no possibility of arriving at any knowledge of an antidote for snake bite, and consequently no hope of saving the lives of those people, except by submitting animals to be bitten by snakes and then testing the power of the alleged antidote upon those animals. That I imagine, would be a very painful experiment to the animal, and it would be impossible to perform that experiment under anæsthesia, and yet the result of such an inquiry might have been of inestimable service to humanity and a direct service because it is not a scientific but a purely practical inquiry. Would the provisions of the Bill interfere with such an inquiry or investigation ?—I presume they would, but at the same time I would say that Sir William Fergusson another eminent surgeon has expressed a very strong opinion that these experiments are entirely useless.

1690. No result has as yet been arrived at, no antidote has yet been found, but the only hope of discovering an antidote, as Sir James Paget told us, in the next twenty years, would be by continuing experiments of that kind on animals. Is it your opinion that the Bill, as proposed, would interfere with the performance of such experiments, which would be of the most direct practical benefit to mankind, and would, if successful, save the lives of thousands annually?—It would be of value to mankind if it would save lives; but that is the whole question I presume. If it could be established at once that an experiment would yield a blessing to mankind the result would be already known, and there need be no experimentation at all; it is the uncertainty of the thing that requires experimentation. I therefore would not admit the premiss that the experiment would necessarily be of the most direct practical benefit to mankind.

1691. (CHAIRMAN.) But the question put to you is whether your Bill would prevent the process which the Government of India are now carrying on for the purpose of preventing the loss of life by snake bite? I am afraid it would.

1692. Take another case; we have been told that the condemnation of Palmer for one of those numerous murders, and the condemnation of other criminals, has been very much due to certain experiments made upon animals by the use of strychnine or other poisons; would your Bill prevent that?—I am afraid it would. But at the same time, I would like to say that it is a very difficult thing to answer these questions in the way I am doing now, because I have in my mind, at the same time, the statements made by a man like Sir Charles Bell, who says that experimentation has not yielded the results claimed for it. I am not going to say that experimentation has not yielded anything; at the same time, I cannot allow it to be assumed that the experiment is going to answer.

1693. But we are assuming nothing, except that it is the object of the experiment to discover a cure for snake bites, or to bring a murderer to justice. Would your Bill prevent an experiment as to

the effect of strychnine on an animal, or subjecting an animal to a snake bite?—I should say so. But I am sure Sir John Karslake will tell you that there are many things which you must not do even to bring a murderer to justice. Although it would be a good thing to bring a murderer to justice by certain short cuts the practice of the courts does not admit of them, because the end does not justify the use of improper means.

1694. I want you to understand that the object of the questions which have recently been put to you, and are now being put to you is not to argue it one way or the other, but merely to ascertain whether the effect of this Bill if passed in the sense in which it is submitted to us by the society, would be to render such experiments impossible? -I think so.

1695. However strong the scientific opinion in favour of the experiment might be, do you think that those who have submitted that Bill to us, would wish the Bill to pass in a form which should render the experiment impossible?-I think that they would like to have it passed in this form, and if that is not possible, then to get it as near as possible to this form-if at all.

1696. (MR. FORSTER.) Do you think that they have had before them at all, this case of snake poisons?—Yes, I think those cases have been before the committee.

1697. Could you tell us whether it occurred to them that there was any other way of finding out whether a supposed antidote was likely to be an antidote, than by giving an animal poison, and then the antidote, to see whether it cured it or not?—There are many ways perhaps. I have seen experiments to test the action of poisons upon dead animals, upon the hearts of frogs, for instance. The heart has been taken out from the body of the animal, when the pulsation continues for a long time; and I have seen the poison tested in that way without any cruelty at all. I do not know that that would be applicable in all cases, but there may be some other means by which the want would be met. It may be a more easy and a more rapid way of doing the thing, and one that would prevent a good deal of thought and study, to experiment on a living animal; but the question is, is it right? I do not say absolutely that it could be arrived at in any other way, but I say it is possible, it might be; but it would. be better to kill the snakes than to allow them to go on biting people and then provide antidotes by killing and torturing other animals.

1998. (Mr. HUXLEY.) Did I rightly understand you to say that the society, in drawing up this Bill, have been actuated, among other things, by a firm belief that physiological experimentation has not done much towards the discovery of new truth ?—I think that is the general impression of the society as regards the treatment of disease.

1699. On whose authority may I ask?—When I speak of the society I am speaking of the committee rather, the society itself consists of many members.

1700. Is there any one in the committee who is conversant with the history of physiological science in the last twenty years?—Yes, I think so. There is one member of the committee who is a doctor of medicine, and has had a good practice at the West End, who says he does not believe vivisection has done any good to his profession; and another member has made the subject a special study, is the author of several medical books, and the editor of a journal which includes physiology and anatomy entitled The Veterinary Journal.

1701. (CHAIRMAN.) In giving in the documents connected with the committee, have you given the names of the committee ?—No, I have not.

1702. Will you do so?—Yes.

The witness withdrew. He handed in the following books and papers :- "Vivisection: Is it necessary or justifiable?" being two prize essays, by George Fleming, Esq., and Dr. Markham; "Vivisection Prosecution," being a report of the Norwich prosecution by the R.S.P.C.A.; "Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory," 2 vols., edited by Dr. J. Burdon-Sanderson; "The Queen's Letter" on Cruelty to Animals, addressed to the R.S.P.C.A.; "Notes on Plans on Edinburgh University Extension," by Mr. Anderson; Draft Bill for a statute to prohibit painful experiments on animals, and minor papers. He subsequently forwarded the following letter to the Royal Commission in vindication of his evidence on Dr. Ferrier's lectures with newspaper extract on next page, as desired by the Commissioners :

:

Institution Building, 105, Fermyn Street, St. James's, S. W. 18th December, 1875.

SIR, I beg to send you slips of the newspaper report referred to in my evidence, which I promised the Commissioners to lay before them. It has been printed from the file copy of the Leeds Times. The Mercury, and other papers correspond in giving five parentheses of "laughter." You will remember that the slips refer to meetings in Yorkshire-not to those I attended in London.

Permit me to observe that (1) there does appear very little to laugh at in the report of Professor Ferrier's remarks, from which you may infer that there is much force in my observation, that the lecturer made the jokes by gestures as well as by what he said;-(2) there is nevertheless sufficient proof in the slips that in Yorkshire, jokes were attempted.

At the London Institution we heard allusions to Pickwick, besides several others we have remembered, intended to amuse the audience, the popular element being prominent—as I said in my evidence.

I have spoken to Mr. Allen and Mr. Thomson (members of the Committee who were present) and they confirm my remarks generally; as do also two other gentlemen present on the occasion.

I am, yours faithfully,

To N. BAKER, Esq., Secretary,

Royal Commission on Vivisection.

JOHN COLAM.

Extract from the LEEDS TIMES, March 1st, 1874, referred to on pp. xxx. and xliv.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BRAIN.

On Tuesday night Professor Ferrier delivered a lecture at the Leeds Philosophical Hall on the "Localisation of the Functions of the Brain." Owing to the interest of the subject, and the striking originaity of the experiments made by Dr. Ferrier in his investigations, there was a crowded attendance, including a large number of medical gentlemen.-Professor Ferrier said, that at the British Association meeting in Bradford last September, he brought forward the facts of experimental research carried on by a new method, which established to a certain degree the localisation of certain functions of the brain. More recent experiments still further substantiated this doctrine, but some physiologists still objected to it, maintaining that the brain in its entirety was subservient to mental work, and that no part of it more than another was allotted to certain specific functions. Upon this point his experiments would speak for themselves. Other critics had taken exception to his method of experimenting upon live animals. Upon this point he explained that the brain, unlike all the rest of the nervous system, was curiously insensible to irritation, except by electricity. About a couple of years ago two German philosophers, experimenting on the brains of dogs, found that certain muscular movements could be produced by touching various parts of the brain, and he (Dr. Ferrier), following up their researches, had taken up the subject in the way in which he would now proceed to describe. The animals experimented upon were first rendered insensible by chloroform, so that the experiments were carried on in such a way as not to offend the scruples of the most rigid humanitarian. An opening having been made in the skull and the brain freely exposed, the animal Iwas allowed to recover itself from the effects of the chlorolorm. The mere operation on the brain apparently produced not the slightest effect on the health of the subject. Often he had seen a monkey wake up after several hours' experiment and enjoy a cup of tea with bread and butter just as heartily as any human being. (Laughter.) It was quite a mistake to suppose that if the substance of the brain was touched instantaneous death followed. The lecturer proceeded to describe how the application of electricity to the surface of the brain gave rise to certain distinct movements of the body. The remarkable fact was, that the same result invariably followed the application of the electrical stimulus to the same part; so that, having thoroughly explored and mapped out a brain, he could undertake to predict with absolute certainty what an animal would do upon the application of the electric stimulus to certain parts of its brain. The effect was somewhat like playing upon the keys of a piano; it was playing upon the animal's powers independently of its will. By means of diagrams, Dr. Ferrier showed the brains of man and various animals, including the monkey, dog. cat, rabbit, pigeon, frog, fish, &c., explaining that in each case the brain consisted of two parts known as the cerebral hemispheres. Except in the case of the rabbit and pigeon, the brain of most of these animals was raised into a number of irregular folds or convolutions; and it was a singular fact that we could trace the same homologous folding from animal to animal down in the scale until we came to the nonconvoluting animals. In the monkey's brain the convolutions were of the same type as in the human brain. The cerebral hemispheres had cross action and cross influences, the left side of the brain governing the right side of the body, and vice versa. Dr. Ferrier proceeded to describe with some detail how, by touching certain points in the brain, he could cause an animal to make certain movements with its body, such as advancing its hind or fore legs, opening its eyes widely, and staring as if in surprise, moving its lips or tongue, &c. În a similar way he could make a dog bark and a cat mew; so he could make a dog, or a monkey, or a rat wag its tail; but added the lecturer, amid some amusement, he could never get a cat to wag its tail. From such experiments he could trace, for instance, where the faculty of articulation was centralised, confirmed by the experience that where that part of the brain was affected by disease the human patient lost the power of speech. He had not been able to obtain many results by stimulation in that front part of the brain which was supposed by phrenologists to be associated with all the higher powers of the intellect. In order to determine on this point, he experimented on a clever monkey, which he had kept a long time so as to learn its habits. It usually exhibited a great amount of natural curiosity, taking the strongest interest in everything that was shown it. (A laugh.) He cut off the fore part of its brain,

and it got quite well again, perfectly well, shortly afterwards. (Laughter.) Interference with the structure of the brain, be it remembered, did not interfere with the general health, and therefore the animal went on eating and drinking after the operation, but it soon became perfectly stupid, perfectly demented. Even when eating it looked as if it were sound asleep, like Dickens's fat boy. (A laugh.) Whenever it was nudged, it just renewed its eating or climbed up into its cage, and so dozed away. It had not lost any of its physical powers, the only change being its excessive stupidity. Singular cases had occurred where persons recovered all· their faculties after parts of their brain had been injured; but those who adduced this as an argument against the localisation doctrine forgot that the brain was a double organ, one hemisphere continuing to act when the other was more or less destroyed, and even taking up in time some of the functions originally belonging to the other hemisphere. Resuming an account of his experiments, the lecturer traced where the senses of sight and smell were localised in the brain, showed that there was an extra large convolution for the olfactory nerve, in the case of animals which, like dogs, had a keen scent. Definite as were many of the results thus ascertained, it would be useless to rush from these experiments to speculations, seeking to evolve all the generation of mind and intelligence. It had been supposed by some phrenologists that irritation of a certain part of an animal's brain excited a mental perception under the influence of which it performed a corresponding action, but this doctrine would not account for the results of the experiments he had made. Such a movement, for instance, as that of stretching out the hand or fore foot and paw might be prompted either by " acquisitiveness," if for the purpose of seizing something, or by, benevolence" (A laugh)—if in the act of giving something. It therefore seemed impossible to localise ideas when the same bodily actions might be stimulated by widely different ideas. In the cerebral convolutions the mental furniture of a man might be stored up, and a high development of certain parts of the brain might nevertheless suggest certain conclusions, but the inferences so drawn must be very hypothetical. The Chairman expressed the cordial thanks of the society for the lecture, and his high sense of the interest and importance of Dr. Ferrier's investigations. There had not yet been time for the attainment of great practical results, but they must all hail every new addition to our stock of scientific knowledge, especially on so important a topic as the function of the brain. Dr. Clifford Allbutt also expressed his appreciation of the importance of Dr. Ferrier's experimental researches into this great subject. He added a word of satisfaction that the West Riding was to some extent associated with this original investigation, which had been largely conducted at the Wakefield Asylum, was first expounded in public at the British Association meeting in Bradford, and was now renewed with the result of fresh experiments at Leeds. He was glad that Dr. Ferrier had not confined his experiments to dogs and monkeys, but had communicated some electric stimulus to the minds of his audience(laughter, and hear, hear)-upon whom he had no doubt the lecture would leave a deep impression.-The meeting then separated.

66

The Secretary of the R.S.P.C.A. suggested to the Royal Commission that the following witnesses should be called:-Sir William Fergusson, Professor Pritchard, Dr. Arthur de Noé Walker, Dr. Lawson Cape, Mr. Macilwain, the Rev. Samuel Haughton. M.D., D.D. Dr. Hoggan, Mr. Jesse, Mr. James B. Mills, Dr. W. B. Archibald Scott, Mr Goodson (Secretary of the Birmingham S.P.C.A.), Mr. Torr (Secretary of the Nottingham Branch of R.S.P.C.A.), Mr. Robert Brewin (Secretary of the Cirencester S.P.C.A.), Dr. Edward Curtis May, and about sixty medical men who signed the memorial presented to the R.S.P.C.A. Sir W. Fergusson and Prof. Pritchard had appeared as witnesses against Vivisection at the Norwich prosecution, and the other gentlemen had more or less written against the practice, or had published leaflets and pamphlets against it They all appeared before the Royal Commission except Mr. Goodson, Mr. Torr, Mr. Brewin, Dr. May, and the sixty medical signataries alluded to.