THE EDINBURGH VETERINARY COLLEGE. 455 
the curriculum of the Edinburgh College is owing. The following 
are the exact facts of the case : — 
Last summer (1844), having been informed that Professor Dick 
intended to have his pupils taught chemistry, I had several con- 
versations with him on the subject. He informed me, that for 
years he had wished to have them instructed in that science, 
but that he had partly been dissuaded from it by persons to whose 
judgment on this subject he was willing to defer, and partly had 
been prevented by difficulties which he could not overcome. He 
added, that he was resolved to let nothing stand in the w r ay of 
his wishes being fulfilled during the approaching session (1844) ; 
and that he had made arrangements with Dr. Fyfe to have his 
pupils taught by him. Before the session commenced, however, 
Dr. Fyfe was elected Professor of Chemistry in King’s College, 
Aberdeen, and Mr. Dick’s views in regard to him were frustrated. 
1 undertook, in consequence, to instruct the pupils of the Edinburgh 
Veterinary College in chemistry, and they attended a special 
course of lectures addressed only to themselves. 
The arrangement was between Mr. Dick and me, not between 
me and the Highland Society. The latter body were not informed 
of its having taken place till it was concluded between us, and took 
part in the matter no farther than to express their satisfaction at 
learning that their Professor was securing for his pupils a know- 
ledge of chemistry. 
It was by Mr. Dick I was engaged to lecture. To him alone I 
was responsible for the mode in which I taught the class, and he 
was the only party on whom I had any claim as to remuneration. 
In these circumstances the reader can judge how ludicrously inac- 
curate, and altogether unjust, the statement in the report of the 
Veterinary College is, which represents Mr. Dick as having pro- 
tested against his pupils being taught chemistry, the very branch 
in which he had taken the greatest pains to have them instructed. 
Mr. Dick’s protest, which I heard, had reference to a different 
matter. He protested as a matter of right (whether justly or not I 
do not say) against his pupils being examined in chemistry more 
fully than on previous years ; and against ignorance of that science 
as a special branch of study being made the ground of rejecting 
candidates otherwise well qualified. The latter part of the protest, 
I think, was quite reasonable (although the view which is taken 
of it has nothing to do with the question before us) in reference 
to young men, the great majority of whom had attended only one 
course of lectures on chemistry. 
I beg farther to mention, that the Highland Society has already 
declined to accept the compliment which the Council of the Royal 
College of Veterinary Surgeons sought to pay it at the expense of 
