THE VETERINARY COLLEGE. 
173 
of a gentleman who had not passed his examination, and omitted 
that of another who had passed it? He would have done no 
such thing: it is preposterous to think that he would. This 
is sufficient, I think, to establish my first point, that “ A Stu¬ 
dent’s” communication is contrary to truth. 
I now pass on to the second, viz., that it is contrary to justice. 
Is that justice, which omits one student’s name and inserts that 
of another, to the detriment of a deserving young man ? What 
could have been the object of “ A Student” to insert one gentle¬ 
man’s name that had not passed his examination, and to leave 
out that of a gentleman who was inferior in talent to none that 
passed along with him ? It could not have been either the love 
of truth or justice. What was it, then? It was, from beginning 
to end, a desire to misrepresent that prompted A Student” to 
send this communication to The Veterinarian. 
Having now, I think, proved that the assertions of A Stu¬ 
dent” are contrary to truth and justice, I will state what parts 
of his paper are correct, and what are not. That Professor Cole¬ 
man did address the students the day after the examination, is 
correct; that he did pay the compliment to the gentlemen stated 
by A Student” (so far as it does not refer to the names) is like¬ 
wise correct;—that he mentioned Messrs. Read, Gibbs, Garret, 
and Molyneux, is 7iot correct: Professor Coleman mentioned no 
natnes. 
The facts are these:—Messrs. Garrett, Molyneux, ParJceSy and 
Gibbs, passed their examination at the time “ A Student” states. 
A week afterwards there was another examination, at which 
Messrs. Read, Taylor, and Cade, obtained their diplomas; and 
it was between the two examinations, and when Mr. Read had 
not passed, that Professor Coleman made his address, expressing 
himself in general terms, and making no mention of names. 
Such are the simple facts which ^‘A Student” has mis¬ 
represented ; and he has neither acted with truth nor justice 
towards those who are immediately concerned in the transaction. 
But there is another part of his letter which I shall not pass 
over in silence. That the class is composed of industrious young 
men is correct; but as regards the purchase of subjects, ike., 
every pupil is at liberty to buy his own subject: it is only the 
subjects for the use of demonstration that are bought at ilia joint 
expense of the pupils. 
As to the satisfaction that it produces, I know not. If I may 
be allowed to express my own feeling on the subject, I was per¬ 
fectly satisfied, and I think it was much more aj)provcd of tlian 
the committee of pupils last season. 
As “ A Student’s” letter has been {)rovcd to be wrong in one 
part, so, I think, he is wrong in this. That there are errors, not 
