urate to say
that no cruelty was uncovered by the Royal Commission. Everything
depends on the meaning of words, but the evidence of one of the most
noted of English physiologists as to his own personal practices in
vivisection was quite sufficient to justify the legislation that
ensued. How seriously this evidence was regarded at the time is
clearly shown in an extract from a confidential letter of Professor
Huxley to Mr. Darwin, dated October 30, 1875:

"This Commission is playing the deuce with me. I have felt it my duty
to act as counsel for Science, and was well satisfied with the way
things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, --- was
examined; and if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he
gave, I might as well throw up my brief. I am told he openly
professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and he
only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet!

"I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived who was such an
unmitigated, cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles,
and I would willingly agree to any law that would send him to the
treadmill.

"The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster is profound,
and I am powerless (even if I desire, which I have not) to combat
it."[1]

[1] Huxley's "Life and Letters," vol i., p. 473. This
characterization seems by no means fair, and probably it would have
been so regarded by the writer in calmer moments. Is indignation
chiefly directed to the "indifference to animal suffering," or to the
"OPEN PROFESSION" of the feeling? For men, perfectly familiar with
Continental indifference, to condemn with holy horror a young
physiologist because he "openly professes" the generally prevalent
sentiment of his class, is very suggestive.

The result of the Commission's report was the introduction by the
Government of a Bill placing animal experimentation in Greta Britain
under legal supervision and control. As first drawn up, it appears to
have been regarded by the medical profession as unduly stringent and
unfair. Protests were made, amendments of certain of its provisions
were requested, concessions were granted, and at the close of the
Parliamentary session, August 15, 1876, the practice of vivisection,
like the study of human anatomy by dissection, came under the
supervision of English law.

It is curious to observe how those who had vehemently opposed the Act
were able to approve it when once the law