73 ° 
The Recent “ Vivisection ” Case. [December, 
judgment of all save the ignorant and the fanatical. Either 
they knew beforehand the faCts which were brought out in 
evidence or they did not. In the former case they stand 
convicted of having wantonly and gratuitously subjected a 
man to the indignity and annoyance of a criminal prosecu- 
tion, knowing that he had not committed the offences laid to 
his charge. In the latter event, if they did not know the 
faCts they are then guilty of bringing a railing accusation at 
hap-hazard. If the contention raised by the counsel for the 
prosecution is ever upheld, it will become dangerous to look 
at an animal upon which any experiment has been per- 
formed at some antecedent date even under licence ; it will 
be dangerous to note and discuss the results. We must 
further take good heed of the extension which the same 
counsel has attempted to give to the connotation of the word 
“ experiment.” It is perfectly plain that for the purposes 
of the Vivisection ACt this word means exclusively some 
process or operation, mechanical or chemical, calculated to 
occasion pain to an animal. Yet Mr. Waddy speaks over 
and over again of “ experiments” of a very different nature. 
Thus he says “ it was in contravention of the fourth section 
of the ACt to keep the animals alive for the purpose of 
having other experiments performed upon them.” “ The 
animal was brought over for further experiments .” “ An 
adjournment to the laboratory at King’s College for further 
experiments.” Now when we reflect that these “ experi- 
ments” on which such stress is laid, and for which it was 
contended that a certificate ought to have been obtained, 
amounted to the offer of a biscuit and the snapping off a 
cap in test of deafness, the whole proceedings might be 
justly proclaimed a farce if they were less disastrous for the 
defendant. 
We cannot help pointing out how different and how much 
more dangerous is the position of a man accused of inflict- 
ing pain upon animals in the pursuit of knowledge than that 
of one who has put birds or beasts to torture for gain, for 
“ sport,” or for the mere love of wounding and killing. Let 
us take the case of a cock-fight — a pursuit utterly useless 
and illegal under any condition. It is possible that the 
owners and backers of the cocks or any other person actually 
present at the fight might have to appear before the nearest 
petty sessions. The prosecution, however, would be con- 
ducted, not by a Queen’s Counsel and two juniors, but by 
some local solicitor. Consequently the defendants would 
not be put to the expense of engaging on their behalf a 
corresponding array of legal talent. This feature, indeed, 
