shewing that their education on these important points was both limited and defective. We witnessed these things with pain. We regretted that so many young men should be considered fit to enter on a professional vocation so lamentably ignorant of subjects, a knowledge of which is so indispensable to the veterinary surgeon; and we expressed our opinions and feelings to the Council in words which Dr. Mercer declares to be entirely false. But we heard with our own ears, we saw with our own eyes, we have the testimony of our own consciences, substantiated by gentlemen who sat at the same table, who took part in the same examination with Dr. Mercer, and whose rank, station, and character in the medical world entitle them to the confidence of the public. And what is the result? Examiners and pupils, medical men and veterinary surgeons, have one and all given their testimony to the truth of our statements. Nay, more, Dr. Mercer's own letter proves the truth of our Report; for if the pupils have been invariably and rigidly examined on chemistry, &c., why should Professor Dick have objected to his students being examined on chemistry? Let Mr. Burn Murdoch, Chairman of the Veterinary Committee, return the answer :-" Professor Dick objected to chemistry being recognised on that occasion, as a necessary part of the examination, on the ground that it had not been customary to do so." Does Dr. Mercer mean to assert that we do not know what an examination ought to be?—and that we are not capable of expressing with truth that which we both saw and heard? Does he mean to state that we have set down from malice and design that which did not take place? Does he mean to declare that the pupils of the Veterinary College of Edinburgh were extensively examined on organic and inorganic chemistry?—that they knew the composition, and could explain the decomposition, of the different substances used in veterinary medicine?-give the names, properties, and places whence obtained, of the different vegetable productions we employ ?-were asked to explain the physiology of the various structures in ruminants, and the nature and proper mode of treating the diseases to which they are liable? If he does, let him come before that tribunal to which he has appealed, and substantiate his remarks. Let him bring his witnesses before the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons there will we meet him; there will we give evidence to prove that we have stated the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We are, Sirs, your obedient servants, A LETTER bearing the signature of James Mercer, M.D., F.R.L.S.E., Lecturer on Anatomy, &c. and Member of the Edinburgh Veterinary Examining Board, having appeared in the Mark Lane Express and now in your periodical, a few remarks on some portion of its contents become necessary. My attention had been. called to it on its publication in the Mark Lane Express; but as I am by no means proud of engaging in a newspaper controversy (partly, perhaps, because not being a Lecturer on etceras), I had no particular object in taking that means of advertising myself to the public, I should not have replied to it had not my colleagues in some parts of the transaction thought it desirable that my answer as well as their own should appear through the same media as the charges brought against us. The Veterinarian, however, having also become the vehicle of communication, the veterinary profession becomes interested in the affair, and it is but fair that they should be set right in the matter. The first part of the letter I have left my colleagues to reply to, feeling very certain that either of them is quite capable of setting the question of veracity at rest, to the satisfaction of the profession, if not to the satisfaction of Doctor Mercer. In my report of the examinations at Edinburgh, of this year, I stated that Professor Dick protested against chemistry being required to be taught to his class. I made a minute of the protest at the time it was made, fully believing it to be correct. It is just possible I may have misapprehended a single word, namely, taught for examined; and the authority of Mr. Burn Murdoch, in some remarks he made to the Highland and Agricultural Society, would tend to make it appear it was so; the protest it seems, from that gentleman's shewing, was not against chemistry being taught to the class, but against the class being examined on chemistry. The difference between the two statements, in their practical effect, is rather a fine-drawn one; for whether a protest is entered against a subject being taught, or against the pupils taught being examined as to their knowledge of it, the result as a guarantee to the public will be found to be the same; for in the present day no man who is taught a particular subject has a right to expect to have it taken for granted that the subject is properly understood, unless means are afforded of testing him on it. But the learned Doctor not only asserts that Professor Dick did not protest against chemistry being required to be taught to his class, but that he actually awarded a medal to that student who in the first year of his studies should undergo the best examination on chemistry. Now to this assertion I give a "most unqualified contradiction." Professor Dick did not give a medal to the student who should undergo, in his first year, the best examination in chemistry. I had not the pleasure and satisfaction of having two colleagues to bear me out on this occasion, but I find no despicable one in the Report of the examinations given in The Veterinarian for June: that Report, after alluding to the medals given by the Highland and Agricultural Society, two of which were for chemistry, not one only, as mis-stated by Doctor Mercer, states, "Professor Dick also awarded the following prizes: Silver medals to Mr. Bowman, for the second best anatomical preparation; and to Mr. William Walker, by the united suffrages of his fellow students, for the best answers and general proficiency exhibited at the public weekly examinations of the class;" and then mentions others awarded by Dr. Wilson for proficiency in chemistry. This report was evidently drawn up by the authorities of the Edinburgh Veterinary College themselves, or by some of their friends and coadjutors. In charity"-I quote this opportune expression from the doctor's own letter-" in charity," it is to be hoped it did not emanate from the author of that letter himself; as, if it did, so great is the discrepancy between these two statements, that well might the worthy Professor exclaim, as so many have done before him, "The Lord deliver me from my friends, and I will defend myself from mine enemies." A mis-statement on the ground of mis-apprehension of words spoken is neither pleasant nor desirable; but a mis-statement on a matter of fact, that might have been easily verified, is not only more condemnable in itself, but it is just possible that it may be supposed to give colouring to other matters mixed up with it. A letter from Dr. Wilson, in The Veterinarian of this month, is much more deserving of attention, and, with one exception, I have perused it with some satisfaction; and I consider that both the veterinary profession and himself are much indebted to the mistake it would appear I have committed, as it has been the cause of much valuable information having been elicited. The profession, on this side of the Tweed at least, if not on the other, was not aware, and I most certainly, up to the moment of reading his letter, was not aware that he had been engaged, either by the Highland and Agricultural Society or by Professor Dick, to lecture on chemistry to the Clyde-street School. I understood at the time that his class had been thrown open, as those of Dr. Knox and others had so liberally been, to veterinary students, and that he had given medals to those who best attended his lectures. Not a word was said at the examinations that could lead to the conclusion, either that the course of lectures given, or the medals awarded to those attending it-awarded by and inscribed with the name of Dr. Wilson-were provided at the expense of Professor Dick. I am but too happy to learn they were so, and can scarcely regret an error that has caused such very gratifying information to be laid before the profession. With a single exception, therefore, as before stated, namely, that of the illiberal and unfounded charge of "systematic and intentional concealment," a charge quite unworthy of Dr. Wilson to make, and too contemptible for more than a mere denial, I have perused his communication with much information, and with considerable though not unmixed satisfaction. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, VOL. I. 7 Z E. N. GABRIEL. RABIES IN A MARE, COW, AND HEIFER. By Mr. J. MANNINGTON, V.S., Uckfield, Aug. 20, 1845. Dear Sirs,-SEEING in the public journals an account of some animals being attacked with rabies in the neighbourhood of Cuckfield, I rode over there a few days since, and from Mr. Hallett, the owner of the diseased animals, received the following particulars, which, although hastily thrown together, I hope will not be deemed by you altogether unworthy of a place in the VETERinary Record. In the appended description there are points that will awaken both regret and pity; and, from causes which are sufficiently obvious, it is necessarily imperfect. To the Editors of "The Veterinary Record." I am, dear Sirs, On the 30th of June last, a dog belonging to Mr. H. presented the following symptoms: He howled very much, dragged himself on his belly, then rolled on the ground as if in a fit, and was only roused from this state by his master's voice, coming to him when called, and retreating when scolded; thus shewing that the dragging on the ground was not caused by paraplegia, which is a frequent accompaniment of rabies in dogs. When left to himself, he would recommence howling and rolling, but shewed no inclination to bite. Supposing him to be mad, he was shot an hour or two after the first appearance of the attack. On July 4th, as a young man was walking in the road from Mr. H.'s house, a strange dog met him, and on his attempting to pat the animal, he was bitten through the hand by him; the dog then ran away towards the field in which the horses and cattle were turned out. It is even at this time not known to whom the dog belonged or what has become of him, as he was not seen afterwards; and I am inclined to believe that this was the animal which has caused so much mischief, and not Mr. H.'s dog. About three weeks afterwards, namely, on the 26th July, a cart mare, after having worked all day as usual, was turned out on another farm of Mr. H.'s, some distance from his residence. She was seen grazing on the 27th, at 11 A. M., very |