838 
MR. FEARNLEY’s TUITION. 
Mr. Fearnley says, “ I will not dwell upon the ridiculous 
spectacle of a man, learned in the subject he himself teaches, 
coming before his class and reading written matter which he 
has himself copied from sources accessible to his students, 
and which matter will have to be carefully read, perhaps, 
over and over again by these students before it is impressed 
on their memories ? or, it may be, gives extempore what he 
knows of the subject. Let him know his subject never so 
well, and his mode of communicating his knowledge he fault- 
less, he is wasting his time and the time of his hearers when 
they have everything he can tell them printed legibly and 
intelligibly in their text-books.” 
Now, as Mr. Fearnley studied and graduated at the 
Edinburgh Veterinary College, is it not reasonable to infer 
that his bitter experience of e<r the foolish time-and-patience 
wasting custom of profuse lecturing” was gained there, 
and there alone? and that “a man” typifies one or more 
of the four professors who occupied the several chairs at 
that time, viz. Professors Dick and Strangeways, Drs. 
Dalzell and Young, regarding either of whom to impute 
the qualifications of “ a man” is, on his part, as unfeel- 
ing as it is untrue. And untrue, as typical of either of 
these, his description undoubtedly is, as I defy him to name 
.the authors from whose works Dick’s practical pathology, 
Strange way’s elaborate and accurate anatomy, Dalzell’s fluent 
chemistry, or Young’s concise and pointed physiology — was 
copied. Does Mr. Fearnley really mean to aver that the time 
he spent in listening to lectures on such subjects was wasted, 
and that he derived from them nothing besides that which was 
“ legibly and intelligibly printed in his text-books ?” I think 
he cannot mean what he has said, else why did he voluntarily 
compel himself to “ sit dumb” (undoubtedly a severe test on 
the patience of one so loquacious) for several extra hours 
every week, by attending the majority, if not all the pri- 
vate lectures, for be it remembered, attendance on these 
was not compulsory but optional. He says, “ he does not 
wish to call in question the use of our lecture theatres, but 
their abuse but if it be all abuse which he in his letter calls 
attention to, I would humbly ask, in case of that abuse being 
swept away, as it ought, what shall be their further use ? It 
would surely be a misnomer to call a room a “ lecture thea- 
tre ” in which no lectures are delivered, and which is in effect 
the reform he in his letter advocates. 
But admitting that lectures are for the most part compiled 
from the works of authors, will Mr. Fearnley even then 
affirm that they are all a “ farce?” A student in a lecture 
