3 6 4 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



stituted of both the enemies and the 

 friends of vivisection, at length took the 

 matter up, and, as is customary with 

 English commissions, it made a thorough 

 investigation. Witnesses on both sides 

 gave voluminous testimony on all as- 

 pects of the subject, and after patient 

 and impartial consideration the body 

 made a report which was designed to 

 be preliminary to legislation upon the 

 question. As regards the merits of the 

 controversy, it was agreed that vivisec- 

 tion, or operations upon living animals, 

 is a necessary and a proper thing, and, 

 as practised by scientific men, has been 

 of great use to the world. The com- 

 mission, moreover, entirely acquitted 

 the physiologists of the charge of cru- 

 elty. It commended the humanity of 

 the medical profession in England, and 

 testified that medical students were ex- 

 tremely sensitive in regard to the inflic- 

 tion of pain on animals. 



One would think that with this de- 

 cisive expression on the general subject, 

 and with this complete vindication of 

 the aspersed parties, the agitators would 

 have been rebuked, and the case at 

 once dismissed. But the anti-vivisec- 

 tion movement was quite too formida- 

 ble to allow of this. That hysterical 

 rampage of British philanthropy was 

 strong enough to coerce the Govern- 

 ment against its own protestations, and 

 to extort from it a law that was alike 

 an insult to science and a disgrace to 

 the country. The physiologists were 

 expressly acquitted of all improper prac- 

 tices when left free as they had always 

 been to pursue inquiries in their own 

 way, and they were then handed over to 

 the future control of the police. They 

 were vindicated from all imputation of 

 cruelty, and then subjected to the opera- 

 tion of a statute against cruelty to ani- 

 mals. Though their experiments had 

 for their object the ultimate mitigation 

 of pain to the higher creatures most 

 susceptible of pain though their inves- 

 tigations were of so beneficent an influ- 

 ence that, as Prof. Tyndall justly says, 



" no greater calamity could befall the 

 human race than the stoppage of experi- 

 ments in this direction " yet the physi- 

 ologists were classed by law with those 

 cold-blooded brutes who cruelly over- 

 drive, abuse, and torture domestic ani- 

 mals. Though the necessity, and form, 

 and extent of his experiments on ani- 

 mals were, in the nature of the case, 

 matters of which the operator alone 

 could judge, as their essential object is 

 the elucidation of undetermined prob- 

 lems, yet it was legislated that he should 

 not pursue his work except by a license 

 from a political office-holder, and the 

 making of any experiment calculated to 

 give pain to an animal was declared an 

 offense punishable in the first instance 

 by fine, and in the second by fine and 

 imprisonment, unless certain conditions 

 were complied with to the satisfaction 

 of the said political functionary who 

 was put in control of the whole business. 

 In short, legislative wisdom, stimulated 

 by philanthropic zeal, outlawed vivi- 

 section as a crime, and then provided for 

 its perpetration by leave of the Secre- 

 tary of State. 



Let us now see how much there 

 was of real philanthropy or of hearty 

 sympathy for the sufferings of the low- 

 er animals at the bottom of this move- 

 ment. Had it been sincere, or based 

 upon principle, it would have undoubt- 

 edly aimed to be effectual, and to have 

 inflicted the penalties for cruelty alike 

 upon all delinquents. But the law was 

 so framed as to bear hard only upon 

 the poor, and to give a virtual license 

 to the rich, who could easily pay the 

 fines prescribed for inflicting whatever 

 cruelties they chose. Again, the law 

 passed was intended, by the terms of 

 its title, to prevent "cruelty to ani- 

 mals ; " but a clause was quietly intro- 

 duced at the end limiting it to the pro- 

 tection of domestic animals only a 

 clause wdiich stultified the enactment, 

 and showed the emptiness of its pur- 

 pose by exposing immensely the great- 

 er portion of the inferior animate ere- 



