iS75 THE PROTECTION BILL 465 



pain on 100 rabbits you could discover a way to the extirpation 

 of leprosy, or consumption, or locomotor ataxy, or of siccidal 

 melancholia among human beings, dare you refuse to inflict 

 that pain? Now I am quite unable to say that I dare. That 

 sort of daring would seem to me to be extreme moral cowardice, 

 to involve gross inconsistency. 



For the advantage and protection of society, we all agree to 

 inflict pain upon man — pain of the most prolonged and acute 

 character — in our prisons, and on our battlefields. If England 

 were invaded, we should have no hesitation about inflicting the 

 maximum of suffering upon our invaders for no other object 

 than our own good. 



But if the good of society and of a nation is a sufficient plea 

 for inflicting pain on men, I think it may suffice us for experi- 

 menting on rabbits or dogs. 



At the same time, I think that a heavy moral respon- 

 sibility rests on those who perform experiments of the second 

 kind. 



The wanton infliction of pain on man or beast is a crime ; 

 pity is that so many of those who (as I think rightly) hold this 

 view, seem to forget that the criminality lies in the wantonness 

 and not in the act of inflicting pain per se. — I am, sir, yours 

 faithfully, T. H. Huxley. 



So far back as 1870 a committee had been appointed by 

 the British Association, and reported upon the conditions 

 under which they considered experiments on living animals 

 justifiable. In the early spring of 1875 ^ bill to regulate 

 physiological research was introduced into the Upper House 

 by Lord Hartismere, but not proceeded with. When legis- 

 lation seemed imminent Huxley, in concert with other men 

 of science, interested himself in drawing up a petition to 

 Parliament to direct opinion on the subject and provide a 

 fair basis for future legislation, which indeed took shape 

 immediately after in a bill introduced by Dr. Lyon Playfair 

 (afterwards Lord Playfair), Messrs. Walpole and Ashley. 

 This bill, though more just to science, did not satisfy many 

 scientific men, and was withdrawn upon the appointment of 

 a Royal Commission. 



The following letters to Mr. Darwin bear on this 

 period : — 



