A REPLY TO MU. CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER. 105 
case, thirty or thirty-five minutes being the average time occupied 
by Mr. Barth ; and on the days he did not officiate, the Assistant 
Professor, Mr. Spooner, occupied an hour in the dissecting-room : 
this Mr. Cartwright either negligently or wilfully forgets to mention. 
I now turn to “the unkindest cut of all,” the calumnious attack 
on the Professor ; and I know not whether to accuse the author of 
impudence or ignorance, but consider both, combined with arro- 
gance, must have prompted him to make such statements. For an 
unlearned man, as Mr. Cartwright really is, to accuse Professor 
Sewell of a want of knowledge, is absurd, and will be considered 
as such by all members of the profession and the public. In fact, 
all parties here who have read the personal attack on Mr. Sewell 
agree in its being a malicious, scurrilous, and dirty libel, and as 
such, if Mr. Sewell were inclined, could bring the author to a 
proper sense of his position. 
He accuses the Professor of being unfit to hold the situation he 
does — “ Et tu, Brute /” 
The name of William Sewell is a direct contradiction to the in- 
famous statement; a gentleman who has laboured in his profession 
for upwards of forty years, and acknowledged by all members to 
have, in conjunction with the immortal Edward Coleman, raised 
it from its pristine state of ignorance, and placed it in the enviable 
position it now occupies, to be accused by such a man of incom- 
petence ! 
“ Oh ! shame, where is thy blush ?” 
Mr. Cartwright states, that the Professor’s lectures are irregular 
and unsystematic. This assertion I deny in toto. The Professor 
regulates his course as do all other lecturers on surgery; but at the 
Veterinary College he also gives the practice of medicine, which 
in human schools of medicine is a distinct course, Mr. Cartwright, 
perchance, not being aware of this fact. I never had any diffi- 
culty in taking notes of the lectures, and have at the present time 
those of last session delivered by Professor Sewell, and noted by 
Mr. Edward Grey, of Edinburgh. 
But the author having indulged in some fallacious observations 
regarding “ cattle practice,” I feel it my duty to give a direct con- 
tradiction to them. He states that the diseases of cattle were only 
slightly alluded to by the Professor “ as the same disease in the 
cow.” Such is not the case. The Professor took immense pains 
to obtain animals labouring under the then prevailing epidemic; 
and while they were under his care, DAILY noticed to the students 
the symptoms, progress, and treatment of the disease ; made many 
post-mortem examinations ; gave several lectures entirely on the 
subject; visited the large dairies in and around the metropolis; 
