2(y 
ON HOCK LAMENESS; IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR 
DICK. 
jBj/ Mr, M'.C. Spooner, Southampton, 
In replying to Mr. Dick’s very lengthy paper in The Vete¬ 
rinarian of last month, I shall endeavour to do so as briefly as 
the subject will admit; but, in order to accomplish this, it will be 
necessary for me to avoid all matters not immediately connect¬ 
ed with the question in dispute, otherwise, as Mr. Dick’s has 
been a long one, mine, of necessity, would be longer still, and 
the readers of The Veterinarian I fear would get tired of 
the subject. I am sorry to find that Mr. Dick’s last paper ex¬ 
hibits so much the appearance of ill-humour; because I should 
imagine that the end of all parties could be sufficiently accom¬ 
plished, and the merits of either side fairly placed before the pro- 
fession,without charging one’s opponent with either self-assurance, 
obstinacy, or ignorance. Difference of opinion must and will 
prevail on many points, both in physiology and pathology ; and 
while a discussion on these points may prove advantageous to 
the profession, yet it is injurious to science and detrimental to 
the periodical in which such discussion may appear, if it be¬ 
comes tarnished by the exhibition of rancorous feeling on the 
part of the disputants. For my own part, I have made no per¬ 
sonal charges against Mr. Dick, nor is it my intention to do so. 
I respect his talents, and I would not undervalue his experience, 
although I cannot in his last paper admire his good taste. 
When a discussion, like the present, is separated by interven¬ 
ing months, the parties who witness it are apt to lose sight in 
some measure of the immediate subject of dispute, and to allow 
their attention to be diverted by lesser matters that may crowd 
themselves in. To avoid this, it will not be out of place for me 
briefly to recapitulate the argument. My attention, then, was 
first called more particularly to the subject of hock lameness in 
the year 1830, when I communicated to The Veterinarian 
some cases of what appeared to me as disease existing in the 
upper articulation of the hock joint; and as the appearances I 
then pointed out had not been noticed by any other writer, I 
felt that I was only ‘‘ doing as I would be done by” in making 
them known to the profession. On reference to this commu¬ 
nication, I am not aware that either in its matter or its manner it 
justly exposes me to the charge of self-assurance. As the sub¬ 
ject was at any rate novel, I thought it would probably elicit the 
opinions of other veterinarians, being very anxious to hear them; 
