103 
A REPLY TO MR. CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER ON THE 
SUPPOSED ABUSES AT THE ROYAL 
VETERINARY COLLEGE. 
By Mr. Geo. Fisher, Student of the Royal College of St. Pancras. 
Being a constant reader of your valuable periodical, my atten- 
tion has been directed to an article which appears in the January 
number from the pen of Mr. Cartwright, of Whitchurch, entitled 
“ On the Abuses of the English Veterinary College,” and assuming 
to be a disclosure of “ passing events” which have occurred to the 
author. He commences as a philanthropist, introducing his subject 
in an exceedingly playful and poetic strain ; and with some consi- 
derable degree of egotism informs the profession, that he is destined 
to be the oracle “ to point out what he considers would be advan- 
tageous to the student and the public.” 
“ A Daniel come to judgment ! yea, a Daniel.” 
It is strange, “ passing strange,” that so young a member of the 
profession should so soon have discovered “ the fountain to be im- 
pure ;” Mr. Cartwright being, I believe, a veterinary surgeon of 
some eight or nine months’ standing, and not, as he would wish the 
world to believe, “ twenty years had elapsed since he first launched 
into that sea of anxiety and trouble.” Previous to this “ spectator 
of passing events” entering at the College, I am informed his twenty 
years were spent in the humble but not unworthy calling of a far- 
rier ; but his soaring mind not being content with the soubriquet 
of “ cowleech,” he became a candidate for a diploma, which he ob- 
tained. 
Having been a pupil at the College one session with Mr. Cart- 
wright, “I consider myself qualified” to give a direct denial to some 
of his statements; and though it is not my intention to follow him 
through the gross abuse he has been pleased to heap upon two 
highly respected officers of the institution, and which he informs us, 
“ from his own practice, and the writings of others,” he is entitled 
to do, yet consider it my duty to come boldly forward, and state 
what I know to be facts. 
I commenced by paying a tribute to Mr. Cartwright’s philanthro- 
py, for in the first paragraph of his article that noble principle 
shone forth ; but judge my astonishment when, proceeding farther, 
to find that he had departed from his text, and commenced a cow- 
ardly and malicious attack on a gentleman of whom no man could 
in truth speak an offensive word. 
But, previous to the attack on Mr. Barth, he informs us of the 
