Oct. 27, 1882.] 



• KNOWLEDGE • 



363 



IttttrS to tf)t Ofliitor. 



{Th« Editor doeenotholJ himrelfretponfiblf for the opiniom of hin eorreapondentM, 

 He cannot undertake to return manutcripte or to correapond tciih their vriteri. All 

 eommunicaiione thould be ae ihort at poeeitle^ conttgtentlr/ tcith full and clear ttate- 

 mentt of t\e wrilfr't neaninij.] 



All EdUorial eommunicaiione should he addretied to the Editor of Knowtfdgb : 

 a'l Bueineu eommunicatiom to the Publieheri, at the Office, 71, Great (^ueen- 

 ereet, W.C. 



All Bemittancee, Chequei, and Foit-Offtce Ordert thould be made payable te 

 lle.ert. W,man 4" Son,. 



•,• All UHeri to the Editor fcitl be Numbered. For convenient' qf reference, 

 eorretpondeute, wh^n r^errintj to ang letter, will oblige by mentioning itt number 

 aAd the page on which it appeari. 



"In knowledge, that man onl; 



Atata of tranaition 



Ihoa fixity of opinion."— F(/mJc 



" Show me a man who makes t 

 d'tne nothing." — lAebig. 



, and I will show ■ 



PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT. 



[I insert Z.'s letter, not that I agree with him, for I do not, but 

 ii is interesting as suggesting the question why, under the condi- 

 ti ms considered in my reply to'A., one would be ready to permit 

 (iliTsiological experiment — suitably conducted to reduce pain to a 

 minimum — on the most valuable and worthy specimen of the lower 

 nnimal races, while most of us cannot oven admit the thought of 

 Iriiidred experiment on the most worthless, and worse than worth- 

 less, of human beings. — R. P.] 



[600] — If there is any such thing as freedom of speech for those 

 whose ideas are in advance of the masses, the intellectual " varia- 

 tii ns " on which mental progre.^.s di-pends, I j>r.ay you in its name to 

 kIvo me a hearing. Let me p*:!:' in; 'i n v(jur crucial question in 

 i-e;>ly to A. 2. (KNOWLEinii i| i-. ISG) concerning the 



(11 actioe of physiological cxpci II ,i icals, ought to be carried 



fi;rther and to be applied ti> w ii .■ , r. ; ; ; t, is regarded, even by 

 Buiue physiologists, with unreaauniiig and unreasonable horror — 

 namely to free experiment on human subjects of the least valuable 

 /.i/id for the benefit of the more valuable portion of humanity, its 

 progressive front. 



The true generalisation of the special case supposed by you is, 

 that the suffering of "those dear to us is of infinitely more import- 

 ance to each of us (if wo are of an affectionate disposition, as you 

 and I are) than any amount of possible or problematical suffering 

 of unknown and chloroformed beings, especially if of any inferior 

 class. ^,.ia 



This is true. Such ia human nature, as may bo seen in others, 

 and felt in ourselves every day. We care very little indeed for 

 utter strangers if their interests and the interests of our own friends 

 conflict. And if, further, our judgment pronounces the hypotheti- 

 cal unknown persons to belong to a typo indisputably inferior to our 

 own dear and valued ones, we are all of us ready to consent to — 

 (inrjthinj in short likely to relievo the .agonies or protract the lives 

 of those precious ones. 



Unless, therefore, one is enslaved by popular prejudices, it is diffi- 

 cult to Bee why, with our modern advanced views and the renuncia- 

 tion of those effete superstitions which assumed a non-existent 

 fundamental distinction between human and other animals, so much 

 objection should still bo made to even the most distant approach to 

 physiological oxperimpntation on living human subjects of the 

 inferior classes. No physiologist worthy of the name can doubt the 

 .tnpromo usefulness of such experiments and the unsatisfactorincss 

 of the restriction to other aniinal.s, all nioro or loss differing in 

 pliysiological structure from man. A vast amelioration of jmin 

 would, in all probability, aecrno to the higher and most valuable 

 human beings by the sacrifice of a few of the worst and quite oppo- 

 site of valuable. Is it not ])ertectly absurd that a Beaconsfield, a 

 (iladstono, a Herbert Spencer, or a Huxley, should be liable to the 

 most exoruoia' ig diseases possible to conceive— pains inflicted by 

 tlio ruthless v' isector, Nature, as penalty for somebody's disobedience 

 to her laws- .md that a few brutal nmrderor.') and other breakers of 

 human laws are not to be made to suffer a little pain (or much, oven, 

 unavoidable) under the liumano conditions you enumerate with 

 regard to oxporimeuts on other animals, in order that a means of 

 cure, or prevention of these agonies, should be found ? That no 

 physiologist should or would bo allowed to inflict an unnece$aary 



pang even on murderers is of course. Yet is it not strange that 

 those who take this view cannot get even a hearing in these times of 

 boasted freedom of speech ? The unpardonable " blasphemy " 

 which all sects unite to enforce silence upon is an opinion in advance 

 of the ago. 



I ask, where is the real cruelty here ? What comparison can bo 

 made between the pains of the lowest types of mankind and the 

 pains of the exquisitely sensitive higher types ? To one of these 

 exquisitely sensitive beings a word or look may cause far greater 

 "tortures" than a kick causes to some thick-skinned "habitual 

 criminal." 



I, for one, long for the time when science will burst its last 

 fetters and soar free, full of faith in that beneficence of nature 

 which ordains that some shall suffer that others may enjoy. I long 

 for this time to come for one reason — because I love sound reaaon- 

 ing and hate the transparent sophistries and inconsistenciee 

 (opaque, however, to so many !) of the present temporising race 

 of vivisectionists. 



Is not the prevalent notion, that human beings are somehow so 

 fundamentally distinct from other animals as to require to be treated 

 on totally distinct principles, obviously a relic of superstition and 

 sacerdotalism ? It has been the work of science to demonstrate 

 the utter groundlessness of this conceit. Is the progress of science 

 to be stopped by it for ever ? Z. 



P.S. — After all, why endeavour to cure disease, or to prevent it ? 

 Why " interfere " with the spontaneous processes of natural selec- 

 tion which infallibly brings about the survival of the fittest to 

 survive, without help of ours ? Ought not vivisection to be defended 

 solely on the ground that it exists ? And is not the course its de- 

 velopment will take quite certain in spite of all sentimental 

 opposition ? 



TALKING CANARY.— REASONING (ALSO MDBDEEODS) 

 MAGPIE. 



[601]— I notice in a recent number of Knowledge an account of 

 a talking canary, supposed an unique instance. 



I had the acquaintance of an old maiden lady some years ago, 

 and now deceased, who had a Belgian canary, to which she was in 

 the habit of talking constantly, as a mother to her babe, and she 

 found that the bird, after many vain efforts, could at last repeat 

 several words, as "sweet pet," "pretty dear," and similar things. 



A singular case of reasoning power in a magpie came under my 

 notice iu the severe winter of '80-81. 



The bird was hung out in all weathers right through the year, 

 and as usual during the heavy snow and frost of the time named. 

 It hung in the old-fashioned willow or reed cage, in which was a 

 tin of soaked bread, ic, that it was supposed, with a few odd 

 bones and scraps, to subsist on. However, it wanted something 

 more delicate, and had an incentive to sport, for noticing that the 

 poor sparrows were evidently very hungry and without food, it 

 took a piece of bread from the tin and placed it through the bars 

 on the outside ledge of the cage ; natural result, the sparrows made 

 for it and eat it, the magpie evidently biding his time until at the 

 right ntoment he dashed from the perch and seized the unfortunate 

 sparrow, dragged it through the bars and killing it, partly ate it. 

 This, I understood from its possessor, happened frequently. 



Cn.\s. L. Caxe. 



LAPIDARIES AND DECEPTION. 

 [602]— I saw with some interest the letter you alluded to in 

 Knowledke, complaining of the deception practised by the 

 lapidaries in Wales. The same complaint was made in Land nnd 

 Water, in 1870, by " T. R. Sachs," in a letter which was satis- 

 factorily answered by two parties, one signing himtolf E. R. (Bury). 

 This correspondent referred to the fact of his having always had 

 his stones polished by Mr. Thomas White, Terrace-road, Aboryst- 

 with, and says that he was twice allowed to see the process in his 

 workshop, lie had sevenil specimens which he picked up on that 

 shore, and saw them cut nnd polished at Mr. White's. He also had 

 a crystal which ho saw cut in facets by the lapidary, and which he 

 took from his hands. Ho added that he should bo glad to let Mr. 

 Sachs see the specimen if he wished. I have also had many crystaU 

 which I have picked up cut by Mr. White, nnd I have watched 

 the various processes of cutting one of them fnim the mugh stone, 

 till it eamo out perfectly transparent, and 1 can vouch for the 

 realitv of the work. During the height of the soa-ion it wonld bo 

 impossible to admit the innumerable strangers who would crowd 

 into the workshop to see their own stones cut: but early in 

 November 1 was admitted, when comparatively little work was 

 going on. There may doubtless l)0 lapidaries who do not hositato 

 to substitute foreign crystals, na many customers are impatient to 

 have work done, but respccUble men who have been known by tho 



