162 THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE 
trustworthy as the above named, and who have 
given a fair share of time, trouble, and genius to the 
settlement of this dispute, and yet who do not accept 
the views of the germ-theorists. Why not have 
placed either M. Fremy or M. Trécul on the Com- 
mission of the French Academy? It would be well 
in the interests of science rather than of individuals, 
if one, at least, of the Commission were not a germ- 
theorist.” 
An able writer in the Contemporary Review, for 
April 1877, spoke in much the same terms. He 
said :— 
“Those who remember the history of a former 
French Commission on the very same subject, on 
which two of the present commissioners served, may 
be excused for doubting whether the guarantees for 
a fair and open investigation which were refused to 
MM. Pouchet, Joly, and Musset, will be conceded to 
an Englishman who presumes to question the in- 
fallibility of M. Pasteur. The three French savants 
who then disputed Pasteur’s views were placed under 
such restrictions by the course of procedure laid 
down for them by the commissioners that they 
considered it due to their dignity to retire. The 
abortive commission ended, as it is likely this will 
end, in an ex parte hearing. It is possible, indeed, 
that MM. Dumas and Milne Edwards may think 
that more generosity is due to a foreigner who 
ventures to appear before a tribunal from which 
every one who inclines to his side of the controversy 
has been eliminated. If they are disposed to allow 
of a fair programme, and to concede the guarantee 
