In the _Indian Medical Gazette_ of August, 1906, the writer published a review of 125 cases of couching of the lens by Indian vaidyans. On March 13, 1912, the total had swollen to 550, and an analysis of all the cases was conducted on the same lines as those followed in the earlier communication. Subsequent to this, Major H. Kirkpatrick, the succeeding Superintendent of the Madras Eye Hospital, analysed 350 cases of the Mahomedan operation (the first 120 of which overlapped the series already dealt with by the writer), and in forwarding them made the comment that “these statistics are remarkably similar to those of your series.” In view of the consistency of the results obtained and of the large figures dealt with it seems safe to assume that reliable deductions can now be drawn. The main headings of these statistics will next be taken up. Before commencing to do so, it is of special interest to note that the methods observed by Colonel Drake-Brockman in other parts of India tally closely with those described by Ekambaram in Southern India. This is the more readily understood when we remember that many of the operators in the South of India come from the north. This observation puts our cases on all fours with those published from other parts of India. It is perhaps difficult to form an accurate opinion as to how far the figures before us represent the best results attained by the coucher. His apologists might urge that only his failures would come to English hospitals. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that quite a considerable number of eyes are lost, after couching, from panophthalmitis and from shrinkage of the eye following iridocyclitis. Patients in such conditions will often stay away from hospital owing to their very hopelessness; and even if they do resort to English treatment, they will stoutly deny that their eyes have been interfered with. Thus in both ways the records of such failures are lost, making the net result appear better than it really is. In collecting our statistics, we were constantly on the lookout for _all_ cases of couched lens, and have notes of a large number of patients who did not come to hospital for the eye in which reclination had been performed. Considerable interest attaches to the study of the column showing the periods that elapsed between the Mahomedan operation and the date at which the patient came under observation. Only 6·82 per cent. were seen within the first month, and but 17·88 per cent. within the first six months. The following six months added only 5·65 per cent. The great mass of the eyes had been operated on from one to ten years previous to being seen. This in itself would indicate that the cases, from which our observations were made, were drawn from the mass of the people rather than from the coucher’s failures alone.