158 MR. CARTWRIGHT’S REPLY TO MIL FISHER. 
All the cows brought to the College last session, I think, were 
four, — two with the epidemic, one with a fungoid tumour on the 
eye, and one for something else. With the two first you may well 
imagine we had lots of experiments, and, as a matter of course, 
in a short time, as “ many post-mortem examinations.” As to the 
operation of extracting of the eyeball, I shall never forget it. The 
Professor was fully half an hour in taking it out, she being only held 
in a great measure by the horn and nose for a long time, and in a 
standing posture, and, of course, was backing all over the yard. 
On the next day she was taken away, never more to be seen or 
heard of by us. The other was brought over night, and taken 
away on the next morning ; and it was aptly remarked “ that she 
was too good for college doctrine.” 
As to the circular, I look upon it as one of the most thoughtless 
and imprudent acts of his life, and which, in my opinion, has drawn 
down more ire from veterinary surgeons than any thing he ever 
did, unless his tenacity in clinging to the title and emoluments of 
Lecturer on Cattle Pathology. As to the lectures — few, few in- 
deed — that he delivered on the epidemic, he acknowledged him- 
self that he gained his information from Mr. Staveley, veterinary 
surgeon, now conducting his establishment at Islington, in bare- 
faced defiance of the law which prohibits all out-door practice. 
He then goes on to state, that, had Mr. Cartwright possessed 
common candour, he would have pointed out these “ abuses 
while at the College, or have complained to the Professor in a gen- 
tlemanly manner, and then I am sure redress would have been 
afforded him.” 
This was written somewhat hastily, and without any considera- 
tion of the inevitable consequence to be drawn from it. It com- 
pletely exculpated me from having made any false accusations, for 
it clearly acknowledged that abuses did exist, and redress might 
have been afforded had I personally applied to the Professor. 
In another place Mr. F. observes, “ Mr. Cartwright then proceeds 
to state that the demonstrations sometimes occupied only ten mi- 
nutes” (ajq and he might have said that they were occasionally given 
only every third or fourth day) ; he then adds that “ he,” Mr. F., 
“ certainly attended demonstrations regularly last session, and never 
found such to be the case ; thirty or thirtyffive minutes being the 
average time occupied by Mr. Barth ; and on the days he did not 
officiate, the Assistant Professor occupied an hour in the dissecting- 
room : this Mr. Cartwright either negligently or wilfully forgets to 
mention.” Now I peremptorily ask Mr. Fisher, and I appeal to 
the students also, how he could for shame make such “fallacious 
observations.” He knows quite well that it was only during the 
former part of the session that Mr. Spooner voluntarily demon- 
