12 
MR. WALLEY IN REPLY TO MR. HUNTING. 
would put it to any practical student, past or present, whether 
those who have never seen practice are not the most over¬ 
bearing and patronising in their manner at college as a rule? 
I do not hesitate to say, that those students who have been 
pupils are not only the best workers in the dissecting-room 
and laboratory, but in class too,—and this I can prove by 
facts worth more than a thousand theories or suppositions,— 
and they take more interest in the lectures, inasmuch as they 
can compare what they hear with what they have seen ; they 
ever take the most useful notes, and knowing practice, they 
have more time to study the more abstruse subjects relative 
to their profession. That there are lazy and had practical, as 
well as lazy and bad theoretical students, I admit; but in 
these cases the preceptor cannot be allowed to go scot free from 
blame, and I can agree with Mr. Hunting, that the practitioner 
who takes pupils from base and sordid motives is unworthy 
the name of an honourable man. 
It is the neglect of moral training that makes a bad pupil, 
—giving him no other motives but the lowest to guide him ; 
and Mr. Hunting will find, if he looks, that I have strongly 
descanted upon this point in my paper. If that gentleman 
can show the governors and directors of our College how to 
obtain funds to establish two courses of lectures, one for the 
student before seeing practice, and the other for the student 
after having seen practice, he will confer a great benefit upon 
us all. 
In reference to my paper read before the Liverpool Asso¬ 
ciation, Mr. Hunting says I commence by saying that the 
one grand question is. What profit am I to gain from this 
thing ? He is in error in two ways : in the first place, I do 
not commence by such a proposition, as it occurs some thirty- 
eight lines down, in your published report of my paper, after 
one or two other propositions or questions ; and in the second 
place, he rides rough-shod over the few words (unless he is 
provided from other sources) immediately preceding that pro¬ 
position ; and he adds, ‘‘ this opinion would have been better 
in disguise.” Wherefore ? My words or deeds are not yet so 
dark, I hope, that they should require the flimsy veil of dis¬ 
guise to hide them, neither am I afraid that they should see 
the light; but rather it was that they should be seen and 
sifted that I wrote them. My remarks relative to the im¬ 
proper use of education were simply to show how even that 
boon may be diverted to bad purposes,—not to terrify, or be 
a bugbear to any one. 
Lastly, my “ splendid programme” is rendered absolutely 
useless by Mr. Hunting’s sweeping assertion, that it is utterly 
