a due supply of which, when well, the continuance of his health and strength would depend? Does the experience of our readers furnish them with a single case of recovery from consumption caused by the use of a respirator, or does it not, on the contrary, furnish them, in every case where it has been resorted to, with instances of the bad effects attendant upon its use? In support of the view taken by Dr. Barter, we would observe, that narrow and contracted lungs, an impure atmosphere, uncleanly habits, sedentary occupation, indulgence in alcoholic liquors, and over eating, all directly tend to the overloading of the blood with carbon, and they are also the most constant causes of consumption. But the success attending this treatment is the argument which will have most weight with the public, and cause its adoption by the profession at large. When this takes place we shall not have consumptive patients sent abroad to seek restoration of their health— “To Nice, where more native persons die of consumption than in any English town of equal population—to Madeira, where no local disease is more prevalent than consumption—to Malta, where one-third of the deaths amongst our troops are caused by consumption—to Naples, whose hospitals record a mortality, from consumption, of one in two and one-third of the patients—nor, finally, to Florence, where pneumonia is said to be marked by a suffocating character, and a rapid progress towards its final stage. Sir James Clarke has assailed with much force the doctrine, that change of climate is beneficial in cases of consumption. M. Carriere, a French physician, has written strongly against it. Dr. Burgess, an eminent Scotch physician, also contends that climate has little or nothing to do with the cure of consumption, and that if it had, the curative effects would be produced through the skin and not the lungs, by opening the pores, and promoting a better aeration of the blood.”