original papers, and rejecting even Bayle's account of these papers in extenso, has rested satisfied; while Dr Henderson, who had as easy access to the papers in Hufeland's Journal as to Bayle's work, rejects both, and betaking himself to Black, adopts him for better and for worse. We must, however, present the observations of some of the other German physicians to our readers. We take Gumpert, whose paper appeared in Hufeland's Journal for 1818. This physician, who practised at Posen during an epidemic of scarlatina, administered belladonna to his four children, and they were preserved. We should like to know if there are not scores of physicians of whose families the same might be affirmed, though no belladonna was administered! Gumpert, at the same time, however, employed belladonna in about twenty families, and with similar success.1 Nevertheless, one person took the disease during the first week of prophylactic treatment; and another, a child, after taking the belladonna for two weeks. Regarding this physician's experience, the "British and Foreign Reviewer" justly censures Bayle and Black, and Dr Henderson ought to be included for stating that he (Gumpert) preserved twenty families, amounting to about eighty individuals, for Gumpert mentions no such thing, and it is evidently an assumption of Bayle's own, who, being anxious to present numerically the experience of as many physicians as he possibly could, took upon himself to calculate, that each of the twenty families, like Gumpert's own, contained four individuals. Had the "Homoeopathic Reviewer" been worth censuring, or at all likely to have his mind and manners improved by such treatment, we should be tempted to let him know our candid opinion of what he has said respecting the criticism of the "British and Foreign Reviewer" upon Gumpert's experience. He labours to prove a want of open and honest dealing on Dr Warburton Begbie's part, which it is sufficient for us to say, that he has not found himself able to establish; while he finds it convenient to pass, sub silentio, the single charge of gross error which that gentleman endeavours, on this occasion, to substantiate against Bayle in his resumé, and after him, against Black and Henderson. Our readers shall judge how far he was warranted in so doing. Here, again, we acquit Bayle, to a certain extent; for in the account of Gumpert's experience, as given by him “in

Henderson" to be sure!! For pointing out such discrepancies, Dr Warburton Begbie surely merited thanks, instead of which, in the elegant language of the Homœopathic Journal," he is condemned as a traducer."

1 It could only be from a desire not to appear hypercritical, that the "British and Foreign Reviewer" did not call attention to the discrepancy between Gumpert's own statement on this subject, and Bayle's account of it. "Noch bei einigen 20 familien," is rendered "dans plus de vingt families." "Mit gleichem Erfolg," "et toujours avec un succès constant." In about twenty families is translated in more than twenty families; with equal success is translated, and always with constant success. Yet to this always constant success there were two exceptional cases!

2 An admirable example of what is termed "Cooking of Statistics."

extenso," there is no mention made of eighty individuals. It is his own suggestion in his resumé. He has there taken what we regard as an unwarrantable liberty; but his error is altogether less than that of either Black or Henderson. With the opportunity of quoting Gumpert accurately, they have represented that physician as stating what he did not state. It will not do to argue that Dr Black is to be excused, because, forsooth, he only professed to deal with the resumé of Bayle! for this is, indeed, the point on which we and our readers have just cause of complaint. If we are asked to believe the experience of certain observers, let that experience be correctly stated, or else let a simple reference be given to original authorities. The condemnation, by the "British and Foreign Reviewer," of such conduct as Dr Black's and Dr Henderson's, was not only warranted but demanded. Had he resiled from the unpleasant duty, we must have held him as in a measure answerable for their blunders. The shield of protection with which the "Homoeopathic Reviewer" has endeavoured to cover Dr Black and Dr Henderson, and the manner in which, on account of the faithful discharge of a duty imposed upon him, he has chosen to speak of the writer in the British and Foreign Review," are, to our mind, sufficient, though sad indications of the professional habits of the gentlemen whom the "Homœopathic Journal" represents.

Behr, physician at Bernbourg, administered the belladonna to forty-seven individuals, including children and adults, during an epidemic which occurred in 1820 and 1821, lasting from September to the beginning of March. Only six were attacked by the disease. Of the six cases, Behr says, "that in three the disease was of a benign character" (gutartiges scharlachfieber), and in regard to the other three, after describing the case of a brother who was distressed with constant hiccough, and otherwise had the disease in a very severe form (sehr heftiges scharlachfieber), he adds, "that they had it in a much milder degree" (viel gelinder). Of Behr's exceptional cases, Bayle says, "Mais chez presque tous les six la maladie fut d'une nature si be'nigne, qu'aucun ne succomba." We have been precise in quoting the remarks of Behr and of Bayle, in regard to these six cases, in order to allow our readers to judge of the manner in which the experience of another of the much lauded German physicians is presented by Dr Black and Dr Henderson. "Six were attacked," say these gentlemen, "in an almost insensible manner." For this glaring misrepresentation of what an original observer has stated, the Homœopathic Reviewer" endeavours, as usual, to excuse Dr Black, because he quoted Bayle's resumé, "which alone he professes to deal with." We care not to accuse or to excuse Dr Black. Our readers can now judge for themselves whether, by any received canon of criticism such an excuse can be, for one moment justified. Then, as to the facts which Behr has brought forward, of what real value, notwithstanding their interest, are they? Forty-seven indivi

66

duals, twenty of whom were upwards of twelve years of age, while four were thirty-four, during an epidemic of scarlet fever, which lasted upwards of six months, had belladonna exhibited to them; and while six of the forty-seven did contract the disease, forty-one did not-is this very striking and important? Would it be still more striking if the numbers were increased,--viz., the population of Bernbourg, the scarlet fever patients in that population, the number of persons to whom the belladonna was given, and even, if you will, the number who did not take scarlet fever-in short, magnify the whole experiment several fold, and what of it, after all? Is there anything in the nature of the facts, as brought forward by Dr Behr, to lead necessarily, or even tend to the conclusion, that a few drops of belladonna, given twice daily, preserved those who did not take scarlet fever? We see no reason, and feel quite as open to the conviction, that Dr Behr's six were affected by scarlet fever because they got the belladonna, as that his forty-one escaped the disease because of it.

Having indicated the reliance, in the degree of little, less, least, to be placed on the works of Bayle, Black, and Henderson, we shall now pass to the experience of one of the German physicians, which, nearer than any other, approaches to the "experimentum crucis." Before doing so, we may say, in a word, as respects the experiences of all the others, "ex uno disce omnes." The statements of Schenck, Gumpert, and Behr, differ so little in reality from those of their "confrères," as to make any further quotation needless; besides, our space forbids, and the reader is referred either to the original papers or to the article in the "British and Foreign Medico Chirurgical Review," in which these authors' views are accurately represented. The experiment just alluded to, is that of Dr Dusterberg, who, when scarlatina menaced Warbourg, selecting an individual in every family committed to his care, from whom the belladonna was withheld, has described the subsequent infection of the whole so exempted; and attributed the infection to the drug not having been administered. Any reader of Dr Dusterberg's statements will find grave cause for scepticism as to the reality of his experiments; but apart from this altogether, we are at one with the "British and Foreign Reviewer," when he says, "The exemption from the belladonna treatment of one-half of each family would have been much fairer. The exemption of only one in each family would, undoubtedly, serve as predisposing the ones so exempted to contagion in another and very marked manner, which is not even alluded to by the experimenter. The mental influence exerted over the exempted child of each family, we hesitate not to say, would be very decided, and all in favour of his or her contracting the disease."

Our readers must not suppose that all the German physicians who have written upon this subject agree with those whose statements have now been referred to. If, in numbers, the opponents do not equal the supporters of the claims of belladonna, the depen

dence that may be placed upon their evidence is greater, becaus accompanied by much precision of detail. Dr Lehmann's paper is in this respect greatly superior to any one of Hahnemann's upholders; for a ready confirmation of this opinion, the reader may refer to the original article in "Rust's Magazine" for 1826, or to the "British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review:" in the latter, at page 91, and 15 lines from foot of page, he will please to read fourteenth for twenty-first, an accidental mistake, for the correction of which the world is indebted to the "Homœopathic Reviewer." For once (and we would fain accept it as a token of better things to come) the original paper of an author has been referred to, and the "Homœopathie Reviewer" has been rewarded for his trouble, by detecting a slip on the part of the "Reviewed." Such good fortune should inspire him; and on this occasion truly, the indication of the error is accompanied by such a flourish of trumpets, as to satisfy us that it was the only one he could detect.

Besides Lehmann in Germany, Mierendorf, Raminski, Teuffel, etc. etc., have added their testimony against the asserted power of belladonna. It is unnecessary in this Journal to detail the evidence of a like nature which our own country has afforded. One of the most valuable and crushing testimonies against belladonna, appeared in the "Monthly Journal," by Mr Benjamin Bell. In our opinion, the facts brought forward by Mr Bell, Dr Andrew Wood, Dr Balfour of Chelsea, and Dr Balfour of Cramond,1 have finally settled the question as far as scientific men have to do with it. Henceforth it can only live as a "vestige of Hahnemannism."

But the utmost that the "Homoeopathic Reviewer" can say for the "divine remedy" of the "Magnate" his master, is,-"The prophylaxis of belladonna in scarlatina may have no existence, but that such is the case has not been shown by Dr J. Warburton Begbie;" and again, "notwithstanding the misrepresentations of our opponents and all our own shortcomings, we have now, as heretofore, the best of the argument and the best of the facts." Our readers, with the assistance of the works at the head of our review, have now ample opportunity of judging for themselves, of the truth of these the homoeopathic "ultimata," on one of the grandest dogmas of their school.

If we were asked to indicate the track by which the greatest number of errors have crept into medical literature, we should feel no hesitation in deciding, that the practice of quoting from secondhand sources has contributed more fruitfully than any other cause to this result. Extraordinary indeed, though not therefore the less blame-worthy, has been the anxiety shown by many to avoid the trouble of reference to original authorities. An evidently necessary consequence of this practice has been the stereotyping of errors,

1 Under the title of "Notes from Practice;" see some admirable remarks by this gentleman in "Monthly Journal" for May 1853.

not, however, in some instances, before the original blunders have step by step become lamentably augmented. In medical literature we need seek no better illustration of this truth than the history of the so-called prophylactic action of belladonna. We find, in the first place, certain loosely observed facts and testimonies recorded after a slovenly fashion, by certain German physicians, have been far from accurately represented by the French author, the title of whose work is placed at the head of our review. The next stage in the literary degeneration of these facts and testimonies is represented by a so-called English translation of Bayle (the French author in question), in which the faulty parts of that author's work are carefully enshrined, to the exclusion of the more valuable and correct portions. Finally, we have a Scottish Professor, who, among his other notorious professions, professes to quote Bayle,' but in reality quotes only the English translation above-mentioned, and this after an ex cathedrá fashion, as though the whole of the evidence had passed unscathed through the fiery crucible of his eminently critical understanding; whereby the ingenuous and simple reader, little versed in

1 Dr Henderson's words are ("Homoeopathy fairly Represented," 2d edit., p. 112), "I shall adduce from an article by M. Bayle." Dr Henderson, however, does not adduce from M. Bayle, but from M. Bayle's translator; and, following him, directs his readers to page 583 of Bayle's second volume. The fact is, as pointed out by the "British and Foreign Reviewer," that Bayle's second volume contains only 532 pages. The writer in the Homœopathic Journal" labours to defend the course adopted by Dr Henderson. If Dr Henderson did not intend to quote directly from Bayle, why did he not say so at the outset of his quotation, and if he intended his readers to have the idea that Dr Black, and not he himself was translating the French author for them, why did he so distinctly say "I shall adduce from an article by M. Bayle?" The subsequent note of reference to Black's book (as a consequence of the existence of which the writer in the Homoeopathic Journal pronounces Dr Henderson to be the most honest, and at the same time the most abused Inan, while the "British and Foreign Reviewer" is likened to a fox, having previously been compared to certain other animals of the brute creation, on account of his knowledge regarding it) is evidently the circumstance which revealed to his reviewer Dr Henderson's extreme carelessness and inaccuracy, it is, moreover, an untruthful note. "For the whole (the italics are the HoInœopathic Reviewer's) of Bayle's article on the subject, the English reader is referred to Dr Black's 'Principles and Practice of Homœopathy." "whole" of Bayle's article! Why, Dr Black does not give the half of it, not even a third of it!! He is either ignorant of, or ignores the most important part of it. English reader!" surely these words are calculated to imply, that on the occasion in question, Dr Henderson had been a French reader? As untruthful as the foregoing is the attempt to rescue Dr Henderson from a charge of gross inaccuracy, by pretending that "Bayle's compilation" is so well known, that it may be almost regarded as "common property." Our readers know better, and we happen to know that however familiar Bayle's name and observations may be, there is only one available copy of his "Compilation," for consultation, in our northern metropolis. In endeavouring to wipe out one of Dr Henderson's errors, the "Homœopathic Reviewer" has disclosed others of equal, if not greater magnitude. "Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim.'

NEW SERIES.-NO. VI. JUNE 1855.

3 Y

The