VACCINATION OF SHEEP. 625 
as Mr. Simonds justly observes, “ knew all about it," and I 
equally maintain that my father's sheep were vaccinated. 
Secondly.—Mr. Simonds says, <( Mr. Overman sent two 
sheep, after being pressed to do so, to the farm of a neigh¬ 
bour, in whose flock the disease existed, and these two sheep 
were both inoculated on that farm; one of them by a farmer 
who, I do not hesitate to say, at that time performed the 
operation of inoculating far better than many so-called vete¬ 
rinary practitioners—I mean Mr. Cooke, of Litcham. Mr. 
Cooke inoculated one of the sheep of Mr. Overman, to which 
I have just alluded; and Mr. Baldwin, a veterinary surgeon 
of Fakenham, inoculated the other. Both sheep took the 
disease, and passed through its several stages, and the result 
was in no way different from what was observed in hundreds of 
other sheep that were unprotected or even those which were 
vaccinated. But Mr. Overman, in his letter to the Norwich Mer¬ 
cury , absolutely denied that these sheep did take the disease." 
Now the real facts are these: my father, far from being 
pressed to send these sheep to his neighbour's flock, did it by 
his own particular wish, and, as he also most correctly stated 
in the Norwich Mercury , these sheep did not take the disease. 
One never ailed anything; the other died from gangrene in 
the wound made by that farmer in inoculating the sheep— 
who, according to Professor Simonds, performed the opera¬ 
tion so well. 
I wish to add, from my own experience, that this is no 
isolated case; for several rams were let by my father to those 
flock-masters who had smallpox in their flock. Of these he 
never lost one; but few of them took the disease, and those 
that did had it in the mildest form. I am only too glad that 
I am able to recollect these circumstances, and also to hold 
the letters which my father wrote at the time, and so refute 
the slur which Professor Simonds has thrown on my father, 
who was known and acknowledged as a man of strict truth 
and integrity, and one who, dealing with plain facts as they 
stood, was not a man to be “pressed into a corner” by the 
Professor. 
I was glad to find that Government had determined to 
test vaccination and inoculation fairly, one against the other, 
but I was surprised that the trial should be entrusted to a 
person so prejudiced in favour of inoculation as Mr. Simonds. 
Before a just conclusion can be arrived at, men unbiassed 
towards either system should be selected for the task. 
I remain, sir, yours obediently, 
Henry Overman. 
Weasenham, Rough am, Norfolk; 
July 81864. 
