Homeopathy was introduced into the UK by Dr Frederick Hervey Foster Quin (1799-1878) in the 1830’s, politically and socially the most volatile and turbulent decade of the entire century (see Brown & Daniels; Finlayson; Harrison; Thompson). 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 the Irish peer Sir Valentine Richard Quin, 1st Earl of Dunraven (1752-1824; [visit the Dunraven webpage http://proni.nics.gov.uk/…] . Along with the Dukes of Westminster and Bedford, the Dukes of Devonshire were at that time among the top five richest families in Britain (see Cannadine, p.710).

Dr Frederick Hervey Foster QUIN (1799-1878)  Lady Eliz Foster  Lady Caroline Lamb (Elder sister of Eliz)
Dr. Quin, Lady Eliz Foster & Lady Caroline Lamb (Elder sister of Eliz)

VLB Hervey  Dunraven 4 the Earl
VLB Hervey (Lady Eliz’s Father) & Dunraven 4 the Earl that is the son or grandson of Quin’s alleged father.

After graduating MD in 1820 in Edinburgh (his thesis was on 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.
In July 1821, he commenced practice in Naples and his social attributes made him popular with all the English residents there. These included Sir William Gell, Sir William Drummond and the Countess of Blessington. [Bonnard, p.32]
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).

Dr. Margery Blackie and Sir John Weir
Dr. Margery Blackie and Sir John Weir

He introduced homeopathy into the very highest levels of English society: to Dukes, Counts, Lords, minor Royals and Baronets [Nicholls, 1988, p.111; 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), [Jump to Landseer in the National Gallery 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.’Had he not abandoned orthodoxy he [Dr Quin] would certainly have been knighted and been one of the leading medical figures of his time…he was a friend to almost everyone of importance in the country.’ [Leary, 1989, p.209]
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 (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
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
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
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





































[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).

Dr John EPPS (1805-1869)
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
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
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)
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
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
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  Thomas Maughan
Thomas Maughan

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
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
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 SkinnerGeorge 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.
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
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
Author: Peter Morrell
Honorary Research Associate in the History of Medicine, Staffordshire University, UK

Posted By

Team Homeopathy 360