August 12, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
125 
warrant us in believing in a sure foundation for future 
therapeutics. It is true that the facts, as yet known, are 
mostly isolated and disconnected, but we may compare 
them to separate bricks which, though singly of little 
value and without cohesion, yet wdien cemented and 
fitted together, will form a firm and durable superstruc¬ 
ture. The physiological school, headed by C. Bernard 
and Brown-Sequard, has done much to elucidate the 
action of some most important drugs, and it is likely that 
the doctrine of physiological antagonists will lead to 
practical results. 
The different effects of remedies when introduced by 
different channels, the principle of the administration of 
smaller doses frequently repeated, and the potency of 
drugs over the vaso-motor nerves are all receiving a 
greater or less share of attention, and are exerting a 
wholesome influence on our habits and methods of pre¬ 
scribing. 
Yet even with the most perfect knowledge of the che¬ 
mical and other properties of drugs, we cannot satis¬ 
factorily judge of the influence which they exert on 
disease, unless we know, in any case of recovery in 
which medicine has been used, what share is to be 
assigned to the curative power of the organism itself. 
The evident importance of this inquiry was recognized 
by the Austrian School of Medicine for years before it 
attracted much attention in these countries, and we have 
now, at all events, learned that a lai'ge proportion of 
diseasos, numbering some of the most formidable cha¬ 
racter, may get well without the use of any drugs what¬ 
soever, or, in other words, they have a natural tendency 
to terminate in the restoration of health. This salutary 
change of doctrine is due in part to an examination of 
the undeniable results afforded by homoeopathic practice, 
but largely owes its impetus to the improved state of 
physiological and pathological science. There is, how¬ 
ever, some danger of being over-zealous in our respect 
for nature’s operations, for the efforts of nature are not 
always of a benignant tendency, and what is called “ ex¬ 
pectant medicine” may sometimes prove but “a medita¬ 
tion upon death.” 
A more accurate knowledge of the real properties of 
drugs than we have hitherto possessed, lies at the root 
of all future progress, and the mode of its accomplish¬ 
ment claims attention at the outset. This will bo best 
carried out by carefully conducted trials on healthy in¬ 
dividuals, checked by collateral experiments on the lower 
animals, and on patients suffering from diseases whose 
diagnosis, general course, and variations, are tolerably 
well known. Hitherto it has been almost exclusively 
the custom to endeavour to acquire a knowledge of medi¬ 
cines by instituting trials with them in disease, a method 
which has borne little fruit in return for the labour 
bestowed upon it. To Hahnemann, in particular, before 
he was carried away by the delusion of infinitesimal 
doses, belongs the credit of actively pushing forward 
the proving of medicines on healthy individuals, recom¬ 
mended by Storck, Alexander and Haller, and it is 
strange that, with very few exceptions, no provings of 
worth have been made by other practitioners until very 
lately. 
Within the last two years Dr. J. Harley has shown 
the value of this line of inquiry in his elaborate and 
searching work on the action of opium, belladonna, 
conium and hyoscyamus, in which he has done much 
towards defining our knowledge of the effects and uses 
of these ancient neurotic remedies. 
One most important issue of the careful testing of 
drugs would be the better determination of the “ sphere 
of action” of each medicine, for it is already "well known 
that certain drugs affect particular organs and tissues, 
and I believe, with Dr. Rogers, that this significant fact 
of drugs possessing elective affinities for certain textures 
will occupy a prominent place in our future therapeutics. 
We have reason to believe that the physiological and 
therapeutical actions of medicines are very closely re¬ 
lated, and it is probable that the modifications impressed 
by various diseased conditions will not so materially 
alter their sphere of action, as is sometimes supposed. 
Another real gain from this probation of drugs would 
be the expulsion from the materia medica of a crowd of 
articles which only serve to keep alive the embers of 
polypharmacy, and to obstruct our advance towards a 
more rational system of therapeutics. If we accept, as 
we may safely do, the axiom that a drug, -which produces 
no perceptible effects when properly tested on healthy 
individuals, will prove equally inert in disease, what a 
host of reputed medicines would be cast into deserved 
oblivion! 
Before concluding, I wish to point out most emphati¬ 
cally that we should not allow ourselves to overlook the 
continued necessity for bedside observation in our admi¬ 
ration of the progress and prospects of the scientific de¬ 
partments of medicine. Though our theoretical know¬ 
ledge were ever so perfect, yet clinical experience must 
always hold an important position to every true phy¬ 
sician, and “it is to the experience of the mass of the 
profession that we look for the final establishment of 
doctrine and rules of practice.” The most rapid and 
complete advances in science can never do away with 
the necessity for watchful observation, and “the nice 
adaptation of means to end can only be gained by ex¬ 
perience.” The past history of medicine should teach 
us not to be too hasty in condemning or ridiculing a line 
of practice which united and prolonged experience ha3 
approved, even if it be contrary to the received dogmas 
of the day, or be incapable of immediate explanation. 
Rational experience must and will keep its place. Let 
it by all means be reinforced and directed aright, but 
not trammelled, and clinical researches and empirical 
decisions must eventually prove the touchstone of thera¬ 
peutical theory. 
Keeping in view, then, that the three chief aims and 
objects of medicine, especially so far as concerns the non¬ 
professional public, ought to bo the cure of disease, the 
prolongation of life, and the alleviation of physical suffer¬ 
ing, we can sum up, in Sir W. Jcnner’s words, our gains 
in practical medicine, as resulting in “ advances in know¬ 
ledge, in the addition to the science of medicine of new 
facts, the elimination of supposed facts, the more correct 
appreciation of the bearing of old facts, and the applica¬ 
tion of this new knowledge to the advancement of the- 
practical objects of the science.” 
And, though the discoveries of our own time naturally 
appear to us of greater importance than those of preced¬ 
ing ages, even the most incredulous will admit that we 
have reached a stage when ignorance is giving way to 
knowledge, hypothesis to facts, and that the time is ap¬ 
proaching when we shall bo able to free ourselves from 
the quicksands of uncertainty, and rest on the firm basis 
of knowledge and truth. 
THE PHARMACY BILL. 
MEDICAL SOCIETY OF LEEDS. 
At the Meeting of the Medical Society of Leeds, held 
at the School of Medicine, on Wednesday, July 12th, 
1871, Dr. Clifford Allbutt in the chair, it was re¬ 
solved unanimously:— 
“That the manner in which the Pharmacy Bill pro¬ 
poses to regulate by law the minute circumstances of 
the storing of powerful drugs, has been laid before this 
meeting, and this mooting considers that ample time 
should be given by Parliament to estimate to what extent 
it will infringe upon the privileges of the medical pro¬ 
fession. Since the Bill would enforce in the dispensa¬ 
ries of many medical men certain danger-signals, as ap¬ 
plied to powerful drugs, which would not exist in c.osed 
surgeries, increased danger to the public might result, 
and this mooting trusts that Parliament will refuse its. 
sanction to the Bill as it now stands. 
