i882r] Bestiarianism v. Common Sense. 513 
214 years, when, as statisticians tell us, the human popula- 
tion of our globe will amount to an average of 700 persons 
per square mile of its whole surface ? Can we afford to give 
up millions of acres to be the haunt of wild horses, cattle, 
and swine, and to be drilled and undermined by rabbits ? 
Unless self-preservation ceases to be either the first or the 
last law of our nature we must reply to the advocates of 
animal emancipation with a stern non possumus. We must 
refuse to commit racial suicide. There is a legend of an 
Indian saint who gave his own body to preserve the life of a 
famishing tigress, and we have seen the deed extolled as an 
instance of self-denial. In reality it was a grievous crime. 
If the tigress preserved by his sacrifice slew afterwards any 
other human being he was constructively, but not the less 
decidedly, a murderer. 
Surely, then, summing up the foregoing considerations, it 
may be said that the Bestiarian position is every way un- 
tenable. Unless they refrain entirely from giving pain to 
animals they are inconsistent ; if they do so refrain they 
cannot exist. 
Having thus cleared the ground we may come to an exa- 
mination of Mr. Lawson Tait’s pamphlet. His opening 
remarks on the needlessness of vivisection for purposes of 
demonstration we may at once dismiss as foreign to his and 
our purpose. We then come to the following strange pas- 
sage : — “ The position of vivisection as a method of scien- 
tific research stands alone amongst the infinite variety of 
roads for the discovery of Nature’s secrets as being open to 
strong prima facie objections.” We reply that there are but 
two such roads, observation and experiment ; if the latter is 
closed to the investigator in animal physiology he will indeed, 
among all students of Science, stand alone. If we ask what 
is the stron g prima facie objection, we find it consists in “a 
strong and widespread public sentiment ” — more accurately 
described as an artificially created public prejudice or delu- 
sion — and the alleged uncertainty of the results. Says Mr. 
Lawson Tait : — “ No one can urge the slightest ground of 
objection against the astronomer, the chemist, the electri- 
cian, or the geologist, in their ways of working ; and the 
great commendation of all other workers is the comparative 
certainty of their results.” But a short time ago no one 
objected to the physiologist, and no one certainly now can 
venture to guarantee that a popular outcry may not suddenly 
be raised against research in other departments of Science. 
Whispers are already heard that the fanatical party will by 
no means desist from their agitation. Not to go into details, 
