594 
THE EDINBURGH VETERINARY COLLEGE. 
sion intimations were sent to all, or almost all, the veterinary 
surgeons in the three kingdoms, one of those very pupils whose 
examinations the reporters state they witnessed “ with pain ,” and 
regretted that, being so “ lamentably ignorant ,” they should be 
allowed to enter the profession, and of whom they have so reported 
to the Council, obtained the prize in competition in a manner pub- 
licly opposed to all the veterinary surgeons in the country, and, for 
ought I know, individually, with some even of the Council them- 
selves. 
From what has been stated, it will be seen that the reporters and 
the Report are at variance with each other. It must be observed, 
that they condemn with wholesale assertions the students as igno- 
rant ; there are no reservations, — no exceptions to the sweeping 
condemnation. They say “ we regretted that so many young men 
should be considered fit to enter on a professional vocation so la- 
mentably ignorant of subjects, a knowledge of which is so indis- 
pensable to the veterinary surgeon.” It is first stated, there were 
no examinations on certain subjects, and, when that is denied, they 
say as much as they did not exactly mean that, but only that they 
were not strictly nor extensively examined, — “ that numbers were 
never asked a single question on any of the subjects mentioned, 
and that those that had any questions put to them gave very indif- 
ferent answers: the whole examination evidently shewing that their 
education on these important points was both limited and defec- 
tive.” It is now admitted that some of the students were examined 
upon these subjects upon which the Report says they were not ; 
this, however, may be considered a very slight and warrantable 
deviation between the reporters and the Report, and I might have 
admitted even such a latitude had the reporters not sworn to the 
truth and correctness of every word. But what will your readers 
say, when they are informed that the reporters attended the ex- 
aminations of only one-third of the students they so sweepingly 
condemn, and that, too, upon oath. Of what value, I ask, is the 
testimony of any man, or set of men, who would thus come forward 
and “ solemnly and deliberately aver” and make oath to a statement, 
without the slightest reservation, regarding “ the whole examina- 
tion ,” — an examination which lasted three days, when they were 
not present quite a day and a half? What reliance can be placed 
on the testimony of men who have sworn to the account they have 
given of the examination of forty-five students, which they say 
“ they have heard with their own ears, have seen with their own 
eyes,” and of which they “ have the testimony of their own con- 
sciences,” when it is known that they only arrived at the com- 
mencement or during the examination of the thirtieth candidate ? 
Yet, although they thus attended and heard only one more than a 
