The Dissertation does not respond, in the fullest extent, to the category proposed. The only available method of discussing the question, “How far are the _external_ means of exploring the condition of the internal organs useful and important?” is to show, as far as possible, the deficiencies of _other_ means—to point out the inconvenience and want of certainty attending a diagnosis deduced from symptoms merely general or functional, and to demonstrate the advantages, if any, of those signs (afforded by external examination) which, in medical language, are alone denominated _physical_. But to do all this would require a much larger treatise than the Committee had in contemplation, and so far, it appears to us, they have been over-hasty in proposing a query so illimitable. Our author (probably thinking thus) has wisely confined himself to diseases occurring in the common routine of practice, and here again only to such as affect the cavities of the Abdomen and Thorax. The brain is not treated of—for, except in a few strictly surgical instances, the unyielding parietes of the skull will admit of no diagnosis deduced from their examination. In the discussion of the subject thus narrowed, Dr. Haxall has commented upon the physical signs which (assisted as they always are by functional symptoms) lead to the detection of the diseases of the _liver_, the _spleen_, the _uterus_, the _ovary_, the _kidney_, the _bladder_, the _stomach_, and the _intestines_—of _Typhoid or Typhus Fever_—of _Inflammation of the Peritonæum_—of _Pleura_, _Pleuro-pneumonia_, _Hydrothorax_, _Pneumothorax_, _Catarrh_, _Emphysema_, _Asthma_, _Dilatation of the Bronchiæ_, _Pneumonia_, _Pulmonary Apoplexy_, and _Phthisis_—of _Pericarditis_, _Hypertrophy of the Heart_, _Dilatation_ of that organ, and lastly, of _Aneurism of the Aorta_. The most important and altogether the most original portion of the Essay, is that relating to the fever called _Typhoid_. The pathology of fever in general has been at all times a fruitful subject of discussion. Solidists, humorists, and advocates of the idiopathic doctrine, have each their disciples among the medical profession. Dr. H. advocates no theory in especial, but in regard to typhus fever agrees with M. Louis in supposing the true lesion of the disease to reside in an organic alteration of the glands of Peyer. He denies consequently that bilious fever, pneumonia, dysentery, or indeed any other malady, assumes, at any stage, what can be properly called a “typhoid” character, unless the word “typhoid” be regarded as expressive of mere _debility_. The chief diagnostic signs he maintains to be physical, but enters into a minute account of _all_ the symptoms of the disorder. The Essay is embraced in a pamphlet, beautifully printed, of 108 pages. SCHLOSS HAINFELD.