the patients! Beside admitting (another impossibility) constitutional vigour and moral state to be the same in all the sick, by what scale are we to graduate the disease with respect to intensity, and therefore danger, so as to make sound and available conclusions from the bills of mortality. The attempt must for ever prove as unsatisfactory as it is absurd-philosophical..

We close this subject, for the present, at least, with a recapitulation, showing the actual history and popular results of the several misnamed public tests of homoeopathia.

RECAPITULATION.

Austria.

1828. The allopathic commission reported against homoeopathia after the trial at Vienna, although they stated that "the system is not inefficacious." The government therefore interdicted its practice.

1839. The interdict has been removed; medical men of eminence have acknowledged their belief in homoeopathia; and part of the imperial household is at present under homoeopathic treatment.

Russia.

1827.-The experiments were not sufficiently satisfac

tory to obtain the establishment of homoeopathic hospitals

under government patronage.

1839.

Homœopathia is now recognized by the government, and homœopathic institutions are organized for the better regulation of the practice throughout the empire.

1834.

France.

-Trials were made by Andral without a knowledge of the system, and he did not succeed.

-

1839. The system has widely extended throughout the kingdom, with the prospect of the school of Montpelier in its favour.

Italy.

1835. A public trial, undertaken by order of the King of Naples, was closed, before it was complete, because the allopathic commission would not obey the instructions contained in the royal order.

1839. The extension of homoeopathia in Italy exceeds that in any other part of Europe, excepting Saxony. Physicians, priests, and literati have embraced its doctrines. Hospitals and infirmaries are being organized, and many that were allopathic have been appropriated to the use of the homœopathists.

Statistics of Homœopathic Treament.

The treatment of cholera and its results produced the first strong popular impression in Europe, as to the efficacy of homœopathia.

Summary made by Dr. Peschier of the results of the homœopathic treatment of cholera in Europe up to 1832.

In Russia (documents of admiral Mordinoff, observations of Drs. Seidler and Peterson,) there were 1557 patients treated, 1394 cured, and 163 died. In Austria (documents of Dr. Roth; observations of Drs. Schreter, Hanschuh, and Quin,) there were 1406 patients treated, 1314 cured, and 95 died. At Berlin (observations of Drs. Stuller and Haynel,) there were 32 patients treated, 26 cured, and 6 died. At Paris (observations of Dr. Quin,) there were 19 patients treated, and 19 cured. Total, 3017 patients treated, 2753 cured, and 264 died.

Leipsic Hospital.

We have already alluded to the successful continuation of this hospital under the Saxon government. Abstract from the official and published reports of the in-door patients of this institution. During the year 1833, 118 patients were treated, of which number 4 died; 1834, 120, of which 5 died; 1837, 107, of which 8 died. Total, 548

patients, of which 33 died; —deaths at a rate of about six per cent. Abstract from the out-door patients attended by the physicians of the Leipzig Hospital.-During the year 1833, 1086 patients were treated, of which number 17

died; 1834, 463, of which 7 died; 1835, 283, of which 9 died; 1836, 261, of which 5 died; 1837, 332, of which 10 died. Total, 2425 patients, of which 48 died.

Conclusion.

In the face of such developments, -as the opinions of eminent allopathic physicians, the accidental concurrent testimony of celebrated practitioners, the conversion of allopathists to the new doctrine, the growth of its literature, and the records of the result of treatment, to denounce Hahnemann as a charlatan, to assail his disciples as visionaries or knaves, and to scoff at homœopathia as a humbug, is it not puerile, undignified, and presumptuous? The promptings of personal malevolence may guide some trembling pecuniary interests, may exasperate others, and unbending bigotry may, in a few instances, frown off the semblance of recognition, but the number of these, fortunately, has been too limited to arrest the onward and ceaseless advances of the new mode. The intelligence of the people in different parts of the world has been awakened to the investigation and knowledge of its peculiarities, so that the charge of its being an obscure and contemned German mysticism, is no longer tenable.

Almost every real reform has been retarded by its friends-zealous enthusiasts, who refine all peculiarities into transcendental excellencies; who clog simple essential

dectrines with cumbrous and foreign trappings, tending to deter the sincere lovers of truth from their investigation.

Homoeopathia too palpably has these obstacles to con tend with, in its present condition, but the vigorous promise of its early and maturing manhood, offers every encouragement for its ultimate distinction and utility; the more prominently, because of the talent and philanthropy that have recently embarked in its support and defence. These reflections lead us at once to a matter of grave and serious moment, to which we call the attention of those who are opposed to us in opinion. The allopathic systems of practice are now three thousand years old; they have been enriched by the brilliant hypotheses of myriads of able thinkers and writers; they have had hospitals and dispensaries in limitless numbers; and countless millions of their beds of disease have been the subjects of the various and contradictory modes: and yet, with the advantages of centuries of experience, and with all the important aid of the new and valuable sciences closely allied to the healing art, those old methods still fluctuate between the dreamers and ingenious conceptionists of this as of all former ages -making very little if indeed any progress towards the general goal-an exact and satisfactory system. In the statistic reports of the hospitals and infirmaries still under allopathic government, no striking amendment in the proportion of cures can be detected; and if the undeniable improvements in surgery be taken into the examination of the subject, it is fairly questionable whether any balance