathic physician would be able to make a right good use of it (the register). If after the ingestion of a remedy new symptoms arise, it is often of the greatest importance to know whether these should be attributed to the increase or decrease of the malady, or to the remedy which has been administered: the question not unfrequently arises, especially in the exhibition of narcotic remedies, for instance, Belladonna in tussis convulsiva, how far may I go on increasing the dose without danger? and it must be admitted that one means of guidance here, is a knowledge of the symptoms which Belladonna excites, and may have excited in the case in question. But since in the hurry of practice there is not leisure every moment to go through a whole treatise, a good register— and as such I regard the list of symptoms-can be very useful for the moment, until the physician at his leisure can make the more precise comparisons and studies, which are in no wise to be superseded by the list of symptoms. It needs no special pointing out that in the treatment of poisoned persons a like diagnostic use may be derived

from it.

Here are then in nuce the requirements of the present day in regard to the Materia Medica, it being understood that the practical appreciation of the teachings of the Materia Medica are not discussed at present. For under this head, as I believe, time will teach, prove, or disprove many things; there must be contributions of further data to establish this or that therapeutic principle in such a manner as that there shall be no ground for further scientific objection; but it seems as if the period when this shall happen still rests in the cloudy distance.

Dismissing, ad interim, this latter subject, there still remains such a difficult problem to be solved, that I at least, with my resources, could not, and would not alone undertake its solution. I have declared my views in the above,

wishing that they should be considered as a preliminary starting point for more learned and more improving discussions. I do not aim at instructing my honoured readers, but rather at being instructed; and I shall be well pleased if my colleagues of every medical denomination would discuss, enlarge, improve, blame, or praise my views; let the subject, not the author, be kept in view; and I most solemnly promise to respect every honest criticism of my views and to conform to it as far as possible, whether it come from friend or foe.

So soon as such an indispensably necessary, instructive, and improving discussion shall have attained the useful result of drawing forth the views and wishes of others, I will assist, as far as I can, and publish the manipulation of some medicine, perhaps of Opium, which is already considerably advanced-or of Pulsatilla nigricans. In the mean time I commend the foregoing remarks to kind discussion, and myself to the good will of all my colleagues.

OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT AT THE HOSPITAL OF ROUBAIX (NORD).

By Dr. LIAGRE.*

To the Administrators of the Hospital of Roubaix. GENTLEMEN,-By your decision of the 16th July, 1863, you authorised me to use homoeopathic medicines for the treatment of the patients entrusted to my care at the hospital of Roubaix: I have the honour to submit the results which I have obtained from their employment.

In the first six months of 1863, I had already, as I informed you in my letter of 9th July, modified my manner of treating certain diseases, principally slight affections, or other mala

*From the Bull. de la Soc. Méd. hom. de France, 1st October, 1865. VOL. XXIV, NO. XCV.-JANUARY, 1866.

B

dies of a more serious nature, for the cure of which I know the ordinary treatment to be powerless. I trusted to the experience of a great number of medical men, who in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, America, in short everywhere, had renounced the errors of ancient physic to adopt the method of Hahnemann.

In the second half of 1863, empowered by the authority which you had given me, moreover having at my disposal a complete homœopathic pharmacy, I did at the hospital that which I was doing among my private patients, that is to say, I treated almost all my patients by the new method, still however, having recourse to some ancient therapeutic means, as I did not wish to act at hap-hazard, and being unwilling to make any mere experiments on my patients, either in my private practice, or at the hospital.

Still I place the results obtained in 1863 to the credit of homœopathy, because, besides having had recourse to old school remedies very rarely, I had already made great modifications in their employment, in reference both to the principle of sim. sim., and to the dose given.

But in 1864, emboldened by the success obtained, and strengthened by increased experience, I treated all my patients by the new method, only employing some of the old remedies very occasionally, and those of the most innocent character in incurable cases, where it was necessary to give some placebo to satisfy the patient's mind.

I have the honour, Gentlemen, to submit to you two tables, shewing the results obtained by me.

Table A shews the comparative mortality during my nine years of service at the hospital of Roubaix; with the old treatment during the seven years from 1856 to 1862; with the new treatment during the years 1863 and 1864. You will observe, Gentlemen, that the mortality during the first seven years varied from 25.55 per cent. (the maximum) to 14.60 per cent. (the minimum), which gives an average of 19.26 per cent.; whilst in 1863 it was only 13.70 per cent., and in 1864, 12.97 per cent. That is to say, that during 1863 and 1864, when I treated my patients according to the

method of Hahnemann, I lost six patients fewer in the hundred than when treating them by the old method, which I did for seven consecutive years.

Table B contains in alphabetical order all the patients treated during this period of nine years, with the number of admissions, dismissals, and deaths. In looking over this table, Gentlemen, you will observe that among those chronic diseases which chiefly affect the old, such as organic affections of the heart, pulmonary catarrh, asthma, softening of the brain, chronic pneumonia, and some others, the deaths during the last two years have not been less numerous than in the previous years.

Pulmonary phthisis is the disease that always gives us the highest figure of deaths. One remark, however, I have to make respecting this disease, and that is that death occurs much less quickly. A considerable number of phthisical patients left the hospital twice, or thrice, sensibly benefited before returning to die. I even hope I have cured some of them; but I shall have to wait several years before I can be sure that no relapse will occur.

It is among the acute diseases that you will notice a great difference in the results obtained by the two methods. Thus of typhoid fevers there were in 1863, two deaths and thirtyseven recoveries; in 1864, one death and nineteen recoveries. And I may just give a brief outline of the history of those three fatal cases.

The first, Henri Bucquois, was admitted the 8th January, 1863, and died on the 12th of the same month, after four days of treatment. He had been treated at home for fifteen days. He had a deep abscess of the thigh, and seemed to sink from the effects of purulent absorption, the symptoms of which he presented.

The second, François Doukers, was admitted the 24th of December, 1863, and died on the 28th of the same month, after four days of treatment. He had been ill four weeks when he was brought in a dying state to the hospital.

The third, Jean Baptiste Delcourt, was admitted the 4th August, 1864, and died the 24th of the same month (twenty