feel his gallant ship sinking beneath him, that he is catching at straws?

It

The statistics are genuine. The very existence of a homœopathic hospital in Vienna is itself a convincing proof of the superior value of the new treatment. was because Dr. Fleischmann, when the Asiatic cholera raged in Vienna, cured double the number that were saved under the old system, that the emperor removed the restrictions which had previously been imposed upon the practice of homoeopathy in his dominions, and established the hospital which has since been one of the principal schools of homoeopathy in Europe. Had Dr. Routh's objections been sufficiently weighty to destroy our confidence and our hopes thus excited in homoeopathy, we might indeed have greatly regretted it for humanity's sake, but we must have bowed to the conclusion. If, however, as I think my readers will by this time have been convinced, they have rather been "frivolous and vexatious," we may cheerfully dismiss them, and thankfully indulge our hopes that this improved method of treating all our bodily ailments will become increasingly beneficial to mankind. Hard indeed must that heart be that will not rejoice at such a prospect as this!

It appears then that, with respect to the principle of "like curing like," it is admitted to a considerable extent by our opponents, as indeed it was by Hippocrates himself, emphatically and deservedly recognised as the Father of Medicine; and that no reason has yet been shown, sufficient to set aside the proofs in favour of its being received as a general rule of universal application.

That with respect to the efficacy of small doses, this is also admitted to the extent that it has been practically tested-so far as the small doses have been tried, they have been found to act satisfactorily. Now, as Dr. Routh himself contends that “we have no right to argue à priori," (page 12,) we feel justified in asserting that à priori or theoretical objections to

doses which have not been tried, are of no force, and may safely be disregarded, and at once rejected.

That with regard to the administration of medicines we learn from our opponents, in the most conclusive and self-evident manner, not only the inefficiency, but the positively hurtful nature of the usual treatment by large doses; and that with regard to the statistics which speak so loudly and so unequivocally in favour of homoeopathy, we have seen that the objections brought against them are not of sufficient validity to shake our confidence in their truth.

In conclusion, the published statistics of homœopathy are important in themselves, and of value to medical practitioners, either as preliminary information, to induce them to study homoeopathy, seeing that by them at least a prima facie case for inquiry is made out; or as a confirmation to their own private trials on the subject, if the information come, as it no doubt often does, after that private examination has been made. Still the main reliance is to be placed upon what happens in our hands, and under our own eyes. Whatever charges of unfairness or fraud may be brought against other persons, we know whether we ourselves are sincere or not. The subject is too serious, and the consequences too important to each individual practitioner, to allow him to be careless in his own proceedings. He is almost necessarily cautious, and awake to all the sources of fallacy to which he may be exposed. He procures the books and reads them; he obtains the medicines, and with intense interest tries them; he expects them to fail, he is almost sure he shall be able to prove that the thing is a delusion. He selects simple cases at first, both for his patient's sake and his own, the remedies apparently act beyond his expectation, at any rate the patients quickly recover, better and more speedily than if he had given them his usual doses. He reasons thus: -even if the medicines have done nothing, the patients have been gainers, they have been spared the taking of nauseous physic, perhaps

the loss of blood, or the pain of a blister, and they have speedily recovered; so that supposing it has been diet and regimen, it is evident that diet and regimen do better without drugs than with them. This point becomes settled, that drugging, and bleeding, and blistering are bad. By degrees more serious cases are tried; cases, such as croup, where diet and regimen are out of the question, seeing that if relief be not speedily afforded, death must ensue; and how does the conviction of the efficacious action of the medicines then flash upon the mind! When a violent paroxysm of croup passes off in an hour under the influence of mild doses of aconite and hepar sulphuris and spongia, without the warm baths, and emetics, and leeches, and blisters, which before were considered indispensable; when an equally violent fit of tic douloureux yields in a few moments to the appropriate remedy; when inflammation of the brain yields to belladonna, and inflammation of the lungs subsides rapidly under phosphorus; when such universally fatal diseases as diabetes (sugared urine) are, if not absolutely cured, at least so greatly relieved, that life is prolonged for years; what further proof does he require to convince him of powerful medicinal action in the remedies employed? What then is the conclusion arrived at by the anxious but patient and persevering inquirer? That homoeopathy is a boon to mankind from the Giver of all good, and that it is his duty to embrace it, and to advocate its cause to the best of his ability.

ESSAY IV.

THE PRINCIPLE OF HOMEOPATHY.

"The discovery of natural truth has been remarkably slow. When the discovery is a single fact many years commonly elapse before the next fact in connection with it is brought to light. When it is of a more general kind, and partakes of the nature of a law, it more commonly suggests other truths and valuable circumstances in connection with it, by which means a more rapid progress is, for a time, made."

SIR JOHN HERSCHEL.