He started out with a view to prove: “1. That inflammation is the _primum mobile_ in uterine affections, and that from it follow, as results, displacements, ulcerations and affections of the appendages. 2. That menstrual troubles and leucorrhœa are merely symptoms of this morbid state. 3. That in the vast majority of cases, inflammatory action will be found to confine itself to the cervical canal and not to affect the cavity of the body.” Since the appearance of the first edition of Dr. Bennett’s work, which is now forty-six years ago, there have been many careful and clever observers in this field of pathology, but there is yet to appear a successful contradiction of the truth of his inflammatory doctrine. Twenty-six years after Dr. Bennett wrote the above book, he read a paper before the British Medical Association on the same subject, in which there is no modification of his first conclusions on the importance of inflammatory lesions. He says: “1. Uterine displacements are by many too much studied _per se_ (by themselves) independently of the inflammatory diseases that complicate and often occasion them. 2. That the examinations made to ascertain the existence of inflammatory complications are often not made with sufficient care and minuteness, as evidenced by the fact that I constantly see in practice cases in which inflammatory processes have been entirely neglected, and the secondary displacements alone treated. 3. That inflammatory lesions are often the principal cause of the uterine displacements through the enlargement and increased weight of the womb, or a portion of its tissues, which they occasion. 4. That when such inflammatory conditions exist, as a rule they should be treated and cured and then time given to nature to absorb morbid enlargements before mechanical and surgical measures are resorted to.”