Since I published the accounts of 129 cases, on which my statistics were founded,[2] with four deaths, and a mortality therefore of one in 32¼ cases, I have treated in the clinical wards of the Royal Infirmary 24 other cases, with one death. This increases the mortality to 1 in 30⅗, in the total of 153 cases. Of these a tabulated account will be published, without which I venture to say little information can be obtained with regard to the results of any kind of treatment. Of this the analysis of the Boston cases offers sufficient proof; for although Dr. Borland says: “The greater proportion of these cases have been treated according to the plan set forth by Dr. Bennett, by restoratives directed to further the natural progress of the disease,” he does not appear to have remarked that all my cases were those of acute primary pneumonia, and not consecutive or secondary cases in individuals weakened by phthisis, broken down by long starvation and surgical injuries, or such as have become chronic with gangrenous abscesses. Dr. Popham of Cork[3] tells us that he treated 30 cases of pneumonia by the restorative plan, and that, with the exception of two who were admitted in a dying state, all recovered. In 28 cases, therefore, admitting of treatment, all recovered. It is much to be regretted that these cases were not tabulated, so that the reader might judge of their extent, severity, and progress. We are told, however, that six were cases of double pneumonia; in eight the left lung only was engaged, and the right lung in fourteen. Dr. Popham also tells us that instances occurred so grave that he did not consider himself justified in trusting to restoratives alone. He therefore gave 5 grs. of bicarbonate of potash in mucilaginous liquid, and also employed epispastics. He is of opinion that the alkaline salt diminished the viscidity of the sputa, rendered the cough less harsh and the urine more alkaline. I hope Dr. Popham will pardon me for believing that these supposed advantages are to a great extent imaginary, and that his excellent paper can only be regarded as a valuable contribution, confirming the advantages of the restorative treatment. An excellent example of a mild mixed treatment is described in a lecture by Dr. Sieveking,[4] who, in opposition to the views I have advanced, and the restorative treatment which has been proved to be so beneficial in pneumonia, lays down for his students two principles. These are, first, that pneumonia is not an entity, and second, that pneumonia differs in type at one and the same time, and therefore demands a varying treatment. As this last idea still extensively prevails among medical practitioners, it may be useful to analyse the evidence furnished by Dr. Sieveking of its correctness. It consists of four cases, very imperfectly recorded.