THE CONTROVERSY ON THE EXPANSION OF THE FOOT. 251 
respondents has been, pro and contra , “ the lateral expansion of 
the quarters of the foot, and the descent of the sole.” The subject 
appears to have been entered on by Mr. Gloag not with the idea 
that writers upon it could not be recalled, but that the spirit of 
examining it was all but extinct, and nothing yet had been satis- 
factorily arrived at. 
Fully to appreciate Mr. Gloag’s experiments, we must under- 
stand that he has not attempted to copy or retouch what might 
have been previously written, but purely to give the results of 
experiments which would lead to some conclusion on the subject, 
by eliciting the opinions of the profession. 
In your last Number I find Mr. Reeve’s reply, and a very in- 
teresting and highly valuable paper from Mr. Ernes (one of the 
oldest and best of practitioners) ; also a very clever paper from Mr. 
Hodgson, on a novel, interesting, and very important subject, — 
“ the formation of horses, as far as it affects their feet” — many 
parts of which strikingly tend to elucidate Mr. Gloag’s opinions; 
and following these comes Mr. Arthur Cherry — not with the me- 
diocrity of his position, contenting himself w r ith giving his ideas on 
the subject, or directing the attention of readers to sources of in- 
formation, but, taking Mr. Reeve under his especial patronage, 
dips his pen in gall, intent only on annihilating Mr. Gloag. 
With all we know of the processes of the human mind, Mr. 
Cherry has explained why he writes in this blustering style : the 
“ episode” which he lays before us shews the matter in its true 
light. Mr. Gloag, instead of replying to him publicly, wrote to 
him privately : this was sufficient to stir the flames which could 
not be cooled away until Mr. Gloag should experience considerable 
discomfort at the pen of Mr. Cherry. “ The alma del negocio ,” or 
essence of the affair, turns therefore upon Mr. Gloag’s declining 
publicly to answer Mr. Arthur Cherry, purely because he wished 
to escape (what I am sorry to say he has not succeeded in) pro- 
ductions similar to the last, the character of which is most of- 
fensive, for I do not remember to have read expressions so con- 
temptuous or so uncalled for. Throughout Mr. Gloag’s papers we 
find him courteous, earnest-minded, and pains-taking ; and very ad- 
vantageously are his compared with the productions of Mr. Cherry. 
Mr. Cherry has given us quotations, labelled “ Gulliver,” “ Life 
of Mahomet,” “ Garrick,” “ Scott,” &c., whereas the subject ad- 
mits only of the “ argumentum ad rem in fact, it would appear 
that his main design was not to impart any knowledge, but rather 
to divert the attention of the profession from it. I question whe- 
ther the writers upon it will submit their merits to Mr. Arthur 
Cherry’s “ dictum,” who has so indignantly pronounced a “ non 
habilis ” on Mr. Gloag. 
Logic might, in a measure, have supplied the place of argument, 
