Before we concede to the morbid anatomist, that an ulcerated or diseased lung is necessarily incurable, we demand, by what direct method can that assertion be proved, that tubercles, once existing in the lungs, cannot possibly be absorbed during life, and the healthy texture again restored? This point cannot be incontrovertibly demonstrated: who then can limit the powers of the living texture in self-restoration? The conclusion, that ulceration of the lungs is incapable of restoration, is founded only upon indirect induction, and amounts, in fact, to nothing but conjecture. There is but one way of disproving the inference that Pulmonary Consumption is incurable, and that is by an appeal to facts. If it can be established that in cases, where, from the attendant symptoms the same reasons have existed for inferring disorders of the lungs to exist, as in the case of those who die; yet that these invalids have, under a judicious mode of treatment, gradually lost these serious symptoms, and have at length recovered—an argument is made out, not only in favour of the possibility of cure in this disease, but positively that it is curable in most of its stages, by adopting those remedies which assist nature in throwing off the diseased matter, healing the injured surface by the application of balsamics and restoratives, possessing the power of new creating, in the lieu of diseased surface, living and healthy structure—so long, we again repeat, as a solitary case of cure has been effected (and there are many) under the most unpromising circumstances, philosophy and humanity alike oppose the practice of abandoning to its fate any case in which there is at least a hope of cure. Those who allege that Pulmonary Consumption is incurable, from the results obtained by inspections after dissolution, can substantiate no claim to depreciate the efficacy of remedial agents, until they supply us with unequivocal symptoms, whereby we may determine between cases which are and which are not curable. It is mere trifling to assert that all medical means in the cure of the diseased were unavailing, and that the disorder was incurable. This is sufficiently apparent to need that information. But, what we require is, a certain criterion during the life of the patient, to form our judgment between the curable cases, and those which are pronounced incurable; which we must possess before we can admit the necessity of despair in a solitary case. No morbid anatomist has hitherto supplied us with that indispensable information: and the most we can extort from them on the subject is, that in the event of the death of the subject who exhibited certain symptoms of consumption, the disease was necessarily incurable: and the cause assigned is—ulceration in the lungs! But, in the case of recovery of a patient who has experienced similar symptoms, we are informed that there could have been no affection of the vital organs: but, no proof is offered by way of demonstration.