185 
ON LAMENESS IN THE HOCK JOINT, IN REPLY 
TO MR. W. C. SPOONER. 
By Professor- Dick. 
I WAS so much engaged last month with the important affairs 
which a new year brings about, that I had no time to devote to 
Mr. Spooner. But now, when I have leisure to peruse his longer 
reply to my ‘‘ very lengthy paper/’ I have been reminded of a 
story which is told of an Irish drummer, who was flogging a 
countryman for having deserted. “ Och ! (said the criminal) hit a 
little higher up; Och ! a little lower down; Och ! hit here: hit 
there.” Botheration to ye (said the drummer), I cannot plase ye, 
?iit however I will.” Mr. Spooner first complained of nobody dis¬ 
cussing the subject which he had brought before the profession ; 
and now he complains of its being discussed at too great length : 
next, that my paper has the ** appearance of ill-humour;” and then 
he cannot ‘‘admiremy good taste.” In short, I may say to Mr. 
Spooner, like the drummer. Botheration to ye, I cannot plase ye, 
write however I will. But to be serious : I think few will accuse me 
of spinning a long yarn ; and as in the present discussion none of 
your readers have complained of the length of my papers, Mr. 
Spooner might have allowed me to escape the accusation. As to 
the appearance of ill-humour, I have looked over my last paper, 
but cannot discover from what he draws his inference; and I do 
not recollect of any such feeling being excited during my writing. 
As to my “ good taste ” in writing, I cannot expect to meet the 
approbation of all; and although disappointed with the loss of 
Mr. Spooner as an admirer in that respect, I must console myself 
with the reflection, that there is no accounting for taste. 
1 have endeavoured to state my views as plainly and clearly 
as I could ; and in using the word self-assurance, while I wished 
to call every thing by its right name, I had no intention to employ 
the term offensively. Obstinacy and ignorance are not my words; 
but Mr. Spooner having asserted that he had discovered the seat 
and nature of “ Obscure Hock Lameness,” and having pointed 
out certain appearances in the hock as such, and I having not 
only denied what he pointed out to be disease, and demanded his 
proof, but having offered some remarks and proof in support of 
my opinion, I cannot help the inference that may be drawn, so 
long as Mr. Spooner withholds the proof, and yet continues the 
assertion. 
I have denied in toto, and continue to deny, that those appear¬ 
ances which Mr. Spooner has pointed out in one and all of the 
VOI.. XI. cc 
