1881.] The Recent “ Vivisection ” Case. 731 
is one of the most unworthy of the whole affair. It is, in 
faCt, as if Mr. Adams had said to Professor Ferrieiq 
“ Whether you are innocent or guilty I will at all events 
put you to as much expense as I possibly can !” 
There is here another feature ; in the case of a cock-fight 
or a bull-baiting, none but those actually present and 
taking part in the performance are within the reach of the 
law. Suppose a wounded cock had survived the fight, no 
person examining him some six months after would be liable 
to a criminal prosecution. Now if we consider how much 
more severe are the penalties for unlicensed vivisection than 
for those cruel “ sports” which have won for our country so 
unpleasant a reputation throughout the civilized world, it 
might surely be demanded that the provisions of the A 61 
should not be laxly construed. 
We turn now to the “ Vivisection ACt” itself. In the 
year 1876, when this ACt was under discussion, some of oar 
medical contemporaries expressed themselves satisfied with 
its contemplated provisions. It was considered that there 
was no reason to fear that the proposed measure would “ in 
any material way” diminish existing facilities for research, 
whilst, on the other hand, a hope was expressed that it would 
<£ calm the needless apprehension, and put an end to the 
odious misrepresentations which have been recently rife 
concerning this subject, and which have been in ignorance 
adopted by persons of consideration, who will probably in 
future take more pains to be correCtly informed.” In the 
“ Journal of Science” for July, 1876, in an article which the 
anti-viviseCtionists have prudently declined to answer, we 
declared that these expectations would come to naught. 
Our words have been more than verified. The agitation, 
far from subsiding, has increased in vehemence and in venom. 
An esteemed contemporary admits that it has been “ making 
steady progress among the emotional and ignorant classes of 
the community,” who are, in effeCt, our rulers, and pro- 
nounces, as do we, the passing of the Vivisection ACt 
unfortunate and unwise. 
The question now arises how long medical men and 
biologists in general can find it prudent to continue the 
policy which they have adopted since the commencement of 
the anti-viviseCtion uproar ? How long are we to allow our- 
selves to be systematically traduced in pamphlets, petitions, 
speeches, and prayer meetings, without combining for the 
defence of Science ? We have met and more than met all 
the charges brought against us, but our replies have appeared 
merely in medical and scientific journals which never reach 
3 B 3 
