1876,] 
Vivisection. 
33 * 
and want of right to interfere with the subject. Nearly 
three centuries have elapsed since Francis Bacon uttered 
the memorable truth that one scientific principle, rightly 
established, draws after it “ whole squadrons of practical 
applications.” During these three centuries his saying has 
been illustrated and verified, in every branch of science, 
times without end, and might, we hope, have penetrated 
even to the “ persons of consideration ” who are raising the 
present hubbub, and yet we find them babbling about the 
“ mere advancement of science,” as if too frivolous a matter 
for consideration ! The Royal Commissioners gravely rejeCt 
this absurd proposal. They remind its sapient originators 
that the onward steps which have immortalised Harvey and 
Galvani were, when first made, “ mere scientific discoveries,” 
and that “ the germ of a great discovery is often so small as 
to be scarcely perceptible, and yet it may contain in it the 
grandest results.” All this is, of course, true ; but it is 
somewhat sad when the education of “ persons of considera- 
tion ” is so far in arrears that they require to be reminded 
of such elementary truths. Sadder still when persons so 
ignorant will come forward as teachers of the public, and 
seek to overbear the truth with sensational clamour. 
Another proposal is not merely absurd, but disgusting. It 
was demanded that any person writing, publishing, or selling 
any book or journal containing an account of experiments 
made upon living animals, should, on complaint being laid, 
be summoned to appear before a police-magistrate or a court 
of petty sessions, and, failing to prove to the satisfaction of 
the Bench that the experiments described did not involve 
cruelty to animals, should be liable to fine and imprison- 
ment, as well as to the forfeiture of the books. According 
to this suggestion, which is simply a standing disgrace to its 
authors, the English student would be debarred even from 
reading the results obtained by foreign authorities. The 
works of the most illustrious biologists and the Transactions 
of the most honoured Academies would be placed on a level 
with the literature of Wych Street. The shops of our 
medical publishers would be beset with “ aCtive and intelli- 
gent officers,” whilst detectives and spies, amateur and pro- 
fessional, would “ get themselves up ” as medical students, 
and come asking for some volume of forbidden lore in order 
to entrap the unwary bookseller, while in the background 
lurked some Secretary prepared with every quirk and quibble 
the Law could furnish in support of the charge. Should 
this suggestion ever become Law, a long step will have 
been taken towards the re-introduCtion of the censorship. 
