1882.] B esliavianism V. Common Sense. 457 
has been put in various forms,* is invariably avoided by the 
Anti-ViviseCtionists. They feel — must feel — that it is an 
inconsistency, in spite of that well-worn catch-word, “ Two 
blacks do not make one white,” of which Lord Chief Justice 
Coleridge is said to have 'delivered himself. Let us bring 
forward a few instances of this inconsistency, that they may 
be duly valued by the reader, reminding him first that almost 
every conceivable experiment upon a vertebrate animal, 
whether involving bodily lesion or not, may be construed as 
an infraction of the Vivisection ACt. 
Two men, for a wager, flay some frogs alive, and sprinkle 
salt upon their bodies “ to see which would jump the 
farthest.” The magistrate before whom they are brought 
dismisses the case as not coming within the scope of the 
law, remarking, however, gravely, that had the operation 
been performed for a scientific purpose the defendants would 
have been liable to heavy penalties. 
A boy impales a frog on a fish-hook as a bait for pike, and 
leaves it to writhe and struggle all night in the water. He 
also has broken no law, nor has he “ violated public senti- 
ment.” But if he, in an unlucky hour, feels disposed to 
watch the circulation of the blood in the web of a frog’s 
foot, and ties this member down so as to admit of its inspec- 
tion under a microscope, he has then incurred the risk of a 
heavy fine, and has indulged in an “ Orgy of Diabolism.” 
Yet again : an angler hooks a salmon, and “ plays ” it 
for (say) an hour.f All this while the victim has been suf- 
fering from slow suffocation. The hook fixed in the mouth 
will also have been the cause of something more than mere 
inconvenience. All this prolonged “ torture ” is, however, 
perfectly legal, and the angler, after enjoying his favourite 
pastime, may indulge in Bestiarian harangues, no man 
twitting him with hypocrisy ! But suppose that, in order to 
study the vital conditions of fishes, whether from an abstract 
or an economical point of view, he places oceanic species 
(say) in an aquarium filled with brackish water ; he is then 
guilty of vivisection, and all its pains and penalties, legal 
and social, fall upon his devoted head. 
Further, we have seen Buckinghamshire farm-boys drench 
a newt with petroleum, and set it on fire. For this there is 
no legal penalty, and our mild remonstrance was met with 
* See Frof. Owen’s work, p. 37 ; also “ Journal of Science ” for 1876, 
p.318. 
f We have heard of cases where a vigorous fish has struggled for a longer 
time. 
VOL. IV. (THIRD SERIES.) 2 , H 
