454 
ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS* 
many of them had been attending College for five or six years. He 
thought it was very objectionable that this large number of idle students 
should be able to attend the College so long. They obstructed the study 
of others, and also brought discredit on the College. Men like these, as 
long as they could find their parents and friends willing to furnish them 
with money, would continue to attend, and were very indifferent as to 
whether they passed their examinations or not. No doubt, to a certain 
extent, as Professor Williams had said, the question was one for the 
schools entirely, but the Council was the guardian of the profession, and 
regulated the course of study, the examinations, and everything con¬ 
nected with the students; and, therefore, he thought on that one point 
they were in a better position than the schools to decide as to how often 
students should be examined. He begged to propose that the bye-law 
stand as it is. 
Mr. Helmore seconded the motion. In doing so he said that in all 
legislation there were individual cases of hardship, but they must legis¬ 
late for a body, and not for an individual. If the Council had thought 
it best in their judgment to make such a bye-law, then it ought to be 
retained. With all due respect to the gentleman whose case was now 
before the meeting, he thought that such a quality as the want of con¬ 
fidence or extreme nervousness would be a great hindrance to him in his 
profession. 
Mr. Moore said that it was not always the fault of the pupil who was 
rejected, but sometimes it was as much the fault of the professors or 
the examiners; therefore, he thought the rule was a most ridiculous one. 
He knew students who had been rejected in the Edinburgh School 
merely because they were a little nervous, or from some stupidity or 
spite on the part of the examiner. One examiner had got hissed out 
of the place, and his hat knocked over his eyes because he rejected a 
pupil. 
The President said that if Mr. Moore desired bona fide for a Committee 
to inquire into the conduct of the examiners he would second the motion 
with pleasure, but he was not prepared to hear such statements made 
against the conduct or efficiency of the examiners without their being 
substantiated. 
Mr. Fleming , as one of the first examiners who went from England to 
Scotland, said that he had always been treated with courtesy. He was 
not aware of any such occurrence having taken place as that which Mr. 
Moore had stated. Students might be a little rough and sometimes 
rather disposed to be rowdy, but he was not aware of their having 
resorted to such extremely ungentlemanly and unfair means as Mr. 
Moore had mentioned. He should like to know the time and place of 
the occurrence. 
Professor Williams said he could safely say that such a thing had never 
occurred in Edinburgh. 
Mr. Cowie said he had been examiner for twenty-four or twenty-five 
years, and he could honestly say that a fairer and more honest set of 
men he never met in his life as his coexaminers. The examiners made 
every allowance they possibly could for nervousness, and everything, in 
fact, except inefficiency, and he thought Mr. Moore must have been 
misinformed as to what he had stated. 
Mr. Wallis’s motion was then put to the meeting and carried unani¬ 
mously. 
The scrutineers then presented their report, which showed the 
following names with the number of votes for each: 
