Fortunately for the patient, labour pains had commenced, and a vaginal examination found the os rapidly dilating. The pains were abdominal, the patient being powerless to help them in any way from the great distension. The swelling had almost visibly increased during the day, though this had begun suddenly two weeks before, so as to be quite noticeable in two days. The increase began with pains in the back, which had kept coming off and on during the fortnight, ending in labour. Sickness returned during that time and increased with the swelling.

The bowels had been regular. The urine very scanty. It was evidently the right treatment to rupture the membranes as soon as possible. This I did with a blunt hook, as they resisted all attempts with the finger. The gush of water which followed was very great, as if a reservoir had burst its embankments!

The relief was immense and without any collapse. Labour pains followed rapidly, and soon a perfect female child was born and alive. It lived for three hours. A second female child soon followed in a small bag of its own. This one was dead, though perfect, save for a flattening of the cranium. Then followed one large placenta with its two cords, and the mother was delighted to have her first child still as the baby!

Ergot was given, and pressure was kept up for some time, as there was more danger of atony and hæmorrhage. Recovery was perfect.

The literature of poly-hydramnios indicates it as more common in twin pregnancies, and these of the female sex. Monstrosities are more apt to occur in such a condition. It may be present in one ovum and not in the other, as in this case.

Its ætiology is not very clear. Some say it arises from the "vasa propria" capillaries remaining open longer than usual. Some blame disturbances in the mother's circulation. Jervis speaks of inflammation of the amnion, or a diseased condition of the decidua, or a dyscrasia of the maternal blood as possible causes. It may be acute or chronic, and does not usually appear before the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy.

Croydon.

HOMEOPATHY

ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER.

Dr. LEECH, in his article in the Practitioner (June), The Progress of Therapeutics in the Victorian Period, says that "the therapeutic history of the ten years ending 1847 would hardly be complete without an allusion to homœopathy." He accordingly tells his readers that, in 1836 the doctrines of Hahnemann "had manifestly many believers in this country. In that year," he continues, "a discussion took place on Hahnemannism at the London and Westminster Medical Societies. The new doctrines were vehemently attacked by Todd, Thomson, Addison and Clutterbuck; but, on the other hand, three or four other members asserted that they had seen good effects produced by homoeopathic medicines, and several papers were published by Epps and others recording cases treated successfully by homœopathic medicines." The four physicians, whose names are mentioned as those of members vehemently attacking the new doctrines, were gentlemen who did so without the slightest experience or observation of cases treated homœopathically. When Dr. Uwins, one of the physicians. who testified to what he had seen, spoke of the good effects of aconite, and the revolution in the therapeutics of that day which it was destined to effect, Dr. Clutterbuck, the eminent physician of the London Fever Hospital, said that "there was something shocking in an old and respected member of their society anticipating a time when lancets would rust in their cases. What are they doing now? Mr. Kingdon, a surgeon largely engaged in general practice in the city, who, up to the time of his death practised homoeopathically more or lessand largely more than less-in concluding his paper at the London Medical Society, said: "After what I have seen, or, if you please, what I fancy I have seen, I feel that it is the duty of every medical man to look into it (i.e., homeopathy), for it is certain, either that a number of cases do better without medicine than with, or that these unimaginable doses of carefully prepared medicines do impress the nerves so as to influence the actions of life." At the conclusion of the discussion, a resolution was proposed by Dr. Clutterbuck, and seconded by Dr. Johnsonneither of whom knew anything or had seen anything of homœopathy-to the effect that homeopathy was unworthy of consideration. In this they were supported by the majority, who were in the same condition of ignorance as they were, but, in deference to those members who, like Dr. Uwins and Mr. Kingdon, having seen somewhat of homœopathy, were convinced that it was the duty of all medical men to look

into it, the resolution was withdrawn, on the understanding that the subject should never again be mooted in the Society! A report of the meeting is given in the Lancet of November or December, 1886.

Dr. Leech further says: "It seems probable that the number of believers amongst the laity continued to increase for nearly a quarter of a century, and even for many years after this the homeopathic doctrine, and the belief in the infinitely little in medicine maintained its popularity. But there can be little doubt, during the last twenty years, its hold on lay minds has gradually lessened."

That Dr. Leech's wishes are father to his thoughts, on the popularity of homœopathy, is rendered evident by the recent rebuilding of the London Homœopathic Hospital at a cost of £45,000; and the still more recent fact, recorded in our last number, that at the Victorian Commemoration Banquet a further sum of £7,122 was subscribed for in the course of the evening. People do not subscribe money so freely as this to assist in the development of a therapeutic method in which they have lost confidence-in the support of "a decaying faith"-which we remember to have seen homœopathy described as being some years ago!

The influence of homeopathy on the practice of medicine has, Dr. Leech thinks, "been probably exaggerated." On the contrary, this influence has, we are certain, been greatly under-estimated. It permeates the whole practice of medicine, as any intelligent student of Ringer, Bartholow, Lauder Brunton, Bruce and others may easily see for himself.

It is true and glad we are that it is true-that the violence and coarseness of expression which characterised the attacks upon homœopathy in the Lancet, Medical Times, and British Medical Journal of some years gone by, are no longer to be met with. It is no longer possible for the Lancet to seek popularity with its subscribers by uttering such a curse upon homœopathic patients as it did on the 2nd of February, 1856. Wrote the editor on that occasion, "Our wishes for the patients of homeopathic physicians are not so seemingly merciful, and we are prone to utter such imprecations on them as would make the shade of Ernulphus walk disturbed. May your vigour of mind and body fail, your bones decay, your limbs be eaten by disease, your joints stiffen and be everlastingly immovable." No one, however, seemed "one penny the worse," so leaders in medicine abandoned cursing the patients of homœopaths and slandering their medical attendants, and fell back upon reading homeopathic medical journals and Hughes' Pharmacodynamics, to seek

Review, July 1, 1897.

reputation through the discovery of remedies new to the bulk of the profession, but old enough to homoeopaths. The plan was simple, and somewhat after the political method known as "dishing the Whigs." It has to a great extent been successful, and when these would-be " original" observers have learned the conditions under which their poached game can be thoroughly cooked-they will be largely equipped as homœopaths!

REVIEWS.

The Homeopathic Therapeutics of Diarrhea, Dysentery, Cholera, Cholera-morbus, Cholera Infantum, and all other Loose Evacuations of the Bowels. By JAMES B. BELL, M.D. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel. 1897.

It was in 1869 that the first edition of this work saw the light, and in a short time "Bell on Diarrhoea became, medically speaking, "a household word." a household word." If Dr. Bell's book is less known now than by homoeopathic practitioners of 20 years ago, we feel inclined to say that it is rather a sign that prescribing is done to-day in a more hurried and routine manner than formerly. No person of extensive practice is satisfied with the results which are yielded by an empirical homœopathy, if the term is permissible, in "loose evacuations of the bowels." Perhaps there is a danger of becoming willing to remain dissatisfied on account of the time and trouble required for careful and individual prescribing. Against these should be placed the results, for time and trouble will ultimately be minimised by the rapidity and thoroughness of a quickly curative prescription.

In the preface to the first edition, Dr. Bell informs us that his little labour-saving treatise "has not been intended to include every remedy that has been known to purge, but only every remedy of which enough is known, either of its stools, or conditions, or concomitants, to distinguish it from any other remedy." This is just the point, and on this depends success or failure.

In glancing over works of this kind we confess our tendency is to enquire where all the symptoms in the text and the index (Repertory) come from, and to reject all those which are not strictly pathogenetic. But here the "higher criticism" has no place. In a difficult or uncertain case we turn with the confidence born of long experience to "Bell," and find with comparative ease, substantial and reliable aid. For the benefit of those not acquainted with our author, it may be

Review, July 1, 1897.

stated that the first 204 pages consist of the description of the action of 140 drugs on the bowels, with aggravation, relief, conditions and concomitants. Another hundred pages furnish a Repertory-the part most often turned to in looking up a case in the busy practice of every day.

We hope our readers will soon make personal acquaintance of this little book.

MEETINGS.

COMMEMORATION BANQUET.

THE VISCOUNT EMLYN (treasurer) presided over a banquet at the Hotel Cecil, on May 26, to commemorate the "Diamond Jubilee," by completing the building fund of the London Homœopathic Hospital. There were present:- Mr. and Mrs. A. Ridley Bax, Mr. and Mrs. Beecroft, Dr. and Mrs. Bennett, Dr. Galley Blackley, Dr. T. W. Blake, Dr. Victor Blake, Mr. Josiah Booth, Mr. and Mrs. A. Boulton, Mr. Sydney Brooks, Colonel and Mrs. Clifton Brown, Mr. E. Clifton Brown, Miss Clifton Brown, Dr. Dyce Brown, Dr. Burford, Dr. and Mrs. Burwood, Mr. J. Ö. Butcher, Mr. Watson Caldicott, Mr. and Mrs. Callard, Mr. Allen E. Chambre, Mr. Belle Clancy, Dr. George Clifton, Madame Belle Cole, Mr. Stanley Cooper, Miss Couch, Rev. and Mrs. Dacre Craven, Mr. and Mrs. G. A. Cross, Mr. and Mrs. W. M. Cross, Mr. Sydney Cross, Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Cross, Mr. W. S. Cuff, Captain Cundy, Captain and Miss Davies, Dr. and Mrs. Roberson Day, Mrs. Drew, Dr. and Mrs. Dudgeon, Dr. W. Epps, Mr. Sydney Gedge, M.P., Mrs. Gedge, Dr. and Mrs. S. Gilbert, Mr. and Mrs. Gillespie, Dr. Goldsbrough, Signor Guetary, Dr. E. A. Hall, Mr. H. Harris, Mr. R. Harris, Mrs. Hughes, Miss Hunt, Miss Edith Hunt, General Hutchinson, Mr. and Mrs. A. M. Jay, Mr. and Mrs. Johnstone, Mr. and Mrs. C. Kelly, Miss Kennedy, Dr. and Mrs. Kennedy, Mr. H. J. Kluht, Mr. and Mrs. Lambert, Mr. E. H. Laurie, Miss Laurie, Miss Lea, Mr. and Mrs. C. Layton, Miss Lewis, Dr. MacNish, Mr. H. Manfield, Dr. Marsh, Mr. F. J. Mirrielees, Dr. Byres Moir, Mr. James Moir, Dr. Edwin A. Neatby, Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Ness, Dr. and Mrs. Newbery, Dr. W. T. Ord, Mrs. Robert Orr, Mr. R. A. Owthwaite, Mr. and Mrs. W. Pite, Mr. and Mrs. Pollendine, Dr. Powell, Dr. Cash Reed, Mr. and Mrs. E. Roche, Mr. Raphaël Roche, Mr. and Mrs. A. Rosher, Dr. Ross, Dr. and Mrs. Leo Rowse, Dr. and Mrs. Sanders, Dr. Shackleton, Miss E. Shackleton, Mr. Knox Shaw, Miss Maud Shaw, Miss