188 
lesions, clinical history, and etiology. The doctor says emphatically, in the out- 
set, that it is “entirely distinct from the milzbrand, or carbuncular murrain, on 
the one hand, and from the epidemic pleuro-pneumonia, or pulmonary murrain, 
on the other.” 
Dr. John Syer Bristowe, F.R.C.P., reporting upon the morbid anatomy of the 
plague, classes it with diphtheria and small-pox, from the former of which it differs 
in the character of the exudations on the mucous membranes and in the nature 
of its cutaneous eruptions, and from the latter in the equality of development of 
eruptive spots, as well as in their character. He thus disposes of an opinion 
often loosely ventured in the reports of this disease: 
The disease has been called the ‘‘ contagious typhus of horned cattle,” but there is certainly 
little in common between the two diseases. No one, in fact, acquainted with their pathology 
could possibly confound them, or could have dreamt of borrowing the name from one to apply 
it to the other. It has lately also been assumed to be identical with typheid or enteric fever. 
The assumption, however, is even more unfounded than the last, and can only have been 
made in ignorance of the facts. 
Lionel S. Beale, M.B., ¥'.R.S., charged with microscopical researches, after a 
series of patient investigations with a microscope magnifying 2,500 diameters, 
considers the “highly congested state of the capillary vessels of many different 
textures and orgaus” the most remarkable of the morbid changes observed. He 
also notes an increased secretion of the surfaces, and that “the masses of ger-. 
minal matter (usually termed nuclei) of almost all the textures of the body are 
invariably larger than in health.” He then gives a mass of interesting data con- 
cerning changes in the vessels and in the blood, the microscopical character of 
the secretions and discharges, the morbid changes in the tissues, and the nature 
of the poison or contagium. 
These reports are profusely and beautifully illustrated in chromo-lithograph, 
extended and minute tabular statements of results are given, a multitude of indi- 
vidual cases of disease and treatment, as well as post-mortem examination, are 
cited in extreme detail, and the whole evidence shows a more radical and exhaus- 
tive examination of the disease has been made than ever before was given to it. 
Professor John Gamgee, principal of the Albert Veterinary College, London, 
now in this country, who warned the authorities of the coming of the disease 
before its appearance in England, and who from the first declared the impolicy 
of attempting anything but prevention, and urged strenuous measures for 
“stamping out” the malady at once by the use of the axe and knife, thus cha- 
racterizes it: 
The cattle plague is nota local disorder; it is not an affection of any special organ or group 
of organs. It is a systemic disease, a fever, in which the mucous membranes and skin are 
specially implicated. There are important local and characteristic manifestations, usually 
most marked in the mouth, fourth stomach and intestines, in the organs of generation, and 
frequently in the respiratory passages.’ It is, however, something different, and something 
more than an inflammation of the breathing, or digestive, or generative systems. The cell 
growth, fatty and molecular disintegrations, desquamation and discharge of the epithelial 
and epidermic cells, are typical of this disease. In this way it can only be classified among 
general diseases, with fevers of a specific kind, and which originate from specific causes, run 
a definite course, manifest a singular periodicity in their progress, and have a marked ten- 
dency to destroy life.”’ 
A history of this disease, and a brief digest of the earlier reports of the Royal 
Commission, may be found in the department Report of Agriculture for 1865. 
It is to be hoped that local statements, based upon views utterly erroneous and 
unenlightened, may not continue to disturb the agricultural community. 
