338 LONDON VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. 
ant (whom he does not name) states, that Mr. Vines upon one 
occasion in 1831-2, used insulting and ungentlemanly lan- 
guage.” Ought not the said author to have said who this inform- 
ant is, that the world may have an opportunity of judging how 
far his statements are entitled to credit for veracity? 
The writer also quotes a pretended vote of censure upon Mr. 
Vines. In whose writing, sir, do you think this vote is, and 
by whom signed ? It is in the handwriting, and verified by 
the signature of Mr. Morton ! ! And this vote of censure was 
neither produced, nor heard of, until a fortnight after the resig- 
nation of the late officers ! ! ! Does this need comment? I think 
you will say it does not; but I believe, notwithstanding, it will 
hereafter receive it. One word upon the then Committee of Ma- 
nagement, which is said to have passed the vote of censure. The 
Society was at that time (indeed it was down to within a few 
weeks past) made a close corporation, in which none but the 
aldermen — I beg pardon, the men of office — had influence, and 
the Committee were the tools of Mr. Morton. Are we, then, to 
be surprised at such a vote ? 
We next get a statement that “ four years past on, during 
which Mr. Vines lost no opportunity of ridiculing the proceed- 
ings of the Society, disavowing all connexion with it, and endea- 
vouring to persuade the students from belonging to it, and 
occasionally succeeding in that attempt.” As the paragraph 
quoted happens to be utterly untrue, are we to assume that the 
author of the “ faithful Narrative” has been deceived by his 
informant, or has he volunteered a fib of his own ? I give both 
author and informant credit for contributing a little to this 
statement ; and for their joint (or, as they are fond of the word, 
for their conjoint) edification, I will remind them, that during the 
period lastly alluded to, Mr. Vines, instead of u ridiculing the 
proceedings of the Society,” actually presented some veterinary 
works to it, of which he is the author, and for which he re- 
ceived the Society’s thanks, as evidence of which I now beg to 
refer to the Society’s “ records.” Perhaps when the author of 
the i( faithful Narrative” favours us with another edition, he will 
be kind enough to say, whether the late officers of the Society 
have presented any works of which they are the authors, towards 
the augmentation of the Society’s library ? 
As allusion has been made to the paper of Mr. Rush, I will 
only say, that I fully concur in the opinion attributed to Mr. 
Vines, that it was " one tissue of plagiarism and as I happened 
to be present at the discussion, I can bear testimony to the fact, 
that much of the matter of which Mr. Rush’s paper was com- 
posed, was taken without acknowledgment from papers published 
with Mr. Vines’s signature several years since in The Laneet. It 
