i88i.j The Recent “ Vivisection ” Case. 729 
ously by Prof. Yeo, in strict accordance with the provisions 
of the statute, and that he had obtained a licence to keep 
them alive, in order that the results of the experiment might 
be observed. On the day in question, in consequence of a 
discussion at a meeting of the Medical Congress between 
Professor Ferrier and Professor Goltz, a number of eminent 
scientific men, among whom we may mention Prof. Huxley, 
went to King’s College, when the monkeys were produced 
by Dr. Yeo’s servant. Professor Ferrier’s sole offence, 
therefore, if it can he construed as such, consisted in his 
observing and pointing out the effects of an experiment 
performed months ago, and that under perfectly legal condi- 
tions. Yet Mr. Waddy presumed to call this “ being present 
and taking a leading part in experiments (!) upon an animal 
upon which an injury had been inflicted.” Rarely has the 
licence accorded to counsel of presenting facts in a manner 
calculated and intended to mislead been carried to a greater 
length. It is not, however, so much upon Mr. Waddy as 
upon those by whom he was retained and instructed, that 
the responsibility must rest. But of this anon. The 
magistrate, Sir James Ingham, very rightly remarked, that 
if noting the results of a past experiment constituted an 
offence, all those present in the laboratory of King’s College 
were equally culpable with Professor Ferrier. How utterly 
untenable the prosecution felt their position appears from 
the fact that, though offered a case for the Superior Court, 
they did not accept the offer, a significant admission on the 
part of a body with whom money is evidently no object. 
One question relates to the witnesses, Dr. Michael Foster 
and Charles Smart Ray. We do not for a moment entertain 
any suspicion of these gentlemen, the former of whom has 
been recently eledted one of the Secretaries of the Royal 
Society, vice Prof. Huxley, resigned. But we think they owe 
it to the scientific world and to their own reputation to state 
publicly, that they did not volunteer their evidence, but 
appeared under subpoena. 
We come now to the impersonal prosecutor — the “ Society 
for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection,” and its 
Secretary, a certain Mr. Adams. This gentleman and 
his Council or Board, or whatever nami it may bear, are 
placed in a very unpleasant position. We do not mean 
legally, for despite the maxim current among lawyers, that 
for every wrong suffered there is a remedy against some one, 
we fear that Professor Ferrier would have very slender 
prospects of recovering damages from the prosecutors. But 
we refer to the position which they must occupy in the 
VOL. III. (THIRD SERIES) 3 B 
