Correspondence. 
1882.] 
107 
animal experimentation — must be read by the light of these 
extracts. 
I regret that you have not read my ledture in extenso ; an ab- 
stract does not convey sufficiently clearly what I said. I shall 
have pleasure in sending you MSS., from which you will see that 
I lead up to the subject of animal experimentation by illustra- 
tions of what commerce, science, life, health had gained by the 
labours of the men who conducted experiments on living 
animals. 
I am glad you give me credit for good intentions. 
I did imagine that I was carrying out the programme sketched 
in the “ Lancet,” and that I would best advance the interests of 
the side I was taking by mild temperate language, so that any 
ardent “ anti-vivisectionists ” in the room might see that I did 
not depend on abuse, vituperation, or calling names, to support 
my cause. 
This was the second occasion on which I spoke publicly in 
favour of the claims of physiologists — non-medical — to con- 
duct experiments on living animals without the needless and 
harassing restrictions which are now imposed on them. On both 
occasions my audience listened to me with attention ; on both 
occasions my views seemed to meet with favour. This concur- 
rence was due to the fact that I did not call my opponents 
“ fanatics,” “ fools,” or hurl other unpleasant epithets at them. 
Because the parties opposed to scientific advancement heap abuse 
on such men as Michael Foster, Balfour, &c., it does not follow 
that we should imitate their bad example, or retort by the free 
use of strong language. 
I need not offer any further excuse for my views. We differ 
as to our method of warfare. You may be right. I, however, 
venture to think that my method is more likely to make converts 
to the cause we both have at heart. As a soft word turns away 
wrath, so temperate language may have an effecft upon those 
who are now prejudiced against skilled animal experimentation. 
Is there disunion in the camp ? Do we ask for total repeal of 
the Vivisecftion Acft ? Do we demand free vivisection for all ? 
The “ Lancet ” may be taken as a fair representative of medi- 
cal views ; perhaps I might even say it represents the opinions 
of a large camp — the physiologists, biologists, chemists who 
have done so much for medicine. 
The views of the “ Lancet ” I have adopted, so that if I have 
compromised the movement your indignation must be vented not 
only on me, but on the leading journal of medical opinion. 
I do not imagine that you can seriously ask for free power of 
animal experimentation for all, the competent and the incompe- 
tent, the novice and the master, — that in the name of Science 
you consider such unlicensed and unfettered experimentation 
necessary or advisable. If you do then certainly there is dis- 
union in the camp ; but in which camp ? You are striking out 
