454 



NA TURE 



{March 19, 1885 



be trusted in the latter capacity, he ought never to have 

 been chosen to fill an Oxford chair. In short, as the 

 representative of physiology in Oxford, Dr. Sanderson, 

 by the nature and extent of his concession, has drawn a 

 clear distinction between the importance of teaching and of 

 research : he has consented to allow the teaching to suffer 

 if needs be ; but he will not consent to yield an inch where 

 the principles of research are concerned. 



The other suggestion which was thrown out by Canon 

 Liddon — namely, that a Professor of Physiology ought to 

 pledge himself to kill every animal before it recovers from 

 its anaesthesia — is, from every point of view, absurd. In 

 the first place, the suggestion can only emanate from the 

 uninformed supposition that the pain of a healing wound 

 is considerable. But we know from the experience of 

 hospital practice that even the most severe wounds are 

 painless while healing, unless the process of healing is 

 complicated by morbid conditions, which now admit of 

 being wholly prevented by antiseptic methods. As a 

 matter of fact, therefore, in our physiological laboratories, 

 as in our surgical wards, there is at the present time but 

 an extremely small amount of suffering to be found in 

 connection with the healing of wounds ; and no man of 

 ordinary sense who had ever seen the inside of either the 

 one or the other would have cared to make the suggestion 

 which we are considering. But, in the next place, even 

 if this were not so, it would have been highly wrong in 

 any Professor of Physiology to restrict himself to the per- 

 formance of experiments the objects of which could be 

 secured during the action of an anaesthetic. Certainly 

 more than half the experiments which the physiologist 

 has now to perform have reference to questions of after- 

 effects, and this is especially the case in experiments 

 bearing upon the problems of pathology. 



The speech of the Bishop of Oxford was bad, both in 

 logic and in taste. It was bad in logic because in arguing 

 for the total suppression of physiological research in 

 Oxford, he relied upon foreign practice for his evidence of 

 cruelty. This was essentially illogical, because it fails to 

 distinguish between two very different things — namely, 

 the cruelty, if any, which attaches to vivisection per w, 

 and the cruelty which arises from other sources. If the 

 state of public feeling in some foreign countries is not so 

 sensitive as it is in our own on the matter of inflicting 

 pain upon the lower animals, it is obviously^ unfair to 

 search through the Continent for instances of cruelty in 

 connection with physiological research, and then to 

 adduce such instances as proof of cruelty necessarily 

 attaching to physiological research at home. We might 

 as well argue against the use of mules in England because 

 these animals are badly treated in Spain. As we have 

 already said, there are now but extremely few cases 

 possible in which the occurrence of pain is necessary for 

 the purposes of an experiment ; and therefore the proof 

 of pain having been inflicted in any one case constitutes 

 proof, not of the pain-giving character of vivisection in 

 general, but of the carelessness of some operator in par- 

 ticular. The cruelty must belong to the individual, not 

 to the methods ; and we are not aware that any charge 

 of cruelty has hitherto been proved against an English 

 physiologist. 



The Bishop of Oxford's speech was bad in taste, because 

 he sought, missionary-wise, to tell some anecdote of 



horror, which the good sense of Convocation prevented 

 him from narrating further than that the subject of his 

 story was to have been "an affectionate little dog." But, 

 as he was not able to give any reference to the scene of 

 his tragedy, after a prolonged battle with his audience 

 upon this somewhat necessary proof of authenticity, he 

 was obliged to give way. His taste was perhaps still 

 more questionable when, in the presence of Prof. Sander- 

 son and other working physiologists, he proceeded to 

 adduce the favourite argument that the pursuit of experi- 

 mental physiology exercises a baleful influence on the 

 moral nature. That the argument is unsound, both in 

 principle and in fact, we need not wait to show. 



The speech of Prof. Freeman was rendered wholly in- 

 audible by a general uproar, which proceeded chiefly from 

 the side which he rose to support. We were told that 

 this was due to the memory of the effect which was pro- 

 duced by his speech on the occasion of the previous vote. 



Upon the whole we think that the debate was of no 

 little service to the cause of physiology in Oxford ; and 

 when we consider how largely the majority of votes has 

 grown since the first of the three divisions, we are glad to 

 congratulate the University upon having shown so em- 

 phatically that, not less than her sister, she is able to 

 withstand the assaults of the two great enemies of learn- 

 ing — Ignorance and Fanaticism. 



THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF WARSHIPS 

 T N our last week's issue we published a letter from Sir 

 Edward Reed adverting to some points in an article 

 which appeared in our number of February 26 upon " The 

 Relative Efficiency of War Ships." In order to show the 

 difference existing between the ships of the Inflexible or 

 Agamemnon class and those of the Admiral class, as 

 regards height of armour above the water, we then gave 

 profiles of the Agamemnon and of the Collingwood (one 

 of the Admiral class). We now give outline sections of 

 the same vessels, in which this large difference can be 

 more clearly seen, and by means of which its importance 

 can be better understood. 



Before giving any figures in connection with this ques- 

 tion it may be as well to mention another point which, 

 taken alone, is not unworthy of notice. We refer to the 

 difference between the Agamemnon and Collingwood with 

 regard to depth of armour below the water. When the 

 Agamemnon is floating in smooth water, with her un- 

 armoured ends uninjured, the depth of her armour below 

 the water-line is 5 feet 10 inches, whereas that of the 

 Collingwood, under the same conditions, is only 5 feet, as 

 shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. This difference of 

 nearly 1 foot is of some importance, because every two or 

 three inches gained in depth of armour below the water 

 means a large increase in the safety of the ship when 

 fighting at sea. When the ends of the Agamemnon are 

 flooded she sinks 22 inches deeper in the water, and the 

 depth of her armour below its surface would, therefore, 

 then be 7 feet 8 inches (Fig. 3). The Collingwood, when 

 her ends are flooded, sinks 17J inches deeper in the 

 water, and in that condition, therefore, her armour would 

 be 6 feet sJ inches below the water's surface (Fig. 4), or 

 1 foot 2 A inches less than that of the Agamemnon. In 

 the earlier ironclads it was considered necessary to carry 



