540 
A LETTER BY MR. MAYHEW. 
I see, by Mr. Daws’ letter in the Veterinarian for last month 
(September), that he suggests the strength of the compounds 
might be still further reduced. Having tried it for the legs 
and throats in the proportion of one to forty, I cannot say 
that it produced the desired effect. We have obtained half a 
pound of the mylabris, from Gale, Baker, and Co., at 9s. per 
pound, intending to use them in lieu of the cantharides for 
the future. The number of patients experimented on were 50. 
I am, dear Sir, yours respectfully. 
Sheffield ; Sept. 6, 1854. 
To Professor Morton. 
A LETTER BY MR. MAYHEW. 
To the Editor of ‘ The Veterinarian .’ 
Sir, — It must be in the recollection of yourself and readers, 
that I was some years ago engaged in a controversy with Mr. 
Barlow, of the Edinburgh College, concerning a paper which 
was read before the Veterinary Medical Association of 
London. The dispute appears to have rankled in the bosom 
of my former antagonist. He has now’ become (so I am in- 
formed) editor of an Edinburgh paper, entitled The North 
British Agriculturist. Now, had a work of Mr. Barlow’s 
been handed to me for review, I should have endeavoured to 
be just. Were I conscious of the least animosity towards the 
author, I should certainly have declined the task; did I 
anticipate it possible, that the most suspicious person could 
have impeached my decision, or impugned my motives, self- 
respect would have told me, I w r as in no position to play the 
critic. 
Such, I believe, are the conditions recognised by the literary 
world, and, I am happy to say, more than one friend of my 
acquaintance has acted up to the principles indicated above. 
The paper, of which Mr. Barlow is (according to my in- 
formant) the editor, w as published in Edinburgh on Wednes- 
day, August 16 th. On Friday, August 18th, a copy is brought 
to me by the earliest post of that morning. The paper so 
sent is clean, uncreased, and uncut ; it had evidently been 
posted the instant the impression had been pulled, and sent 
off by some one connected with the publication. Im- 
mediately above the title, written in a bold Roman text, are 
the w^ords, Cf See Review of Blaine .” The phraseology is 
peculiar, very peculiar ; it sniffs of the profession. One un- 
initiated in the mysteries of professional language w r ould 
