THE VIVISECTION CLAMOUR. 
399 
a few,* are allowed to perpetrate the utmost cruelties imagin- 
able without aim or end other than the unquestionable torture 
of the animals pursued. A calm observer of the arguments on 
the two sides will unavoidably say, 44 If you desire to put down 
cruelty to animals, put it down first where it is both harsh and 
unnecessary ; and then if you will, come down on vivisection,” f 
which is an extremely useful as well as excessively limited opera- 
tion — profession, indeed, we had almost termed it. 
And this view of the matter brings us to the consideration of 
some remarks on this subject made by the 44 Daily News ” of 
August 10 or 11. This paper, in a leading article on the dis- 
cussion in Parliament upon the second reading of the Bill, holds 
the same opinion, but it singularly enough commences at the end 
instead of at the beginning. It says that of course Parliament 
cannot undertake to legislate for the whole matter at once, but 
that it does well to begin with the physiologists. Why ? 
Simply that the 44 Daily News ” has got a craze upon the subject, 
and takes this unreasonable view. Surely if vivisection is to be 
put down at all, i.e. if all modes of torturing creatures are to be 
put an end to — an idea which is as absurd as it is impossible — 
that which is most general and least useful should in the first 
instance be considered. But, in the opinion of the 44 Daily News,” 
the reverse view is correct. That which is most beneficial and 
infinitesimally small in its amount must be the first that is put 
an end to. 
Apart, however, from this view of the question, there is a 
series of other points to be considered with which we fear the 
anti-vivisectionist has not at all acquainted himself. And firstly 
comes the fact that every animal must die at one time or another. 
It may be a slow death by starvation, it may be of the most intense 
torture — as witness a cat with a mouse or rat which she has half 
killed and then plays with for hours ; it may be by poison — 
which is essential in many cases ; or, lastly, it may be by some 
sudden catastrophe — as a flood, or a fire, or frost which slays by 
thousands. And to this the anti-vivisectionist will reply : But 
why not allow animals to live as long as they can ? To this 
important question two answers are to be given. 1. A lower 
animal differs entirely from man, inasmuch as it never knows 
that it is going to die. If the condition of man’s life were the 
same, death could have no earthly horror, i.e. death alone. If, 
* Not to mention the habit of puncturing animals with iron goads for the 
purpose of marking them with the owners’ initials, the crimping of live 
salmon and cod, the amputation of sheep’s tails, &c. &c. 
t The word should never have been used, and yet it seems difficult to 
substitute a better one. But the idea that it conveys of animals being flayed 
alive is clearly as objectionable as it is wrong. 
