frequent, it could hardly have escaped the systematic apparatus of clinical case-taking and post-mortem examination, with preservation and drawing of specimens, for which Guy’s Hospital was already noted under the influence of Bright and his colleagues, and in which the staff of St George’s Hospital would appear to have been not less competent. Although Dr Hewett, in 1826, identified his cases with the _dothiénentérite_ of Bretonneau, yet neither he nor Dr Bright took the abdominal ulcerations or sloughs as distinctive of a new kind of fever. They regarded them rather as a new complication of “idiopathic” typhus fever, a “complication” which appealed to them more on the side of treatment than of systematic nosology; hence the writings of both physicians are occupied mainly with the benefit of calomel in relieving the congestion of the bowels and in checking the diarrhoea. It is undoubted that cases of enteric fever in 1826-27 were relatively more numerous in London than in Dublin and Edinburgh, where the epidemic fever was almost wholly of the relapsing type. In Edinburgh, at least, the comparative infrequency of enteric fever for years after it had been recognized in Paris, Tours and other French cities, and had been found in London as a common autumnal type, can be proved beyond cavil. Writing long after of the first epidemic of relapsing fever in Edinburgh, Christison said: “Of enteric typhus (typhoid fever) we saw nothing then [1817-20], nor for many years afterwards. If it might have been overlooked during life, it could not have been missed after death. For our dissections were many, and, to meet the bias of the day for finding a local anatomical cause for all fevers [the doctrine of Broussais], every important organ in the body was habitually looked to. Nevertheless we were constantly met with the want of morbid appearances anywhere, unless slight signs of vascular congestion in various membranous textures be considered such[351].” These vascular congestions were, indeed, scanned closely for traces of ulceration, after Bright’s plates of 1828, and any little irregularity on the surface of a congested Peyer’s patch was liberally construed in that sense, as in Craigie’s reports subsequently. But in the Edinburgh epidemic of 1827-29, the anatomical signs of enteric fever were wanting until the end of it. Writing in 1827, Alison said that he had dissected 26 cases dead of the epidemic fever, without finding intestinal ulceration in one of them. Christison, however, says that a very few cases of enteric fever were dissected in Edinburgh in 1829[352]. In Dublin, also, the anatomical mark of enteric fever was missed in 1826-27, in the few dissections that were made during the epidemic[353]. An opinion in a widely different sense was given on that point by Stokes twelve years after the event, to which I refer in a note[354].