50 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



jection can be made to experiments upon animals in a state of insen- 

 sibility to pain, and as these constitute, happily, the vast majority of 

 physiological experiments, the question is narrowed to comparatively 

 restricted limits. Is it wrong to inflict painful experiments upon ani- 

 mals for the sake of science ? In the absence of any authority to ap- 

 peal to, we can but judge of the matter by analogy. Now, it has been 

 the practice of all mankind, and is still allowed by the common con- 

 sent both of law and feeling, that we should destroy by more or less 

 painful means, that we should enslave and force to work, and mutilate 

 by painful operations, and hunt to death, and wound, and lacerate, 

 and torture the brute creation for the following objects : for our own 

 self-preservation, as when we offer a reward for the killing of tigers 

 and snakes in India ; for our comfort, as when we poison or otherwise 

 destroy internal parasites, and vermin, and rats, and rabbits. Our 

 safety, our food, our convenience, our wealth, or our amusement — all 

 these objects have been and are regarded by the great mass of man- 

 kind, and are held by the laws of every civilized country, to be suffi- 

 ciently important to justify the infliction of pain or death upon animals 

 in whatever numbers may be necessary. The only restriction which 

 Christian morality or in certain cases recent legislation imposes upon 

 such practices is, that no more pain shall be inflicted than is necessary 

 for the object in view. Killing or hurting domestic animals when 

 moved by passion or by the horrible delight which some depraved na- 

 tures feel in the act of inflicting pain was until lately the only recog- 

 nized transgression against the law of England. I trust I need not 

 say that it is only under such restrictions that physiologists desire to 

 work.* Any one who would inflict a single pang beyond what is ne- 

 cessary for a scientific object, or would by carelessness fail to take due 

 care of the animals he has to deal with, would be justly amenable to 

 public reprobation. And remember it is within these limits that the 

 whole controversy lies, for, after a long and patient examination of all 

 that could be said by our accusers, the Royal Commission which was 

 nominated for the purpose unanimously reported that in this country 

 at least scientific experiments upon animals are free from abuse. 



What is deliberately asserted is, that within the restrictions which 

 all humane persons impose upon themselves, it is lawful to inflict pain 

 or death upon animals for profit or for sport, for money or for pastime ; 

 that property and sport are in England sacred things ; but that the 

 practices which they justify are unjustifiable when pursued with the 

 object of increasing human knowledge or of relieving human suf- 

 fering. 



Of those persons who answer that they consider vivisection for the 

 sake of sport to be almost as detestable as vivisection for the sake of 

 duty, I would only ask first that they should deal impartially with 



* They are, in fact, the very limits that were put on record by this Association long 

 before the agitation against physiology began. (See Report for 1871, p. 144.) 



