He further averred that gouty inflammation is _always_ accompanied by a _deposition_ of _urate of soda_, crystalline and interstitial, in the inflamed part. Also that “the deposited urate of soda may be looked upon as the _cause_ and not the effect of the gouty inflammation. Moreover, that the said inflammation tends to destruction of the urate of soda not only in the blood of the inflamed part, but also in the system generally.” In addition, Garrod postulated implication of the _kidneys_, probably in the early, and certainly in the chronic stages of gout; and that the renal affection, though possibly only _functional_ at first, subsequently became _organic_, with alterations in the urinary secretions. As to the anomalous symptoms met with in gouty subjects, and alike those premonitory of a paroxysm, he ascribed them to the impure state of the blood, and due principally to the presence therein of urate of soda. Of causes predisposing to gout, if we except those attaching to individual peculiarities, they are either such as will lead to increased formation of uric acid or to retention of the same in the blood. On the other hand, the determining causes of a gouty fit are those which induce a _less alkaline condition of the blood_, or which greatly augment for the time the formation of uric acid or such as temporarily check the eliminating powers of the kidneys. Lastly, his final axiom was that—in _no disease but true gout is there a deposition of uric acid_. No tribute to Garrod’s masterly achievement could err on the side of generosity. A truly scientific physician, he built on the rock of sound clinical and pathological observations. For measured restraint, he stands out in pleasing contrast to those who, lacking his clinical acumen and sound judgment, brought not grist to the mill, but vain imaginings based on Garrod’s hard-won facts. His researches in truth constitute a landmark in the history of the pathology of gout, with their substitution of facts for pure hypotheses. True, though it was that, for half a century before, there was a growing suspicion that lithic (_uric_) acid was the malign factor in the induction of gout, still it was not till Garrod’s discovery of _uric acid_ in the _blood_ and _tissues_ of the “gouty,” that any definite step towards the elucidation of the problem presented by gout was attained. ANTAGONISTIC VIEWS