556 
VKTERTNARV AFFAIRS 
Reply to Mr. A. Carmichael, by Mr. T. W. Mayer. 
Sir,—My esteemed friend, Mr. Youatt, has forwarded to me a 
letter of your’s, addressed to him, dated the 13th of July. As a 
member of the deputation referred to in that communication, it is 
not out of place in me to offer for your consideration a few remarks. 
In the first place, I regret to find that you should have proceeded 
to charge the deputation with “ narrow-mindedness,” injustice to 
the Edinburgh Veterinary School, a want of courtesy towards 
the graduates of that institution, and to insinuate that we designed 
by a side-wind certain exclusive privileges—until you had made 
yourself master of the subject of which you complain. 
If you had done so, you would have been informed that Scotland 
has always separate acts of parliament framed for her government 
—separate orders in council, and proclamations for her regulation; 
and that her institutions never have, and never can be, included 
or mixed up in an English charter. 
The graduates of the Royal Veterinary College request the go¬ 
vernors of that Institution to petition for a charter—for what 1 In 
order that that College and its members may be made a legalized 
corporate body, and the regulations of that College fixed, determined, 
and placed under proper and efficient management; which charter, 
if obtained, would enable us to petition parliament for certain pri¬ 
vileges. In all this there is nothing “ exclusive”—there is nothing 
“ narrow-minded”—there is no injustice done to any one. 
If the Scottish graduates desire the same privileges as we do, 
they must petition for them; and, if we obtain our’s, it will be given 
to them as a matter of course on their application; but they cannot 
by law be included in our charter, or in our acts of parliament. 
I am able to state to you, that Professor Dick was informed of 
our intended application for a charter of incorporation, and, so far 
from being actuated by the same spirit you have manifested, he 
was quite the contrary. 
It is not my intention to touch on the other points alluded to in 
your letter. Mr. Youatt has ably repelled them ; and in the re¬ 
marks he has made I perfectly coincide. 
I trust that, after this explanation, you will exonerate the depu- 
