174 ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 



ings will have been in vain if the petitioners will but follow 

 the suggestions made by one of their own organs in Eng- 

 land. Speaking of the evidence offered to the English 

 Commission which resulted in the passage of the English 

 Anti-vivisection Act (39 and 40 Vic. c. 77) Stephen Paget 

 says (" Experiments upon Animals," New York, William 

 Wood and Company, 1900, page 215): 



" Practically, physiology alone came before the 

 Commissioners, and such experiments in physiology 

 as are now, the youngest of them, a quarter of a 

 century old. Even the Zoophilist advises its lecturers 

 to cease from profaning these venerable relics of 1875. 

 An old lecture or address must, to a certain extent, 

 be always a perfunctory performance. The Blue Book 

 has been a valuable mine for our speakers, but it is 

 getting exhausted now. Sir William Ferguson was, 

 no doubt, a great authority on our side, but he carries 

 no weight with our present-day medical students. The 

 recital of the horrors of Magendie's, Mantegazza's, 

 and Schiff's laboratories have little or no good effect 

 on English audiences; they are set aside as foreign 

 and out of date. How often have we heard of the 

 horrible experiments of Dr. Brachet ! . . . But Dr. 

 Brachet was born in 1789 and died in 1858, and in 

 France, too." ("Zoophilist," February i, 1899.) 



The rebuttal testimony offered consisted in the nearly, 

 if not quite, complete reading of Dr. Bigelow's two articles 

 on vivisection, published last year, and the animus inspir- 

 ing it was plainly evident. We gave reference to volume 

 and page, and brought the quotation forward to show 

 what is perfectly evident to any one who reads the type, 

 that by vivisection Dr. Bigelow had in mind painful, cruel, 

 unanesthctized experiments upon living animals (such as 

 occurred at Alfort in his student days, in and about 1841), 



