MEDICAL REFORM. 
209 
venture into his stack-yard, if there were two or three fierce dogs 
at hand?” 
Calmly, but earnestly, let me appeal to those who are eager to 
condemn and destroy those who never did them serious injury, 
and who might be taught to regard them with affection and gra- 
titude. Never let it be said that we may travel over the world, 
and have the dog our companion, our friend, our guardian, but 
that, the moment we reach the British shore, we find this faithful 
and intelligent animal proscribed and destroyed ! Is it so in 
any other country in the world ? This is a question that should 
receive serious consideration. 
I may have expressed myself warmly, but 1 mean not to give 
offence. We have all a right to our opinion : but after having 
pursued a certain course full forty years, and yielded and will 
yield to no one as a friend to the dog, I am not disposed now 
to abandon him. 
As to the disease which seems so great a source of terror in the 
minds of some gentlemen, I again repeat that they are alto- 
gether without foundation. I challenge discussion on that point. 
W. Youatt. 
MEDICAL REFORM. 
The following observations contained in an account of the 
anniversary meeting of the 66 British Medical Association,” held 
8th Nov. 1842, in these times when we are thinking about “putting 
our own house in order,” are well worth our attentive perusal : — 
Dr. Webster (the president) in a speech, not less admirable 
for its calm and independent tone than for the well-concocted 
scheme of reform it developed, after congratulating the assembly 
on the celebration of their sixth anniversary, and the results that 
had by their united exertions been accomplished, reminded them 
that the essence of reform consisted in representative government , 
and that its essential means might be comprised under few 
heads : — First, union and representation ; secondly, uniform qua- 
lification for practice ; thirdly, equality of rights for medical 
men ; fourthly, protection to the public against illegal practi- 
tioners. Sir James Graham’s bill was objectionable, he said, 
because it created not the bond of union for which they had been 
contending. Nothing was to be done to unite the profession into 
one body. They were weak because there were divisions and dis- 
