698 
THE VETERINARY 
future pursue somewhat different paths, our object will be the 
same, and our mutual respect undiminished and unfeigned. 
As to the probable consequences of our parting, we feel no 
regret. Mr. Friend, in his invaluable paper in the beginning of 
the Number, has set us all right there. The meetings of the 
Association — the amalgamation of the practical man with the 
learner — the debates which include the opinions both of practi- 
tioners and students, while they may be rendered pleasing to the 
former, and not useless to either, will be more beneficial to the 
latter than any other way of acquiring the same information ; 
nay, we have no objection to — we rather see the advantage of — 
publishing separately the records of the proceedings of the Asso- 
ciation. Perhaps we would not absolutely forbid their extension 
beyond this boundary, and yet w r e should not be sorry to find 
that they did not extend farther, for the reputation of our profession 
has somewhat suffered by the promulgation of the errors of the 
student. We may be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, 
but every reader has not that power. 
The last session, it must be acknowledged, was unfavourable 
to the improvement of our art, or the reputation of our meetings. 
Why was this ? Who was here to blame ? It was the almost 
unavoidable consequence of circumstances that had occurred out 
of doors. The unfortunate Circular of Professor Sewell was the 
main cause of the evil. When that Circular was rapidly and to a 
fearful degree interfering with the respectability and even the sub- 
sistence of the country practitioner — when a veterinary surgeon of 
the standing and character of Mr. Friend confesses that “he lost 
the attendance on at least 300 cases that he might fairly have calcu- 
lated upon in the ordinary state of things, and that during the late 
epidemic among cattle, in loss of milk, loss of condition, and loss of 
life, the great body of farmers throughout England were sufferers 
to a much greater degree than they would have been if they had 
been left to have called in their own veterinary surgeon, as they 
most probably would have done, but for this unjust interference,” 
we cannot w 7 onder that veterinary practitioners, every where, looked 
around them with indignation and disgust, and began to feel 
some strange antipathy towards the author or authors of all this 
evil. 
