REVIEW. 
332 
country into large towns, such as London, being all but phy- 
sically sure to have the distemper, either in the form of catarrh 
or strangles or sore throat or bronchitis , as well as from the 
fact, linked with the former one, of the same horses having 
once had the disease being for the future all but exempt from 
any similar attack — unless in the form of relapse, which is but 
a part or sequel of the disease itself — we say, these two well- 
known relative facts would incline us to favour the vulgar or 
groom’s notions of the pathology of distemper, and look upon it 
as a sort of small-pox or measles, or hooping-cough, or scarlet 
fever, which the young animal was pretty certain to have, and, 
having had it, which had got him over all but unavoidable 
natural troubles. We have no great objection to the theory 
as contained in the Committee’s report, to regard the dis- 
temper as “ a sort of crisis, consequent on the modifications 
brought about in the animal economy through the altered in- 
fluences arising from changes of place and regimen to which 
the young animal is subjected.” ( Turn back to page 326). 
“ Vague hypothesis,” as we, with the Committee, acknowledge 
this to be, still it is a theory to which we, ourselves, attach 
more weight than to M. Charlier’s or Broussais’, which would 
induce us to believe that it was no more than a common disease, 
caused by an assemblage of ordinary agents and influences. 
Another essential point on which we differ from M. Charlier 
is, the contagiousness of distemper. Although we feel quite 
aware that many of our counttymen in, we believe, and cer- 
tainly out of, the profession, will dissent in opinion from us on 
this point, yet we feel bound to say, our own observation and 
experience has never afforded us satisfactory reasons to believe 
that distemper, in any of its various forms, was communicable 
from horse to horse. On this account we have never been at 
any great pains to segregate distempered horses ; though we are 
ready to confess, it has ever been our custom, for the sake of clean- 
liness and decency, to put a “ snotty-nosed subject” by himself. 
Still, we have never enjoined any precautions about the contact 
or conveyance of the discharges, or in any way restricted the 
groom from looking after other horses at the time he was tend- 
ing distempered patients, unless in the case of any suspicion of 
glanders. 
