LONDON VETERINARY MEDICAL SOCIETY. 339 
is not the fact that Mr. Vines sarcastically or in any way ex- 
ceeded the bounds of fair observation and discussion ; and the 
statement that he replied to Mr. Spooner and Mr. Ferguson by 
gross abuse is grossly untrue. It is true that Mr. Vines was 
informed, or rather misinformed, that he was not a member, and 
that he u affirmed” that he was; but it is not true that there 
was some or any “ uproar and confusion,” save what emanated 
from Mr. Rush and a few partisans of Mr. Spooner, to whom 
Mr. Vines is an eye- sore ; and it is true, that “ language which 
would have disgraced the lowest assembly has been “ too freely 
used but, alas ! for the author of the i( faithful Narrative,” it 
was only used by the clique whose cause he now encumbers 
with his help ; and even on the following day Mr. Rush used 
language to Mr. Vines, in the clerk’s office at the College, which, 
if it had not been beneath contempt, should have subjected the 
utterer of it to a cooling in a horsepond. 
It is not true that the Committee made a communication to 
Mr. Vines ; but a communication was made by Mr. Morton, to 
which Mr. Vines replied ; and if this impartial author, who doubt- 
less knows the contents of such reply, had set it forth, I should 
not now have to trespass on your valuable columns. The “ im- 
partial author” is not a good logician : by attempting to prove 
too much, he has proved nothing ; for can it be supposed that if 
Mr. Vines had misconducted himself, the great majority of the 
pupils would have hooted the Committee of Management out of 
the dissecting room ? It is utterly untrue that any such hooting 
took place. It is true that a special meeting was called, and that 
“ the Committee was exonerated from having acted partially to- 
wards Mr. Vines,” and for this reason, i.e. because a vast majority 
of the meeting saw most clearly that the Committee had been 
imposed upon by misrepresentation, and, in consequence, four 
honourable and spirited gentlemen of the Committee resigned. 
I wonder this impartial author could even do Mr. Vines the 
justice of stating, as he does, the well-merited eulogium passed 
upon him by Professor Coleman ; and I do not believe he would 
have stated it, but for a sinister object, which is to me apparent 
in other parts of this faithless Narrative. 
It is very true that Mr. Sewell did, previously to his resigna- 
tion, make the speech, or rather a much stronger speech, than 
that attributed to him ; and I think his speech is much to be re- 
gretted, because, even admitting, for argument’s sake only, that 
something of an unpleasant nature did emanate from Mr. Vines 
in 1831, giving offence to the Society, the Society, by re-electing 
him an honorary associate (the highest title it can confer), clearly 
wiped off all remembrance of the supposed offence ; and Mr. 
Sewell’s resentment must therefore look like private and personal 
