290 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL 
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS. 
Sitting of March 30, 1849. 
(Quarterly Meeting.) 
Present,—The PRESIDENT, the SECRETARY, the TREASURER, 
Messrs. Ernes, Wilkinson, Burley, James Turner, 
Godwin, Spooner (Professor), Arthur Cherry, Peech, 
Cherry, sen., King, and Henderson. 
The minutes being read and confirmed, the Report from the 
Committee appointed to consider the By-laws was submitted, 
and the labours of the Committee, in the form of an amended code 
of By-laws, was laid before the Council. 
Mr. Arthur Cherry , before the subject was entered on, said that 
much doubt existed, in his opinion, as to the power of the Council 
to enter into the premature discussion of new By-laws; that it 
was well known that he was opposed to this measure, but, at the 
same time, he had no intention of raising a factious opposition: any 
good measure that was proposed he would support. 
The President considered that the Council had the power to 
enter at that time into the consideration of the subject matter before 
them. 
A discussion ensued, in which Messrs. King, Godwin, Spooner, 
James Turner, and Henderson, took part; and it was decided, ulti¬ 
mately, that the Council should discuss the question prior to the 
Report from the Committee being suspended. 
The Secretary then read the Report, after which the various 
sections were taken seriatim: all those which related to the inter¬ 
nal management of the Council, or regulated the duties of the dif¬ 
ferent officers, were passed without any great alteration. Upon 
that portion of the proposed code which related to the examination 
of students, much discussion ensued; previous to which 
The President read two protests from members of the Com¬ 
mittee against the proposed clauses; one from Mr. Pritchard, the 
other from Mr. Arthur Cherry, both nearly alike. 
Mr. Arthur Cherry said that, in consequence of the unavoidable 
absence of Mr. Pritchard, he had been deputed by that gentleman 
to lay before them his opinions, which he had forwarded in a 
written form ; and then read a very concise but powerful expla¬ 
nation of his reasons for protesting against those parts of the pro¬ 
posed clauses under discussion. Mr. Arthur Cherry quite agreed 
with the spirit of Mr. Pritchard’s observations; but as he well 
