But whilst maintaining the correctness of many of Dr. A.'s views, we are inclined to the opinion, that he may do some injury to the doctrine he is advocating, by invariably making use of the word _inflammation_, to express that condition of the vessels, giving rise to an excessive secretion of serous fluid. We are ready to admit, and we dare hope, that few will refuse to do so, that _inflammation_, strictly speaking, will occasion such an effect; yet, it often happens, that effusion will occur in cases, where no inflammation can be detected. In such instances, the vessels are evidently in a state of increased excitement; or in other words, in a state of irritation, but not of inflammation, which always implies congestion. This latter morbid condition, may supervene on the irritation, and occasion a suppression of the serous effusion, and the formation of coagulable lymph or pus. It is true, it may be said, that both these states (irritation and inflammation) being an increase of the life of the part, and requiring the same treatment, may be designated by the same name. Nevertheless, to prevent confusion, and the quibbling of some of the opponents of the theory of inflammation in dropsy, we are inclined to believe, that it is better to substitute the word irritation, whenever there is merely an increased secretion, and reserve the word inflammation, to designate those cases, in which there are decided marks of local excitement and congestion, attended or not with general fever. Dr. AYRE, adopting the opinion of Dr. PARRY, regards some cases of local dropsy as an effect of a general hydropic diathesis, or of a general inflammatory action of the vascular system, occasioning a local excitement, ending in dropsy. This is a natural consequence of the views, entertained by many physicians in Europe and this country, that fever produces local inflammation. We must confess, however, that all Dr. A. has said on the subject, is not calculated to carry conviction to our minds. Thus, one of his reasons for regarding some cases, as arising from this general vascular excitement is, that they are produced by what he considers as a general cause,--as cold, for example. But cold produces local diseases, occasioning, and not preceded by, a febrile excitement; and if it can, and does occasion anasarca, who will pretend to assert, from its being a _general_ cause, that this anasarca is a general disease? Does not cold occasion also ascites, which, in many cases, is regarded by every one as a local disease, sometimes terminating in anasarca? If so, why shall we regard anasarca, ending in ascites, as a general disease? The cases are analogous, and the action in both should not be explained differently. If the action of such a cause were really general, and extended to all parts of the body, then the effects should also be general, and the dropsy should be universal, which is very far from being always the case.