Tlie foregoing figures exhibit a very strong case in favour of inocula- 

 tion — indeed they establish its efficacy ; but although they do so, it may not, 

 perhaps, be out of place to call attention to some additional facts, elicited by 

 this][enquiry, which are strongly confirmatory of that result ; they are : — 



1st. The most significant fact, that while the returns by the owners 

 whc inoculated show on the one hand that the disease^ according 

 to the size of the herd, and the extent of the infection when in- 

 oculated, disappeared in the course of a few weeks, or at most of 

 a few months after the cattle wei-e inoculated, those by the owners 

 who did not do so, show that, in many cases, the disease existed 

 in their herds for several years. This will be at once seen on 

 reference to the entries under the head of " Eftect of Inoculation," 

 in the tabulated list, Appendix D, and to that under the head 

 of " How long disease existed in the herd ?" in tabulated list. 

 Appendix E, which give the substance of the owners' answers to 

 cjuestions Xos. 13 and 11 in Appendix B, and to ^o. 5 of 

 Appendix C. Unfortunately the answers given by owners to 

 questions 13 and 11 of Appendix B do not, as a rule, state the 

 exact time the disease left the herd after inoculation ; but they 

 show that, where the operation was properly performed, it either 

 left the herd at once, or it disappeared without any more cattle 

 being aftected than were evidently diseased when the herd 

 was inoculated ; or, it shortly died out. In no case can it he 

 gatliered tliat the disease lasted over six months in a herd itdiich 

 had leen properhj inoculated. On the other hand, again, it will 

 be seen that the disease has in the uninoculated herds existed in 3 

 herds for 6 years, in 9 herds for 5 years, in 6 for 3 years, in 2 for 

 more than 2 years, in 13 for 2 years, in (3 for 18 months, in 2 for 

 15 months, in 2 for 14 months, in 1 for 13 months, in 2 for more 

 than 12 months, and in 11 for 12 months ; ii:lii}e it still exists in 

 18 of these herds, and has done so for periods of from 2 to Q years. 



This difference between the duration of the disease in the inoculated 

 and uninoculated herds, is one of the strongest proofs of the advantages of 

 inoculation ; and its opponents \d\\ have to prove that this diflerence arises 

 from some other cause than inoculation, before they can again call in 

 question its efficacy. 



2nd. The fact that in almost every instance inoculation is spoken of 

 by those in favour of it, as having immediately stopped the 

 disease, or as being a preventive. 



3rd. The results in such cases as Nos. 2, 10, 13, 51, 85, 9G, 97, and 

 119, of Appendix B, — where cattle, which were inoculated while 

 sound, never were diseased, although afterwards frequently 

 exposed to infection ; and those in such cases as Nos. 13, 19, 

 23, 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, 36, 43, 47, 50, 52, GO, 63, 72, 82, 84, 

 89, 100, 105, 110, 116, 126, 130, 133, 136, 137, 140, 147, 156, 

 164, 172, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 187, 194, 212, 213, 214, 

 215, 218, 231, 233, and 277,— where the disease disappeared 

 from herds after inoculation, while it contimied among uninocu- 

 lated cattle intermixing with these inoculated herds. 



4th. The fact that almost all the Eeturns in Appendix B by 

 owners opposed to inoculation shew on the face of them suffi- 

 cient cause for the inoculation proving unsatisfactory ; for it 

 is evident that the failures occurred in these cases, either 

 through the herds being thoroughly diseased before they were 

 inoculated, tlirough improper inoculation, or through only a 

 portion of the herd being inoculated. 



