On this subject, I would suggest the following facts. Hæmoptysis occurring in persons not predisposed to Consumption, except the quantity of blood lost be so great as to produce it by mere debility, very frequently may be easily cured without danger of any consequent disease. Indeed not only in such cases consumption is not induced by it, but that disease has actually been prevented, by the occurrence of hæmorrhage from the lungs, relieving that inflammation, which the inert physician, by withholding the lancet, would have suffered to destroy his patient. Dr. Rush relates two cases of inflammatory Consumption attended by a hæmorrhage of a quart of blood from the lungs, in which the patient recovered; and ascribes their recovery entirely to the loss of blood. Wounds and other injuries of the lungs frequently heal, when no predisposition to Phthisis exists, as easily as in other parts of the body. Of this fact also Dr. Rush affords an example. A British officer informed him, a few days after the battle of Brandywine, in September 1777, that the surgeon general of the royal army had assured him, that out of twenty four soldiers admitted into the hospitals, during the campaign of 1776, with wounds of their lungs, twenty-three recovered. These facts prove sufficiently that the constant motion of the lungs does not prevent the healing process taking place in them as easily as in other parts of the body. In most instances, the spitting of blood which is supposed to have produced the Consumption, has occurred a considerable period before the Phthisical symptoms appeared. During this interval perhaps the patient was perfectly well. Can it be supposed, that the inflammation necessary to form an ulcer, and the process of ulceration itself, could so long be going on unperceived, without producing any irritation of the lungs? Is it not more probable, that the Hæmoptysis was recovered from, and that the same cause which produced it, at length produced the Consumption?