THE LONDON VETERINARY 
348 
The ground of quarrel is simply this, -that in 1831, an insult, 
accompanied by circumstances of the grossest aggravation, was 
offered to this Society by one of its members. All connexion 
with the Society was for ever abjured in the most offensive terms. 
The Society accepted of this resignation, and passed a unanimous 
vote of censure on the individual by whom it had been thus 
insulted. This is established, beyond the possibility of denial 
or doubt, by the testimony of Mr. Ellis and Mr. M'Taggart ; 
the one a member of the Society at that period, the other the 
chairman of the meeting at which this resignation was accepted, 
and vote of censure passed. 
Can that individual be again received into such a society until 
he has atoned for his error — until he has made the most ample 
apology ? In private life, would not the person be for ever 
disgraced who, until the proper amende had been made, quietly 
associated with him by whom he had been thus insulted ; and, 
in a society of young men training up for an honourable pro- 
fession, is it not more imperiously necessary that the common 
usages of mutual intercourse should be observed? This is the 
simple state of the question. 
The person by whom the Society had been previously outraged, 
after an interval of five years, appears again among them : he 
asserts his right to appear; and he declares that he will come 
whenever he thinks proper. He offers no apology, but his lan- 
guage is that of defiance. His friends propose him as an hono- 
rary associate of that Society, “ the highest title it can confer, 
and wiping off all remembrance of the supposed offence” — the 
record of former transactions still standing on the books — the 
vote of censure still uncancelled. They are thfe numerous party ; 
but rather than witness this degradation and dishonour, the Pre- 
sident, who had occupied the chair in that Society more than 
twenty years, and the Treasurer and the Secretary, resign. Who 
does not applaud them for the act? 
The accuracy of the account of the early transactions, as 
given in the last number of this Journal, has been proved to a let- 
ter ; and the writer pledges himself, that with the change of the 
word “ hooting” to “ hissing” — the insertion of the word “writ- 
ten” before “ apology” in Mr. Sewell’s address — and a slight 
alteration as to the order of some facts, the history of the latter 
part of the affair is substantially correct. Do we wonder at the 
violent proceedings of these young men? We regret them — but 
too many instances occur in society, in which young men, well 
and honourably disposed, are led astray by the artful misrepre- 
sentations of the jealous and the malignant, and are guilty of 
strange and unjustifiable conduct. The cloud after awhile passes 
