7 28 The Recent “ Vivisection ” Case . [December, 
more appropriate term — was, at the instance of the 
“ Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from 
Vivisection” — a body whose animus and whose funds may 
be estimated from the faCt that they engaged three counsel, 
a Q. C. and two juniors, to apply for the summons, a task 
which could have been quite as well performed by a solicitor, 
at the cost of one guinea. 
As a matter of course the astonishment excited by the 
painful news was great. It seemed incredible that a man of 
the well known standing of Professor Ferrier, needless and 
insulting as he must deem the ACt, would put himself 
within the grasp of the law by any negleCt or violation of its 
provisions. Surely, it was said, if the learned Professor 
found it necessary in the course of his researches to prove 
any point by experiment upon a living animal, he would 
have applied for the usual certificate. An eminent medical 
contemporary, indeed, remarked that as the “ Society” in 
question had not yet been able to catch any experimentalist 
committing himself, they had come to the conclusion that 
they must at any rate prosecute somebody by way of satisfy- 
ing that part of the British public which has been persuaded 
to supply them with the needful funds. Our own version 
of the motives of the prosecution — as will be seen below — 
ascribes better strategy to the Anti-Viviseftionists. 
The case came on for hearing on November the 17th, and 
in spite of the three counsel and of a great expenditure of 
sophistry, collapsed utterly. The summons with, what out- 
side of legal circles would be deemed gross mendacity, 
charged Professor Ferrier with “ having on August \th and on 
divers other days thereafter , performed experiments calculated 
to give pain to two monkeys, and in violation of the restric- 
tions imposed by the above Aft.” For all this it was 
admitted by the prosecuting counsel that the experiments 
upon the monkeys were performed six months ago, and 
consequently not at the time charged in the summons ! 
The experiments, if we may so call them, which took place 
on or about the fourth of August, by Prof. Ferrier, could not 
be considered painful or held to come within the scope of 
the Aft at all. He offered a biscuit to one monkey, which 
it took with the left hand in proof that it was paralysed in 
the right hand. The other monkey had been rendered deaf 
by the operations performed months ago, and in proof 
thereof Prof. Ferrier snapped off a percussion cap, of which 
the animal took no notice. These were the “ shocking and 
frightful” experiments ! The fafts are that the experiments 
upon the monkeys had been performed some months previ- 
