On  a  careful  perusal  of  Mr.  Phillips's  observations  on  this  point,  as  re-
spects scrofula,  we  feel  inclined  to  believe  that  he  has  carried  his  numerical
scepticism  too  far.  Probably  too  great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  he-
reditary transmission  of  diseases,  or  the  predisposition  thereto,  but  the
fact  of  such  transmission  is  based  on  a  much  higher  order  of  proof  than


1846.]  Me.  Phillips  on  Scrofula.  143

Macioas  statistics.     Even  in  reference  to  insanity,  observes  Mr.  Phillips,
"the  case  of  all  others  in  which  the  truth  of  the  hereditary  influence  might
be  most  easily  tested,  and  in  which  the  conviction  of  its  existence  is,  perhaps,
the  strongest,  I  know  no  conclusive  evidence."    But  has  Mr.  Phillips  carc-
follj  looked  for  it  ?    It  must  be  observed  that  in  an  investigation  of  this  kind
pontive  facts  roust  be  admitted  to  have  a  most  preponderating  weight.
''Of  191  patients  admitted  into  Bethlehem  Hospital,  in  1844,  an  hereditary
nose  could  only  be  discovered  in  26  cases.'*     Such  is  an  example  of  the
fittts  on  which  Mr.  Phillips  grounds  his  scepticism.     At  best  it  is  only
neg^ive.     But  is  not  such  a  small  proportion  (so  decidedly  at  variance
with  all  experience)  a  warranty  rather  for  doubting  the  acumen  of  the
obeerrer,  than  the  known  and  long-cherished  dogma?     Of  415  insane
penons  admitted  into  the  Retreat,  near  York,  since  its  foundation,  and
connected  with  the  Society  of  Friends,  the  disease  was  connected  with  an
hereditary  predisposition  in  142  cases,  or  in  the  proportion  of  1  in  3.
