A History of Homeopathy
in Britain
by Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire
University, UK
Homeopathy was introduced
into the UK by Dr F H F Quin (1799-1878) in the 1830's. Born and schooled privately in
London, Quin was of aristocratic birth, and is widely regarded as the love-child of Lady
Elizabeth Cavendish (1758-1824), the Duchess of Devonshire and Sir Valentine Richard Quin,
1st Earl of Dunraven (1752-1824, visit the Dunraven webpage).
Along with the
Dukes of Westminster and Marlborough, the Dukes of Devonshire were at that time among the
top five richest families in Britain (see Cannadine).
After graduating MD in 1820 in Edinburgh (his
thesis was about Arsenic poisoning), Dr Quin then became the Duchess's family physician
and travelled with her entourage. He met Hahnemann, and travelled extensively in Europe,
residing for a time both in Rome and Naples. He successfully used Camphor against Cholera
in Moravia (Czechoslovakia) and cured himself of the condition on Hahnemann's advice
(Bradford, Cook, Hobhouse, Haehl). During the
1830's and 40's he was often in Paris among the inner circle of Hahnemann's protégés. He
was a lifelong asthmatic, which was eased by homeopathic treatment.
A fluent French-speaker and francophile, Quin was
revered by the French as Hahnemann's greatest successor, and appointed on Hahnemann's
death as the Honorary President of the Gallic Homeopathic Society (see Bonnard, p.32
and Blackie, p.29): a post he held until his death. Whenever he attended their
meetings, Quin could occupy the special chair which had been originally created for
Hahnemann, and which always remained empty in his absence (see
Haehl, Vol 1, 233, 429; Blackie pp.26-29).
He introduced homeopathy into the very highest
levels of English society: to Dukes, Counts, Lords, minor Royals and Baronets [Leary,
1998, pp.252-3]. That was the world he was at ease with and in which he had moved
since birth. As a young man he was a very popular socialite and wit on the fashionable
London circuit, a great friend of Charles Dickens (1812-1870), William Thackeray
(1811-1863) and the Royal portraitist, Sir Edwin Landseer (1802-1873), amongst many
others, and no society party, or social gathering, it was said, was complete without him.
By nature of a very pleasing disposition, he was a man of great personal charm (Leary,
1998, p.252). He was also latterly one of the regular dining partners of Edward,
Prince of Wales (1841-1910), the future King Edward VII (Leary, 1998, p.252-3; see
also Hobhouse, p.248;
Handley, p.99 and Quin's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography). As a measure
of the respect and affection with which he regarded Dr Quin, the Prince sent four empty
horse-drawn royal carriages to join the cortege at his funeral: probably the highest
honour ever paid by a Royal to a commoner.
The modern British royal devotion to homeopathy
also began through Dr Quin.Though Victoria never used it, but all later Royals have:
"Queen Mary and King George VI were firm
followers of homeopathy, the King even calling one of his horses Hypericum which won the
1000 Guineas race [in 1946]." [Inglis, 1964, p.81-2]
'The practice Samuel and Melanie Hahnemann
established in the heart of Paris soon became fashionable. The wealthy people of the city
and, indeed, of Europe generally, were more than ready to try a new medicine...they were
predominantly members of the French and British upper and professional classes: nobles,
clergy, military officers, doctors...the British were among the earliest visitors: Lord
Elgin...Lady Kinnaird represented Scottish aristocracy...Dr Quin...Baron
Rothschild...Viscount Beugnot...countess Musard...Lord Capel...Lady Belfast and Lady
Drummond, the Duchess of Melford...' [Handley, 1997, pp.20-22]
Sir John Weir, once the Queen's physician, was
reputedly Physician Royal to six monarchs: Edward VII, George V (1865-1936), Edward VIII
(1894-1972), George VI (1895-1952), Elizabeth II, King Gustav V of Sweden (1858-1950) and
King Haakon VII of Norway (1872- 1957). The latter's wife, Princess Maud (1869-1938), was
the youngest daughter of King Edward VII.
The fact that this aristocratic patronage of
homeopathy in the UK extended well into the 1940's, and beyond, can be easily
demonstrated. In the Homeopathic Medical Directories there are lists of patrons of the
dispensaries and hospitals. They read like an extract from Burkes or Debretts.
Some examples include: The Dukes of Beaufort, Dukes of Cambridge, Marquesses of Anglesey,
Earl of Essex, Lord Gray of Gray, Viscount Malden, Earl of Donoughmore, Lord Ernle, Earl
of Kintore, Earl of Kinnaird, Duchess
of Hamilton and Brandon, Earl of Wemyss & March, the Lords Paget, Dukes of Sutherland,
Earls of Dudley, Lord Leconfield, Earl of Wilton, Earl of Albermarle, Viscount Sydney,
Lady Radstock, Duchess of Teck, Duke of Northumberland, Earl of Scarborough, Earl of
Dysart, Marchioness of Exeter, Countess Waldegrave, Countess of Crawford & Balcarres,
Lord Headley, Earl of Plymouth, Lord Calthorpe, Earls of Shrewsbury, Lord Horder, Lord
Gainford, Lord Moynihan, Lord Ernle, Lord Ampthill, Lord Home, Viscount Elibank and the
Earls of Lichfield. And to this list we can also add numerous knights, barons, Army
officers and clerics.
[this data extracted from the
Homeopathic Medical Directories 1867, 1874, 1895, 1909, 1931; see also Morrell, 1998
thesis; see also Nicholls, 1988 and 1998 op cit; see also LHH, Sixty Five Years Work: A
History of the London Homeopathic Hospital, London, 1915; for Earls of Shrewsbury see also
Hobhouse, op cit, 247; re Lord Donoughmore, see his Obituary, Health Through Homeopathy,
BHA, 7:11, Nov 1948, 250; also his Obituary, Daily Telegraph, London, 19 Oct 1948; re
Lords Ernle, Gainford and Ampthill, and Viscount Elibank, see Heal Thyself 1935; re Lord
Home see Heal Thyself 1931-2; re Pagets see Heal Thyself 1938; re Lord Horder Heal Thyself
1937; re Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon see Heal Thyself 1932, 1933 and 1938.]
Royal patronage of homeopathy also continues. The
Queen Mother continues her work as Patron of the BHA [see BHA, Birthday Greetings to
our Patron, HRH Queen Mother, Homeopathy 40:4, July 1990, 97, and BHA, The Physicians
Royal, Homeopathy 40:4, July 1990, 98], while the homeopathic pharmacy
Ainsworths in New Cavendish Street, London, holds all three Royal warrants as
Chemists Royal' -- ie. for Prince Charles, the Queen Mother and the Queen.
Quin concentrated exclusively on introducing
homeopathy amongst medically qualified doctors and their predominantly upper-class
clientele (Inglis, p.85). This level of high society support for homeopathy,
generated by Quin's efforts, worked enormously to its advantage, smoothed its passage and
greatly assisted its easy acceptance into the British medical marketplace. The fact that
many of the German relatives of the British Royal family were also devoted patrons of
homeopathy, including Queen Adelaide (1792-1849), wife of King William IV (1765-1837),
also assisted its rapid social acceptance in Britain (Morrell, 1995; Leary, p.252-3). Rich
patrons of homeopathy (eg. the first Marquess of Anglesey, Sir Henry William Paget
(1768-1854), companion at Waterloo of the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852)) not only formed
its client-base, but also funded and numerically dominated the committees which ran the
many homeopathic hospitals and dispensaries of the last century. Leading figures of this
period include Drs William Bayes (c1820-c1890), Robert Dudgeon (1820-1904) and Richard
Hughes (1836-1902) (Morrell, 1995).
Homeopathic Dispensaries
year No
1840 80?
1850 155?
1857 33
1860 120?
1867 64
1868 70
1870 80
1874 117
1876 120
1880 45
1895 39
1900 35
1909 34
1930 25
[Source: Homeopathic Medical Directories:
1867, 1874, 1895, 1909, 1932]
Quin established the British Homeopathic Society
(BHS) in 1843, a London hospital in 1850 and the British Journal of Homeopathy (BJH) in
1844. The BHS became the Faculty of Homeopathy in 1944, while the BJH became the BHJ in
1911. The Faculty is the training and controlling body of medical homeopathy in the UK and
also trains many homeopaths from abroad, especially many from India. Through his many
influential contacts in the world of politics (eg. Lord Ebury, 1801-93), Quin was able to
obtain an amendment to the 1858 Medical Act, withholding a recommendation about the type
of medicine approved in Britain (Leary, 1998, p.253; Nicholls, pp.144-5; Inglis, p.80).
As a result of this skilful manouevre, homeopathy was indirectly tolerated without
challenge and thus never censured by Parliament as an unacceptable or deviant mode of
medical practice.
'Dr Quin was able to obtain an amendment to the
Medical Registration Bill; a clause was added enabling the Privy Council to withdraw the
right to award degrees from any university that tried to impose the type of medicine
practised by its graduates.' [Inglis, p.80]
The rather draconian 1858 Act established for the
first time the professional status and legal regulation of formally qualified medical
practitioners, as distinct from quacks, and still regulates the practice of medicine in
the UK today. Very much a product of the times, the law was specifically designed to
outlaw quackery, which was rife at that time, by establishing a Register of approved
practitioners. Initially these guidelines were interpreted very strictly, confining those
on the Register only to holders of UK medical degrees, licences and diplomas. The reasons
at the time were clear enough:
'...a need to restrict entry to what was seen as
an overcrowded profession.... medical practitioners were concerned both to control the
number of qualified practitioners entering the profession and to reduce the competition
from practitioners who were not qualified.' [Waddington, 1984, p.139]
'...of the 10,220 practitioners listed in
Churchill's Medical Directory of 1856, 1524 possessed only the diploma of the Royal
College of Surgeons, and 879 possessed only the licentiateship of the Society of
Apothecaries.' [Holloway, 1964, p312]
'In 1851 there were an estimated 6000 unlicensed
medical practi- tioners operating in the UK but only 5000 regular doctors, apothecaries
& surgeons', [Griggs, 1981, p.224].
Even the holders of Continental medical degrees
and diplomas (graduates of the esteemed medical schools of Vienna, Berlin, Heidelberg,
Paris, Montpellier, Padua and Brussells, and clearly some of the finest European doctors),
were excluded from the Medical Register, for fear of encouraging deviant forms of medical
practice in Britain, ie. quackery. Probably a good example of 'throwing the baby out with
the bathwater'. In more recent times these rules were relaxed, even allowing American
medical graduates the right to practice, whose degrees had previously been scorned as
worthless pieces of paper. All foreign graduates must still apply directly to the General
Medical Council to be granted permission to practise medicine in Britain.
There were attempts by some more politically
radical homeopaths in the 1840's (distantly inspired by the French Revolution), comprising
some medically qualified and some laypersons, who formed a breakaway but shortlived
English Homeopathic Association, to popularise homeopathy amongst the lower classes in
Britain, but in the nineteenth centurythese efforts were eclipsed by its continued
dominance by the medically qualified and their wealthy clientele (Nicholls, 1988). Many of
these radical and plebeian homeopaths were also linked to political radicalism (distantly
inspired by the French Revolution) and religious non-conformity, as well as a host of
other medical sects, such as Phrenology, Spiritualism, Mesmerism, Hydrotherapy, Galvanic
medicine and Medical Botany (Barrow; Morrell, 1998). There was a remarkable
medical eclecticism at that time. Many homeopaths also employed other techniques like
hydrotherapy or Galvanic medicine. A good example is Dr James Gully (1808-83), a big
friend of Charles Darwin (1809-82), who set up a highly successful hydropathic institution
in Malvern (Desmond & Moore, p.364 and p.392).
"Darwin...was not alone in extending the
ethical net from oppressed men to the forlorn brutes. The Quaker doctor John Epps - London
phrenologist, homeopathist, and disestablishment campaigner - had 'come to consider all
creatures as being equally important in the scale of creation as myself; to regard the
poor Indian slave as my brother.' (Epps, Diary, p.61)...'the whole creation
travaileth and groaneth'. This was Epps's reading of St Paul. He was adamant that 'animals
enjoy mind - and with it personality, desires and pain' (Epps, Elements, p.118)."
[Desmond & Moore, Darwin, 1991, p.238]
Quin distanced himself entirely from the radical
homeopaths and the other medical sectarians in general, regarding them all as thoroughly
disreputable amateurs bordering on quackery, though he would never use that term himself
(Nicholls, pp.110-14). Leading radicals included Drs John Epps (1805-69), Samuel Partridge
(c1810-80), Spencer T Hall (1812-85), J J Garth Wilkinson (1812-99) and Paul Francois
Curie (1799-1853).
Dr Epps 'was of short stature and sturdy frame,
and had a beaming, self-confident expression. He was regarded by many of the
working-classes as a prophet in medicine...he impressed many people with...his great
earnestness...and his evident desire to benefit his fellow creatures. He had a great
command of words, a fine sonorous voice, and an animated manner. His philanthropic efforts
and personal acts of kindness were numberless.' [DNB, p.800]
He was also 'an ardent champion of liberal causes
at home and of oppressed nationalities abroad.' [Wheeler, BHJ 1912, p.525]. Which
I suppose is a very polite way of saying he was also well-connected with many other rebels
of the day. These include Guiseppe Garibaldi (1807-82), the Italian patriot; Lajos
Kossuth(1802-94), the Hungarian revolutionary who stayed in London for a time in the
1850's where he 'was received with respect and sympathy' [Chambers Dictionary of
Biography, 1996, p.839]; and Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-72), another important Italian
patriot who 'found refuge in London in 1837' [ibid, p995].
So great was their influence and popularity
throughout the 1850's that the medical radicals all seemed set to lay siege to orthodoxy (Barrow).
Such great dreams were gently laid to rest by the 1858 Medical Act.
As a result of its continued domination by the
medically qualified and by upper-class patronage (Nicholls, pp.114-16 & p.135),
British homeopathy could never really shake off its aristocratic gloss, and thus it never
established itself at a popular level amongst the lower classes, which was in marked
contrast to the other sects, all of which enjoyed a good deal of mass, working-class
support. Homeopathy was always regarded, therefore, as the 'rich man's therapy', and the
exclusive preserve of the wealthy, privileged and titled. While this allegiance with the
upper classes had undoubtedly
worked to the benefit of UK homeopathy in its early days, later on it became a great
burden, especially when it sank into decline after the 1880's. The aristocratic link meant
that British homeopathy tended to be very largely confined to fashionable spa towns (eg.
Buxton, Leamington, Harrogate, Bath), to wealthy coastal resorts (eg. Eastbourne,
Brighton, Bognor Regis) and to London and southern England in general, unlike Botanic
medicine, which was popular in northern, industrial cities. It thus never established
itself at working-class level. And thus it had no popular support to fall back on as the
aristocrats went into decline after 1890 (see Cannnadine).
'...Quin's social connections, useful though they
were in introducing homoeopathy into Britain, gave it an aristocratic aura which it could
not shed....it never really put down any roots among the workers, or the lower middle
classes, except in a few scattered practices...they resisted overtures from...the
unqualified lay homoeopaths... which... encouraged the development of an internal
orthodoxy...which gave it, to outsiders, an appearance of rigidity...their original
progressive ideas had crystallised into a narrow creed.' (Inglis, 1964, p.85)
Three exceptions to this geographical pattern, and
which are hard to explain, are Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool, all of which had
large, thriving homeopathic hospitals. Liverpool and Bristol were major ports linked
to the USA, where homeopathy thrived. They were also places where rich families were
patrons of homeopathy: Wills the Tobacco firm in Bristol and the Tate sugar
family in Liverpool. Glasgow might be explained as centre of great homeopathic activity,
due to its subdominance to Edinburgh as an internationally renowned medical teaching
centre and thus perhaps more tolerant of 'medical deviance' than its more conformist
rival.
The continued decline of homeopathy caused some
homeopathic doctors to despair for its future in Britain. As a result of these fears, a
small minority of homeopathic doctors (eg. Dr J H Clarke, 1853-1931) broke away from the
BHS (Clarke in 1908), began to teach some laypersons the rudiments of homeopathy and to
publish books (eg. Clarke's 'The Prescriber') directly aimed at the self-taught lay
practitioner and home-prescriber.
[see Dr J H Clarke's Obituary, British Homeopathic Journal 10, 1, 1932; Dr
Clarke - Appreciation & Biographical Sketch, British Homeopathic Journal 79, 1990, 52;
see also An Appreciation of Dr Clarke, by Dr Edgar Whittaker, The Homeopathic World, Jan
1932;see Dr J H Clarke's Obituary, British Homeopathic Journal 10, 1, 1932, in which Sir
John Weir, the King's physician, admits being instrumental, during the 1920's, in trying
to woo Dr Clarke 'back into the BHS fold', but without success; Dr Clarke - Appreciation
& Biographical Sketch, British Homeopathic Journal 79, 1990, 52; see also An
Appreciation of Dr Clarke, by Dr Edgar Whittaker, The Homeopathic World, Jan 1932]
Dr Clarke certainly taught three laypersons: Canon
Roland Upcher (1849-1929), a Church of England prelate, J Ellis Barker (1869-1948), a
German immigrant and political writer, and Noel Puddephatt (1899-c1971), who had all been
his former patients (Morrell, 1995). All three became practitioners to some
extent, the two latter also becoming influential teachers of homeopathy in their own right
(Morrell, 1995). It is notable that the tolerant, laissez-faire legal system of
the UK (law of precedent) still allowed anyone to practise medicine, unlike most countries
with written constitutions and rule by law of statute.
As a result of these developments, a new tradition
of lay homeopathy was established in Britain. While the number of homeopathic doctors went
first into decline and then into stagnation, the lay movement of the 1920's and 30's, by
contrast, enjoyed great popularity, extending well into the 40's and 50's. There were
approaching 300 homeopathic doctors at its peak in the 1870's, but only 170 or so between
1900 and 1970 (Nicholls, pp.134-5; pp.215-6; Blackie, p.34; Inglis, p.81).
The Faculty of Homeopathy
year total females percentage
1939 219 28
12.8%
1969 125 41
32.8%
1972 244 43
17.6%
1974 259 37
14.7%
1985 487 106
21.8%
1988 586 154
26.3%
1998 1600 576
36%
[Source: Faculty Lists 1939-98]
Through stark recognition of the grim facts of
decline (Nicholls, 1998), several notable attempts were made to resuscitate
British homeopathy, as its fortunes began to collapse after 1890 (see Nicholls, p.215
& pp.218-19). For example, the re-establishment of the British Homeopathic
Association (BHA) in 1902, to obtain more funds to train doctors; the setting up of the
Missionary School of Medicine in 1903, to train Christian missionaries in the elements of
homeopathy,tropical medicine and surgery (see Petursdottir); also the sending of
young UK homeopathic doctors to Chicago to train with Dr Kent in 1908-13, under the Sir
Henry Tyler Scholarship. Yet all these efforts failed to revive interest in the therapy
amongst UK clinicians, or to elevate the numbers of homeopathic doctors, which continued
to fall, andhomeopathy thus remained a stagnant backwater for most if this century, until
the late 1970's (Nicholls, pp.215-16 & pp.134-5).
In the 1930's a diverse range of assorted lay
therapists (mostly homeopaths, herbalists, vegetarians, antivivisectionists, bonesetters,
diet therapists, hydrotherapists) became active, including probably 500+ lay homeopaths (see
Morrell, 1995). Most towns at that time had a herbalist and a homeopath. Leading
figures of the 30's, 40's and 50's include Noel Puddephatt, J Ellis Barker, Rev Harold
Tyrwhitt (c1890-c1960), Leslie J Speight (1901-94), Edward Cotter (c1890-c1970), Arthur
Jenner (born c1916), Frank Parker Wood (c1890-1965), Eric F W Powell (c1895-1991), George
Pettitt (c1890-c1965), Harry Benjamin (c1890-c1950), Darnall Cooper (c1890-c1960) and
Edwin D W Tomkins (1916-92).
'Dear Mr Barker...I intimated some years ago to
the BHA that a vigorous campaign was needed to 'create a demand' for homeopathy, but I was
taken to task because such a procedure would 'offend against professional etiquette'. I
said then, and believe more strongly than ever, that publicity is needed...'.[Letter,
Edward Barnett, Essex, The Homeopathic World, June 1932, 223]
'Dear Sir, I am delighted with your vigorous
criticism of those doctors who have mismanaged homeopathy for so many years...'[Letter
in The Homeopathic World, June 1932, 224]
'..we shall never be able to get a sufficiency of
homeopathic doctors
unless homeopathy is made popular by suitable propaganda... '[Letter, The
HomeopathicWorld, June 1932, 224]
'...organised homeopathy followed a policy of
secretiveness, that no list of homeopathic doctors was obtainable, that homeopaths did not
indicate their speciality on their brass plates and on their stationery...the leaders of
the homeopathic organisations must be crazy, cowardly or utterly stupid.'[ibid, 225]
'..a distinguished homeopath...said to me: The
British Homeopathic
Association is useless, absolutely useless, worse than useless. Unfortunately, this is
only too true....'founded in 1902 for the extension and development of homeopathy in Great
Britain'. Since that time the number of homeopathic doctors, chemists and of homeopathic
hospitals, dispensaries and other institutions has steadily shrunk in the most lamentable
manner.'[JEB in The Homeopathic World, June 1932, 226]
'...it is declining and decaying in this country
owing to the disastrous policy which incompetent leaders have followed for
decades...during the last sixty or seventy years the number of medical men and chemist's
shops has approximately trebled, the number of practising homeopathic physicians has
shrunk by about one half and the number of homeopathic chemist's shops to about one fifth
of the former figure...this is a disgraceful state of affairs...and the leaders who have
caused this debacle ought to retire and to hide their heads if they possess any sense of
responsibility and of shame.'[ibid, The Homeopathic World, June 1932, 231-2]
These letters clearly demonstrate a deep rift
between the plebeian homeopaths of the thirties and their medically qualified brethren.
Ellis Barker castigated both the BHS and the British Homoeopathic Association (BHA) for
blocking any further expansion or popularisation of homeopathy at grassroots level.
Editorial after editorial of his lambasted them mercilessly just as Drs Clarke and Burnett
had done as Editors in the 1880's and 1890's [see The Homeopathic World, July 1932
267-8, 279, 290; September 1932 367, 371-2, 394-8; June 223 & 221-234]. Barker
also incited the lay practitioners to 'take homeopathy to the masses'. He was thus the
inspiration for the first, brief though glorious, mass movement of alternative medicine in
Britain.[see Morrell, 1995, Stuttgart Paper, op cit and Brief History, op cit; and J
Ellis Barker, Why This Ridiculous Secrecy?, The Homeopathic World, May 1932: 177-82;
Barker, J Ellis, My Testament Of Healing, John Murray, London, 1939, 73; see also Who's
Who, 1948, 144; see Barker's Obituary, Heal Thyself, sept 1948, 235-8]
Leaders in the sixties and seventies include
Phyllis Speight (born c1920), John Da Monte (1916-75) and Thomas Maughan (1901-76) (see
Morrell, 1995, 1996). Suddenly, in 1978, and after two decades of inactivity, a group of
lay practitioners established their own Society of Homeopaths, a Register, College (The
London College of Homeopathy), Journal (The Homeopath) and Code of Ethics, inadvertently
imitating the medical professionalisation process of the 1850's. These had all been London
students of Thomas Maughan and John Da Monte, and included Elizabeth Danciger, Misha
Norland, Peter Chappell, Robert Davidson, Martin Miles and Sarah Richardson (see
Morrell, 1995). Growth of the Register of the Society can be easily demonstrated:
total
female
Year RSHoms RSHoms
1979 15
1980 28
1981 41
1982 45
1983 50
1984 54
1985 62
1986 65
1987 67
1988 82
40
(48.8%)
1989 132
81
(61.4%)
1990 165
99
(60%)
1991 180
112 (62.2%)
1992 210
137 (65.2%)
1993 260
182 (70%)
1994 360
264 (73.3%)
1995 427
310 (72.6%)
1996 465
357 (76.8%)
1997 493
381 (77.3%)
1998 542
418 (77.1%)
1999 595
459
estimate
[Source: Soc Hom Registers 1979-98]
This sudden burst of renewed activity led to a
very rapid expansion of homeopathy in the UK, and more Colleges became quickly established
during the 1980's and 1990's, such that there are now more than 20, including 1 in Wales,
2 in Scotland and a dozen in London and the south of England. The lay movement is now a
semi-legitimised profession with its own mode of registration, unified teaching
syllabuses, training procedures and self-regulation. It sits on the brink of full legal
recognition. There are approximately 1000 registered homeopaths working in the UK at
present with probably the same number of licensed and unregistered homeopaths, and around
1000 medical doctors who practise some form of homeopathy. Many of these practitioners
only practise on a part-time basis, and thus these numbers are slightly misleading. The
movement is expanding at roughly 8-9% per year. There are thus two strands of the current
movement -- the medically qualified, and the lay practitioners. The latter dislike the
pejorative title 'lay homeopath', preferring to be referred to as 'professional
homeopaths'.
By way of summary, we can make an interesting
point about British homeopathy today as compared with its condition in the 1840's. How
sharply the two now differ! Then, homeopathy was entirely dominated by a
medically-qualified elite with a wealthy clientele of artistocrats and only a microscopic
lay movement. Today the opposite holds true: it is numerically dominated by professional
homeopaths, who have, singlehandedly, brought about its resuscitation from a 'near-death
experience' in the mid-seventies. And their client-base is almost entirely composed of
middle and lower-class patients. The medically qualified today are in a minority and seem
always to be responding to new ideas and techniques originating in the lay movement,
rather than being the leaders they once were.
Homeopathy in Wales, Scotland and Eire
Homeopathy in the British Islea has not been entirely confined to England. There has been
almost no homeopathy at all in Wales and no-one seems to know precisely why. There was a
homeopath in Dolwyddelan in mid-Wales in the 1860's and also one in Llandudno in north
Wales, but no others that I know of. It seems strange because British homeopathy tended to
become associated with religious non-conformism and that should have suited the Welsh.
There has also been very little in Ireland, where
it was confined to certain towns like Dublin, Cork and Limerick, as well as some in the
Belfast area in the north. Apart from that almost none. The single most active Irish
homeopath was probably Dr W H Roberts, who ran the Dublin Homeopathic Dispensary for many
years until its demise in the early 1950's (Heal Thyself 1932-55). In more recent years
there has come into being the Irish Society of Homeopaths, based in Galway.
Homeopathy in Scotland has a long and very
distinguished record. It has been practised there from the very origins of the therapy in
the UK and has also enjoyed repeated flowerings, quite independent of the tradition in
England. It has tended to be centred mainly in Glasgow. Many of the greatest homeopaths in
Britain have come from Scotland, born and educated there, even though they may have 'made
their mark' south of the border. Examples include Dudgeon, Weir, Drysdale, Henderson,
Skinner, George MacLeod, John Paterson, Ephraim Connor, Gibson Miller and William Boyd,
and more recently David Taylor Reilly, and all of whom probably rank as great homeopaths
in world terms. Dr Robert Gibson Miller was enormously influential and trained with Kent
in St Louis in the 1880's. There have been many important and influential Scottish
homeopathic doctors since, based mainly at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. That requires
a separate history of its own.
Sources
|