MR. VINESES TREATISE ON GLANDERS. 23 
quite as much in violation of the king’s English, as the expression 
of the fellow who, in allusion to an attack he made on another, 
said, “ he was up to him ;” and on being asked what he meant 
by “ being up to him,” why, “ down upon him, to be sure,” said 
he. Mr. Vines might have expressed his meaning by the terms 
vigorous disease and languid disease; or, if he must have words 
that contradicted each other, he should have apologized for 
their use, and explained the exact meaning he intended them to 
convey. 
Mr. Vines asks a question, and a very curious question it is 
for a rational man to ask: he says, “what mortal could, for a 
moment, have supposed it possible, that good and sound pa¬ 
thology could coexist with wrong applications of terms and am¬ 
biguity in language?” Now, at the risk of being thought by 
Mr. Vines an extraordinary “ mortal,” and a “ poor man” too, 
I must beg leave to tell him, that not only do I think it possible, 
but highly probable, too, that this may be the case; and just in 
the same way that the dirt and dross may coexist in the same 
mass with the precious ore. 
Mr. Vines says, “ he (the Reviewer) has very cunningly left 
out the facts which are there brought forward in support of my 
remarks, which he has taken away.” This may be very clear to 
Mr. Vines, but it is very unintelligible to me, for I cannot under¬ 
stand what it is he complains of being taken away. Mr. Vines 
accuses the supposed reviewer, Mr. Youatt, of a very dreadful 
crime; it is no less than “stopping short in the middle of a 
paragraph, and likewise of a sentence .” On reading this, I im¬ 
mediately referred to Mr. Vines’s work, and, finding that there 
was only one sentence contained in this paragraph, it struck me 
that this was as bad as “ killing a man, and depriving him of 
life too.” There is a semicolon between the part inserted and 
the part left out, which is merely a reference to facts that were 
quite unnecessary to print, as the soundness of the doctrine they 
were brought forward to support was acknowledged . 
But Mr. Vines says that, in the part animadverted on, there 
was no wrong application of terms, or ambiguity of language ; 
and to point them out “ / now defy him to do” “ They should 
never throw stones who have windows of glass.” Let us, for a 
moment, refer to the part over which this awful defiance is cast. 
Mr. Vines says, “In common inflammatory diseases the system 
is always in a more or less healthy state; but, on the contrary, 
when those symptoms of disease, which constitute glanders or 
farcy occur, the system is always in a more or less unhealthy 
state.” Now I have frequently (and I am sure others have too) 
met with cases of common inflammatory disease occurring in 
