Vivisection. 
335 
1876.] 
experiment must be performed only with a view to the ad- 
vancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be 
useful for saving or prolonging human life or alleviating 
human suffering.” Thus the point against which the Royal 
Commissioners wisely made a stand is conceded, and expe- 
riments for the advance of general biological knowledge — 
except bearing direCtly upon the treatment of disease — are 
evidently proscribed. Vivisection is to be simply medical in 
its objeCt. That this most objectionable clause is to be 
strictly interpreted appears from a subsequent proviso : — 
“ Experiments may be performed not direCtly for the ad- 
vancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be 
useful for saving or prolonging human life or alleviating 
human suffering, but for the purpose of testing a particular 
former discovery alleged to have been made for the advance- 
ment of such knowledge as last aforesaid, on such certificate 
being given as is in this ACt mentioned that such testing is 
absolutely necessary for the effectual advancement of such 
knowledge.” 
Hence it would appear that the licensed experimentalist 
is not at liberty to perform such operations as may to him 
seem calculated for the advancement of science, but that he 
may be called upon, in any individual case, to explain his 
exaCt objeCt and mode of procedure, probably to an Inspector 
under the ACt, who may use his own judgment as to whether 
the researches proposed are permissible. Experiments un- 
dertaken with a view to the prevention or cure of disease in 
domestic animals — surely an important objeCt — will, as far 
as we can judge, be considered illegal. The scale of penal- 
ties proposed is exorbitantly high, — a point of the greater 
importance if we remember that experimentalists will be 
subjected to organised espionage, and that, if once they are 
accused of “ cruelty,” swearing of the stoutest quality will 
be employed to secure their conviction. We can only repeat 
our regret that one of the most important sciences should 
be placed in a position so humiliating. 
We have heard of the “ endowment of research ” as a 
something vaguely looming in the distance. It is becoming 
tangible at last in the shape of penalties of fifty and one 
hundred pounds, supplemented with months of imprison- 
ment i Instead of King Log we have now King Stork ; 
aCtive persecution instead of contemptuous negleCt. There 
has been much said lately about a great scientific revival in 
England. Should this Bill and the Patent Law Amendment 
Bill pass into law the present administration will have given 
that revival a blow which no empty courtesies can heal, and 
