598 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL 
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS. 
Sitting of September 7, 1 846. 
Present — the President, the Secretary, Messrs. J. Turner, 
Ernes, Cherry, sen., Mayhew, W. Arthur Cherry, end 
Henderson. 
The minutes of the last sitting being read and confirmed, the 
Secretary opened the business of the evening by stating that the 
time had arrived when a reply from the Council to the letter ad- 
dressed to them from Mr. Mark Phillips, of the Home Office, 
asking for the result of the interview between a deputation of the 
Council and Mr. Manners Sutton, held in November last, and in 
which it was stated that no entry' could be found in the Home 
Office of the result of that meeting, and generally opening afresh 
the question of the alterations that were sought to be made in the 
Charter ; and a reply to this letter having been deferred from time 
JuO time, pending the result of the interview with the Governors, 
and the consideration of their proposed alterations, such having 
been disposed of, he now proposed that a short introductory letter 
should be sent by the President, together with three documents, 
viz. 1st, the report from the deputation to the Governors of the 
Royal Veterinary College; 2d, the Charter, and the alterations 
as proposed by that body ; 3d, the reply of the Council to those 
proposed alterations. He then read a sketch of a letter to accom- 
pany these documents. 
Mr. Ernes thought that the proposed letter was not sufficiently 
strong ; that a petition should also be sent, praying that the present 
Charter be not interfered with. 
Mr. J. Turner supported this view, considering that some steps 
of this kind should be taken. 
Mr. Mayhew also strongly supported the same, urging that the 
Council ought to memorialize the Government, and that he thought 
the best time to do so was that of sending the reply to Mr. Mark 
Phillips’ letter. 
Mr. W. Arthur Cherry objected to the sending of three docu- 
ments only; that the question expressly asked by Mr. Mark 
Phillips was not at all noticed, namely, the result of the deputa- 
tion’s interview with Mr. Manners Sutton in November last ; this 
we were bound to give, if we gave any answer at all : further, that 
it was bad policy to mix up two distinct questions, for a memorial 
and a reply to a letter were distinct, and the mixing up the two 
