VETERINARY OBSTETRICS. 
517 
shake his position as a practitioner.” Let me whisper in 
Mr. Gamgee’s ear, that any endeavour“to shake a position” 
which has no existence would be an undertaking as ridiculous 
as Don Quixote’s fanciful attack upon the windmill. He 
next classifies, in the same list with myself, Mr. Balfour, 
a highly respectable veterinary surgeon^ who possesses, in 
an extensive practice in this district of the country, the 
fullest confidence of his employers—proprietors and tenants, 
&c., w-ho, he asserts, “ entered the arena, but in equally false 
colours as myself,” to serve the same “purpose of his foes. 7 
And all this, because Mr. Balfour had published the results 
of his experience in the management of similar cases of mal- 
presentation, and had dared to question Mr. Gamgee’s mode 
of practice. 
The Profession, to whom he makes his appeal through the 
Veterinarian , cannot fail to perceive that his mode of vindi¬ 
cation, by such imputation of motives, is not only not an 
honorable defence, but affords proof that the case must be a 
very bad one, when the scent of investigation is attempted 
under a false trail to be evaded. When Mr. Gamgee com¬ 
plains that “ the case has been hitherto misrepresented,” his 
obvious line of duty, both to himself and the Obstetric cause 
he affects to be so desirous of promoting, is to point out and 
prove in what respects it has been so. In place, however, of 
disproving my statements of all he said and did in the case, 
for the truth and accuracy of which I hold myself solely 
responsible, and showing their incorrectness, he conjures up 
a host of imaginary assailants, would make people believe he 
is a grossly injured man, and indulges in unfounded allega¬ 
tions of ideal misrepresentations. He ought to have known 
that a discerning public would protect him, if he had been 
unjustly traduced; but having no confidence in the merits of 
his case, he declined such support. To use, then, his own 
words, I dare to confront him to his face, and tell him that 
my version rests on indubitable evidence, and that his asser¬ 
tion to the contrary has no other foundation than in his own 
envious delusions. Indeed, any one who takes the trouble to 
peruse the rambling and incoherent observations contained 
in his letter, can be at no loss to discover, that the case, as 
related by me, has not only not been contradicted in one 
point by him, but, on the contrary, that every statement I 
made has by his silence been left unrefuted, and substantially 
confirmed. 
It is, 1 am well aware, altogether beyond my province and 
wish to appear as a veterinary controversialist. But in the 
account I published of the case, I confined myself to giving a 
