128 REPORT— ISrG. 



of patliological observation and expeviment. These methods are essentially of tlic 

 same order. Tbey vary the circumstances of the phenomenon we Avish to investi- 

 gate, and, by the application of well-known logical rides, we succeed in eliminating 

 the cause of a phenomenon from its indifferent accompaniments. Diseased condi- 

 tions, as has been weU said, are experiments ready at hand, and every physician 

 and surgeon of scientific spirit is from day to day engaged in investigating these 

 conditions, not oiJy with the view of curing his patient, but with the hope of 

 throwing light on complex physiological processes. But direct experiment has the 

 advantage over the observation of pathological effects, that it enables us to vary 

 the conditions of the phenomenon as we desire. Thus the functions of the nerves 

 were ascertained by the experiment of dividing each in turn, and watching the 

 effect. When a function is arrested immediately on the division of a nerve, it is 

 held that that function reqiures the nerve in order to its performance. 



ThK ViVISECTIOX (iL'F.8TI0N. 



I make these remarks regarding the value of the experimental method in phj'- 

 siology, because we cannot forget the attempt whicli has recently been made 

 to restrict us in the use of this important aid in prosecuting our science. I shall 

 not enter again upon the controversy which has raged in this country regard- 

 ing experiments upon animals, because by the passing of the Bill a practical 

 solution of the question has been arrived at in the mean time, and it now 

 becomes us, as good citizens, to do all in our power to carry out the provisions of 

 the act, and to give it a fair trial. I may be permitted to saj', however, that I 

 always recognized the right of the public to agitate on this question if they consi- 

 dered that cruelty was being perpetrated. I hope the day will never come when 

 tales of suffering inflicted either on man or beast will be heard by us with calm 

 indifference. The complaint I have against a section of the public is, that they 

 belie\ed apparently all they were told, and condemned us without waiting for 

 explanation or defence. At the same time, it was not wise to meet this agitation 

 with contempt and scorn ftn- the ignorance of those who carried it on ; and it seems 

 to me that the appointment of a Ro^'al Connnission to investigate the facts of the 

 case was the best thing that coidd have been done by the Government. That 

 Commission was composed of three eminent statesmen — Lord Cardwell, Lord 

 AMnmarleigh, and Mr. Fcu-ster ; of a great lawyer, skilled in the art of obtaining 

 and weighing evidence, Sir John Karslake ; of one of the leading biologists in this 

 country, Professor Huxley ; of a surgeon who knew the relation of physiology to 

 the practical art of treating disease, Mr. Erichsen ; and of a leading journalist and 

 most able thinker, Mr. Ilutton, the editor of the ' Spectator.' Thus composed of 

 men Ukely by character and previous training to ascertain the truth, and to suggest 

 wise procedures, it held numerous meetings, examined witnesses partial and impar- 

 tial, collected a body of evidence of a most interesting and diverse character, and 

 gave in a report which, while it recommended legislation, is generally in t^ivour of 

 lihysiologists. No one can read the evidence in the blue book, and the report 

 to.inded thereon, without coming to the conclusion that the case of those who 

 r lised the outcry against physiologists in this coimtry completely broke down. On 

 considering this report, the Government brought in a Bill, certain of the provisions 

 of which seemed not only oppressive to physiologists, but were calcidated, if carried 

 into law, to impede tht^ progress of science. The members of the medical profes- 

 sion who knew the \olne of the experiuieutal method in physiological research, 

 and who were painfully conscious of the many imperfections of the art due to want 

 of knowledge, were now arotised, and, by a use of the machinery of the ' British 

 Medical Association,' they aided the few physiologists of the cotmtry in making 

 representations to the Government, which were favourably received, and whicli 

 led to important modifications in the bill. That bill has now passed into law, and 

 I appeal to our opponents to desist from further agitation. The case has been tried 

 and the verdict has been given. For my own part I was all along opposed to 

 legislation as being quite unnecessary in the circumstances; but I had, at the same 

 time, that confidence in the common-sense and good feeling of our legislators, as to 



I 



