question, as it had arisen after two years. When this motion was brought forward in 1876 he then differed from his cosecretary (Mr. Copeman) as to including it in the list. The objection was made that the Homoeopathic Dispensary was not a bona fide medical charity. It was then a paying medical charity. Since that time the committee had altered the constitution of the Dispensary, so that it was now a genuine bona fide medical charity. Thus the only questions this meeting had to consider were 1st. Is it a medical charity administered by qualified medical men? 2nd. Is it a charity doing the work of a charity? Now, to both those questions the Homœopathic Dispensary could answer in the affirmative. It was administered by well-qualified medical men, who had passed through the same training as their allopathic brethren. It was a charity, inasmuch as it was wholly supported by voluntary contributions. Last year, this institution treated 947 out-patients, whilst 363 in-patients were visited at home by its two medical officers. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Harmer had justly said that as some of the subscribers-doubtless a minority-to the Hospital Sunday Fund, were homœopaths, it was fair to recognise that fact. But suppose a majority were homœopaths and the minority allopathic, and there was one allopathic charity, the allopaths would feel it right that their small charity should be recognised and participate in any fund to be distributed. There was no place where Hospital Sunday existed in which the homoeopathic charity of the neighbourhood had not its equitable share, and he did not think Norwich would like to be the only place less charitable, generous, and just in this respect than other large towns of the kingdom. But he was afraid if this resolution were not passed, some congregations would say, "Since they do not recognise our charity, the one in which we feel most interested, we will withdraw our contributions, and give it to that charity ourselves." That would be a great misfortune; for what the committee wanted was to get all the collections into the centrai fund, instead of distributing their collections themselves. But after all, what would this proposition come to? It was not so much the amount of money as the recognition of their position that the committee of this Dispensary desired. If the Dispensary had been on the list, it would have received, he had found on calculation, the sum of £5. That was all. But what he pleaded for was simply justice. This charity, to his knowledge, was doing good work among the poor. It was administered by bona fide medical men, and it was a general charity. The meeting would do well to include it amongst the medical charities to share in the Hospital Sunday Fund, and they would do ill to degenerate into a discussion as to whether homœopathy or allopathy was the true theory of medicine.

Review, April 1, 1879.

Rev. Dr. DUCKETT was sorry he could not agree with Mr. Barrett. There was, he believed, a strong prejudice against homœopathy. If the Homœopathic Dispensary were admitted amongst the institutions participating in the fund, the effect would be very contrary to what Mr. Barrett expected—a decrease, not an increase of the fund. Though the amount which might be given to the Homeopathic Dispensary might be small, by increasing the number of participants, the amounts received by the other charities would be lessened. Had he been present when it was proposed to add the Staff of Nurses, he should have opposed it, because he thought that institution, if properly managed, could be made self-supporting. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. F. Dix was convinced that the homoeopathists adopted the right course of treatment, as he had found they restored patients as quickly as the allopaths. However, as a subscriber both to the Hospital and the Homœopathic Dispensary, he hoped that the latter, as a medical charity, as well as the former, would receive its share.

Mr. S. CULLEY, speaking as a representative of St. Mary's Chapel congregation, said they were very earnest that their collection should be paid into this fund. But the question had been discussed amongst them whether, if the Homœopathic Dispensary were excluded from participating in the fund, some portion of their collection should be allotted to it. Thus, instead of that Dispensary receiving only £5, as Mr. Barrett had said would be its portion, it would probably receive two or three times that

amount.

The Rev. H. W. PERRIS supported the amendment on the grounds diametrically opposed to those stated by Dr. Duckett. The question of prejudice ought rather to operate in favour of the amendment. The simple fact was that the homeopathic practitioners were qualified to practice allopathically, so that they possessed a double qualification. They could not, therefore, withhold any recognition of their claim on the ground that they were not equally qualified with other medical men.

The Rev. W. A. ELDER said the question to decide should be whether the Dispensary was conducted by qualified medical practitioners.

The Rev. W. F. CREENY-Do not the patients pay?

Mr. LIVOCK (secretary to the Homoeopathic Dispensary)— Certainly not it is perfectly free.

The Rev. G. S. BARRETT-It is now conducted on the same basis as the Norfolk and Norwich Dispensary. If you subscribe a guinea, you get so many recommendations. There are no paying members.

Rev. Canon HEAVISIDE was sorry that this question had been raised, after it had been disposed of at previous meetings. He

agreed with Dr. Duckett that there was such a strong prejudicean unjust prejudice, it might be-in the minds of a vast number of people against homœopathy. He also agreed with Mr. Barrett that it was desirable to make their collection on Hospital Sunday as large as possible. But he thought if the Homœopathic Dispensary were included in the list of participants, it would be detrimental to the movement. However, he was glad to find that if the Homœopathic Dispensary were excluded, it would be the gainer, rather than the loser, for Mr. Culley had told them that if it were not allowed to share, it would receive a larger grant than if it were put in the list. Therefore, as he was not doing any harm to the Homœopathic Dispensary, and at the same time as he thought best serving the interests of the Hospital Sunday Fund, he should oppose the amendment.

Mr. W. T. LivOCK said that he had heard people express their grateful acknowledgment of the services of Dr. Doyle of the Norfolk and Norwich Dispensary. He had also heard like testimony as to the services of Dr. Roche of the Homœopathic Dispensary. Both helped the poor in the time of need, and that was the claim made for including the Homoeopathic Dispensary. The objection of Dr. Duckett and Canon Heaviside ought to have no weight. They ought not in these days to pander to people's prejudice, but rather to try and enlighten them. Mr. Culley's remark referred to by Canon Heaviside cut both ways. If money were given by St. Mary's congregation to the Homœopathic Dispensary, there would be consequently less to be divided among the charities in the list.

Mr. J. J. COLMAN, M.P., said that if he had been consulted as to whether this motion should have been made, he should have recommended that it should have been discussed privately before it was brought forward for public discussion. However, the

question was not between two systems of medicine, or between the merits of the doctors mentioned. The question was a broad one. Was the Homœopathic Dispensary doing an evil or a good work? He thought it was doing a good work. Therefore he could not help feeling that it had a claim upon the fund. The institution was in their midst, and if its promoters came forward and asked for a subscription of £5 or the recognition of its claims, they had to consider whether they would say "Yes" or "No" to the application. Though not an homœopathist, many of his most intimate friends favoured that system, and having seen a great deal of homœopathic practice, he could say there what he had certainly often said to medical men, "If I saw homœopathic doctors lose more patients in severe cases than other doctors, I should say their system is wrong.' But he had seen severe cases cured by homoeopathists-whether through their medicine or want of medicine he could not say—and if they

could treat cases skilfully, he was not prepared to say they were not equally doing good as other practitioners.

The LORD BISHOP did not wish to express an opinion as to whether in the abstract this institution should be regarded as a fit and proper one to be included in the list; but as this question had been considered at a public meeting more than once, and as they had a committee of management to bring before them the business to be discussed, and they had made no recommendation on the subject, it would be hardly wise of them to discuss the question without referring it back to the committee. He therefore suggested that the committee of management, representing all the different congregations, should be asked to re-consider the subject, and report thereon at the next annual meeting.

Mr. FLETCHER said that he had a precedent for his amendment, because last year the Norwich Staff of Nurses was brought forward to be included in the list.

The Rev. G. S. BARRETT explained that the proposal to include the Staff of Nurses was made in committee and lost, whereupon the gentleman who proposed it said he should bring forward the subject at the annual meeting. His own feeling in reference to this matter was, that nothing would be further from the wishes of the Homœopathic Dispensary than to incur the suspicion of having stolen a march on anyone. After what the Lord Bishop had said, it would be desirable to refer the matter to the committee of management.

Mr. FLETCHER and MR. HARMER then withdrew their amendment, and the original motion was adopted.

A vote of thanks to the Mayor concluded the proceedings.

We understand that there is every probability that next year Norwich will follow the example of London and every other town, and no longer display any narrow-minded injustice in the settlement of this matter.

BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND HOMEOPATHIC

HOSPITAL.

THE annual meeting of the friends of this charity was recently held in the Lecture Theatre of the Midland Institute. The Hon. and Rev. G. B. Legge (the President) occupied the chair, and amongst those present were Miss Martineau, Councillor Martineau, Dr. Gibbs Blake, Dr. E. Wynne Thomas, Dr. Madden, Dr. Huxley, Dr. J. Craig, and Messrs. R. L. Chance, J. Bassano, B. Thompson, C. Corfield, E. L. Tyndall, James Cadbury (Banbury), N. Neal Selly, S. N. Solomon, and R. L. Impey (Hon. Sec.)

Mr. IMPEY read the committee's report, which stated that the past year was a favourable one as regarded the work and

Review, April 1, 1879.

efficiency of the hospital and dispensary. The number of patients treated in the hospital was 181, as compared with 228 in the former year. The number of patients treated at their own homes was 196, as compared with 184 in 1877, and the number of visits paid to them was 2,202, as compared with 2,116 in 1877. The number of out-patients during the year was 8,440, as compared with 3,257 in 1877, and the total number of their attendances was 21,076, as compared with 20,234 in 1877. The only change in the staff of the hospital has been that Dr. J. C. Huxley, who had resigned the post of honorary surgeon to the home-patient department, had been appointed an honorary surgeon to the out-patient department. It would be remembered that at the last general meeting it was decided that the admission of patients to the wards of the hospital should be free, and no longer dependent upon tickets. This method had been found to work most satisfactorily, as by this means the friends of patients urgently requiring admission were saved the trouble and loss of time involved in seeking for a ticket, while the medical staff were better able to select such cases as were most suitable for hospital treatment. By this means also the committee had been able to effect the economic reform of reducing the number of free beds to twenty, which could not have been done under the old ticket system. No opening had as yet appeared whereby they could utilise their dispensary department for the furthering of the movement in favour of establishing provident dispensaries, but it was under the consideration of the committee whether a provident department, on the principle of small weekly payments, entitling the members to free medical attendance as out-patients or at their own homes, might not be added as a further development of the existing plan of admitting paying patients. The operations of the Wardrobe and Home Relief Fund Committee had been of a satisfactory character during the year. The debt on the building fund with accumulated interest was £3,800; the debt on current accounts which was at the end of last year £733 12s. 6d., was now £822 5s. 1d.; the whole debt of the hospital thus being £4,600, to meet the interest on which, the annual sum of £180 was required. The committee, recognising the serious condition of the finances, and determined not to in any way increase the debt, decided at Midsummer last to reduce the number of free beds to twenty, which was the maximum number they could maintain with the present income (without providing for interest on the debt), and were prepared if necessary, to make a still further reduction, though it was earnestly hoped that the necessity for such a course would be avoided. Although the number of beds available for free patients was thus for the present reduced to twenty, they would remind their friends and subscribers that there were fifteen other beds, any or all of which were open to patients