156 MR. CARTWRIGHT’S REPLY TO MR. FISHER. 
sider the situation in which I have been placed, and they will not 
be harsh in their censure. Having been in practice sixteen years 
in this town, I felt a desire to obtain a diploma; not that it was 
required by my employers, for there was scarcely an individual 
who had ever expressed the slightest dissatisfaction, but I natu- 
rally wished to stand as respectably as others in the profession to 
which I belonged, and be what I had professed — not a “ cowleech,” 
thou scamp ! I therefore left for awhile a good practice, as well 
attended to as I could manage to leave it, and a wife and seven 
children, and entered the College in the session of 1839. I was 
there nearly two months in that session, during the greater part of 
which Professor Coleman was ill, and could not lecture, and from 
Mr. Sewell I heard only two lectures. 
I have stated that, in the next session, Professor Sewell only 
gave ten lectures in ten weeks during a part of the course ; at 
other times he was often absent, and the subject of cattle patho- 
logy was shamefully slurred over. Will Mr. Sewell say, that 
there were more than three bona fide lectures on the diseases of 
cattle during the whole of that session] 
Will any one, also, 'deny that there was, during most of the time, 
an inefficient demonstrator] 
Now, I would ask any man who was so situated, whether he 
could be satisfied and pass all this over, knowing, at the same time, 
that so many others were displeased and disgusted ] Besides, it 
must be taken into consideration that mine was not one of those 
“ young heads” that 
“ Make mistakes, for manhood to reform.” 
I knew the value of time, and wished to employ it well ; but I 
found myself miserably disappointed, both in the dissecting and 
the lecture-room. 
In justice to myself I must now give your readers a little infor- 
mation about Mr. George Fisher, who, in the last number of your 
Journal, has thought proper to load me with a great deal of abuse. 
They will then be enabled to judge who is the best qualified to give 
an opinion on the subjects mooted in my last letter. 
Mr. Fisher is the son of a horse-dealer in Bristol — not the worse 
for that — but, up to the time of his entrance at the College last 
session, he never had the least instruction from any one except 
stable-men on the diseases of the horse, much less on those of 
cattle. When at the College, he was one of those fine 
“ Civetted fellows, smelt ere they are seen,” 
and who wished to cut the gentleman. 
