already been successful in this its object to a degree out 
of all proportion to the pain inflicted, 
If it is true, as the physiologists agree with Lord Cole- 
ridge in maintaining, that the ethics of vivisection turn 
upon this question of proportion, it becomes morally as 
well as logically incumbent on all those who take an 
active part in the anti-vivisection movement to make 
themselves acquainted with the facts by which alone this 
question can be determined. We therefore recommend 
all who are interested in the subject to read the very 
powerful essay by Prof. Gerald Yeo in the current num- 
ber of the Fortnightly Review. This essay, when con- 
‘trasted with that of Lord Coleridge or Miss Cobbe, 
exhibits in a striking manner the difference between 
knowledge and imagination, and therefore we do not 
think it can be said that the measured censure bestowed 
by this writer is too strong where he thus alludes to the 
above illustration of 3000 horses put to death by “ hideous 
torment’”’—‘“‘I should have thought it impossible that a 
man who declares, ‘I am not conscious of any distorting 
influence on my judgment ; I have no anti-scientific bias,’ 
could have suggested a case so horribly improbable. The 
extravagant irrelevancy of such a sacrifice, and its utter 
incompatibility with anything that can be called physio- 
logical research, are so manifest as to need no comment. 
Surely the writer cannot really imagine that such sheer 
brutality is within the range of possibility ; or does he 
merely make the hideous suggestion in order to frighten 
those who have no knowledge of the matter? I refer to 
this sentence simply as an illustration of how unfounded 
and inaccurate ideas sometimes originate. For there can 
be no doubt that the mere mention of this appalling pro- 
blem by such an authority, however repugnant it may be 
to common sense, cannot fail to leave some very unpleasant 
traces in the minds of many who imagine that a Lord 
Chief Justice would not undertake to write articles in a 
leading review, unless he had some accurate knowledge 
of the practical bearings of the subject.” 
Prof. Yeo has written his article in order to place such 
knowledge within reach of the general public, and he has 
evidently done so with the honest purpose of being 
“accurate.” He says: “The exact relation of painful 
experiment to physiology may be best seen in a short 
analysis of physiological methods. Practical physiology 
is made up of four departments, in which its histological, 
chemical, physical, and vital branches are respectively 
studied. . . - Thus in fully three-quarters of practical 
physiology living animals do not appear at all. All vivi- 
sections are found in the fourth branch of physiology, 
but even here they form a very small part, for a large 
number of experiments on living animals (including man) 
are carried on without either cutting or pain.” Taking 
then the subdivision of possibly paingiving experiments, 
Prof. Yeo gives an analysis of the Parliamentary Reports 
during the last five years, in order to get at the precise 
number of paingiving experiments which, during that 
time, have been made in this country. From these figures 
it appears that about three-fourths of the possibly pain- 
giving experiments were rendered painless by the adminis- 
tration of anzesthetics, and of the remaining fourth, four- 
fifths were “like vaccination or the hypodermic injection 
of morphia, the pain of which is of no great amount.” The 
tabular percentage is, therefore, as follows :— 
_ NATURE 
Absolutely painless... 0... ce. es vee ane he 75 4% 
As painful as vaccination —.., 
oe healing of a wound hs ean 4 
* surgical opération -\.i~ sca.) «sens ceo 
100 
Thus, since the statistics have begun to be taken under 
the new Act, it is a matter of numerical statement that in 
this country only 1 per cent. of experiments in vivisection 
are attended with pain greater than that caused by prick- 
ing with a needle or healing from a cut. Therefore we 
must here repeat our judgment that in this discussion it 
is shown to be the anti-vivisectionists, and not the physio- 
logists, who have “forgotten” the question of “ propor- 
tion’”’; for nothing can prove more conclusively than 
these figures that Lord Coleridge’s statement of the 
case becomes true only if it is quoted with inverted 
meaning—“ There is no proportion between the end and 
the means.” : 
But Prof. Yeo is speaking of physiology as practised in 
England. Foreign usages he does not feel that it devolves 
on him to defend, and he appears to have an easy task 
where he shows that all the array of horrors which the 
anti-vivisectionists have been able to collect from the 
past history of physiological research have been derived 
from abroad. And it appears but fair argument to draw 
this distinction. This country cannot legislate for foreign 
physiologists, and no particle of evidence has ever been 
forthcoming to show that English physiologists are less 
scrupulous than the rest of their countrymen in their 
regard for animal suffering. On the contrary, long before 
the agitation began these physiologists themselves at the 
British Association formally laid down and formally 
accepted a carefully worded code of rules (quoted in the 
essay by Sir W. Gull) to guide their action with a view to 
minimizing of pain; and they have never, either collec- 
tively or singly, objected to legislation against possible 
abuses, while many of them have distinctly expressed 
their approval of such legislation. The long array of 
atrocities which constitutes the bulk of Miss Cobbe’s 
paper is therefore quite irrelevant to any question in 
which this country is concerned. At most she can only 
argue, as Mr. Hutton argues—Because such things have 
happened on the Continent they say also possibly happen 
in England ; and the answer is, By all means let there be 
legislation to guard against the possibility, And Prof. 
Yeo proves, we think conclusively, that the existing Act 
is abundantly sufficient for this purpose. 
Another argument on the score of morality that has 
been advanced is one which is well and temperately 
stated by Mr. Hutton. He says: “ You cannot take a 
step so certain to stimulate the thoughtless cruelty which 
still survives among us, as to sanction the deliberate in- 
fliction of a great mass of thoughtful cruelty, justified 
only by the prospect of ultimate benefit to man at the 
cost of untold agonies to his miserable fellow-creatures.” 
But here, if the mis-statement of the “ proportion” ques- 
tion presented by the concluding words is disregarded, it 
is evident that the point of ethics raised must be deter- 
mined solely by consideration whether the “thoughtful 
cruelty” is crwedty—i.e. pain inflicted without an adequate 
* It seems to require pointing out to Lord Coleridge and Miss Cobbe that 
to quote a brutal expression from any foreign physiologist is no argument for 
the adolishing of physiological experiment, Even if such expressions were 
English, or if the Royal Commission had found cases of abuse to occur in 
i this country, there would be no such argument. 
