A HISTORY OF HOMOEOPATHY IN BRITAIN – Peter Morrell

Main

“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
(1879-1971), 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 [see UK monarchy webpage
http://www.royal.gov.uk].

Lord Donoughmore

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 Burke’s or Debrett’s [Jump to their homepage
http://www.debretts.com]. 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.]

Duchess of Teck

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 (http://www.nhsconfed.net),
The Physicians Royal, Homeopathy 40:4, July 1990, 98], while the
homeopathic pharmacy Ainsworth’s
in New Cavendish Street, London, [jump to their homepage http://www.westward.nildram.co.uk]
holds all three Royal warrants as ŒChemists 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).

Queen Adelaide, in 1835

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	0
1846	7
1850	c15
1857	33
1860	c45
1867	64
1868	70
1870	80
1874	117
1876	120
1880	45
1895	39
1900	35
1909	34
1930	25
1932	20

[Sources: Homeopathic Medical Directories: 1867, 1874,
1895, 1909, 1931; Nicholls, 1988; Homeopathic World, May 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 practitioners 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 radical homeopaths in
the 1840’s, 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 century these 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).

Drs John Epps (1805-69)

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]

An Edinburgh graduate, Dr Epps lectured on Materia
Medica and Botany at the Hunterian School of Medicine in London and at
the London Homeopathic Hospital in the 1850’s. 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 included 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, p.995]. No doubt at Dr Epps’s house.

Virtually every member of the Epps family (based in
Blackheath, London) came to be associated with homeopathy, either as
doctors or pharmacists. They ran a very famous London chemists called Epps
Thatcher, which was first established in 1839 and which
thrived until 1962. Last of the Epps lineage was James Washington Epps,
c1875-c1955; Epps Thatcher and Co, 1839-c1962, homeopathic chemists at
60 Jermyn Street, London SW1, but gone by 1962 [see London Telephone
Directory, 1962].

‘George Napoleon Epps, 1815-74, homeopathic
practitioner, Surgeon to the homeopathic hospital in Hanover Square,
London, 1845, whose chief work: ‘Spinal Curvature Its Theory and Cure’
1849.’ [DNB, 1995, p.936]

…at his residence in Wellgarth Road, Hampstead,
there passed away as gently as he had lived, Washington Epps, the last
medical representative of a family intimately associated with the rise
and progress of homeopathy in the UK. He was the youngest son of Dr
George Napoleon Epps, and nephew of Dr John Epps, of Dr Richard Epps,
and of Mr James Epps, the homeopathic chemist, all of whom were
intimately concerned, in the early days of homeopathy, in its being
brought, by means of lectures and pamphlets, within the purview of the
intelligent laity all over the kingdom.’ [from Wheeler’s BHJ Obituary,
1912, p.525]

So great was their influence and popularity throughout
the 1850’s that the medical radicals and sectarians all seemed set to
lay siege to orthodoxy (Barrow). Such great dreams were gently laid to
rest by the 1858 Medical Act [see also Weatherall, Maple, Bynum and
Porter, Harrison, Rankin and Pickstone].

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.

‘…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)

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 Cannadine). 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 (Hahnemann Hospital est 1837) and
Bristol were major ports linked to the USA, where homeopathy thrived.
They were also places where rich families patronised homeopathy: Wills
the Tobacco firm in Bristol and the Tate
sugar family in Liverpool. Other examples of rich business families
supporting homeopathy include the Cadbury
chocolate family in Birmingham and the Quaker family of
chocolate manufacturers in York, Rowntree. It was such families who
funded the building of these homeopathic hospitals. Glasgow might be
explained as a 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.

Sir Edwin Tate

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.]

Canon Roland Upcher

Dr Clarke certainly taught three laypersons: Canon
Roland Upcher (1849-1929), a Church of England prelate,
J Ellis Barker (1869-1948), a doctor’s son from Cologne, 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. At least four other
homeopathic doctors are now known to have also taught laypersons: Drs
Percival George Quinton (c1894-1953), Otto Leeser (c1890-1964), William
W Rorke (c1886-1962) and Donald Foubister (1902-1988) (see Morrell,
1995).

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
200 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
1844	11
1848	51
1857	200
1867	251
1869	258
1874	290
1875	279
1888	278
1895	240
1907	202
1909	196
1927	190
1930	c190
1932	185
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	36.0%

[Sources: Faculty Lists 1939-98; Nicholls, 1988;
Homeopathic World, May 1932]

The figures vary due to different ways of counting and
whether associate members are included or not. Thus these figures give a
basic overall impression of the numbers but not a definitively accurate
picture. Pre-1944 are members and fellows of the BHS [MBHS or FBHS];
post-1944 are members and fellows of the Faculty [MFHoms and FFHoms].
There have also always been some doctors practsing homeoapthy who were
not members of the BHS or Faculty. The figure for 1998 is the official
figure but I suspect it is somewhat inflated. I doubt very much there
are even 1000 homeopathic doctors practising regularly in Britain at
this time. 700 would be a more likely figure.

Sir Henry Tyler (1827-1908)

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 — some of whom were important
disseminators of homeopathy abroad (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, and homeopathy thus remained a
stagnant backwater for most if this century, until the late 1970’s
(Nicholls, pp.215-16 & pp.134-5).

Frank Parker Wood

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 about how homeopathy should be presented to the public. 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 as ‘rich-men’s talking shops’ 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]

John Da Monte

Under Ellis Barker’s editorship of Heal Thyself lay
homeopathy boomed, especially in the thirties, but the fifties and
sixties saw a phase of deep stagnation return. Leading figures 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:

 

Thomas Maughan

year	total RSHoms	female RSHoms
1979	15
19 80	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. And now
degree status (see advertisement for LCCH degree course, The Homeopath
62, July 1996, p.598). 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’.

Homeopathy in Wales, Scotland and EireHomeopathy in
the British Isles 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. My feeling also is that Wales is a largely unstratified society
with a working class culture which simply did not gel with homeopathy.

There has also been very little in Ireland, where it
was confined to certain towns like Dublin, Galway, Cork and Limerick, as
well as some in the Belfast area in the north. Apart from that almost
none.

One of the first homeopaths in Ireland was Dr William
Walter (c1818-c1890) of Dublin, MD St Andrews 1847 (Medical Directory,
1863, p.892). He taught Dr Samuel Kidd (see below). Another important
Irish homeopath was Dr Michael Greene (1819-c1890) of Ennis, near
Galway, who was the first to use Crataegus (Hawthorn). MRCS England,
1841 (Medical Directory, 1863, p.844).

Probably the most famous Irish homeopath was Dr Samuel
Kidd b1824 in Limerick the 17th of 18 children. At 17 he became an
apprentice to Dr James O’Shaughnessy (1815-c90; of Limerick; MRCS
England 1837 (Medical Directory, 1863, p.874)) in Limerick, and then in
1842 went to Dublin and studied with Dr Walter. Dr Kidd treated people
homeopathically in the Irish Potato famine (1850’s), and later became
physician to Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), the British Prime Minister,
during his final illness.

The single most active Irish homeopath this century
was probably Dr William Henry Roberts (c1862-c1955), who ran the Dublin
Homeopathic Dispensary for many years until its demise in the early
1950’s (Heal Thyself 1932-54). Dr Roberts lived at 63 Lower Mount St,
Dublin and was LRCP Edin 1895, LRCS Edin 1885, LMR Dub 1882, and
formerly at the Hahnemann Homeopathic
Hospital Liverpool. He contributed articles regularly to
‘Heal Thyself’ during the nineteen forties and fifties.

Hahnemann Homeopathic Hospital
Liverpool

In more recent years there has come into being the
Irish Society of Homeopaths, based in Galway. Homeopathy must have
seemed very English and aristocratic to the Irish, and as with the
Welsh, it might have been viewed therefore as an unwanted aspect of
English Imperialism.

 

Thomas
Skinner           
George MacLeod

Homeopathy in Scotland has a long and very
distinguished record. It has been practised there from its very
inception in the UK and has 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 Robert Dudgeon, John
Weir, John Drysdale, William Henderson, Thomas
Skinner, George MacLeod,
John and Elizabeth Paterson, Ephraim Connor, Gibson Miller and William
Boyd, Duncan Ross, Robin and Sheila Gibson and more recently David
Taylor Reilly, and all of whom probably rank as great homeopaths in
world terms. Dr Robert Gibson Miller (c1860-1919) 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. Visit the webpage of the main Glasgow
Homeopathic pharmacy (http://www.freechem.co.uk).

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
aristocrats 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 of it they once were.

Homeopathy in Wales,
Scotland and Eire

Homeopathy in the British Isle 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
J Ellis Barker, The Worst Enemies of Homeopathy, The
HomeopathicWorld, May 1932,:160-175, which also contains a lot of data.
Barrow, Logie, 1986, Independent Spirits, RKP, London
Barrow, JJGarth Wilkinson- An Imponderable Liberator, in R Cooter, op
cit, especially 92-93
Blackie, Margery G, 1976, The Patient Not The Cure-The Challenge of
Homeopathy, MacDonald & James, London
Bradford, Thomas L, 1895, Life and Letters of Hahnemann, Jain, India
Burke’s Peerage, 1940, London
F Bodman, The Life and Times of Dr Quin, British Homeopathic Journal
50:2, April 1961, 73-82.
Bonnard, Jean, 1994, Dr Quin, Student Homeopath 25, Dec 1994, London
Brown R & Daniels, C, 1984, The Chartists, Macmillan, London
W F Bynum and R Porter, (eds) Medical Fringe and Medical Orthodoxy
1750-1850, Croom Helm, London, 1987
Cannadine, David, 1996, The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy,
Routledge, London
Concise Dictionary of National Biography, 1995, OUP, UK
Cook, Trevor, 1981, Samuel Hahnemann The Founder of Homeopathy,
Thorsons, Northampton, UK
Cooter, R.(Ed), 1988, Studies in the History of Alternative Medicine,
Macmillan, London
R Cooter, Studies in the History of Alternative Medicine, St Martin’s NY
USA, 1988
Cooter Roger, 1989, Phrenology in the British Isles: An Annotated
Historical Biobibliography and Index, Methuen, London
Cooter Roger, 1984, The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science —
Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-century
Britain, Cambridge University Press
Desmond and Moore, 1990, Darwin, Michael Joseph, London
Debrett’s Peerage, 1950, London
Eklof, Motzi (Ed), 1999, History of Unconventional Medicine: Approaches,
Concepts and Case Studies, due Oct 1999, University of Linköping,
Sweden
Finlayson, B A M, 1969, England in the Eighteen Thirties, Arnold, London
Griggs, Barbara, 1981, Green Pharmacy A History Of Herbal Medicine, Jill
Norman and Hobhouse, London
Forbes, John, 1846, Homeopathy, Allopathy and Young Physic, Radde, NY
Haehl, Richard, 1922. Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Work, 2 vols, Jain,
India
Handley, Rima, 1997, In Search of the Later Hahnemann, Beaconsfield, UK
J F C Harrison, Early Victorian Britain 1832-51, Fontana, London, 1988,
167-9; see also JFCHarrison, Early Victorian Radicals and the Medical
Fringe, 198-215, in
Hobhouse, Rosa, 1933, The Life of C S Hahnemann, Harjeet, India
Holloway, S W F, ?

Brian Inglis

Inglis, Brian, 1964,
Fringe Medicine, Faber, London
Jenkins, Helen, c1989, History of the London Homeopathic Hospital, BHJ
Johannessen, Helle, and Søren Gosvig Olesen, (Eds) 1994, Studies in
Alternative Therapy 1, INRAT Conference Papers, Univ Odense Press,
Sweden
Johannessen, Helle, and Søren Gosvig Olesen, (Eds) 1995, Studies in
Alternative Therapy 2, INRAT Conference Papers, Univ Odense Press,
Sweden
Johannessen, Helle, and Søren Gosvig Olesen, (Eds) 1996, Studies in
Alternative Therapy 3, INRAT Conference Papers, Univ Odense Press,
Sweden
Johannessen, Helle, and Søren Gosvig Olesen, (Eds) 1997, Studies in
Alternative Therapy 4, INRAT Conference Papers, Univ Odense Press,
Sweden
(view the webpage for these books: close to the end (look for Studies in
Alternative Therapy 2 (1995) ed. af Helle Johannessen, S ren Gosvig
Olesen, m.fl.)
Jütte, Risse and Woodward, 1998, Culture, Knowlege and Healing,
Homeopathy in Europe and North America, Sheffield Univ Press, UK (view
the webpage for this book: )
Leary, B, 1989, Dr Quin, Founder of the Hospital, BHJ 78:4, Oct 1989,
London, pp.204-9
Leary, B, Dr Quin, Homeopathy, Vol 41:1, Feb 1991 p.19, BHA London;
Leary, B, Lorentzon M and Bosanquet, A, 1998, It Won’t Do Any Harm:
Practice & People at the London Homeopathic Hospital, 1889-1923, In
Jütte, Risse and Woodward, Culture, Knowledge and Healing, Sheffield
Univ Press, UK
London Homeopathic Hospital, 1915, Sixty Five Years Work: A Short
History of the London Homeopathic Hospital, UK
Maple, Eric, 1968, Magic Medicine and Quackery, Robert Hale, London
Morrell, Peter, 1995, Lay
Practitioners and Medical Heretics – Towards a History of British
Homoeopathy, paper delivered jointly with Dr Phillip A. Nicholls, at the
Conference on the History of Homoeopathy, IGM, Robert Bosch Foundation,
Stuttgart, Germany, April 1995
Morrell, Peter, 1995, A Brief
History of British Lay Homeopathy, The Homoeopath 59, Oct 1995,
London UK
Morrell, Peter, 1996, Thomas
Maughan, The Homeopath 60, Jan 1996, London
Morrell, 1996, Samuel and Melanie
in Paris, The Homeopath 62, 1996
Morrell, Peter, 1997, The
Character of Hahnemann and the Nature of Homeopathy, The Homeopath
68, Oct 1997
Morrell, Peter, 1998, From Cooper
Club To Flower Essences: Some Relections On 60 Years of British
Homeopathy, www ‘Homeopathy Online’, August 1998
Morrell, Peter, Gender in British Homeopathy, Paper to Conference on
History of Unconventional Medicine, University of Linköping, Sweden,
10-12 Sept 1998
Morrell, 1998, A Condensed
History of British Homeopathy, Student Homeopath 72, October 1998,
London
Morrell, Peter, 1998, British Homeopathy During Two Centuries, MPhil
Thesis, Staffs Univ, April 1998
Morrell, Peter, Regarding Dr John Henry Clarke, Student Homeopath, April
1998, London, and Homeopathic Links, 01/99, Jan 1999 (forthcoming);
Morrell, Peter, 1999, Aristocratic Social Networks and Homeopathy In
Britain, unpublished, Nov 1998
Morrell, Peter, 1999, From Poisonings and Provings to Holism, Simile,
Australia, Jan 1999, forthcoming.
Nicholls, Phillip A, 1988, Homeopathy and the Medical Profession, Croom
Helm, London
Nicholls, Phillip A, 1998, The Social Construction and Organisation of
Medical Marginality — the Case of Homeopathy in mid-Nineteenth Century
Britain, Paper given to Conference on the History of Unconventional
Medicine, Univ of Linköping, Sweden, 10-12 Sept 1998, 6-7
Petursdottir, Sigridur, 1998, Homeopathy In Iceland, Paper to Conference
on Unconventinal Medicine, Univ Linkoping, Sweden, 10-12 Sept 1998
Pickstone, John V, 1992, Establishment and Dissent in Nineteenth Century
Medicine: an Exploration of Some Correspondence and Connections Between
Religious and Medical Belief-Systems in Early Industrial England,
Studies in Church History, 19, pp.165-89, Oxford, Ed W Shiels
Porter, Roy, For the Greater Good of Mankind, A History of Medicine,
WWNorton NY & London, 1997, 389- 96;
G Rankin, Professional Organisation and Medical Knowlege: Two Views of
Homeopathy, in R. Cooter, Studies in the History of Alternative
Medicine, St Martin’s NY USA, 1988.
Society of Homeopaths, UK, Journals and Registers 1980-1998
Thompson, 1963, The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin, London
Waddington, Ivan, 1984, The Medical Profession In The Industrial
Revolution, Gill & Macmillan Humanities Press, Dublin
Wallis and Morley, 1976, Marginal Medicine, Peter Owen, London
Weatherall, M W, Making Medicine Scientific: Empiricism, Rationality,
and Quackery in mid-Victorian Britain, Social History of Medicine, Vol
9: 2, August 1996, pp. 175-19

Main