156 
Analyses of Books. 
[March, 
ever the hybridisation of plants, and that ; in seeking to check 
the progress of biological research, they are fighting against 
their most dreaded enemies — the inquirers into the bodily and 
spiritual vital conditions of man. We fear that the author here 
forgets how “ free thought ” has, in the person of one at least of 
its champions, joined the motley army of anti-vivisectionists. He 
then passes on to show the gross inconsistency of the aristocratic 
and sporting opponents of physiological research. He paints in 
glowing colours the holy alliance between Exeter Hall and Hur- 
lingham. Though some of his charges against the pursuits of 
our country gentlemen relate rather to the past than the present, 
it must be admitted that one of their old sins — cock-fighting to 
wit — has lately experienced a revival. From England the 
“ germs” of the agitation were carried over to Germany, and 
found an apt nidus in a certain Ernst von Weber, a “ knight of 
high orders, possessor of the Imperial Austrian medal for Art 
and Science, member of the council of the Dresden Society for 
the Protection of Animals,” and author of “ The Torture- 
Chambers of Science ” — a pamphlet admirably adapted to the 
comprehension of the class of people which at Leipzig burst into 
and demolished the Physiological Institute ! The writings and 
speeches of this man have met with more acceptance than 
might have been hoped in Germany. But even in that country 
the entire population does not consist of enlightened thinkers. 
It is very much to be regretted that among the dishonourable 
means employed by the anti-vivisectionists has been a species of 
forgery. Thus Sir Charles Bell, Darwin, and Rockitansky are 
alleged to have declared vivisection useless for Science. The 
author shows the untruthfulness of these statements, and quotes 
textually a document signed by Charles Darwin, and dated 1876, 
addressed to the Leipzig Physiological Society. 
The statement that both in England and Germany “ practical 
physicians ” have pronounced vivisection unnecessary is severely 
but truthfully encountered. The very same kind of practitioners 
— routine prescribers and fee-takers — reject the application of 
physical, chemical, and microscopic research to the art of 
healing, and in fact dispense with physiology altogether. There 
are a certain class of medical men who, having spent the best 
part of their college years in the tavern and the fencing-school, 
by some marvellous turn of luck slip through the “ State exam- 
ination,” and are duly authorised to angle for patients. How 
are such men to earn a livelihood in an over-crowded profession 
where even great merit may not be recognised until too late ? 
The choice lies for them between hunger and quackery, and we 
need not say which alternative they select. They become 
homoeopaths, hydropaths, anti-vaccinationists, anti-vivisection- 
ists, or anything which may flatter the ignorance and the preju- 
dices of the public. Such are the greatest part of the medical 
practitioners who for the sake of popularity are willing to com- 
promise the advance of Science. 
