It is an important fact, that the majority of primary ulcers can be made to heal without mercury. Cavillers object to the mercurial washes, supposing that they may act by affecting the constitution. The sores with hardened edges, chancres, heal as well as others, when mercury is not employed, but much more slowly. In some mercury is injurious: in chancres it promotes the cure. In any case, I would never think of ordering it, unless the progress were very tedious, the ulcer being indolent and contumacious; then mercury may be advantageously used, and moderately continued, until the callosity disappear. It is no easy matter to say, judging from the appearance of the ulcer, whether secondary syphilitic symptoms are likely to arise in consequence of it or not, or what their nature may be should they occur: they follow upon sores of all characters, and, again, do not appear, after what might be set down as the genuine Hunterian chancre. Whatever the nature and appearance of the ulcer may have been in the first instance, should it become stationary, and show no disposition to heal under local means, mercury may then be given cautiously, and with advantage. Considering that very obstinate sores are now seldom met with, it would seem that very little mercury is required in the treatment of primary venereal ulcers. During the progress of acute inflammatory action, this medicine should not be given for the primary affection, whatever the nature of the ulcer. Mercury cannot prevent constitutional affections.