98 DISEASE AMONG THE EAST-LOTIIIAN FOXHOUNDS. 
at the same time so wholly absorbed with the idea of conta¬ 
gion being the only source of the propagation of disease, as 
to be unable to divest himself of the influence of this favorite 
theory, and to enter into a dispassionate consideration of the 
various causes which modify attacks of the different affections 
to which cattle are liable, and particularly to such as are con« 
nected with and dependent upon changes of feeding, espe¬ 
cially from mild farinaceous substances, to those derived from 
the animal kingdom, which are of a more stimulating nature, 
and are more difficult of digestion. 
In conclusion, I have only to remark, with reference to Mr. 
Gamgee^s second paper, that it appears to me altogether un¬ 
called for, for it does not contain one word of additional 
information, but is a mere rambling effusion of personal 
invective and professional pique, that another’s opinion and 
skill had been preferred to his own wordy and incongruous 
tirade. He tells his readers he found the subject a mystery, 
and they can tell him that he left it a greater one, and enve¬ 
loped it with new difficulties of his own making. From over- 
w’eening and insolent self-conceit, he cannot conceal that his 
real motive for writing was merely to find fault, and not to 
refute error or disseminate know ledge; and that such is the 
case plainly appears from wdiat he says, viz., that I had 
devoted an evening over Professor Dick’s long article, and 
had read to the end of it, and the whole case, but discovered 
I had spent so much valuable time to no purpose.” His 
readers will have no difficulty to discover that he w as drawing 
largely from himself in describing another, and had graphi¬ 
cally illustrated the nature and effect of his own writing, the 
perusal of which they had found a most unprofitable task. 
He adds—‘^Not the shadow^ of a new fact does Professor 
Dick’s account contain, w hile his speculations and conclusions 
have either no reference to the case in point or are drawn 
from fictitious data.” The very reverse of this is the truth, 
as Professor Dick deals only with the new’ facts of the case, 
W'hich Mr. Gamgee has wdiolly overlooked and left unnoticed, 
and conjured up shadows which have no reference to the 
case, and are drawn from fictitious data—the phantoms of 
his own brain. Mr. Gamgee makes two egregious mis-state¬ 
ments. He says—“ Professor Dick makes no account of two 
items of information conveyed to him in his published letters. 
H e refers first to the death of the bitch, the carcase of which 
the huntsman sent him. In place of blinking the case, the 
Professor explains what he considers its death arose from, 
and has given Dr. Thomson’s very full and minute report of 
the post-mortem appearances and chemical examination of 
