882.] 
Disunion in the Camp. 
ii 
art students in our public galleries were worried into signing 
petitions for further restrictions on physiological research. 
These statements were from eye-witnesses. An eminent 
artist informed us that his daughter had been beset in like 
manner whilst copying a painting. Yet in the face of this 
direCt positive evidence the secretary of one of the anti- 
viviseCtionist societies actually wrote to deny these assertions, 
and trusted that the editor’s “ sense of fairness ” would allow 
this contradiction to appear ! We ask, How can any man 
truthfully contradict an account of any occurrence except 
he himself had been present ? 
Again, there appeared advertisements in different papers 
headed with the name of one of the anti-viviseCtion societies. 
Immediately under this heading came a list of eminent phy- 
sicians and other scientific men. Any person merely glancing 
at the advertisement would receive the impression that these 
gentlemen were in some way connected with the Anti- 
ViviseCtion movement. On close examination it appeared 
that they were the Committee for the erection of the monu- 
ment in honour of the illustrious Harvey. The purport of 
the advertisement was to deny, or at least to detract from, 
the merits of Harvey as the discoverer of the circulation of 
the blood. But why were the names of the Committee in- 
troduced ? We have certainly no right to declare that they 
were inserted with the intention of deceiving the public ; 
but we submit that men careful to avoid even the appearance 
of evil, and anxious not to be misunderstood, would never 
have placed such names in such a connexion. 
One more instance may serve to complete our estimate of 
the spirit in which this crusade against Science is being 
waged. According to the report in the “ Daily Telegraph ” 
— “ A public meeting was held at Willis’s Rooms * to discuss 
the moral right and true philosophy of painfully experi- 
menting upon animals for scientific purposes.’ The president 
of the Society for the Abolition of Vivisection (the Rev. C. 
W. Grove) occupied the chair, and stated that the objeCt of 
the meeting was to invite physiologists, biologists, and mem- 
bers of the medical profession to state their views on the 
subject of vivisection. It was desirable to hear both sides 
of the question, and to know the results of the vivisection 
experiments which had been made. The chairman then 
invited medical gentlemen to express their views. Dr. 
Nicholls, Dr. Walker, and other speakers condemned vivi- 
section, and stated that they did not know of a single 
instance of benefit accruing to the human race as the result 
of vivisection experiments.” So this “ discussion ” — this 
