194 
ON PUERPERAL FEVER. 
uncertainty, in the adaptation of particular means to particular 
ends in pathology, by which we veterinary surgeons live. If it 
were not so in this case, the world would know, from this report 
of Mr. Wilson, all it would require to know of the treatment of 
puerperal fever; and a few more such victories, and we might 
exclaim, with a sigh, 
“ Othello’s occupation’s gone.” 
After just quoting Shakespeare myself, I am now going to 
find fault with Mr. Wilson ; not for quoting him, though, but 
for misapplying the quotation. In continuation of the inference 
he has been drawing from his rule-of-three proposition, he adds, 
“ that his teacher may feel quite satisfied that the treatment was 
judicious,” because “ all’s well that ends well.” I will not do 
his teacher the injustice to suppose that his estimate of the value 
to be attached to the mode of treatment adopted would be di- 
rected solely by the result. He knows too well that we often 
deserve credit for both skill and attention in those cases that 
are lost, while many that recover owe, perhaps, but little to us 
of either. To be brief, however: — Mr. Wilson’s inference, that 
“ all’s well that ends well,” involves this palpable absurdity — 
that in all cases that recover, the treatment must have been 
judicious. 
As I have before said, he has accused me of mis-stating him 
respecting the nerves. I beg to deny the charge. I have turn- 
ed again to the part in question, and I find that he was attempt- 
ing to confute the justness of a remark of mine, ct that the 
nerves were part and parcel of the brain, &c.” And no one 
could suppose but that when I emphatically said “ the nerves,” 
I must have meant, in that case, the nervous system generally. 
And as to himself, he has repeatedly denied the connexion ex- 
isting, by saying, in an equally emphatic manner, “ that the 
nerves do not spring from the brain.” And to make certain that 
I could not have mistaken him, in supposing he was speaking 
(as I was) of the nervous system as a whole, he has actually 
made use of the term itself, thus making it so direct, that it 
leaves nothing to infer. He says, “ it is equally true that dis- 
ease may disturb and derange the functions of the brain, with- 
out impairing the usefulness or vigour of the nervous system , 
and vice versa.” And, Sir, what could his anecdote of the child 
who continued to live without a brain mean? Was it not 
avowedly introduced to prove that the connexion between the 
brain and nervous system was not a necessary one ? If, then, 
the common acceptation of these terms is to be any guide to us 
