1 883.] 
413 
Analyses of Books . 
something.” The existing law is well summed up in the fol- 
lowing words : — “ It is penal to use domestic animals in any 
way cruelly, but anyone may torture wild creatures in whatever 
fashion he likes, provided it be not for scientific purposes. 
Nothing makes it criminal to give pain to a wild animal except 
having sufficient justification.” 
We find next a very clear and fair history of the rise and 
progress of the Bestiarian agitation. We find especial mention 
of the faCt that, in spite of the aid of Detectives, the Society 
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was utterly unable to 
find anything to warrant legal proceedings against a physiolo- 
gical experimentalist up to the abortive Norwich proceedings. 
Funds were there in abundance ; there was espionage, vigour, 
and a hostile animus, but there was nothing to deteCt ! 
We come now to the Royal Commission of Inquiry appointed 
in June, 1875. To this step the medical profession and the sci- 
entific world generally offered no objection. The composition of 
the Commission was somewhat curious. It comprised three 
politicians (Viscount Cardwell, Baron Winmarleigh, and the 
Right Hon. W. E. Forster), a lawyer (Sir J. B. Karslake), two 
men of Science (Prof. Huxley and Mr. Erichsen), and a journalist 
(Mr. Hutton, of the “ Spectator ”). On what principle the last- 
named gentleman was selected in preference to any other of the 
thirty and odd millions of inhabitants of the United Kingdom 
we are not aware. He seems to have, throughout the inquiry, 
played the part of examining counsel for the Bestiarians. But 
though he signed the Report of the Commission in which the 
necessity of physiological experimentation is admitted, he has 
found it not contrary to his notions of consistency to persist in 
the agitation. Mr. Jesse, we understand, goes the length of 
accusing the Commissioners of suppressing evidence brought 
before them, which is certainly an ungrateful return for Mr. 
Hutton’s advocacy. It has been truthfully said that in this 
celebrated inquiry the evidence went beyond the faCts, the report 
beyond the evidence, and the subsequent legislation beyond the 
report. The Right Hon. Robert Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke) 
pronounced the proceeding of the Commissioners “ very sin- 
gular. They acquitted the accused, and sentenced them to be 
under the surveillance of the police for life.” It is hinted in 
certain quarters that both the appointment of the Commission 
and the legislation which followed are at least indireCUy due to 
the influence of a most exalted Personage. If so we would, with 
all deference, suggest that her dislike to cruelty might have been 
more fittingly displayed in the suppression of the Royal buck- 
hounds and their performances. 
The heads of the “ Anti-ViviseCtion ACt ” of 1876 are here 
given. It is shown, as an objectionable feature, and as a de- 
parture from the Recommendations of the Commission, that the 
Home Secretary is in practice invested with the arbitrary and 
