ON SOUNDNESS. 257 
ground; and endeavour to keep the nutshell position (I am 
obliged to you lor the term) “as best 1 may.” 
I have said, as a general guiding and determining principle, 
I know of none better than that, in fact, sought to be established 
in Mr. Percivalhs two leading propositions; which, however* 
I would simplify into one, &c. In this attempt to simplify you 
tell me I have incurred “heavy and serious consequences.” 
Forsooth for what? merely because I have made an effort to free 
a complicated question from all the metaphysical subtleties with 
which I beheld it environed and perplexed; and have recom¬ 
mended a broad line and simple rules, that every body might 
understand. “This is the head and front of my offending.” 
You yourself own you have found it “ an intricate question— 
surrounded with difficulties on all sides;” and yet when an 
attempt is made to clear away some of its superabundant com¬ 
plexities, you turn round upon your friend and threaten him with 
“ serious consequences.” 
You accuse me, too, of enlisting under the banners of the 
Professors. I must protest, however, I was not aware of their 
presence in the contest; and, although I have every respect for 
both of them, yet I feel no hesitation in saying, that, upon this 
point at least, I am not disposed to follow either of them, with a 
blind adherence, to the ultima tlmle of their ruling principles. 
I have always considered it unfortunate that those we have so 
long looked up to with a kind of habitual deference should hold 
discordant opinions upon a point of such vital importance, both 
with respect to the profession and the public. If I understand 
them rightly, Mr. Coleman gees entirely upon function, capacity, 
or capability to perform; whilst Mr. Sewell insists upon it, that 
nothing but disease can be said to constitute unsoundness; and 
that every deviation from natural structure, whether it interferes 
with the function of the part or not, being disease, is, conse¬ 
quently, to be called unsoundness. Now it has always appeared 
to me, that in this matter “they both are right and both are 
wrong,” if I may so speak; for, although the extreme points of 
these two positions differ so widely that they can never be recon¬ 
ciled, yet, for every practical and useful purpose, they will be 
found to be still necessarily and intimately connected, I may say 
almost inseparable. For instance, they both unite and agree in 
considering a cataract, roaring, broken wind, 8cc. unsound ness ; 
for here we have both structural change and functional derange¬ 
ment present; and whenever this is the case they “both are 
right.” • • 
Now with respect to the extreme points of these two ruling 
principles, I may observe, Mr. Coleman used to illustrate his by 
m in 
