169 
who look on animals as simply machines, as manifesting no sentience under 
the lash, for instance, beyond what the plant does under the stimulus of 
light. I merely assert that the comparison seems to me to be of two very 
different things. However, as the subject of the alleged non-suffering by 
the lower animals of pain such as is felt by man has been taken up, I may 
here say that, according to the testimony of veterinary surgeons, many 
animals, — for instance, the dog and the horse, — do suffer, to all intents and 
purposes, as much actual pain as any of us, the domesticated animals suffer- 
ing to a greater extent than those which are undomesticated. But there is 
one respect in which, according to my informants, animals suffer a great deal 
more than man, and that is, that whereas a man who is subjected to very severe 
and protracted pain faints, and becomes unconscious, the inferior animals 
never do this : so that, in reality, they do under these circumstances suffer 
more than man. But there is another respect in which there is a very 
material difference. A great deal of the suffering which man experiences is 
moral or mental, as well as physical. When a man has to undergo an 
operation, or to be subjected to some severe physical punishment, he knows 
in anticipation the results that are likely to follow. He can imagine, for 
example, the horrors of death, and realise the responsibilities that are 
attached to him if he should leave his family unprovided for ; whereas, none 
of the lower animals have any such feelings. Consequently, in this respect 
the animal has the advantage over us, because, while it only suffers 
physically, we suffer both physical and moral pain. A reference has been 
made to the alchemists of old. 'No doubt we owe the alchemists a great 
deal, but in speaking of science and other matters in relation to a 
particular period one is bound to take typical instances, and the par- 
ticular type I took was that of Paracelsus, whom I quoted in order to 
show that the style and doctrines of a person with whom a theory having 
no solid grounds has originated may, nevertheless, become so marked as to 
carry with them the opinions of the most learned, and become, in fact, the 
fashion of the day. I may add that I introduced a certain number of 
personalities with reference to Paracelsus which I should not have felt 
justified in bringing forward with regard to any living man ; but, although 
it is often said we should separate altogether a man’s public and private 
character, it seems to me that this is very often a difficult thing to do. 
According to my idea, some of the things enunciated by Paracelsus would 
have had greater weight had his private character been such as to have 
given them that weight. For example, with regard to some of the writings 
of men of the present day, although we may not agree with the opinions they 
enunciate, still, from the high and honourable character of those individuals, 
we accept their opinions with the respect due to all honourable and upright 
men. Their theories may be wrong, but we nevertheless receive them 
and treat them with respect. An allusion was made by one speaker 
to what we owe to the East. What he has said leads me to think 
that perhaps he takes me for being altogether a home-bred individual. 
I may state, however, that I also have been a great deal in the East, in- 
