SMALL AND~ SIMPLE DOSES CONTRASTED WITH
BLEEDING AND CONFUSED DRUGGING;
ORy
I~~~~~1TA
IEOCEOPATHY           LkLO P.ATIIY
DELIVEREID REFORBE
TlIIE HOM&X)ATHIC MEDCLSOCIETY OF CANADA, AT
ITS, ANNUAL MEETING IN HAMILTON, MAY 15, 1855,
AIND RBEPATHD BY REQUEST,
IN ~THE CITY OF TORONTO, JUNE 25, 1855.
VUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETYl, WITH AlNT APPENDIX OP THE PRcOCEEDIN, 0
OF THE SOCIETY.
BY JA    ES LILLIE., MJ.,. Dii).,
PROFESSOR OF MACL&Y CQLRGE, TGRORTO.
TORONTO:
~~  <U ~~~PRiNTED AT THE GLOBEi BOOK AND JOB OFFICE.
3!155








SMALL AND SIMPLE DOSES CONTRASTED WITH
BLEEDING AND CONFUSED PRUGGING;
OR,.
HOM(EOPATHY - ALLO PATHY.


A LECTURE
DELIVERED BEFORE
THE HOM(EOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA, AT
ITS ANNUAL MEETING IN HAMILTON, MAY 15, 1855,
AND REPEATED BY REQUEST,
IN THE CITY OF TORONTO, JUNE 25, 1855.
PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY, WITH AN APPENDIX OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE SOCIETY.
BY JAMES LILLIE, M.D., D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF MACLAY COLLEGE, TORONTO.
TORONTO:
PRINTED AT THE GLOBE BOOK AND JOB OFFICE.
1855.




Organon of Hahnemann and Edinburgh Review, 1830-.Hooping Cough,
Drosera R.-Dyspepsia, Charcoal, Chalk-Principle of Homceopathy
easily disproved, if false-Allopathy professes to cure Acute Fever by
Bleeding-Fallacy-Frank-Martyn Paine-Experiments of Dr. M.
Hall-Dogs bled to death-Patients too-Dr. M. Hall's commentsBleeding unscientific-Endless contradictions of its leading advocates
-Andral, (called) the first Pathologist in the world, knows not how
to bleed-Confessions-Recoveries not owing to Bleeding, but to
Nature-Homceopathy and Acute Fever-Hahnemann-AconiteHis Challenge-Bleeding palliative merely to High Pulse-Aconite
curative-Mr. Liston, of London-Dr. A Fleming of EdinburghDr. F. mistakes the secondary action of Aconite for the primaryAuthor's experiments on himself and family-Fleming's experiments
on Dogs and poor patients-Drugs are poisons-Fatality of Allopathic mistakes and practice-Evidence apparently proving that Dr.
Fleming. poisoned patients in Edinburgh Infirmary with AconiteFolly of Medical prejudice against infinitesmal doses, shewn from the
nature of Fever-Nervous-Frank, Hall, Syme, Alison-A miasmword-thought-may produce disease-Why may not a Decillionth
oure it?-Scarlet Fever-Cholera-Elliotson's Confessions-Criticisms
thereon-Hahnemann and Cholera-Statistics-Inflammation of the
Lungs-Allopathic practice threefold more fatal than the diseaseDr. Dietl's famous experiment in Vienna-Homoeopathic treatment.




LECTURE.
It is now a quarter of a century since my attention was
S  first drawn to Homceopathy,by an article in the Edinburgh
SReview of 1830. After attending medical classes in the
S  University of that city, I had abandoned the study of Physic,
S  under a deep conviction that whatever truth there might be
Sin Anatomy, Chemistry, Physiology, Pathology, or Botany,
considered merely as natural sciences, still the science of
healing, or Therapeutics, had no existence. The discussion in the Review, at once acute and witty, bold, and in
the main candid, shook my medical scepticism, and I became satisfied, if there was an art of healing at all, that
the Organon of Samuel Hahnemann must be its text-book.
It was not, however, till eight years after, that the subject
came under my attention once more, with an interest that
has been growing ever since. It was then that Hooping
Cough invaded the parish of which I was Pastor. I was
led to test the pretensions of Hahnemann as to having discovered a remedy. I gave six globules of the Decillionth
of Drosera Rotundifolia, to six children respectively. Next
day I found them all decidedly better. Two of them had
never hooped, after taking the remedy. Struck by this apparent success, neighbours came for help. Above forty
cases were thus treated satisfactorily; five or six being
treated Allopathically, of whom two died. I now determined to examine Hahnemann's Arzneimittellehre,Materia
Medica, or Exposition of Remedies. I was arrested by
the assertion on Vegetable Charcoal, that the millionth of




4


a grain was more powerful in its action on man, than the
whole grain in its crude form. Without delay I burned
the wood, prepared the charcoal according to directions,
and gave some of the millionths to a farmer who complained
of dyspepsia. On his return he was curious to know what
"what he had taken,as it had worked him so well,that he had
got more good from it, than from anything he had ever tried.
The very same experiment was made with Calcarea Carbonica, or Oyster shell, with the same happy results. By
experiments like these, I soon became completely convinced that Samuel Hahnemann had really discovered the
true science of cure.
What then is the grand principle of the system of
Homoeopathy? As the name implies, the principle is, that
a drug can only cure a disease, provided it has the power
of producing symptoms analogous to the disease, in a
healthy man. For example how was Hahnemann led to
think of Drosera in Hooping Cough? Because on trying
the juice of that plant on healthy individuals, he found it
produced a cough, which struck him as a lively picture of
the disease. Thus the 58th symptom is, "Cough,the shocks
of which succeed each other with such rapidity,that he can
scarcely breathe."
How was I led to think of giving charcoal to the farmer?
It was because I remembered especially, among other
things that I found corresponding, the 249th symptom: "In
the evening, pain in the pit of the stomach, which was
even painful to the touch; at the same time nausea,and disgust which seizes him, even on thinking of eating." Another dyspeptic farmer was treated with Calcarea, because
the symptoms in the drug and the disease, were more anagolous than in Charcoal. By touching the patient's system
in the direction of the disease,the reaction of the vital force
is called forth against the disease in the direction of health;




5


and as the vital force is a permament cause, the effect
which it produces is permanent; that is, it is curative, not
palliative.
One inference is very clear from this statement, viz., if
Hahnemann and his disciples are mistaken in these things
it must be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate
their error. Let a medical college take the Drosera, and
try it on their own persons, and in the circles which they
can influence; if cough of the kind described is not provoked
-if the majority have no such affection,then Homeopathy
will reel under the blow. Let the provings be vigorously
pushed,and if the results still disprove Hahnemann's assertions, his system must expire. Or if, as is almost certain,
the members of the Faculty shrink from the ordeal of
Hahnemann and his band, those heroes and heroines of
humanity, and have no relish for the idea of getting up
mimic Hooping Coughs on themselves and families, in order to protect mankind from such miseries,let them do,as has
been done hundreds and thousands of times, let them give
the remedy in the analogous disease, and if experience do not prove the truth of the system, it must fall.
But though Hahnemann gave this challenge, and lived
more than half a century after, he died without having
his challenge accepted. Nay, has not Joerg, an Allopath,
made similar experiments, and confirmed Hahnemann's
results?
Allopathy, as the name indictates, endeavours to cure
by directly producing symptoms different from those of
the disease. Thus a leading symptom in acute fever is frequent and strong pulse. This pulse, Allopathy makes slow
and weak by bleeding. The lancet does this directly and
and primarily. How far this process is safe and scientific, we shall now consider,by contrasting the two systems
in their treatment of Inflammatory fever; after which we




6


may glance at their comparative results in the treatment of
Scarlet fever, Cholera, and Inflammation of the lungs.
The great remedy of Allopathy in Inflammatory fever, is
bleeding. It is strange, however, and, to a lover of man and
medicine,humiliating,to examine the contradictory opinions
and practices of Physicians about this favorite proceeding;
to witness their endless wranglings and mutual denunciations, about the How and the Why, the When and the
Howmuch, the supposed remedy is to be employed. Those
who are afraid of bleeding much and often, and that is now
the vast and increasing majority, do not scruple to accuse
the opposite method as absolutely fatal; while the other
party retort the charge of killing by omission, with indignant energy. Both cannot be right; nay it is not necessary
that one should be so. On the contrary we may find good
reasons for regarding both as completely deceived.
Nothing is more common with Allopaths, than accusing
Homceopaths of dealing merely with symptoms; while
they extol Allopathy as a rational science, that removes
the causes of disease. But how stands the fact? That
bounding pulse which they assail with the lancet,is not the
cause of the fever. It is merely what they regard as the,main symptom. How do they dream of drying up the
spring by drawing off a few pools beside the flowing current? Alison tells us,he thus subdues the overaction of the
heart,by withdrawing the living~stimulus of the blood; and
the heart is thus found to become quiet. True, but does
is remain so? Nay, it very soon resumes its bounding,
and that probably-worse than 'before. This shews that
the bounding heart, as well as the bounding artery at the
wrist, is merely an effect, and if we would touch it to any
purpose, we must seek for its cause.
Where can this cause be found if not in the diseased action of the vital force? The mighty apparatus through




lo


which the vital force operates, is the nervous system; and
as it is an anatomnical fact, that no artery wanders from the
heart, without its accompanying nerve, we are led to ask,
Does the action of the artery depend on the control of the
nerve? That it does so, is one of the clearest facts in Physiology. Why does the heart of man spring at the insulting word, if not because the auditory nerve sent the
word to the soul and brain, which turned it back on the
nervous centres of the chest? Why does the word of terror
quell the heart's action,:and pale the cheek, and the ardent
appeal of pure affection suffuse the maiden's cheek with
loveliness? Why if not because the arteries, the veins, and
the capillaries, are all under the empire of the nerves? The
'regal brain seated aloft in its vaulted hail, sends forth its
message-s by its myriads of nerves, and rules over the heart
below with all its tributaries.
The illustrious Frank, speaking of the convulsive rejeclion of a drop of water by the inflamed stomach, observes;
"< We cannot here deny the influence of the nervous system.
< The empire of the nerves over the arteries and the veins
"<' which they surround, manifests itself sufficiently by
"the coloring and sudden paleness of the face, the frequen" cy of the pulse, the redness of the eyes, and the ferocious
<' look in the fire of anger; by the access of contagious mi"< asms on the circulation."
That profound pathologist, Dr. Martyn Paine, of the University of New York, a philosopher who has written more
tand better on this subject, than any man on this continent,
traces (p. 325 Ins.) the action of an emetic on the windpipe and lungs, from the stomach through the pneumogastric nerve, thus breaking up Croup or Pneumonia (Inflammation of the lungs.)
Still I would respectfully suggest to my venerable teacher, that his noble science would be better illustrated, if it




8


should be a demonstrable fact, that the happy effect does
not depend on vomiting at all, but on the vital action of
the emetic (so called) on the nerves, and consequently on
the blood vessels of the chest.
Hear Frank once more: "1Sometimes the stomach throws
off only a small quantity of matter, but the vomiting is followed by a great diminution of the symptons; which allows
us to conjecture, that the greatest disorders sometimes depend on slight causes, or that the property of the emetic
consists less in the evacuation of impurities, than in a special action of the abdominal nerves."
If then such is the control of the nerves over the; bloodvessels why not deal with the nerves if we would affect
the pulse? To tamper for an hour or two with the movemnents of the servant, who must move every day, as his
master directs, is lost labor. Let us persuade the master,
if we can, to command the servant, and then the servant
may do steadily what he is bidden.
That a fever pulse cannot be reduced by mere Bloodletting, is demonstrated by the amplest experimene. If anything is certain about this boasted agent, it is this, that just
as surely as it reduces the pulse at first, it raises it at last;
and as this secondary effect results from the reaction of the
living force, it is necessarily the permanent one, because
that force is permanent.
Thus Dr. M. Hall tells us (p. 142 of his wI\ork( on bloodletting,) -that the pulse of his terrier was 120, when it was
well. It was bled eleven ounces. Two days after the
operation the pulse was 160. It was bled again in the
evening 51 ounces. The pulse fell to 108; but in two minutes rose to 116, and at half past 11I was 128. Next morning
at 10, it was 140, and by 7 in the evening had returned to
160:- nay it varied from 160 to 180. Thus notwi th standing
the second bleeding, in 24 hours the pulse was higher than




9


it was the evening before. Next day the pulse still vibrated between 160 and 180. The day following the pulse
was still nearly the same. The dog was bled a third time,
and the pulse fell, and varied from 96 to 108, but'in 20
minutes rose to 160. Under the 4th bleeding, the pulse
fell to 108, and rose to 150. The 5th bleeding brought it
down again to 108, but next day it was up again to 160.
After the 6th bleeding we are told the pulse was slow, but
grew gradually quicker, and, next (lay, varied from 150 to
160. At the 8th bleeding the pulse was 158, and fell to
100, but in three hours was extremely frequent, and next
day was 160, and jerking. The 10th bleeding made the
pulse 132, but next day it was 168. Under the 11th it became 132, but next day 180. The 12th brought it down to
120, but 5 hours after, it varietl from 160 to 216; next day
it was 180, and on the following 190. Under the 13th, it
sunk to 128, to rise no more. The poor dog died in convulsions, with effusion on the brain.
Dr. Hall gives six other cases, in which dogs were bled
to death. Although all the seven experiments were varied
more or less, the results were essentially the same  Especially, there was not one fact to set aside our allegation,
that as surely as the pulse falls at first under the lancet, it
rises soon after; and above all, that while the fall may last
for hours, or minutes only, the rise continues for days. It
must surely seem a very odd logic, that would argue the
lowering of the pulse by bleeding, on the ground of these
experiments. What they prove demonstrably, is, that bleeding for a high pulse, is a fatal delusion. It is employing a
pernicious palliative insteadof a real cure. Who can count
the myriads that have died the death of Dr. M. Hall's seven
dogs? Is this a shocking question?  What is the fact?
Look at p., 94 of Dr. Hall's volume, and behold that unhappy mother bled two days in succession, seven ounces a




10
day. On the morning of the third day the pulse is 110.
She is bled again seven ounces. In the evening, however,
the pulse was 132 and strong. Leeches were ordered, but
hot procured; and Mr. Hey found on his return, that the
pulse had fallen to 120, without any leeching at all. Had
he only taken the hint to wait, the pulse would probably
have come down still more, and the mother been saved.
But no? Mr. Hey must bring down the pulse of 120, by
taking three 'ounces from the temporal artery. Well! The
pulse did come down to 112; but mark, next morning, it
was up to 126. Thus the three ounces, instead of really,
that is permanently, lowering the pulse, actually raised it
six beats. The artery again gave up its three ounces, and
things seemed better. Butlo! In the evening, the pulse
is 140! Life is again drawn from the artery, and the pulse
falls to 120.  Now, Mr. Hey becomes alarmed, and
calls for help. All he has gained by his four operations,
since the 3rd day, is to raise the pulse from 110 to 120. The
physicians arrive--they blister. Next morning the pulse
is 116; but at morn it is up again to 140! Palsy now begins to set in; the doctors fly to wine and ammonia, and
after tossing for a few days, and refusing all medicine, the
poor mother at last is still!
It is dreadful to compare this statement, with the experiment on Dr. Hall's lower animal; and still more dreadful
to find Mr. Hey confessing that the case was no exception,
even in his practice (and he was at the head of his profession as a surgeon,) but, on the contrary, was merely one of a
" melancholy" group. What unprejudiced mind can doubt,
they were bled to death?
Dr. Hall, commenting on that very case, declares, (p.99,)
" It is impossible to imagine a more interesting and in" structive train of events. Nothing but a careful exami" nation is wanting, to make it complete as an illustration




11


" of the effects of extreme loss of blood upon the brain,
"lungs, and other organs of the body."
Dr. Hall at p. 6 gives us the following" c interesting and
instructive" passage:--" I have already stated the symptoms
"((of reaction from loss of blood, accurately resemble those of
"power in the system, and of morbidly increased action of
" the encephalon (brain) and that from these causes, the
"u case is apt to be mistaken, and mistreated by the further
"( abstraction of blood. The result of this treatment is
" again apt to mislead us; for all the previous symptoms are
" promptly and completely relieved; and this relief in its
" turn again, suggests the use of the lancet. In this manner
" 1he last blood-letting may prove suddenly and unexpect" edly fatal."  Such then is the blood-stained circle in
which the ablest Allopaths are almost necessitated, by their
own candid confession, to make their patients travel.
Dr. Hall is very earnest in distinguishing inflammation
from irritation, as an opposite condition, demanding opposite treatment; while he allows that the symptoms of both
"Cc accurately" resemble each other during life, and present
many common appearances in death. How then can they
be distinguished from one another? Dr. M. Paine, however, rejects the distinction entirely, insists they are one
state, and equally demand the lancet. Still he maintains,
the weapon must be wielded with consummate skill, inasmuch as bleeding too little would make the inflammation
worse, and bleeding too much would light up inflammation,
where it had no existence before. But if the leaders of the
medical world are thus at issue, as to the safe use of the lancet, how can it be expected that ordinary practitioners should
avoidthe most fatal mistakes? Whatever medical schools may
teach, they cannot teach the use of the lancet, for the teach.
ers themselves are all at odds what should be taught. We
find Hey, and Gordon, and Denman, all candidly acknow



12


ledging the fatality of their mistakes about blood-letting,
and though they supposed, they found out at last a safer way,
by increasing the quantity drawn at the outset of the disease,
they have failed in convincing a majority of practitioners of
the correctness of their method. Besides,what had the teachers of these able men been doing, not to instruct them how to
use the fatal instrument, so as not to stumble over corpses in
their way to truth? The fact is, to this day, professors declare in effect that they cannot teach the use of the lancet.
For example, Dr. Elliotson, late Professor of the Practice of
Physic in the University of London, tells us (p. 123 of his
lectures,) "I am satisfied, that general bleeding is continually omitted, when it might be most advantageously adopted."
Then (p. 129) he adds, "supposing, however, as is very likely
to happen, that the patient has been bled too much," and
after perplexing himself and his readers, he finally winds
up by saying; "these matters, however, cannot be learned minutely by precept." Nay, verily, " these matters" are
not" learned" at all, if blunders, as Dr. E. says, are daily
made in bleeding too little and too much. But then it is
clear if these matters cannot be learned, it must be, because
they cannot be taught; and if they cannot be taught, it can
only be, because they are not known.
The utter want of all science in bleeding, may be demonstrated from the practice and confessions of the famous
Andral of Paris. This physician has the reputation of being
the first pathologist in the world. If any one knows how to
bleed, he must be the man. Judging from his writings, he
seems to be a man of truth and candor. What then is his
testimony? After detailing his first case of Inflammation of
the bowels (in his Clinique Medicale,) he declares " here,
blood-letting exercised no beneficial influence." If so, it is
clear Andral was mistaken in bleeding at all. But it may be
said this proves nothing against bleeding, it merely shows




that a great man may blunder. Unfortunately, however, for
such a reply, Andral declares that this case was like "many
others,"-that it is " one among a thousand," in which
bleeding was absolutely useless, nay, it did not even "prevent a new inflammation from setting in." Now if an Andral may be a thousand times mistaken in bleeding, this can
only be, because there is no science to guide in the operation. Commenting on his second case,Andral declares,"here,
again the total inefficacy of blood-letting."  And to confirm his view of this frequent inefficacy, he quotes the cases
of two medical students who died under the lancet, and thus
winds up; " Here are two well marked cases where bloodletting was equally ineffectual, either to remove the still
slight symptoms which existed at the time it was employed,
or to prevent the development of more alarming symptoms."
Here it cannot be pretended, that blood-letting was too
late in being resorted to, for it is expressly allowed the
symptoms were "still slight " when it was employed. But
if blood-letting cannot deal even with such cases, why should
it be supposed capable of curing more dangerous ones?
Should it be pretended, that it is only on great emergencies,
that so powerful an agent should be employed,then the question will be, why it did not cure those two cases, when
they became more alarming? But this, Andral expressly
says, it failed to do.
Andral gives the cases of other five medical students who
were bled for fever, two of whom died. Out of these seven
young men,therefore,four died in spite,if not in consequence,
of bleeding. It is a singular fact, that one medical student,
whose case was rather severe, was left by Andral without
any treatment at all, and got well. I call attention to this
now, because it is a curious confirmation of what I will
soon mention at length viz, the memorable result of Dr.
Dietl's experiment at Vienna, when of the patients bled,




14


and vomited, and purged, about three times as many died, as
when left to nature alone. And it is worthy of still more
special notice, that five other cases of fever left byAndral to
nature, recovered.
Weighing all these things carefully together, I maintain,
that Allopathy cannot cure Inflammatory fever. That patients often get well under the lancet, and its various accompaniments of Calonel, Tartar Emetic, Blisters, &c., is
not denied. These recoveries, however, are due to the recuperative energies of nature. They take place in spite
of, not in consequence of, these dangerous expedients.
Let us now very briefly consider the theory and practice
of Homceopathy in Acute fever. In 1811, Samuel Hahnemann published the first volume of his Arzneimittellehre,
or Materia Medica, containing an account, among other
things, of the action of Aconitum Napellus, on the healthy
subject. In the introduction to that drug, we find the following statements:-" Although the following symptoms
" do not express all the medicinal power of this precious
" plant, they do not the less furnish the sagacity of the Hom" eopathist, with the means of judging how far it may be
" useful in certain diseased conditions, against which vul" gar medicine has hitherto employed, often in vain, and
" almost always with sad results, its dangerous resources,
" such as copious blood-lettings, and the apparatus of what
"it calls the antiphlogistic treatment. I refer to fevers,
" called purely inflammatory, in which the smallest dose
' of Aconite, which allows us to renounce all the remedies
" acting in an antipathic manner, cures with promptitude,
" and without leaving any consecutive affection. In mea" sles, in miliary fever, in inflammatory fevers with pleu" risy &c., the efficacy of this plant is almost miraculous.
" It is precisely in those cases, in which the partizans of
' Allopathy boast most loudly of their method; it is in great,




"16


" actite inflammatory fevers, in which they fancy themselves
" alone able to save the patient by bold and frequent bleed" ings, and think that so they will carry it over Homceopa"thy, that they deceive themselves most grossly. There,
"in fact, Homceopathy displays more than anywhere else
"its immense superiority, as it has no need of shedding
" one drop of blood (that precious vital juice, of which Al" lopathy makes such enormous, thoughtless and irreparable
"waste) in order to triumph over these dangerous fevers,
" and lead them back to health."
I do not apologize for the length of these quotations, since
they really embody the most important announcement that
was ever made in Medicine.   If these statements of the
founder of Homceopathy be not true, it is the easiest thing
in the world to disprove them. Inflammatory fevers are
no such rarities in this world, nor is a drop of Aconite so
hard to procure, and divide, that the enemies of Homoeopathy could have had any difficulty in covering Hahnemann
with shame, by challenging him to make his words good,
in the presence of impartial witnesses. But this, these
false brethren (for Hahnemann was a regular physician as
well as they) never dared to do. What they did, was, to
harrass the immortal reformer of Physic, by low malignant
-prosecutions of the apothecaries, first at Koenigslutter, and
then in Leipsic, and to drive him into exile in Anhalt Coethen, thus confessing by implication the impossibility of
meeting Hahnemann in the field of fact, and scientific controversy.
In the prolegomena to his Materia Medica, Hahnemann
thus appeals to his unworthy persecutors: " But I will
" point out to my adversaries a more powerful, an infallible
" way of overturning, if it be possible, this doctrine, which
" threatens to stifle their conjectural art.
" Homceopathy rests solely on experience. Imitate me,




16


" says she, with a loud voice, but imitate well, and you
" will see, at every step, the confirmation of what I advance.
" What no Materia Medica, what no system of Medicine or
" Therapeutics, have ever been able hitherto to do, she de" mands with load voice; she will oe judged by the results."
This gauntlet has lain before the eyes of Allopathy for
forty-four years, and it lies untouched this day.
Hahnemann declares in the passage formerly quoted,
that the smallest dose of Aconite enables us to dispense
with all antipathic agents, in the case of Inflammatory fevers. For example, were we to try to restore a frozen limb
by hot water, we should be using an antipathic agent, just
as we should be doing, were we to apply snow to a burn.
Experience demonstrates, that the successful practice is,
snow for the frozen limb, and warm alcohol for burns. Hahnemann justly claims these popular facts, as instances of
the Homceopathic law, by which the agent acting in the
direction of the disease, wakes up the vital force, against
the disease, in the direction of cure.
Bleeding is antipathic to a high pulse, because its primary action is to lower the pulse. The necessary result is,
that the vital force reacts, and raises the pulse as high, or
higher than before. To bring down the pulse therefore, as
well as to allay all the accompanying fever symptoms, it
is necessary to employ an agent, whose primary action is
to quicken the pulse. The secondary result is, that the vital force reacts against the drug, in the direction of health.
Many substances possess this primary power of raising the
pulse, and are thus homceopathic to Inflammatory fever.
None, however, in this inestimable virtue, equals the Aconitum Napellus. The extraordinary power of this " precious plant," as Hahnemann truly designates it, can no longer be denied, even by Allopathy. The late Mr. Liston,
one of the most eminent surgeons of the age, proclaimed the




17


power of Aconite, in very small doses, to subdue Inflammatory fever, and had the moral courage (and it was
not small) to own, that he had learned the fact from Homoeopathy. Alas! That so few seem  to be able to afford to
follow his example.
What shall we say of Dr. Alexander Fleming, President
of the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, who, ten years
ago, came out with an inaugural dissertation on Aconitum
Napellus, setting forth its marvellous powers in curing
acute Rheumatism, and inferring, forsooth, that " it will probably be found," highly useful in Pneumonia, Pleuritis, &c!
Now I would ask, did not Dr. A. Fleming know, that
Aconite in Acute inflammations, had been proclaimed by
Hahnemann, as with trumpet, 40 years before? If he knew
it, and tried to conceal it, that he might seem to be a discoverer of the very truths, which Homceopaths are acting
on, every hour, throughout the civilized world, then his assurance is only matched by his disingenuousness. If he
did not know it, his ignorance totally disqualified him for
the task he undertook. In either case, the Medical Faculty
ty of the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh, are sharers in
his deep demerit.
Dr. Fleming does not seem to be aware there is such
a thing as Homaeopathy in the world. He very quietly
tells us, p. 31 that " Aconite exerts a direct sedative action
" on the vascular system, reducing, in the first instance, the
" frequency of the pulse." Now, if this be true; if Aconite
indeed reduces, " in the first instance, the frequency of the
pulse," it must be antipathic to Inflammatory fever, not
Homceopathic to it, as Hahnemann supposes. In that case,
Hahnemann was entirely mistaken in saying that he cured
Inflammatory fever, by a remedy that was not antipathic.
Is it possible that Dr. Fleming was aware of the vast significancy of his declaration, that the primary action of Acon



ite brought do-wn the high pulse?  If, as he supposes, he
has proved this, he has given Homcopathy as a science,
its death blow. He has proved, that Hahnemann did not
know what he was doing, when he wrote his dissertation
on Aconite, and that his disciples are really Allopathists in
the greater part of their practice.
If Aconite acts directly as a sedative, reducing, in the
first instance, the frequency of the pulse, then it acts precisely like bleeding, and its indirect action would necessarily be to elevate the pulse, under the antagonism of the vital force. But where, in that case, would be the advantage
of Aconite over Bleeding, which Dr. Fleming wrote his
dissertation to demonstrate? The truth is, the direct action of Aconite is on the nervous system, and its primary
action on the pulse, is to raise it; the secondary effect, and
the permanent one, being the falling of the pulse below its
original beat, under the reaction of the vital force. This
secondary effect, Dr. Fleming mistakes for the primary,
and consequently the graduating medal of 1844, was assigned under a mistake.
I speak on this subject with the confidence inspired by
18 years continual experience. I know that the primary
action of Aconite is to heighten the pulse. I have repeatedly called the attention of professional men on the other
side, to this remarkable fact. Again and again, have I
asked them to feel the morbid pulse, its rise and fall, under
the action of a small fraction of a drop of Aconite, has been
predicted, and within fifteen minutes has the prediction
been fulfilled.
It was only last Friday week, that one drop of Aconite
was dissolved in a tumbler of water, poured back and forward from one tumbler to another 50 times, and divided
among 4 persons, whose ages were 55, 18, 11,8. Their
pulses just before taking the dose, which was a table spoon



19


ful of the solution, stood 61, 50, 76, 72. A few minutes after swallowing, the pulses were respectively, 63, 60, 84, 90;
i. e. 3, 10, 8, and 18 beats, higher than before taking the
dose. In half an hour, however, the first pulse which had
risen 3 beats under the primary action af the Aconite, had
fallen to 54, that is, 7 beats below its original beat of 61.
One week after the last experiment, 3 drops were dissolved in the same way, and divided among 3 males, whose
ages were 55, 20, 18. Before the dose, the pulses were 62,
80, 72.. A few minutes after the dose, the pulses were 64,
88, 76 respectively, having risen 2, 8, and 4 beats. In less
than half an hour, however, they had fallen to 58, 70, 70,
that is 4, 10, and 2 beats respectively, below the original
point.
How then has Dr. Fleming been misled in so simple a
matter? Apparently, by not looking after the primary effect, till the secondary had set in. Thus p. 23 he says, that
onehour OR MORE after 5 or 6 drops, the pulse is found to
be diminished in strength. "Thus a pulse which in the
"normal state beats 72 in the minute, will, by that time,
" have fallen to about 64." To ascertain the primitive effect however, the Dr. should have examined the pulse, afezo
minutes after the dose was taken. Had he done so he would
have found out, that the pulse did not fall from 72 to 64 by
a direct descent, but first rose, probably to 80, and then began to fall to 64. And it is just because the pulse goes
round by 80 in such a case, that it is disposed to remain
steadily at a lower figure.
Had Dr. Fleming properly attended to his own experiments, on the dogs which he killed with Aconitine, he might
have found out the truth, on this all important point, about
the primary action of Aconite. Thus in his 14th experiment on the English terrier, p. 102, he tells us that " in 20
minutes" (i. e. after the poison had been taken) " severe




"retching came on; he began to stagger, and the inspira" tion became laborious (18 per minute.) The pulse was then
" (that is 20 minutes after taking the poison) " 144, regular,
"4 of good strength. In an hour and a half it had fallen to
"& 68."  Here is a fall of more than one half. Now I ask
Dr. F., was 144 the natural pulse of the terrier? This
could hardly be 20 minutes after taking the poison, when
the symptoms of death were on the dog. Dr. M. Hall's
terrier had a pulse of 120 before the first bleeding. If the
pulse of Dr. F.'s was about the, same,before it took the Aeonitine, it is clear the pulse must have risen in 20 minutes
about 24 beats. Dr. F,. therefore, contradicts what must be
the real meaning of his own record, when he tells us, that
the direct action of Aconite, reduces the pulse. The direct
action on the terrier, must have raised the pulse.
The same fact seems to be implied still more strikingly,
in the case of the colly dog; p. 103. Here the pulse is first
200; this could not be the natural pulse. We are told, the
200 fell to 134 in 22 minutes. 15 minutes, however, and
5 more, are noted as stages after taking the poison. I infer then, that the 200 must refer to what came up 15 or 20)
minutes after the drug was injected. Dr. F.'s dogs, therefore, are as fatal to his medical philosophy as Dr. M. Hall's,
to the curative effect of Bleeding.
It is demonstrated then, that the primary effect of Aconite, is precisely the opposite of the primary effect of Bleeding. The Aconite raises the pulse first, and then the vital
force brings it down; while Bleeding brings doz6es the pulse
first; and then the vital force raises it. It is, therefore, a
downright absurdity to say that the one may be a substitute for the other, Dr. F,'s book then is a pompous perplexity. When he uses Aconite to bring down a pulse, he is
merely a Homceopathist in the dark.
There is, besides, neither sense nor science in Dr. F.'s




21


dose of Aconite. " As an antiphlogistic," says he, " 5 minims (drops) ought to be given at "first and repeated in 4
hours."  Why five? Why aulays five? Why repeated in
four hours? Is there any infallible virtue in these numbers
to maks them suitable for all Inflammatory states? If I
have found a single drop, or the quarter of it, producing
such results on myself, and other healthy persons, may not
a much smaller dose be suitable, for one in disease? If
Dr. F. never tried, what right has he to contradict those who
have? Is he not aware, that the susceptibilities of sickness
to the action of a drug, analogous in its effects to the symptoms of the disease, are far greater than in health? If he does
not know this, Dr. Christon has taught him to little purpose,
and he would need to take a course of drug provings under
Professor Joerg, of Leipsic.
" Medicines operate most powerfully," says this emi" nent Allopath, " upon the sick, when the symptoms cor"c respond with those of the disease. A very small dose of
" medicinal Arnica, will produce a violent effect upon per" sons who have an irritable condition of the oesophagus
"' and stomach.*" This is the grand reason, why it was
absolutely necessary for Hahnemann to reduce his dose,
anless he intended to kill his patients, it being the pole
star of his course, to give no remedy, whose proved action
on the healthy subject. did not correspond with the symptoins of the case.
The unreflecting abuse of drugs, or poisons (for all drugs
are poison) in crude doses, has been the bane of medicine,
and human hopes, and family joy, for thousands of years.
What has turned Arsenic more than once out of the Pharmacopceia, but the odium arising from the poisonings produced by the absurd, blind bungling of men calling them"* Vid Dr. W. Henderson's Rep. P. 235.




22


selves physicians, who with all their learning, never could
learn the necessity of dividing a grain of Arsenic into 100,
still less 1000, and least of all, 1,000,000 parts? The consequence was, that last century Sir George Baker absolutely
refused to touch Arsenic in ague, because forsooth, Sir
George had found no ague so dangerous as Arsenic. This
was only because somehow he could not learn the necessity of dividing a grain into 100 parts. Had he found the
hundredth still dangerous, was it a very hard thing to find
out, that a thousandth might possibly be safer? But the idea
of diminishing the dose, however simple, was hid from his
eyes, as it is this day from the eyes of 99 out of every
100 doctors in the world. So far as we know, Hahnemann
was the first man that ever thought of thal simple thing.
What has been paralyzing the progress of Aconite in Allopathic practice, in spite of the attention drawn to it by
Hahnemann and Homoeophathy, and Fleming's blind experiments? The deaths that, no doubt, have followed the
abuse of it in crude drops. What killed Dr. Male of Birmingham a few years since, but his own fingers dealing out
for himself drops of Aconite? How did Mr.Brown of Glasgow, 3 years rgo, find a grave? By Whitley, the medical
student, counting out 25 drops at a druggist's counter?
How has Dr. Fleming gained his gold medal? In the
midst of the bodies of God's poor whom his Aconite has
slain. Do I bear false witness? Dr. A. Flemingis himself the witness. At p. 25 of his book, I find these words,
"Fourth degree of operation. On the administration of a
"fourth dose of five minims, two hours after the third, the
"symptoms assume a more alarming character. The coun"tenance becomes pale and sunken, froth issues from
"the mouth and, the prostration increases. Some, thus
"affecteJ; have stated, that they felt as if dying from ex"cessive loss of blood. (So your Aconite, Dr. F., will do




23


the work of a lancet.) " Consciousness usually remains;
'"or there may be slight wandering delirium; as occurs also
"' after profuse haemorrhage. The voice is whispering or is
* altogether lost. The pulse becomes still smaller, weaker,
" and more irregular; and the breathing more imperfect.
"< The surface is colder than before, and is covered with a
"< clammy sweat."
"I have seen patients recover from this state." Have
you seen them recover? Then it is fair to believe, you
have seen them not " recover from this state."  Now  Dr.
who put them into " this state" from which they did not
" recover."  Was it not you with your drops of Aconite?
You dropped them out of the world. Go on, Sir, with your
testimony.
" When the action of the drug is carried to a fatal extent,
" the individual becomes entirely blind, deaf, and speech" less. He either retains his consciousness to the last, or
" is affected with slight wandering delirium; the pupils are
" dilated, general muscular tremors, or even slight convul" sions supervene, the pulse becomes imperceptible, both
" at the wrist and heart; the'temperature of the surface sinks
" still lower than before, and at length after a few hurried
"gasps, death by syncope takes place." Indeed, And
where did you make these striking experiments, Dr? In
Charlotte Square in the dwellings of the opulent? Oh no.
It was in Edinburgh Infimary, on the bodies of the poor,
who went there for healing, and found in your hands agony
and death. It is a lasting infamy to the Physicians of the
Infimary that they allowed you to make such experiments,
and it is not for the honour of the Medical Faculty, that
they crowned them with their medal.
It is impossible to imagine a stronger proof of folly in
professional men, than the prejudice against Homceopathy
on account of the smallness of the dose, as if any thing but




24


experience could determine it? As to the action, or the no.
action, of Hahnemann's decillionths, the Allopath is absolutely without experience. How then can he reasonably
say any thing about it? One of the most learned of the Physicians of Germany, (if Hufeland may be believed,) comes
forth, and solemnly declares, he has ascertained the extraordinary curative action of doses unprecedentedly small.
How do his brethren receive him? Do they put his strange
assertions to the test of experiment (no murderous experiments like these of the Edinburgh Infirmary)? No! They
abuse him as a mad-man, or an impostor, hound the apothecaries on himand hunt him from place to place,as if he
had been a mad dog. This tzas their legitimate practice.
The only logical reply to Hahnemann, was: Experience
is against you; but that reply was never given. It has
not been given to this hour. For though Andral did, at
last, pretend to test the matter,-in such a man, it was
pretending of the most singular kind; since he was absolutely ignorant of the science; not knowing even the meaning
of the word Homneopathy. How then could he try the
thing?
Though experience alone can decide on any question in
Medicine, and especially on the quantity in which drugs
should be administered, still it is a fact that all legitimate
analogy would suggest the likelihood, that a remedy for
fever, should not be given in a gross dose. The reason
is, fever in its essence, is a derangement of the nervous
system. We found the eloquent Frank illustrating "the
empire of the nerves,"by referring to " miasms deranging the circulation." He accordingly, calls fever the " shadow of the disease," rather than the disease itself; and if so,
then the body of the disease must be found in the nervous
system. This has been a favorite idea with medical philosophers, from the time of Frederick Hofinan at least.




25


Dr. M. Hall says, p. 119 " fever appears to consist in an
" affection of the nervous system, and the heart "  The affection of the nervous system, then, is primary.
Syme, in his Principles of Surgery, states p. 9, " being
"< thus obliged to admit as the essence of inflammation, the
" disturbance of nervous energy in the part, we may em" ploy this also to account for the changes observed in the
" in the circulation, which have never satisfactorily been
" explained otherwise. "
The eminent Dr. Alison in his " Outlines of Physiology
and Pathology " gives five reasons for believing fever to depend on nervous derangement. He refers, p. 443, to other
reasons for this view, and concludes thus: " We judge the
" immediate cause of the alteration in the vascular system
"< to be,therefore, an impression on the nervous system, con" sequent on the local inflammation,and acting on the organs
" of circulation, in a manner somewhat analogous to a con" cussion, or a violent sensation, or emotion. "
Now I argue thus; if fever depend on some shock of the
nervous system,-if violent anger will give a man Inflammation of the liver, we ought by all means, if we would act
rationally, to bring our remedies to bear on the immediate
source of the disease. We must direct our attention to acting on the nervous system. To pierce a vein, is a very
round about way of reaching a nerve. It is trifling about
the effect, while the cause continues. It is chasing Frank's
" shadow, " instead of laying hold of the body, and thus
arresting the shadow in a moment. It is a gallop in the
direction of death, and if death is not the invariable result,
it is just because something breaks off the hunt, it may be
Calomel, or Tartar Emetic, or Blistering, or terror paralyzing the physician, and thus the lancet is not plied to its
final consummation, as on the poor doomed dogs of Dr.
M. Hall.




26


Now if we must deal with the nervous system in fever,
how shall we go about the operation? By doses of an ounce,
or a scruple, or even a grain? If a miasm, which no man
ever saw, or tasted, or smelled, may light up a fever by
means of the nervous system, why may not a decillionth
of Aconite, which no man ever saw, or tasted, or smelled,
extinguish the fever by acting on the nervous system?
True, a decillionth is very little, very light; it baffles even
the imagination. But who will say it is less, or lighter than
a miasm? Who ever guaged or weighed a miasm? Do
these cavillers at decillionths not know, that a disgusting
recollection, a mere thought, may excite such loathing as to
empty the stomach? Will they tell us what is the weight
of the thought, or what may be its dimensions? Did they
never read of the idiosyncratic effect of Shylock's bag-pipe
" singing i' the nose, " a dose of which Scottish melody taken by the ear, produced such singular effects on the well
known Rousseau.*
If these views of the principles of Homceopathy and Allopathy, are well founded, we need not be surprised, if experience at the bed side confirms them. Let us then examine
a few practical results of the two methods of treating disease. The points to be contrasted are Scarlet fever, Cholera, and Inflammation of the lungs.
Scarlet fever, in its severer form especially, has long been
a scourge to families. Allopathy has differed with itself
as much about the proper treatment of this disease, as of
most others. Bleeding, as usual, has its strong advocates,
and its doubtful, or decided opponents. Mason Good, regarding the complaint as one of debility, trembles to bleed,
and hesitates to abstain. Frank taught bleeding, but insists strongly on the necessity of caution. Elliotson prefers
* Vid. Prof. Hendersons Hoa.ie )pathy, &".




27


leeches, if he must bleed, though he allows the lancet may
be wanted. Plenciz and Armstrong are strenuous for general bleeding. Withering is as earnest against bleeding, as
he is in favor of vomiting. Many are enthusiastic about
opium. Some cry up Ammonia; but Elliotson laughs at
them, denies the cases to have been generally Scarlatina,
and says a bit of sugar every day, would have done just as
well. Currie, of Liverpool, used cold water. How is it
possible that science should produce such discordances?
It is generally true, that while Allopathic faith is a Babel
of all conceivable contradictions,and its practice a corresponding chaos of bewildering expedients, Homceopathy glories
in the precision of its principle, and the harmony of its practical applications. Thus there is not a Homceopathist in the
world, who does not treat pure Inflammatory fever by Aconite, and true Scarlatina by Belladonna.
Not only has Hahnemann presented the world with the
true specific in Scarlatina, he has also fully demonstrated the
protecting power of the remedy, when suitably employed,
in preventing the disease altogether. Prevention is better
than cure; andifJenner is immortal by his improvement
in innoculation, a similar glory awaits Hahnemann for his
triumph in Scarlet Fever. Ther fact of the preventive action of Belladonna has been fully demonstrated on the continent of Europe, especially in Germany, while it has been
too much neglected everywhere else. The matter has received some attention in Edinburgh. Mr. Bell tried it in
Watson's Hospital; but began with the fifth of a grain of
the extract; morning and evening. He found this injured
the boys' health. He diminished the dose, but not sufficiently to avoid evil consequences, and on the whole doubts
the expediency of using Belladonna. Now there ought to
be no doubt about the inexpediency of using such a poison,
in such doses, in such a case. Bell's pretended trials of




28


Hahnernann's discovery, fully demonstrate this; and they
also imply the sagacity of Hahnemann, in diminishing the
dose, in order to attain the good without the evil. If we
will meddle with a man's discovery, we are bound to follow his directions, in making his experiments If we can
improve on his plan, so much the better. But, if by
our conceited officiousness, we injure truth, the health of
those intrusted to us, as well as the reputation of a great
benefactor of humanity, we are deeply criminal.
In regard to the Allopathic treatment of cholera, I will
quote the very candid, honest, and no doubt, correct statement of Dr. Elliotson:
" As respects this country" says he " I cannot but think
" if all the patients had been left alone, the mortality would
" have been the same as it has been. If all the persons at"tacked with cholera had been put into warm beds, made
" comfortable, and left alone, although many would have
"died, who have been saved,-yet on the whole, I think,
"' the mortalitywould not have been greater,than after all that
"' has been done: for we are not in the least more informed re" garding the proper remedies, than we were when the first
" case of cholera occurred; we have not been instructed
" in the least, by those who have had the disease to treat.
"* Some say they have cured the disease by bleeding; oth"' ers, by calomel; others by opium; and others again say
" that opium does harm. No doubt many poor creatures
" died uncomfortably, who would have died tranquilly, if
" nothing had been done for them. Some were placed in
"( hot water, or in hot air, and had opium and calomel, and
" other stimulants, which altogether were more than their
"system could bear, and more than would have been
"C borne, if they had been so treated in perfect health.
" I am sorry to say, that of the cases I had to treat, the
"' patients nearly all died. I tried two or three sorts of




29


"treatment. Some had calomel and opium in large and
" full doses: but they died. Hot air was applied exter" nally, and I got two to breathe hot air. I had a tube
"passed through boiling water, so that they might inhale
"hot air. It was found vain, to attempt to warm people
"by hot air applied externally; they were nearly as cold
"as before, we could not raise their temperature; and
"therefore thought of making them breathe hot air; but
" both patients died about the time that death usually
"takes place. It was said that saline treatment was likely
" to be of use; and I accordingly tried it on some patients.
"At first I exhibited half a drachm of Sesqui-Carbonate
" of Soda every hour: and thinking that might not be quite
"enough, I exhibited a drachm: in one patient at St.
"Thomas Hospital I ordered an injection containing an
"ounce of the same remedy: but the greater part of it
"came away, and the patient died. Hot air was used in
"this case, as well as in the others."
One or two words on this plain passage. 1st. I agree
with the Dr. that too many of these patients were killed,
and that they were before death, more or less tortured, but
I maintain, there is not an atom of proof, that one of the
few who got well, was cured.
2d. The Dr. seens. surprised at the obstinacy of the cold
of cholera, resisting not only external heat,,but even internal., " It was found vain to attempt to warm people,"
thus,-I wonder a man so intelligent as Elliotson ever
made so absurd an attempt. Had he been dealing with cold
sticks, or stones, no doubt they would have become warm.
Nay if after his patients were dead, he had put the bodies
into warm water, they too would have become warm. But to
pursue the same method with a living body,that is found ef
fectual with a dead one, is to ignore the fundamental fact in
Physiology, Pathology, and Therapeutics,, viz., the all-per



30


vading, all-controlling energy of the vital force. Were Elliotson to treat a fiozen limb, as he did his half-frozen cholera patients, he would put it in hot water, and of course
kill it, after torturing it. Such practice is pure Allopathy,
precisely analogous to palliating constipation by castor oil,
diarrhcea by opium, fever by bleeding. Immediate ease is
purchased at the expense of permanent mischief. It is
like trying to cure poverty by usury.
3d. I agree with the Dr. that he and his Allopathic brethren were just as ignorant,when he made his confession,of a
real remedy for cholera, as they were when the first patient
was treated in England. But I maintain that this confessed
helplessness of Allopathy, after years of study and practice,
demonstrated the inability of Allopathy to find a remedy.
And the reason is, it is without one principle to guide it
in the search. Accordingly this day Allopathy is as ignorant of a remedy for cholera, as Elliotson confessed it was
when he lectured. Now contrast with this, the facts on
the other side.
Before Hahnemann ever saw a cholera case, he proclaimed Camphor as a leading remedy, from merely reading an account of the symptoms of cholera. These he perceived were a picture of his provings of camphor. He was
sure, therefore, that camphor must cure cholera. He had
not even to try first, before advising. Accordingly, thousands
of hands throughout the civilized world are busy, whenever
cholera comes, in demonstrating the truth of Hahmenann's
prediction. He declares that " at Berlin and Magdeburg
alone, thousands of families having followed his instructions respecting the treatment by camphor restoring those
of this number who were attacked by the epidemic, restored them often in less than a quarter' of an hour." (Joslin on
Chol.)
The Genius of Hahnemann shines forth on cholera, as




31


well as scarlet fever, in having discovered a preservative
treatment. This most'generoas and self-denying of all
achievements of medical science, (for as prevention of disease prevails, fees must fail;) belongs to Hahnemann
more than to any other name in history. The alternation
of decillionth doses of copper and veratrum, at regular intervals, has been thoroughly tested, and its efficacy established.
Let us now contrast for a moment the two methods, in
the statistical records on cholera. In the Allopathic Hospitals of France and Italy, the mortality is given at 63 per
cent. In 1823, in the city of New York, the mortality in
Hospitals, including Bellevue, was nearly 50. In Vienna
the two systems were brought into close comparison; 4,500
were treated in the old way, of. whom 1,360 died, i. e. 31
per cent; 581 were treated Homceopathically, of whom
eight per cent died i.e. about one fourth of Austrian, one
sixth of American, and one eighth of Parisian Allopathy.
That these results are genuine, is demonstrated by the
fact, that after the Austrian Government ascertained them,
it decreed the right of the Homceopathic physicians to practice and dispense medecines in Austria. Dr. Balfour of
Edinburgh, an Allopath, thus writes from Vienna, lo Dr.
Forbes, of the Medical Chirurgical Review, " During the first
"C appearance of cholera here, the practice of Homeopathy
"C was first introduced; and cholera when it came again
" renewed the favorable impulse previously given, as it was
" through Dr. Fleishman's successful treatment of this di"CC sease, that the restrictive laws were removed, and homceo"CC pathists obtained leave to practice and dispense medicines
" in Austria. Since that time their number has increased
"if more than three fold in Vienna and its provinces."
We see, then, that the very disease which Dr. Elliotson
allows he could not treat at all, is declared, by Dr. Balfour,




to have been successfully treated by Dr. Fleischmann of
Vienna. Surely Elliotson is a sufficient witness of his own
failures, and Balfour of Fleischmann's success.
A very rapid contrast of the two systems in their treatment of Inflammation of the lungs. Here we find the same
confusion and disastrous results, as in other departments
of Allopathic practice. With most, bleeding is ostensibly
the grand remedy, though, as usual, there is no counting
the shades and varieties among its advocates; some being
loud and heroic, others timid and ambiguous, from Bouillaud with his coup sur coup, Anglice, cut and come again,
to Mason Good, who is much afraid of Typhus setting in,
and would fain get along with leeches, and a bold exhibition of emetics, though he is singular in his admiration of
bold vomiting.
The distinguished Louis of Paris lost nearly one-third of
his first list of cases, though they had been selected to ensure favorable results. The treatment was bleeding exclusively. In his second set he drew more blood at once,
though less on the whole, combining Tartar Emetic and
Blisters. The cases were again selected. The deaths
were 14 per cent. Bouillaud lost 14~ per cent. Taylor,
Walshe, and Peacock lost 30 per cent; or, on the most favorable allowance, 26.
Along with these results let us compare the never-to-beforgotten experiments of Dr. Dietl, of Vienna. 1"To try
conclusions " this original inquirer divided his Pneumonia
patients into three bands, resolving to treat one set by bleeding, another by Tartar Emetic, and the last by nature. The
happy imagination which suggested the plan, being still
strong in Dietl, he fortunately made the third band nearly as
large as the other two: 85 were bled, and 201 per cent. died.
106 had full doses of Tartar Emetic, and 201 per cent died.
189 were left to kind nature, and only 71 per cent died. It




33


is clear, therefore, that nearly three times as many died under the lancet, and the drug, respectively, as under the
kindly hand of nature. It is undeniable then by the testimony of Allopaths themselves, that in Inflammation of the
lungs no treatment at all is three or four times better than
theirs.
It affords a curious glimpse of medical human nature, to
contemplate the result of this famous trial on its distinguished author. One would think thatDietl would henceforth
forswear lancet and Tartar Emetic,-at least in pneumonia.
But no! Dietl's practice is heroic and doubtless he is a hero.
The eleven whom bleeding has slain, are lying on the one
hand, and the fifteen whom Tartar Emetic has poisoned, are
lying on the other, but he is not alarmed. Instead of turning
Homceopathist, he detests the modern system more than ever
and clings more fondly than before to his darling Allopathy.
Still this constancy may be more professional than absolute.
I have heard of doctors who were readier to give drugs
than to take them, and possibly were Dietl himself taken
with Pneumonia, he might prefer doing nothing to trying
either the sharp steel, orthe cruel emetic. If not, it is clear,
his chance of becoming a martyr to Allopathy would be
three to one.
We are deficient in Homceopathic statistics on Pneumonia- Dr. Henderson, of Edinburgh University, to whom I
am indebted for these details, reports eleven cases in the
British Journal of Homoeopathy. They were all promptly
cured. To the same author, I am indebted for an account of
Tessier's fifty cases. He is, I believe, the only Hospital Physician in Paris who is a Homceopath. His cases were, on the
whole, decidedly more unfavorable than Louis's or Bouillaud's, yet he only lost 3, i. e. 6 per cent, while Louis lost
more than 14 per cent. in his more successful attempt; and
his result is the best that exists in the records of All opathy.




34
The health of the body stands second in importance, only
to the health of its great inhabitant, the soul. Called as I
was to discourse in a neighboring city on the former subject,
I did not feel at liberty to decline the invitation which was
addressed tome, to repeat the discourse in this place. I
have spoken as unto wise men, and it remains for you to
meditate and to decide, on what I say.




PROCEEDING S.


HAMILTON, February 6th, 1854.
A meeting of the Homceopathic Physicians, convened at the Burlington
Hotel, Hamilton, C. W., pursuant to notice. Dr. A. T. Bull of London,
stated the object of the meeting, whereupon Dr. J. J. Lancaster was called
to the Chair, and Dr. W. A. Greenleaf appointed Secretary.
The following resolution was then moved by Dr. J. C. Peterson, seconded by Dr. A. N. Wolverton:
Resolved,-That it is expedient for the advancement of the cause of
Homceopathy; and the mutual benefit of social intercourse of practitioners
thereof, that an Association be formed; and that this meating do institute
a society, to be known as the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Canada.
The resolution was carried, and, on motion, the Chair appointed a Committee, consisting of Drs. Wolverton, Bull and Greenleaf to prepare a Constitution and By-Laws. 
The Committee retired and after due deliberation reported the annexed
Constitution and, By-Laws-which, on motion of Dr. Peterson, seconded
by Dr. Fields, was received and adopted.
Moved by Dr. Peterson, seconded by Dr. Springer, that the Chair
appoint a Committee to nominate officers, to hold office for one year from
the next ensuing annual meeting; Drs. Peterson, Bull and Wolverton were
appointed.
The Committee reported the following named gentlemen:
For President, Arthur Fisher, M. D., of Montreal, C. E.; 1st VicePresident, A. N. Wolverton, M. D., of Hamilton, C. W. 2nd Vice-President, Dr. J. J. Lancaster, of Eden Vale; Secretary and Treasurer, W. A.
Greenleaf, M. D., of St. Catherines; Censors, A. T. Bull, M. D., of London,
J. C. Peterson, M. D., of Hamilton, and G. W. Campbell, M. D., of Siddlesville; Corresponding Secretary, Dr. Wn. Springer, of Hamilton.
Who were unanimously elected.
Dr. Fields offered the following resolution:
Resolved,-That a Committee of three be appointed by the Chair, to
report an address to be read at the annual meeting, and for publication.




The motion was carried, and Drs. Bull, Wolverton, and Greenleaf appointed.
Dr. Bull offered the following resolution:
Resolved,-That Dr. James Lillie of Montreal, be invited to deliver an
address before this Society, at their annual meeting in May, and that the
Secretary be instructed to correspond with him for that purpose.
"The following was offered by Dr. Peterson:
Resolved,-That each member of the Society be requested to report at
the annual meeting, at least one case cured by a single remedy.-Carried.
Dr. Peterson presented a report of the medical treatment of St. Mary's
Orphan Asylum, at Hamilton, from January, 1853 to January, 1855, inclusive, which was placed on file.
After discussing some important points of treatment and other matters
of interest to the Society, an adjourment was carried, to meet in Hamilton
on the third Tuesday of May next ensuing.
ANNUAL MEETING.
HAMILTON, 15th May, 1855.
The Society met at the Hall of the Mechanics' Institute, in the city of
Hamilton, in accordance with the adjourment of the previous meeting.
A considerable number being present, the meeting was called to order
at half-past eleven o'clock, A. M., Dr. Wolverton, 1st. Vice-President, in the
chair.
It was moved and carried, that a recess be taken until.2 o'clock, p. M.
The Society met at 2 o'clock, P. M., Dr. Fisher, the President, in the chair.
The minutes of the meeting in February were read and approved. An
election of new members then took place, which resulted in the election of
seven full members and two inceptive members, who signed the Constitution and took their seats in the Convention.
The Treasurer presented his report which was read, and, on motion,
adopted.
The Committee on printing presented a report, which was accepted, and
the Committee discharged.
The Committee appointed to prepare an address reported, That in consequence of the address of Dr. Lillie, they should withhold what had been
prepared, and request a copy of Dr. Lillie's for publication. Accepted and
Committee discharged.
Report of the medical treatment of St. Mary's Asylum, Dr. Peterson,
physician, was presented, and ordered to be placed in the Archives of the
Society.




37


The following resolution was offered by Dr. Greenleaf:
Resolved,-That all reports of Committees be made in writing.-Carried.
On motion, the Chair appointed Drs. Wolverton, Greenleaf and Peterson, a Committee on Printing and Publishing.
Dr. Young offered the following resolution, seconded by Dr. Adams:
Resolved,-That the word "Provincial" be stricken out of Article 1st,
paragraph 1st, of the Constitution.
Adopted after a short discussion.
Moved by Dr. Greenleaf, seconded by Dr. Peterson that when this
meeting adjourn, we adjourn to meet at Toronto, on the third Tuesday of
May, 1856.-Carried.
Moved, that Drs. Adams, Lillie, and Schuch, be a Committee to provide
for the above meeting -Carried.
On motion, the Chair appointed Drs. Adams, Bull, and GreenleaF, a Committee to procure a seal for the Society.
A lengthy discussion arose on the best plan of treatment of intermittents,
and seminal weakness, the preparation of remedies, &c., which continued
until time for adjournment, when the Society adjourned to meet at seven
o'clock,'. ma, to hear the annual address of Dr. Lillie.
EVENING SESSION.
At the appointed hour, the Society assembled, with a large and intelligent audience, at the Hall of the Mechanics' Institute.
The President, Dr. Fisher, called the meeting to order and after some
well-timed remarks of the rise and progress of Homoeopathy in Canada,
introduced Dr. James Lillie, who proceeded to deliver his address.
O n motion it was
Resolved,-That a copy of Dr. Lillie's address be requested for publication; and that one thousand copies be published for the use of the members.
The Society then adjourned to meet at Toronto in May, 1856.
W. A. GREENLEAF,
Secretary.




CONSTITUTION.


We, the undersigned physicians residing in the province of Canada, believing the law propounded by Hahnemann:
"Similia Similibus Curantur,"
to be a fundamental truth in medicine, do agree to, form an Association
under the following Constitution:
ARTICLE I.-NAME AND OBJECT.
I I. The Association shall be styled the " Homceopathic Medical Society
of Canada," and its object shall be the advancement of the science of
medicine.
ARTICLE II.-OF MEMBERS.
I. Any educated Physician of this Province, of good standing, acknowledging the Eomceopathic Law of cure, may be elected a member of this
Society; and any student regularly entered upon the study of medicine with
a Homceopathic Physician may be elected Inceptive members, by a
majority of the members present at any regular meeting.
ARTICLE III.-OF OFFICERS.
Q I. The officers of this Society shall be, a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary, a Corresponding Secretary, and such Examiners and
Censors as shall be provided for in the By-Laws. The Secretary shall act
as Treasurer.. II. The officers shall be elected at the Annual meeting, by a majority
of all the members present.
ARTICLE IV.-OF MEETINGS.. I. There shall be a meeting of the Society annually, on the third
Tuesday of May, at such place as be may designated at the previous annual
meeting. The President, may also convene special meetings at such time
and place as he may deem expedient.. II. This Constitution may be amended by a vote of two-thirds of the
members present at the annual meeting.




BY-LAWS.


ARTICLE I.-OF ELECTIONS.
SI. The officers elected 'at any annual meeting shall hold office until
the adjournment of the annual meeting next after that at which they were
elected and until their successors are chosen.
SII. All elections shall be by ballot. No Candidate for membership
shall be ballotted for, unless proposed by a member of the Society, and
seconded by two other members, nor unless he shall have received a certificate of qualification from two at least of the Censors of this Society.
ARTICLE II.-OF MEMBERS.
SI. No person shall be entitled to the privileges of membership until
he shall have signed the Constitution, and paid to the Treasurer an initiation fee of one pound currency.
SII. Inceptive members to be entitled to membership with right to
speak, but not to vote, on payment of five shillings currency.
ý III. Expenses incurred shall be equally assessed upon the members.
ARTICLE III.-OF ORDER.
SI. Seven members shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.
ý II. The usual order of business shall be as follows:1. Calling of the Roll.
2. Reading minutes of last meeting and approval.
3. Proposition and election of members.
4. Reports of Committees.
5. Reading Communications.
6. Miscellaneous business.
7. Election of officers.
8. Adjournment.
SIII. Communications read before the Society become its property,
to be deposited in its Archives; Iut no paper shall be published as a part
of the transactions without an express resolution to that effect.




40
ARTICLE IV.-OF 0,IC          S.
I. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Society. In his
absence the Vice-Presidents shall preside in their order. It shall be the
duty of the President to deliver an address at the Annual and Semi-Annual
Meetings of the Society, or to make some other provision for that purpose.
S 11. The Secretary shall have charge of the Archives of the Society,
keep a record of its proceedings and a list of its members, and give notice
of its meetings. He shall also make an annual report of the state of the
funds of the Society.
SIII. There shall be elected at each annual meeting, three Censors who
shall examine applicants for membership- and give certificates, which shall
entitle the applicant to a certificate of membership on compliance with the
foregoing provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, signedby the President and Secretary of this Society, and for which he shall pay the sum of
five shillings currency.
ARTICLE V.-OF AMENDMENTS.
SI. The By-Laws may be amended by a majority of the members present at any annual meeting.




PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE, 22, KING KITRET WEST, TPOONOý


Filmed by Preservation 1990