514 Bestiarianism v. Common Sense . [September, 
it is actually hinted that experiments on hybridisation 
among plants will shortly be denounced on the score of 
“ indecency ” ! 
The results of the experimental physiologist are often, we 
are told, uncertain. It may naturally be expected that the 
more complicated the subject the more difficult must experi- 
mentation become. But is that any reason why we should 
desist from experiment when we have no substitute ? Mr. 
Tait must be aware that in other sciences, also, self-contra- 
didtory — and therefore to some extent erroneous — results 
have often been arrived at, not merely by tyros and bunglers, 
but by men of established reputation. The truth, let us 
remind him, is not always readily and easily reached in 
physical and chemical experimentation. But the fadt of this 
difficulty has always been felt by physicists and chemists to 
be the most urgent reason, not for the abandonment of ex- 
periment, but for its multiplication and repetition under 
varied circumstances. By adting on this principle the truth 
is ultimately reached. 
We now come to Mr. Tait’s “ four avenues of thought,” 
which seem to be four ways leading certain people to deny — 
or at least to doubt — the permissibility of physiological ex- 
perimentation. The first of these is “ the avenue of pure 
abstradt morality, by which it is argued that we have no 
right to inflidt sufferings on others that we ourselves may 
benefit.” This “ avenue,” we reply, proves, if anything, 
far more than the public would care to hear. If we may not 
inflidt sufferings upon others for our benefit, what right have 
we to kill animals for food, to force them to drag our carts 
and coaches, to emasculate them, or to destroy, rats, mice, 
bugs, cockchaffers, wireworms, slugs, and multitudes of other 
animals, large and small ? Mr. Lawson Tait’s first avenue, 
therefore, only leads into the quagmire of inconsistency in 
which the majority of “ anti-vivisedtionists ” contentedly 
wallow. But we have yet to note a curious addition. Mr. 
Tait writes — “ An avenue which is worthy of the highest 
respedt, because its opening up is only a matter of yesterday, 
in the evolution of the moral life of individuals, and, as far 
as national morality is concerned, it can hardly be said to 
have been ever seriously considered until about a year ago.” 
We have always been of opinion that truth, whether new 
or old, was equally valuable. But we must utterly scout the 
contention that a dodtrine deserves the more respedt from 
its novelty. A man was sane until about a year ago : re- 
cently he has become deranged. Are we to hold his present 
notions of value simply because they are only a “ matter of 
