674 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



shooters that they make their complaint. They are even willing, at 

 the present, to use the latter against the former. By-and-by, if they 

 are successful in this, they will move against sport, on the ground 

 that it is far more cruel and has far less justification than the vivisec- 

 tion which has been done away with. 



Nor is it any use to tell a far larger class, the eaters of meat, that 

 the pain which physiology has caused since the time of Galen is far 

 less than that which in any one week is caused in butchers' shambles 

 in providing flesh to fill the mouths of the people of London. 



Nor is it, on the other hand, any use to say that because many 

 physiologists are kindly, humane men in private life, therefore the ac- 

 cusation of cruelty brought against them must be false. I know a 

 physiologist who, after a day spent in experimental work, may be 

 seen sitting in the evening with a favorite cat on his lap, an old dog 

 by his side, and a new one at his feet ; but I would not therefore guar- 

 antee that he had not been cruel in the morning. He might be an 

 angel in the bosom of his family, but a demon in the laboratory. I 

 know a physiologist, of whom his friends have said that, had he not 

 been so amiable, he might have made a noise in the world, and yet 

 who at the present moment is being accused of brutal cruelties. I feel 

 that the accusation might be true. 



Nor is it of any use to say, though it may be said with perfect 

 truth, that a great deal of the present agitation against vivisection is 

 one of the many fruits of a mawkish sentimentalism which is stealing 

 over the present generation, and by a lessening of manliness is cur- 

 tailing the good effects of increased enlightenment. The foolish of 

 this world are often used to correct the wise ; and actions brought 

 about by a wrong sentimentalism may be in themselves right and 

 good. 



The question whether it is desirable that man should continue to 

 inflict the pains of death, or pains without death, on other animals, 

 and, if so, within what limits, is one which must be argued out on its 

 own merits alone, and the discussion of it will not be advanced by 

 irrelevant considerations such as these on which we have dwelt. 



There are two aspects of the inquiry — one from the side of man, 

 the other from the side of the animal. Let us first consider the ques- 

 tion from the point of view of the animal. 



We have to determine the principles which govern or should gov- 

 ern the conduct of man toward animals. One broad principle may 

 be briefly stated : Unless man destroys animals, animals would soon 

 destroy man. Mr. Tennyson has told us — 



" Nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal ; " 



and Mr. Darwin has shown that the lives of all living beings are shaped 

 by " the struggle for existence." Man's life is a struggle for exist- 

 ence with his fellow-men, with living animals and plants, and with 



