Beckett, a surgeon, F.R.S., published a pamphlet in 1722, with a valuable collection of authentic records, to which reference has been already made several times; and although the general tenor of his opinion is against any inherent virtue in the Royal Touch, he seems unwillingly to bear testimony to the cures which followed it. He says, "For although I do not go about to deny that cures have been sometimes effected by the King's touch, yet it will be perhaps impossible to prove them supernatural or miraculous" (p. 24).

Turner, a physician, in 1722, reports the case of a patient of his own, who after defying his best endeavours at relief, was cured in a few days after being touched by Queen Anne; and he adds, "I pretend only to make good the assertion that such cures have been wrought." Referring to the large numbers touched since the Restoration, he says, It may be objected that among a hundred thousand it would be very strange if divers should not afterwards recover. I answer, that if any of those have been attended with such circumstances that the alteration can not fairly be imputed to any other cause, it makes sufficiently for our position; but instead of one we have many hundreds where the evidence is undeniable." (The Art of Surgery, vol. I., p. 158.)

66

Badger, an apothecary, who published a pamphlet in 1748, to which I have already more than once referred, says, I can see no room we have in the least to doubt the certainty of the cure by the Royal Touch. Many hundreds of families in this great city only, are living evidences of what I assert." (Pp. 1, 2, 63.)

Bishop Douglas, in a careful examination of the whole question, quotes the testimony of Mr. Dicken, Serjeant Surgeon to Queen Anne, and says the facts "can not be denied without resisting evidence far from contemptible." (Criterion, or Miracles examined, p. 115.)

The Kings of France, it has been already mentioned, exercised the power, as well as our sovereigns; and some

frequentiâ stipatam, in sanandis strumis, vel in quæstionem revocarem. Absit itaque ut tam injurius essem Serenissimi Principis nostri prærogativæ plusquàm (ut ita dicam,) humanæ, vel ægrotantium suorum commodis, ut quemlibet strumosum contactui Regio inhiantem, ab illius contactu dissuaderem ; potiùs vota faciam, quos Rex tangit, Deus sanaret. Verbo

itaque expediam quod sentio; Contactus Regius potest esse (si olim fuit,) proficuus; solet subinde esse irritus, nequit unquàm esse nocivus."-Ric. Carr, M.D., Epist. Medicinales, 1691. Ep. xiv.

7 Tooker, Wiseman, Freind, Allen. See Butler, Lives of the Saints, Edw. the Conf., note.

French writers claim a higher antiquity of the practice, and maintain that the Kings of England derived the power through them while English historians, in acknowleging that equal virtue resided in the Kings of France, declare that it sprang first from the Kings of this country, and that the Kings of France had it only, as they express it, by a “sprig of right." They usually touched four times a year, at Easter, Whitsuntide, All Saints, and Christmas; and, upon supplication, at other festivals.2 The cures are said to have been most frequent under the third race of kings, the Capets. (Menin, p. 197.) The power, we are told, was conferred on Clovis, the first Christian King,3 by gift from Heaven, upon his being anointed with the Holy Chrism, from which he and his successors obtained the title of "Most Christian," and with it the power of healing scrofula. Other writers say that Philip I., contemporary with Edward the Confessor, was the first who touched; and it is added that he was afterwards deprived of the healing power on account of the irregularity of his life. Louis the Fat touched successfully, using the sign of the cross.

4

The ceremonial, as observed for some generations, seems to have been established by St. Louis, who was anointed and crowned as Louis IX., at the age of twelve years, in 1226. To the ceremonies formerly observed he added—or restored, perhaps the sign of the cross impressed on the disease; that the cure should be attributed to the virtue of the cross, and not to any worthiness in the crown. On the third day after anointing and coronation, which took place at Rheims, the King went on a pilgrimage to Corbigny, about 120 miles distant, to perform a nine days' devotion at the shrine of St. Marcoul, the patron saint of the church there. St. Marcoul died in 658; he is said to have performed many miracles in the cure of the disease; and from him the disease was called by some St. Marcoul's Evil. The sick, said to have been very numerous, and coming from foreign countries as

well as France, after being examined by the King's Chief Physician and Surgeon, were ranged on their knees on both sides of the body of the church-or, if too numerous, in the cloisters or park of the priory-the first place being given to the Spaniards, and the last to the French. The King, uncovered, attended by the Captain of his Guards, the Great Almoner (who distributes the alms to the sick as they are touched), and by the chief Physician, who holds the patient's head, touches them, extending his right hand over their faces from the forehead to the chin, and from one cheek to the other, thus making the sign of the cross, and saying, in French, the King touches, God cures thee. Charles VII., in 1422, Louis XI., in 1461, and Charles VIII., in 1483, touched with these ceremonies. (Menin.)

Henry IV. was crowned at Chartres in 1594, and performed the nine days' devotion at St. Clou; the disturbed state of the country not allowing the procession to pass to Corbigny. Laurentius, his chief physician, Professor of Physic at Montpelier, says that Henry IV. healed all who applied (Preface), and that he had often counted 1500 at a Healing (6,182.) Many of the greatest sufferers, he says, were immediately relieved, and of 1000 more than 500 were perfectly healed within a few days (p. 9). Louis XIV. touched 2600 in the park of the Abbey of St. Remy, two days after his coronation: the war with which he was occupied hindering the pilgrimage to St. Marcoul's shrine, the nine days' devotion was continued at Rheims by one of the almoners. (Menin.) He also touched 1600 persons on Easter day, 1686; every foreigner received thirty sous, and every Frenchman fifteen.2 Louis XV. touched more than 2000 at his coronation, 25th October, 1722, and not being able to proceed to Corbigny from the impracticable state of the roads at that late season of the year, the shrine of St. Marcoul was brought to Rheims, and the nine days' devotion was continued by one of the almoners. (Menin.)

The King of France, it is said, continued the practice till 1776.3 The authorised ceremonial for the coronation of Charles X., published in contemplation of the event, prescribes the ceremony; 4 and I believe it was performed; but with what formality I have not heard.

1 Laurentius, 8.

2 Gemelli. Barrington, Observations on the more ancient Statutes, 107.

3 Pettigrew, 120.

4 Cérémonies et Prières du Sacre des Rois de France. Didot, 1825.

The power of curing scrofulous diseases by touching was not accorded to the King's hand alone: it has been assumed at different times by humbler hands. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and perhaps at an earlier period, the seventh son of a seventh son, without an intervening daughter, was thought by common report to possess this, with other healing powers; 5 exercising it-in France, at least in the name of God and St. Marcoul, if fasting for three or nine days. The ninth son of a ninth son was also a claimant for the power. We have not, however, any records of their success at least not any medical testimony. At the beginning of the present century a farmer in Devonshire, the ninth son of a ninth son, is said to have had success in this way. He "stroked for the evil" one day in every week, but not all who were sufferers: he picked his cases—a sure way to obtain a certain amount of apparent success.

8

The Salutators in Spain and the Low Countries professed to cure all outward sores by the touch, and the application of white linen. The prayers used are given by Beckett (App. 3), and in "Wonders no Miracles" (41-43.) They were prohibited from their performances in consequence of articles against them in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts ; of which the first is, "Because they are a lewd people, and unlikely to have that commerce with God they pretend to," and the last, "Because they did a world of mischief, and little or no good."

In the middle of the seventeenth century, Valentine Greatrakes, an Irish gentleman of good family, is reported to have cured many persons suffering from scrofulous and other diseases by stroking with his hands, and one where Charles II. had failed.1 His success, which did not attend

5 Laurentius, 20, 73. Χειρεξοχή, 2. Traité de la Guerison des Ecrouelles par l'attouchement des Septenaires, Aix, 1643. Thiers, Traité des Superstitions, l. vi., c. 4. MS. Julius, f. 6. Cotton Library. See Butler, Lives of the Saints, Ed. the Conf., Wonders no Miracles, 1666, p. 28.

6 R. Carr, M.D., Epist. Med., Ep. xiv. 7 Edinburgh Med. and Surg. Journal, iii., 185.

8 Stubbe (Miraculous Conformist, 9, 10), refers to Delrius, and Rodericus a Castro, Med. Pol., 1. iv., c. 3.

all cases treated by him, did not last for a great length of time; and before he discontinued the practice of touching, or "stroking," as it was called, he had departed from his original custom of merely handling the patient's head and neck, or limbs, and he had adopted incisions, and some of the other rough surgical practice of his day, administering also internal medicines and local applications.2

Thus have I endeavoured to lay before you in a connected. form some of the more prominent facts, as well as opinions, which the records of my own profession offer in illustration of this most remarkable phenomenon. A medical man, in investigating the history of a disease so extensively prevalent, can not shut his eyes to the fact that for some centuries the treatment (if I may use the word) of which the particulars have been given, was believed to be the most efficacious, as it was certainly the most agreeable, mode of cure, of this intractable disease. At this distance from the last "Public Healing," it is not to be expected that, unsupported by modern professional authority, any one should attempt either to controvert, or to defend, the position maintained by writers of unquestionable character who lived in the time when this treatment was advised and adopted. And this short memoir will have answered its purpose, if it serves to point out for the guidance of more industrious enquirers who are disposed to follow in the same path, the leading outlines of a portion. of our history so well attested, and too remarkable, as it seemed to me, to be forgotten.