106 ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS. 
On the motion of Mr. Dray, seconded by Mr. Taylor, a vote 
of thanks was awarded to the donors for their presentations. 
(3) Letters from Mr. Case and Mr. Gerrard wishing to be 
informed whether they were liable for duty on armorial bearings, 
if they used the College arms. 
The Secretary stated that a reply had been sent in the 
affirmative. 
(4) A letter from Mr. Rose enclosing an advertisement from 
the Wellington Journal , Salop, in which a Mr. C. E. Onslow, 
innkeeper, styled himself veterinary surgeon in practice since 
1845, and stated that he was well acquainted with anatomy and 
surgery according to the rules laid down by the Veterinary 
College, and that he was a cattle disease inspector by appoint¬ 
ment. The writer wished to know how Mr. Onslow, not being 
a qualified V.S., could be so appointed. 
The President explained that as the Act of Parliament at 
present stood there was no remedy for such cases. 
Professor Brown further stated that an order of Council pro¬ 
vided that men could be appointed with no qualification other 
than that they had been previously so employed ; and so long as 
the present Act remained in force they had no power to object 
to the appointment of persons who were not Members of the 
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. To a more stringent 
rule there was this objection, that if the local authorities in 
future objected to it they might apply for a further order; 
and if they did he did not know how the Privy Council was to 
escape from the demand for relaxation. So far as the matter 
now stood, the arrangement was as satisfactory as it could be 
made. It would be much better if the original definition had 
been adhered to, but then the difficulty would have had to be 
faced that there were a large number of local authorities who were 
simply incapable of appointing members of the Royal College, 
because they were not to be found in their respective districts. 
He had examined the list and found that there were fifty local 
authorities authorised to appoint local inspectors in whose district 
there was no resident veterinary surgeon. There was indeed one 
county in Scotland where there was no resident member. Under 
those circumstances it was not an unreasonable request that some¬ 
thing should be done to relieve them of a difficulty which was 
otherwise unsurmountable. He should like to add that the local 
authorities had appointed veterinary inspectors from the members 
of the College to a very large extent. In some counties they 
had appointed every member they could find, and thus saved all 
the travelling expenses which otherwise would have been in¬ 
curred. 
The matter then dropped. 
