Assuming then, inflammation of the lungs, and consequent ulceration of their substance as the proximate cause of Phthisis Pulmonalis, we naturally deduce the following indications in the treatment of the disease. 1. To endeavour to relieve the inflammation of the lungs, and promote its resolution. 2. If, notwithstanding all our efforts, suppuration takes place, to give sufficient support and tone to the system to enable the ulcers to heal. In fulfilling these indications, our first object is to remove the remote causes, where it is possible. If the patient’s occupation is one of those which predisposes to Consumption, unless it be abandoned, or at least so modified as to correct the objectionable parts of it, we cannot hope to cure the disease. If the disease arise from the suppression of an accustomed evacuation, our utmost endeavours must be made to restore it. Should suppression of the menses be the cause, means calculated to produce their return must be resorted to. If an ulcer or fistula has healed up, they must be re-opened, or issues established in more convenient situations. In short, the rule is plain and simple. Remove the remote causes, wherever it is practicable. Among the remedies which are necessary to fulfil the first indication, the most prominent is Blood-letting. This remedy has been strongly advocated by many of the most distinguished authors who have written on Consumption; and its propriety admitted by all under certain circumstances. Probably, most of the injurious effects attributed to it, may be accounted for by a proper distinction not having been made between Primary and Secondary Phthisis Pulmonalis. When bleeding has been practised in the secondary form of the disease, it has been generally injurious, and hence an odium has been cast upon its employment in any circumstances. In the same manner, it has done mischief, when used too late in Primary Phthisis, and thus another groundless argument furnished against the remedy. But the indiscriminate use of blood-letting is not here contended for. Its judicious and cautious use, when inflammatory action is evident, alone is intended to be advocated. On the other hand, too timid practice may induce us to withhold the lancet when it is necessary; and we may thus do as much injury by losing the proper time for action, as we would have done by pushing the remedy too far. It is difficult to fix the period beyond which it is improper to bleed in Consumption. Dr. Hosack insists that as long as there is any pain or soreness on taking a full inspiration, the lancet is necessary. This rule is not applicable to practice; for if we adopt it, we may bleed the patient until he dies. Until that moment will the pain in some instances continue. It is not unfrequent, after the patient has been exhausted by colliquative sweats, and profuse diarrhœa, for pain in the breast to recur at intervals, a few days before death: and what practitioner,