354 
Analyses of Books. [June, 
of pain is the purpose of the inflicftor, and when he finds plea- 
sure therein. As applied to physiological investigations, it is 
simply an untruth, as we are able to assert from long and exten- 
sive observation. Work upon animals, conducted in a true 
scientific spirit, is no more hardening and demoralising than is 
experimentation upon plants or minerals. 
As to the third position of the enemy, Philanthropos profoundly 
remarks that it merges into the wider question of vicarious suffer- 
ing. “ Is it right that one creature should suffer for the good of 
another ?” That such should be the case seems to be “ one of the 
most comprehensive laws of the sentient world.” In all our 
ordinary dealings with animals we “ constitute ourselves ad- 
ministrators of this law, and apply it to them for our own 
interests.” As we showed (“Journal of Science,” 1876, p. 318) 
and as Philanthropos here contends, we torment and immolate 
animals without scruple for our convenience, our luxuries, and 
our pleasures. It is only when pain is inflidted in the pursuit of 
knowledge that the Bestiarian conscience is exercised. The 
fourth contention — that “ physiological experimentation is a 
violation of the rights of animals which we have no authority to 
commit,” seems due to one of the bitterest of the “ Anti-vivisec- 
tionist” fraternity — the editor of the “ Spectator.” This argu- 
ment, which after all is a mere exaggerated form of the foregoing, 
is not merely demolished but annihilated by the principle of con- 
sistency. If the “ golden rule” — which fails completely if we 
seek to apply it to criminals — forbids us to experiment upon ani- 
mals, no less does it forbid us to hunt them, shoot them, eat 
them, castrate them, or make them work for our benefit or 
pleasure! We are told to “put ourselves in the place of the 
lower animals, and ask what we, with their pains and their 
sensitiveness, and their prospedls of life and pain and happiness, 
might fairly expect of beings of much greater power but of com- 
mon susceptibilities.” Suppose any advocate of the “ rights of 
animals” were troubled with Entozoa, would he refledt on such 
“ rights” before taking anthelmintic medicines ? If, then, he is 
willing to slaughter animals — possibly with pain to themselves — - 
for the preservation of his own health, should he seek to restrain 
investigations which are calculated to preserve the health of his 
fellow men ? 
(To be continued in our next.) 
