132 MR. KENT IN REPLY TO THE EDITORS 
I have a considerable quantity of the Scutellaria, for the genu¬ 
ineness of which I think I can vouch, and which is perfectly at 
the service of any human or veterinary surgeon who is disposed 
to experiment on it, and will do me the honour to send for it. 
[To be continued.] 
MR. KENT IN REPLY TO THE EDITORS OF 
“THE VETERINARIAN.” 
To the Editors of “ The Veterinarian .” 
Gentlemen, 
FOR your candour in reviewing my pamphlet, I return you 
thanks; and as I have some remarks to make on that review, 
you will oblige me by inserting this in your next number. 
I regret that in page 5 of the pamphlet, in my observation of 
Mr. C. F. Williams’s Address, by a blunder of the printer the 
final*letter was added to the word observe , whereby my language 
is put into the mouth of another man (the junior counsel in de¬ 
fence): the manuscript and proof sheet had both observe when 
they left me. The copy I sent you, and many others, went out 
before I read it after coming from the press; but as soon as I had 
read it, I gave the bookseller instructions to erase that letter in 
all the copies sent out. 
There is one paragraph in your review which I cannot allow 
to pass unnoticed. You have said, “ In the account of the trial, 
Mr. Kent is unnecessarily, and, we think, injudiciously, and un¬ 
justifiably severe. Even old Davis does not deserve all that is 
said of him, much less Mr. Leigh.” As I do not wish to “carry the 
Editor’s meaning beyond the limit set to it,’’ I probably may pre¬ 
vent misapprehension by giving some definition of the point at 
issue; and as I perceive nothing of peculiarity in the case, I think 
it must be admitted, that whatever is true must be just, and con¬ 
sequently justifiable ; and in rigid accordance with this definition, 
I plead not guilty to the charge of being “unjustifiably severe.” 
As to whether I have been injudiciously severe, admits of two 
opinions; and were the point to be decided by vote, where all 
things connected with the proceedings in the cause are best 
known, a vast majority would be found on the negative side of 
that question. On the subject of being unnecessarily severe, 
i have only to reply, that after the decision of a British court, 
I should never have deemed any account necessary had it not 
been demanded from me. For the correctness of my deductions 
from their depositions, I appeal to my pamphlet, the editors, and 
the public. 
