Mr. X------, aged thirty-four, came under treatment in January, 1891. He is a strong, thick-set, muscular, and very plethoric man of highly nervous temperament. He had been a heavy drinker for about ten years, but through domestic and business worries had become much worse, and was in imminent danger of losing his employment and means of livelihood. He had had several attacks of an apoplectiform character, and drinking made him dull, heavy, and lethargic. His general health had suffered, but there was no organic disease. He proved one of the best subjects for hypnotism that I have yet found, for he at once fell into a state of profound trance. The operation was repeated daily for three weeks, and he was then sent to the seaside for a fortnight, preliminary to returning to his business. He went on well for ten days, but then received news from home of a distressing character. Worry of any kind had always driven him to liquor, and in spite of the recentness of the suggestions he again sought the usual solace. For two days he drank large quantities of beer - the worst form of alcohol for him - and he was then brought up to see me. I found him in a very restless, excitable state, with quick, bounding pulse and throbbing carotids.

His face was of a dusky hue, and he complained of dull, heavy pain in the head. On attempting to hypnotize him, I found that, instead of falling into a sound quiet sleep, he passed into a state resembling coma - from which it was difficult to arouse him. The man was evidently on the verge of apoplexy, and to relieve the congestion I at once applied three leeches behind the ears. They bit very freely, and the effect was very striking. In half an hour danger seemed past, and the next day he was almost himself. It looked as if ordinary suggestion alone would fail in this case, and that stronger treatment than usual was required. I therefore began to suggest, not only disinclination for alcohol, but loathing for it. In the presence of my friend Dr. Arthur, I told him that liquor would act as an immediate emetic if he ventured to take it; and to put the efficacy of the suggestion to the proof, I made him drink half a glass of beer a few minutes after he was awakened. He was quite unconscious of the nature of the suggestions I had made, but I found considerable difficulty in getting him to drink the beer, as he said his stomach seemed to turn against it.

However, he drank it, and no sooner was it down than he turned to me and asked where he could go, as he felt extremely sick; in a few moments he brought up all the beer he had swallowed. I then again hypnotized him, and told him that he now saw the effect of alcohol upon him, and that similar indulgence would always and at once lead to the same result.

Mr. X------ remained under my observation until the end of March, when he returned to his home. His regular attendant continued the treatment for a few months very successfully, and hypnotized him once a fortnight. Small business worries no longer fretted him as they used to, and the ever-present domestic annoyances were also borne with equanimity. Though such a susceptible subject, I proved to demonstration that, so far from being rendered more liable to be hypnotized by the repeated operations he had undergone at my hands, he was, on the contrary, less subject to hypnotic influence than an ordinary person. For instance, I requested a medical friend of some experience to try to hypnotize him. Not only did the attempt fail, but the touch and voice of the experimenter assumed a stimulating and irritating character to the feelings of the patient, and rendered sleep, and even rest, out of the question. This was in response to hypnotic suggestions I had previously made, that he was not to allow anyone to hypnotize him but myself and Dr. Smith (his family medical attendant), except at his written request.

There was no particular personal element in this or similar cases which have come under my notice, though, of couse, it is desirable that in psychical treatment there should be mutual confidence and esteem between patient and doctor. Association of ideas explains the causation of sickness on taking alcohol, just as it explains why raspberry jam will sometimes produce nausea in adults, who, as children, have frequently been given powders in it. The train of ideas once started continues, though circumstances may have completely changed, and the person may never be able to taste that particular preserve, or even to think of it, without experiencing nausea. In the face of such an explanation it seems to me quite wide of the mark to contend, as some do, that the effect of suggestion in these cases is purely personal, and that when the patient goes away the force of suggestion will become weaker, until it ceases any longer to operate as a deterrent. Such has not been my experience, and Dr. Liebeault told me that he possessed records of cases of chronic drunkenness which he had treated over twenty years ago, and which had remained cured.

Total abstinence is not much practised in France, and Liebeault generally allowed his alcoholic patients to drink light wine with their meals. Captain H------consulted me as to the benefit he was likely to derive from hypnotism in December, 1888; and as I found him a good subject - susceptible to the third degree - and he was going to France, I advised him to consult Dr. Liebeault. He was hypnotized at Nancy twenty times, told never to drink except with his meals, and then only light wine or beer. His wife was also instructed to hypnotize him and make the necessary suggestions once a week. I frequently see this patient and his friends, and though nearly twenty years have elapsed, he continues a moderate drinker - i.e., he drinks a glass of beer or claret at lunch and dinner. He was a notorious drunkard, and for two years prior to the treatment had hardly ever been sober except under compulsion. Though this line of treatment has been so successful in that case, I do not think it is one to follow - at any rate with Englishmen - and I consider that total abstinence is the only safe course for people who have given way to drink, whatever plan of treatment is employed.

The deprivation of alcohol is no infliction to the hypnotic patient, and there is, therefore, no object in not enforcing it.

I have records of another similar case. The patient was a medical student when he came to me in 1893, and was such a slave to alcohol and so hopeless of freeing himself that he contemplated suicide. He determined, however, to try hypnotic treatment first, and proved a good subject. He passed his examinations and bought a practice in the country, which he worked up very successfully. He married well, and after a few years began to drink a little wine. He is now a very prosperous practitioner and a moderate drinker. Dr. Branthwaite, Government Inspector of inebriate retreats, says drunkards cannot be called cured unless they are enabled to drink like ordinary people in moderation; so these two cases would satisfy him. But if such a condition were exacted in every case, I doubt if any system would show five per cent, of cures. Forel, in his usual trenchant style, says it is simply idiotic and harmful to attempt to convert a soaker into a moderate drinker, for by continuing to administer the poison in even small doses you keep up the effect.