IN REPLY TO MR. W. C. SPOONER. 
189 
done so, or has he proved that he is himself right,—let your readers 
judge. But to come to the point: although I am not bound to 
prove a negative, I may state that, within the last three weeks, 
I have had five hind legs on the table in my lecture room, in 
each of the hocks of which I have found sulci as extensive as 
those represented by Mr. Spooner ; and, to save time and dis¬ 
cussion, and to shew Mr. Spooner that what he represents as 
the cause of obscure hock lameness’^ is to be found, as I 
have stated, in other joints, and those, too, which are not so sub¬ 
ject to disease as the hock, and that these may exist even to 
three times the size, and present what he calls discolouration 
to the same extent, I will send you, by an early opportunity, the 
elbow joints of a horse, which 1 have known for five years, and 
which was never lame, that you may convey them to Mr. 
Spooner for his inspection ; and I would refer him generally to 
the elbow joints of any horse, when he is at a loss for a speci¬ 
men to shew what he considers the cause of obscure lameness. 
But before leaving this paragraph, I must notice the last three 
words, ‘'most certainly wrong will Mr. Spooner acknowledge 
that he is “ most certainly wrong^' if I send him specimens 
exactly alike, and in every respect the same as those he is so 
tenacious about ? If he will say so, I will send them to you ; and 
I care not who compares the specimens. If I fail, I shall then 
be “ most certainly wrong.” 
I pass the next paragraph, by requesting Mr. Spooner to read 
again the one in my last letter it refers to ; and when he has 
maturely considered the subject, and has finished this, we shall 
then be ready to discuss the liabilities of particular parts to dis¬ 
ease, and the provision of Nature to support such parts. 
As to my allusion to lectures, Mr. Spooner will excuse me for 
reminding him that I was only putting myself right and correct¬ 
ing his erroneous statement. Other lecturers, I have no doubt, 
would be able to answer for themselves, as I have done. 
Again, as to Mr. Spooner’s knowledge of friction, I repeat 
my belief that he had never seen a case \ and I ask, if he has yet 
been to see the one in Mr. Liston’s museum ? 
I did not observe until I turned over the last leaf of Mr. 
Spooner’s paper, that he intended taking his leave of the dis¬ 
cussion ; but if he does so, whatever he may profess of good 
humour, it appears to be presuming too much, when, perhaps^ 
he has been demonstrated to have been “ most certainly wrong,” 
to complain of cold-hearted cynical distrust and criticism, be¬ 
cause it has not been allowed that he was most certainly right. 
