DISEASE AMONG EAST MID-LOTHIAN FOXHOUNDS. 99 
the animal.^’ Secondly, Mr. Gamgee refers to the second 
series of the facts which are related by Captain Kinloch in his 
reply to Professor Dick, who gave him the very information 
he was so anxious to obtain by the questions he submitted to 
him, and which Mr. Gamgee, to his great discredit, had 
ignored and left without investigating into in his one-sided 
and one-ideal view of the case, which seemed to have 
paralysed all his inquiries through a mysterious influence. 
But for Professor Dick^s interrogatories, the important in¬ 
formation as to similar attacks having occurred, and that at 
the beginning of the hunting* season, would not have been 
made known, so that Mr. Garagee^s description of the case 
would have continued the baseless fabric of a vision—not as 
a beacon to direct the course of further research, but an ignis 
fatims to mislead and bewilder. Can anything be more 
unscientific and erroneous than the view Mr. Gamgee shadows 
out as to the cause of the spasm vomiting and purging, which 
gave rise in every hound that died to invagination of the 
intestines ? It is not the fact that there was intussusception 
in the bowels of every dog that died. It was certainly found 
in one dog, but did not exist in the bitch which the huntsman 
sent the body of for examination. When intussusception ex¬ 
ists as an idiopathic disease, the emptying of the bowels below 
the invaginated portion may take place, but the continuance of 
purging during the whole course of a disease incontestably proves 
such a state of obstruction could not possibly primarily exist 
from the commencement; and therefore to conceive, as he 
says, that a ligature passed round the small intestine indi¬ 
cated a state analogous to that of the East-Lothian hound in 
the latter stage is a groundless assertion. The solitary case 
of intussusception found was the effect of the increased peri¬ 
staltic motion resulting from inflammatory action in the 
affected organs. Can a more convincing proof be adduced 
of the want of all practical knowledge in its application to a 
c^se be afforded than his belief that it was the impervious 
state of the bowels which rendered every effort to relieve 
abortive, seeing that his conjecture was founded upon a con¬ 
dition of the existence of which he had no evidence whatever 
while the violent inflammation admitted by all and denied by 
none explains the whole case? As to the cause of that 
inflammation Professor Dick has offered his opinion, and has 
brought forward in its support a series of accumulative facts, 
and their relative bearings, which in no other mind but in one 
constituted like Mr. Gamgee’s would any attempt be made to 
gainsay. As Mr. Gamgee could do nothing himself, he is 
determined to withhold from others all credit for their laud- 
