CENTRAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. 347 
under our charge so far as we possibly can, and “follow up” our case so 
that ultimately we may arrive at some satisfactory conclusions. 
This, gentlemen, would not only educate us to recognise the lesions, 
and be more in unison with each other relative to those found, but, 
I think we should also find that, in some cases at least, our treatment 
would be materially altered, and it would tend to increase our diagnostic 
and prognostic power for similar cases in future. It is useless for me to 
comment further upon the utility of the subject, for it is better 
known to you, perhaps, than myself; so I will pass on to consider what 
conveniences practitioners have for educating themselves in this direction 
after they have left their Alma Mater r These are very few and incon¬ 
venient. Thus the only three sources open to us are—1st, the knacker’s 
yard. 2nd, our client’s stable or yard : and 3rd, our own. The knacker’s 
yards are not very enticing, as far as 1 know them. We usually find 
the knacker puts as many obstacles and objections in our way as 
possible. For instance, I have frequently sent word that I would call 
at a certain time to look at a certain horse, and when I have called, I 
have invariably found the animal already cut up, and in the copper, and 
a few pieces which looked “ rotten” and “black” saved for my inspection, 
with the epithet, “ That’s what’s amiss, Sir.” 
I know that a great number of post-mortem examinations end in the same 
way ; and I will leave you to say how much the wiser we are for such 
information. Even if the carcase is saved, we have to stand about in a cold, 
draughty, wet yard, and be very careful how long we keep the men, and 
what we ask them to do, or we are censured for wasting the men’s time on 
the one hand, and for spoiling the carcase on the other ; and if we are not 
extremely careful what we say, we are scarcely treated with civility, 
and, finally, we have to pay the men well into the bargain, which to most 
practitioners is so much lost; for I am told few practitioners charge for 
post-mortem examinations. Moreover, by resorting to such places we are, 
in my humble opinion, lowering ourselves in public estimation. This we 
cannot very well afford to do at present; this seems to be an age 
when people like to see things done nicely and how much nicer it would 
sound if we told our client, that if he would allow his animal to go to 
the “ veterinary ; post-mortem room” or “ mortuary” (or whatever name 
you care to give it) we would make a 'post-mortem examination. 
As far as using our clients’ or our own stables or yards for such pur¬ 
poses is concerned, I will simply leave it to your own consciences to 
say whether either place is adapted for the purpose. These, then, 
gentlemen, are the means at our disposal for our work. 
Now, must we continue in this dirty, cold, wretched manner, and be 
always dependent upon these uncivil horse-slaughterers for any little 
aid we require in scientific investigation ? or has the time arrived 
when London practitioners, at least, should begin to see a way to 
improvement ? 
Looking at the second question, viz. the means for destroying animals 
affected with contagious diseases, I must say, so far as I am acquainted 
with them, they are very inadequate. If a horse, for instance, suffering 
from glanders, is taken to the knacker’s yard, he is killed, boiled, and sold 
for cats’ meat, in the usual way, and, I believe, the hides and bones 
are also utilised. If I am wrong in this matter I ask you, who have 
had more experience in these matters than I have, to correct me. I will 
not dwell upon the good or evil effects of this method, but I ask you to 
give free ventilation to your valuable opinions upon this matter for the 
benefit of our members. I believe the Privy Council orders are that 
they should be burned, or subjected to air of a certain temperature for 
a fixed time; but is this ever done ? If not, ought we not, for example’s 
