by it, and have nearly lost their eye-sight from rheumatic inflammation. I would observe further in reference to this case—a remark I only make en passant, that though the disease is of the gravest kind, (the right side of the heart being invaded by it now, as well as the left)-I have obtained results from the 200th * attenuation of Arsenicum and Digitalis, which I could not obtain from the 30th or the 3rd.-The dropsy that would not yield to the 3rd has very much lessened under the 200th.

So much for the cases I have taken notes of. I am well aware that they are insufficient to establish the views I have brought forward: but, as I said before, there are others I have seen of which I have never taken any notes. In fine, if any one will turn his attention to the subject, I think he will not fail to come to my conclusion that rheumatic carditis is not uncommon, independent of any affection of the joints-that its attack is not unfrequently insidious, giving rise to much less suffering at its outset than the amount of mischief would lead one to expect― that on this account and from being unlooked for except in connection with rheumatic fever, it may have escaped notice as a primary disease-and that when it does occur in rheumatic fever, this is not owing so much to metastasis, or transference of the disease from the joints to the heart, as to the elements of the disease being in the blood and its seat the fibrous structure of the heart as much as that of the joints themselves.

FRACTURES, AND THEIR HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT,

BY DR. HENRIQUES.

(A Clinical Lecture delivered in the Hahnemann Hospital School of Homœopathy.)

Gentlemen, It is my pleasing duty to appear before you this night, for the purpose of addressing you on the method of treating surgical diseases, according to the conservative principles of the immortal Hahnemann.

* By whom prepared? It is now ascertained that the so-called high dilutions of Jenichen were not really attenuated to anything like the above degree. Their exact degree of dilution is not known; but it is known that none of them were higher than the 40th, and many were quite low dilutions, and differed from the common preparations only in being more shaken.-[EDs.]

The course of lectures that I have undertaken to deliver will be especially clinical, commenting, however, as we proceed, on the principles of the Organon, and illustrated by cases which many of you present have yourselves witnessed in the surgical wards of this hospital.

In order to render our study as complete as the limited materials of our present small institution will permit, some methodical arrangement is necessary. I intend, therefore, to make a sort of anatomical classification of the various affections that have come under our observation for the last three months; by this means, we shall be enabled during this brief session to pass successively in review a great variety of the almost innumerable surgical lesions to which the several component tissues of the organism are subject; and thus, I hope, to make this projected series of lectures as comprehensive, as useful, and as interesting as possible.

Before we proceed, however, with the class of cases selected for this night's lecture, it behoves us to establish the fundamental principles that ought ever to guide us in the treatment of surgical diseases. To begin then. To begin then. You are aware that the vast domain of pathology has been divided into internal and external diseases the former is, at present, the province of the physician, the latter of the surgeon; but it is worthy of remark, that prior to the 12th century this distinction was unknown, for the Greek, Roman and Arab physicians treated indiscriminately medical and surgical cases, as the writings of Hippocrates, Galen, and Albucasis fully attest. It was during the middle of this ignorant, barbarous, and superstitious age, that the Council of Tours, under the hypocritical pretence of its abhorrence to the shedding of human blood, decreed that surgical operations should no longer be practised by the priests, who at that epoch, together with the Jews, were the only scientific practitioners of the healing art. From that period, surgery fell into the hands of the illiterate, who soon reduced its practice to the inferior grade of a purely empirical and mechanical art, and confined it within the narrow limits of mere manual operations. With the general progress of science, however, added to the efforts of Carpi, Fallopius, Eustachius, Harvey and Ruysch, surgery was rescued from its previously degraded position and is now restored

to the rank of medicine; but, unhappily, the absurd distinction between internal and external diseases is still maintained, and surgery continues to be the subject of a distinct profession.

Hahnemann, following the path of the illustrious pioneers of ancient and legitimate medical science, has briefly, but ably, protested against this injudicious separation, which is not only arbitrary, but I consider that it is also highly injurious to science and humanity.

1st. It is arbitrary, I say, because unity is the very essence of life. The external and internal parts of the organism form one indivisible whole, and, physiologically speaking, no parts, whether internal or external, right or left, constitute separate individuality, besides which, in pathology, there is no possible basis of distinction between internal and external diseases: in proof of this let us consider erysipelas. This affection, as you are aware, frequently occurs from external injury. It is an inflammatory action of the cutaneous tissue: hence, according to the common acceptation of the term, erysipelas is a surgical case. But is not this external morbid action as much a vital process as inflammation of the brain or the lungs? Does not the whole organism participate in the morbid action set up in erysipelas? Do fever and delirium, which are considered internal diseases, not frequently supervene in the course of erysipelas from external injury? How then is it possible for the surgeon to treat erysipelas without a thorough knowledge of medicine?

Again: peritonitis is an internal disease, appertaining it is said to the domain of medicine; but are not ascites, oedema, and gangrene of the legs, common sequences of peritonitis? How, then, can the latter be considered external diseases, appertaining to the domain of surgery? Hence, gentlemen, you perceive how impossible it is to draw a line of distinction between medicine and surgery.

2ndly. It is detrimental to the progress of science; because, as all the component parts of the organism are animated with and exercise their several functions by virtue of one identical and indivisible potentiality, and as they are co-ordained, correlated, and dependent one upon the other, in the harmonious play of life, it is evident that no parts could be so isolated from the whole as to become a distinct object of study: hence the sepa

rate study of the diseases which affect the external and internal parts of the body must be detrimental to the progress of medical science?

3rdly.—It is injurious to humanity; because, practised as a separate profession, surgeons are too apt to consider external diseases as purely local lesions, and this leads to a corresponding exclusively local method of treatment, which the dicta of. science and experience pronounce to be always improper and often injurious.

In illustration of the truth of the foregoing observation, I may here cite from my case-book a remarkable instance of traumatic necrosis, which had resisted local treatment of the antiquarian school for five years, and yielded to specific dynamic agents administered according to the homœopathic principles in less than five months.

Ann Hycroft presented herself at the Hahnemann Hospital on the 14th August 1851, to be treated as an out-patient. She was 31 years of age, fair complexion, dark blue eyes and light chesnut hair, délicate skin, much freckled in the face, full and well formed, but of a spare habit and nervous temperament. She bore evident marks of the scrofulous dyscrasia: her face was pale, haggard and anxious. She states that she is married, has several children, and is now nursing a baby four months old; that she pricked her right hand five years ago with a toasting-fork, and pain, inflammation and swelling immediately followed the accident; that having applied to several surgeons for advice, who recommended various external remedies without any result, and finding that the hand was becoming worse, she went to St. George's Hospital, where she was attended for ten months without any benefit; that she has been recently attended by a surgeon of this town, but as she found herself getting daily worse, and fearing that she might ultimately lose her hand, she was induced to try homœopathic treatment; that she has had, at various times, five sequestra exfoliated and discharged from the several fistulous openings seated in the palmar and dorsal surfaces of the hand, and from which was now issuing a very large quantity of sanguineopurulent matter.

On examination, the hand affected was swollen to double the dimensions of the other; there was a deep erysipelatous blush extending from the fingers to the middle of the forearm, inability

to bend or move the hand and fingers, extreme sensibility to the touch; excessive pain all over the arm to the shoulder-joint, which increased at nights; nocturnal hectic fever; sleeplessness; sweats profuse; loss of appetite; and extreme irritability.

I will not abuse your patience with any further recital of the diary of this case, suffice it to say that this patient under the influence of specific pharmaco-dynamic agents, such as Arnica, Silicea, Belladonna, Hepar sulphuris, Rhus and Phosphorus, without any local applications (save an Arnica lotion during the time she was taking internally the same remedy), gradually improved, and at the end of five months she was discharged perfectly cured.

It is right to observe that I had no means of ascertaining precisely the treatment that was adopted by the old school, but, as far as the imperfect account of the patient goes, it appears that beyond the application of lotions, poultices and plasters, with the occasional use of narcotics and purgatives, nothing else was done. In fact, what other resource has the old school in such cases but external appliances, since it obstinately persists in denying the specific action of dynamic agents, and their remedial efficiency when administered according to the therapeutic law of the reformed school?

According to our acceptation of the term, surgery then is but one of the means employed in medicine for the cure of diseases, but it does not form a separate science. It is simply a branch of therapeutics-quod in therapeia mechanicum. On all neces sary occasions, therefore, the homoeopathic surgeon must promptly resort to all the manual operations and mechanical appliances that have been devised by ingenuity, and which are most approved and admired by the profession in general. The difference between the homœopathic and allopathic surgery is not in the mechanical portion of this branch of the healing art, -on this point both schools are agreed; it is the medical treatment that distinguishes them, and in this respect daily experience teaches that homoeopathy is vastly superior. By virtue of specific remedial agencies, the homoeopathic surgeon may often render painful and dangerous surgical operations unnecessary; he very frequently prevents the evil effects and fatal consequences of mechanical injuries and dangerous operations; he