VETERINARY PROFESSION V. ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE. 795 
tion as only worth two or three shillings, and in cases of 
treatment of disease at even a less value. 
“ I trust you will have a full meeting, and that some move 
will be made with the view of doing away with such a per¬ 
nicious system of competition. 
“ Yours very faithfully, 
“ Joseph Woodger. 
f ‘ To T. Moore, Esq., 
“ 11, Upper Berkeley Street/’ 
Mr. Barker understood that it was decided that some 
gentlemen should be selected to obtain an interview 
with the Governors of the Royal Veterinary College and 
explain matters, and he thought that would be the proper 
course. 
The Chairman explained nothing definite was arrived at, 
only that another meeting should be held to further consider 
what steps should be taken. 
Mr. Geo. Fleming was sorry to notice the absence of some 
of the leading men who must be with the movement, and 
deeply regretted they did not turn up. Some steps should 
be taken to bring the subject to the notice of the Governors 
of the R.V.C.; and as the President of the Royal College of 
Veterinary Surgeons was the representative head of the pro¬ 
fession, and the general body of practitioners was interested, 
the head of that body should be applied to as laid down bv 
the chairman, according to the powers conferred on us bv 
Bye-law 16; indeed it was the only way—at least, legal way. 
A special meeting of the profession being held, we have the 
opinion of all; and then a deputation might be elected to 
rvait on the Governors, which would carry more weight and 
be received better than a deputation selected at this meeting, 
of which it might be said it did not represent the profession. 
The former case it could not be so said. As to the fees, time 
has made a great difference in the value of money. Two 
guineas do not go so far now-a-days as it did three quarters 
of a century ago. The amount of work done now does not 
bear comparison with that done seventy-five years ago. The 
system is not good for the profession, and there could be no 
doubt it was degrading, demoralising, and unjust, and if it 
could be shown it was good for the students the profession 
might look at it more leniently, but when it is known the 
students rarely get the benefit of any of the cases, and that 
the teachers’ time is taken up with the subscribers it must 
be pernicious. If the subscribers were poor and could not 
afford to pay, well and good, but it was not so; they were the 
