652 Physology and its Opponents. [November, 
(our sensibilities) implies an anti-social tendency in the 
aggressor. The discerning reader perceives, no doubt, that 
this is the form of argument used to support the blasphemy 
and Sabbatarian laws, and religious persecution generall)'. 
Still Mr. Robertson holds that “ the prevention of cruelty by 
Law is about as safe, and stands on the same moral footing, 
as the prohibition of indecency.” But the whole of this 
acute argument is really beside the question. For what is 
cruelty ? Not the infliction of pain per se, but its infliction 
out of carelessness, for amusement, or for revenge. 1 he 
most uncompromising opponents of the Bestiarian hubbub, 
ourselves included, would most willingly restrain every in- 
fliction of unnecessary injury on animals or plants. 
Says Mr. Robertson— “ We now come to the practical 
issue. Shall vivisection for purposes of medical research 
be suppressed on the score that the practice is demoralising 
whether useful or not ; or shall we remove the restrictions 
at present laid on it ?” We distinctly deny that the piaCtice 
is demoralising. Both the men who engage personally in 
experimentation on living subjects and those who analyse 
and co-ordinate the results obtained may boldly challenge a 
comparison of their lives and characters with the most 
squeamish sentimentalist. To the outside public it cannot 
be demoralising simply because it is not, or rather was not, 
known. If it has now any demoralising effeCt upon the 
public — which we do not believe— the blame rests on the 
Bestiarians themselves. 
Mr. Robertson continues “ Those of us who have no 
fixed prejudice against legislation, as such, can see that 
there is a good deal to be said for the present arrangement 
of licenses, which puts a check on mere experiments in 
torture, and leaves a possibility of conscientious research.” 
Here Mr. Robertson is doubly in error. Anyone who wishes 
to indulge in torture can do so with utter impunity at least, on 
wild animals, provided he assigns as his motive spoit ,, 01 
a wager. And the “ possibility of conscientious research ” is, 
on the other hand, extremely slender. If we consider that the 
applicant must first obtain a recommendation from either 
the President of the Royal Society or from the heads of our 
chief medical bodies, and then forward this document along 
with his application to the Home Secretary,— an overworked 
official, who as a rule has scant sympathy with Science,— 
we cannot fail to see that for an obscure uninfluential man 
to obtain a license is simply out of the question. But even 
men of known standing are often enough brought to a dead- 
lock by this lamentable Adt. As “ Philanthropes ” tells us, 
