1885.] 
Physiology and its Opponents. 
653 
“ Dr. Brunton has been forbidden to seek for antidotes to 
snake-bites. Prof. Fraser has been checked in his attempts 
to study the nature of the poison used by the natives of 
Borneo upon their arrows ; while Prof. Lister has had to 
leave England in order to carry on his researches.” We 
have heard of a case where certain eminent medical men, 
wishing to study the poison of serpents, imported some very 
formidable specimens, and applied for a license ; but before 
the necessary red tape was reeled off the snakes died. How 
many important inquiries are never undertaken in conse- 
quence of this ACt cannot even be conjectured. 
Mr. Robertson writes : — “ At this moment a hundred 
forms of cruelty in the shape of ‘ sport ’ and the poisoning 
of vermin are not even menaced by Law ; and Miss Cobbe 
admits that sportsmen are to be found among those who 
demand the suppression of vivisection. What we do is to 
put a rigorous check on the one form of systematic tam- 
pering with animal life which can be pursued from respect- 
able or disinterested motive, and, instead of impartially 
proposing to extend this check to the less defensible forms, 
the Bestiarians simply clamour against the check as being a 
sanction. There could not be a more flagrantly nefarious 
taCtic. ... A benevolent passion is, in itself, no safer guide 
than passion of any other kind. At best the emotionalist 
has to rely on stress of language rather than ratiocinative 
persuasion, and at the worst the desired effeCt is compassed 
by fearless fabrication. Prof. Huxley is said to have com- 
plained of the ‘ profligate lying of virtuous women ’ in this 
connection, and I can testify to having seen and heard some 
of the lying from both sexes. I have heard one lady allege, 
in a semi-public meeting, that the Professor had declared 
animals to be automata who do not feel ; and on challenge 
she could give no reference save a general one, which made 
it practically certain that she was simply misrepresenting 
his Belfast Address, in which he maintained the thesis that 
men and animals are alike automata, thus leaving the 
question of their comparative capacity for pain just as it 
stood before ; and in which besides he expressly said — 
benevolently rather than logically — that he was strengthened 
in his rejection of the extreme Cartesian view by the 
recognition that it might encourage cruel treatment of 
animals.” 
A distinguished American contemporary regrets that the 
British “ public did not and does not know enough about 
the matter to save itself from being misled by the reckless 
misstatements of irresponsible fanatics, and of certain 
