248 
VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. 
the individual, and, at the same time, intended to increase the 
respectability and impoilance of the institution. It gave ho 
patronage; it bestowed no power; it implied no dereliction of 
principle in a single member—no avowed support of negligence 
or of error; it was simply a matter of courtesy, and a determi¬ 
nation to avoid even the appearance of party. 
The election of honorary president came on first. 
The 14th law declared that he should be elected by ballot. 
The secretary, therefore, gave to each gentleman a slip of paper, 
on which he might write what name he pleased. This was the 
usual and fair proceeding. On the examination of the papers 
by the president, it would appear w hom the members, or the 
majority of them, wished to compliment with the post of honour. 
This course, however, was vehemently objected to, and the 
terms, underhand, foisting, packing, trickery, were unsparingly 
applied. The truth was, that, no particular person being pro¬ 
posed, some gentlemen were deprived of the opportunity of in¬ 
dulging in a long train of invective and abuse against Mr. 
Coleman. 
Mr. W. Goodwin indignantly cut this matter short, by pro¬ 
posing that Mr. Coleman should be solicited to become the 
honoraiy president of the veterinary medical society. 
The old story of the culprit at the halberds was immediately 
verified. Dissension arid uproar w^ere increased to a ten-fold 
degree. The epithets of humbug and swindling w ere applied by 
one individual to the motion or the mover, or both; and another 
person, who had declared that he v/ould stick to Mr. Cole¬ 
man, and would not rest until he had hurled him from the si¬ 
tuation which he unworthily filled,’’ started from his seat and 
said, that if there were any supposed impropriety in the use of 
these terms, he begged to share in the full responsibility. 
The objections to Mr. W. Goodwin’s motion seemed to rank 
under two heads. The first w'as, the supposed delinquency of 
Mr. Coleman as it regarded the education of the pupil and the 
respectability of the profession. It was replied that this was 
not the court for the determination of such matters; that Mr. 
Coleman was professor; and the only questions for us to con¬ 
sider were, whether common courtesy did not demand that the 
