200 
THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT 
complaint, however, can they make 1 The number of pupils has 
increased. The income has, therefore, been enlarged. The Pro- 
fessors, however, urge that under the charter they are not allowed 
to examine their own pupils. Is this a grievance 1 If it be, then 
Abernethy, Cooper, and Liston, in silence bore the ill ; and what 
such men endured without regret, surely Mr. Spooner or Mr. 
Simonds might put up with. The charter places the Professors 
in the same position which the highest ornaments of the medical 
body occupy, and I cannot see their pride should be offended. 
The Council have behaved with liberality to the teachers. 
Mr. Sewell and Mr. Spooner are members of that body. Those 
gentlemen retain their seats ; but out of this very circumstance 
arises considerations of a most distressing nature. What the 
Council does is virtually and legally the act of each member of 
that body. All alike are responsible ; and none can, by right or 
honour, shrink from the responsibility. This is evident ; a child 
must recognise so plain a principle. Let it be applied. Mr. Sewell 
and Mr. Spooner, being members of the Council, petition against 
the Council, or complain to the Government of their own deeds. 
Acting under the Charter, they seek to destroy the Charter. In 
one view they are foolish, in another they are treacherous. They 
accept appointment to act for, but they hold it to move against. 
They have two characters which cannot be reconciled. If the 
Charter be wrong, why do they lend their names to its support ? 
If it be right, why do they oppose it I Their conduct is contra- 
dictory. I fear it is open to graver charges. When confidence is 
accepted from a public body, the trust, in my opinion, should be 
held sacred to the interest which created it. 
In the zeal of their opposition the Professors seem to have lost 
'sight of reason. It is openly asserted the teachers of the London 
College will establish an examining board and grant diplomas to 
their pupils. The threat is puerile ; no man of character could sit 
on such a board. No member of the medical profession having 
any station to uphold could lend his name to the manufacture of 
quack diplomas. The idea is preposterous. Could it be carried 
out the diploma would be worthless. In no court of law would it 
be recognized. Men practising under such authority would rank 
with farriers. The threat, however, shews the regard the Profes- 
sors entertain for the welfare of the public or the advancement of 
veterinary science. 
Nevertheless, having expressed such a determination, with what 
grace can the Professors, or any acting with them, appear as pe- 
titioners before the Government. They pray a charter, and yet at 
the very time they make the prayer they are openly planning to 
bring the power a charter has created into contempt. They are, 
