serting that which at the time appeared to be an astronomical paradox. We trust Dr Tonnerre will meet with such encouragement as to be able fully to establish the hospital; that the mode of treatment pursued by him and its results will be impartially studied by the members of the faculty; and that the blessings it has conferred on our own friends and relatives may be extended to others." CONTENTS. Page Letter to John Forbes, M.D., F.R.S., on his Article entitled "Homœopathy, Allopathy, and Young Physic," contained in the “British and Foreign Medical Review." By William On the Observation of Nature in the Treatment of Disease. By Andrew Combe, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, one of the Physicians in Ordinary, Proposed Inaugural Address for 1852, to be delivered to the LETTER TO JOHN FORBES, M.D., F.R.S., On his Article entitled "Homœopathy, Allopathy, and Young Physic,' contained in the "British and Foreign Medical Review." BY WILLIAM HENDERSON, M.D., Professor of Pathology in the University of Edinburgh.* SIR, It is not the irritability of an author subjected to a rigorous criticism that prompts me to address to you the following remarks on your late review of Homœopathy, for I can say with sincerity that you have given me, personally, scarcely any ground for complaint. Indeed, both as an author and an adherent of the system which you have reviewed, I can justly pay you the compliment of stating that you are the first public opponent of Homœopathy in this country who has treated it with the courtesy of a gentleman, and the candour, if not of an unbiassed unbeliever, at least of one who does not recklessly assert what is untrue. Nor is it solely on account of the importance of the omissions and mistakes you have made that I address you at present. Far greater than any you are chargeable with, and deliberate misrepresentations to boot, have been committed by some of your contemporaries, which the feebleness of their influence either for good or bad has rendered unworthy of notice. It is, however, otherwise with you, and the pro * This letter was first published in the "British Journal of Homœopathy," in April, 1846. B ductions of your pen; and though I might, with little anxiety for the result, leave your article on Homœopathy to do the important work for which it is in many respects so well suited, without any comments of mine, it has occurred to me that the inaccuracies and defects to which I have referred may, under the sanction of your name, have more influence with many than they deserve to have, and may thereby retard the progress of an inquiry in which the profession and the public are very seriously concerned. I gladly avail myself, therefore, of the apology for my interference which is afforded by the circumstance of my having a place in your review, in order to supply some of the omissions, and correct the principal mistakes of that article. Though I give you full credit for having undertaken and prosecuted your examination of the subject with a desire to act fairly by it, I am far from admitting that you have succeeded in your object. While there is much in your paper that is just, and a little that will be regarded as even liberal, there is a great deal that is the reverse of both. Some of what comes under this latter designation is, no doubt, the result of imperfect information—of views which, as you acknowledge, have been " suddenly and prematurely" forced from you. A large account, however, remains that cannot be regarded in this light, but which affords some curious illustrations of the psychological infirmity that often leads men to exhibit doctrines which they dislike to as much disadvantage as they can, without absolutely affirming what they know to be untrue. To this infirmity I must ascribe the suppressing of explanations that might lessen or remove an objection; the ready admission of whatever appears likely to tell against your opponents; the prompt repudiation of everything like a presumption in their favour; and the recourse to denials or affirmations regarding points on which you are not entitled, by your actual knowledge, to offer an opinion. |