medicines than that he devised, and by means of which homœopathy has gained all her triumphs?

There are now before the profession-we know not if all in the market-some seven or eight different pharmaceutic preparations called high potencies, each recommended as the very best article to be had for love or money. We have in our periodicals cases treated by all these different preparations, and held up to us as examples for our imitation and as testimonies to the superiority of each of the articles employed. Are we expected to encumber our shelves with complete sets of medicines prepared according to the methods of Jenichen, Lehrmann, Fincke, and the rest? Are our pharmacists expected to keep complete sets of them all? Are we to abandon the divine simplicity of Hahnemann's method and to have our medicines all prepared in half a dozen different methods? And if there are now not many more than that number, what assurance can we have that the bad example thus set by so many men flooding us with their new and superior preparations, may not be speedily imitated by as many more, and we shall have all the Dicks, Toms and Harrys of homœopathy courting a cheap notoriety and rushing into the market with their very superior methods. It may be said that no one will mind the preparations of obscure practitioners, but, with the exception of Carrol Dunham, is there one of the high-potency mongers who can claim to be the very smallest authority in homœopathy? And yet their preparations seem to be valued in the inverse proportion to their homœopathic reputation. The horse-trainer Jenichen still bears away the palm for high potencies, while Dunham's preparations were, we believe, never used by any but himself.

What a chaos has been created in practice by these unseemly struggles to supersede Hahnemann's pharmaceutic method? And the offenders are without exception those who arrogate the title to themselves of "Hahnemannists." Is Hahnemann a myth? And have already dogmas become engrafted on the Hahnemannic legend, which find no countenance in the master's writings, of which this high-potency delusion is one?

The only attempt at justification for the introduction into practice of these anti-Hahnemannic novelties we have hitherto seen is the assertion: "We have tested their power and have seen them act, cure serious diseases in fact." But it is no justification for using secret remedies that they sometimes seem to cure, and some, if not all of the new preparations, are secret remedies, that is, we know not what they are nor how they are made. Besides, we would ask, were the ordinary Hahnemannic preparations tried and found wanting? If a man tells us he has cured a toothache or a sorethroat with a medicine labelled cm. Fincke," we would merely ask: Did he try the medicine in a Hahnemannic form and did it fail? If he cannot answer this affirmatively then we may say that all he has proved is that a medicine labelled as above was given and the disease was removed; but the same might have happened had he given a Hahnemannic preparation, or some other medicine, or nothing at all. Probably had he prescribed his medicine in the usual form and the disease had disappeared he would have thought no more about it, but as the disease went after a "cm. Fincke" he cannot help cackling over it.

It is high time that those who venerate the name of Hahnemann and respect his teachings should join in a protest against these unwarranted, unauthorised and unnecessary departures from his pharmaceutic method. And more especially is this the case when an air of mystery and secrecy is given to the novel departures from the authorised method, or some complicated machine is employed for the new preparations which must necessarily remain the exclusive property of its inventor; for it is not to be expected that the ordinary practitioner will purchase one, have it fitted up in his house and superintend its working. This mystery and this intricacy attached to the preparation of the novel potencies, must have the effect of compelling all who would try them to apply to the inventor for the remedies that go by his name. As it is improbable that the inventor would give the fruits of his labour for nothing, this implies that he sells them for money down,

and perhaps this accounts for the peans of praise that each inventor bestows on his own preparations. It is the old story: "Buy Warren's blacking, none else is genuine "not a very honourable occupation for a member of the "Legion of Honour."

But even were the new preparations to be given away for nothing to all who applied for them, we would still object to them utterly, as they introduce into our orderly and precise therapeutics an element of confusion and disorder from which, as Hahnemann left it to us, it was quite free.

We would, therefore, appeal to all those who respect the name of Hahnemann-and more particularly to those who delight to call themselves Hahnemannists, but who are the greatest offenders in this matter, as when not the inventors of some pharmaceutic innovation, they patronise the innovations of others-we would appeal to all to discourage the multiplication of un-Hahnemannic attenuations which have already wrought more evil in our small body, caused more wranglings, given occasion to more bad language, produced more splits amongst us, and retarded to a greater degree the spread of therapeutic truth among the profession at large than any other point of doctrine or practice connected with homœopathy.

SCARLATINA INFECTION: INCIDENTS OF AN EPIDEMIC.

By JOHN H. CLARKE, M.D.

IN the early months of the year 1879, an epidemic of scarlatina visited the village of N-, situated on exposed heath land, about nine miles from the Suffolk coast. Very few houses in the village were spared. How the epidemic originated I did not ascertain, but the village school seemed to be a potent factor in spreading it. The chief point of

interest to me was the behaviour of the scarlatina-poison in those who had been affected by it before-having had a previous attack of the disease. The cases are, however, individually not without interest, in point both of the disease and of the treatment, and I shall therefore relate them at length.

On the 24th of February, 1879, I was called to the house of a shepherd situated in the middle of a heath, half a mile distant from the village in question. The winter had been unusually severe, and the weather at the time was still very cold. The house was one of a pair of cottages built back to back, and there was no other house within half a mile of them in any direction. The family consisted of father, mother, several elder children, and the patient I was called to attend, a fair-haired boy of six. This was the only member of the family who had not had scarlatina previously. I found him covered from head to foot with a smooth scarlet rash. The history I received was as follows:

Scarlet fever was rife in the village of N-. The heads of the patient's family were not on the most neighbourly terms with the occupants of the adjoining house, but the patient had been to play with the children there about three weeks previously to my seeing him. Those children were then suffering from what their parents called "nettle springes," which was probably a light attack of scarlatina. Since then three of the elder members of my patient's family had had sorethroats, very like, I was told, that from which my patient was suffering, but without any rash.

Three days previously to my seeing him, the boy complained of sorethroat and seemed ill. Two days after-the day before I saw him—a rash appeared after a very restless night, during which he was in high fever.

I found him, as I said, covered from head to foot with a smooth scarlet rash. The tongue was red, with part of a white coat remaining. The palate was covered with a red rash. The fauces were much congested, swollen, and covered with dirty secretion. The glands of the neck externally were a little swollen. The bowels had moved three times in the twenty-four hours. Pulse 152, temp. 103.6°.

I gave him Bellad. 1, gtt. j, and Merc. biniod. 1x, gr. in water, every hour in turns.

February 26th.-Has had a quieter night. The rash seems to be dying. Throat still inflamed. No appetite. Pulse 132, temp. 102.2°. Rep.

28th.-Is more like himself. Throat much less inflamed. Appetite no better. Bowels not moved. Pulse 134, temp. 103.5°. Rep.

March 3rd.-Is very much better; he seems well and lively. Appetite good. Throat nearly well. Pulse 108, temp. 99.2°. Arsen. 2, gtt. j, 3 h.

At this time the mother became affected. She had badlyinflamed and ulcerated sorethroat, fever, and general illness, but no rash. She had nursed the patient throughout, and in spite of her own illness continued to do so.

7th.-Doing well. Rep.

10th.-Not so well. On the 8th he became ill. Yesterday he was in high fever, and a lump formed on the right side of his neck. The throat internally is dirty-looking but not inflamed. There is a lymphatic gland on the right side of the neck as large as a pigeon's egg. The fingers are peeling. The skin is of natural colour and not very dry. Pulse 136, temp. 104°. Tongue white at the sides, with a red central stripe, as in typhoid. Bowels have been moved. Urine scanty and cloudy on boiling. Acon. 1, gtt. j, Bell. 1, gtt. j, 1 h. alt.

12th. The swelling in the neck has gone down considerably, but he has been and still is very ill. On the nights of the 10th and 11th he perspired excessively. Pulse 136, temp. 103-4°. Skin very dry, dirty yellow colour; there are a few linseed-like spots on the thighs. Tongue red, dry, and baked. Bowels have been moved slightly. Abdomen large. Liver dulness extends to navel. Abdomen tender all over, especially over the region of the liver. Tremor of the limbs. Urine strong-smelling. He had an attack of jaundice at Christmas (1878). Arsen. 3x, gtt. j, Baptis. p, gtt. ss, gr. 6, 1 h. alt.

14th.-Good deal better. Pulse 104, temp. 101°. Tongue red. Bowels have not been moved; urine very scanty, no