690 
MR. COW1E IN REPLY 
that I am guilty of mis-statement, dishonesty, and quackery. 
How far I deserve such gross accusations does not appear from 
the logic of Mr. Dick. “ The galled jade winces.” It is bad 
policy to yield to that spleenisb spirit of retort, which is some¬ 
times adopted where sound argument is not available, and which 
is persisted in with a violence proportionate to the palpable want 
of argument. This is unworthy of Mr. Dick’s high reputation. 
Let him who can, solve this question. 
I shall proceed ; and, first, as regards my motives. Mr. Dick 
insinuates that professional jealousy prompted me to report the 
case ; that is, by endeavouring to underrate my neighbour prac¬ 
titioners, I would advance my own interests. No such feeling, 
however, ever entered my breast. I live in good enough terms 
with them all ; and if I had thought my remarks would have in¬ 
jured them in the eyes of their employers, they should never have 
appeared in print. I am always ready to assist or consult with 
most of them when required. I may be allowed to add, that I 
can have no cause of jealousy. I have an occupation indepen¬ 
dently of the profession ; and while I practise among my friends 
arrd neighbours, I shall do so without any objects of a pecuniary 
nature. My motives, therefore, in sending you the report, was 
simply that which I stated in the preamble of my former com¬ 
munication, and which I need not again repeat. I next come to 
consider my “incorrectness in reporting.” Even in this, by Mr. 
Dick’s own shewing, my principal, if not only error, consists in 
not having reported more fully the evidence. Really, gentlemen, 
I thought I had occupied full much of your space as it was; and 
if I had sent you the whole evidence, which contains thirty or 
forty pages, it would have required more than all your space to¬ 
gether. It was necessary, therefore, to abridge ; and considering 
that I only took hasty notes of the depositions in the clerk’s 
office on a court day, I think it will appear that, whatever slight 
errors I may have committed, might have arisen from a misin¬ 
terpretation of the abbreviations I had taken; but we shall fol¬ 
low them out, and see if they really deserve any notice. 
In the first evidence Mr. Dick pretends to set me right with 
I detect him in the very same fault of which he accuses me, viz. 
of abridging the evidence. He has repeated all the rational part 
of Beattie’s evidence, which just amounts to my summary—“ he 
gave the horse laxative and tonic medicinesand made us un¬ 
derstand that he has given the whole, and that my account is 
fabricated. So far from this being the case, he has omitted my 
report, which is correct almost to the letter. The alterations are 
these: for “ all over,” read “ over the body and for “ evident,” 
read “ general.” In the next evidence, I omitted mentioning 
