674 
EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
this sole aim before our eyes, our task becomes one of the 
most simple nature; it consists merely in the inquiry 
whether the practice of vivisection is, in reality, a cruelty; 
and, first of all, let us examine what is the true meaning of 
the word. 
If I were called upon to define the term, I should give it 
a much wider meaning than that to be found in the diction¬ 
aries, which tell us that it is <f Inhumanity, inclination to 
shed blood, to cause suffering, or to delight in witnessing 
the sufferings of others/ 5 Following this explanation, we 
need go no further. It is evident that vivisectors have some 
other object in view than the mere pleasure of shedding 
blood, or of beholding the sufferings of "others.” For 
animals may certainly be regarded as “ others.” An act of 
cruelty, according to our interpretation, is the infliction of 
pain, however slight, and of whatever nature it may be, which 
is gratuitously inflicted upon any species of living creature. 
Humanity and tender feeling should, in our state of ad¬ 
vanced civilisation, govern all our actions. But however 
great may, and ought, to be our solicitude for the brute 
creation, there is one sentiment which must always rise 
above it, and that is the interest experienced in our own 
preservation, and, I may add also, of our own amelioration 
likewise. It is this peculiar principle of social philosophy 
which we denominate utility. Everything useful to humanity is 
to be regarded as a moral fulfilment. This is the supreme law. 
To dwell longer upon these considerations would be su¬ 
perfluous. There are certain convictions which escape discus¬ 
sion because they form a part of the sentiments which fill the 
soul of every man of sound and healthy mind. This is one 
of them. It is, moreover, like the innate idea of the necessity 
of society, one of the most natural conditions of humanity. 
With this admission, we have only to examine whether 
vivisection be useful in this particular sense. And if we 
can establish the fact of its having rendered service of ever 
so trifling a nature, we must defend the practice, for we must, 
in that Case, be permitted to infer the probability of ulterior 
service as well. 
If the question were propounded thus, before an assembly 
of physiologists, it would excite nothing more than a con¬ 
temptuous smile. They would instantly inform you that 
physiology itself has only been acknowledged as worthy to 
take rank amongst the sciences since the day when, dis¬ 
carding all empty dreaming, all paradoxical reverie, it began 
to devote itself exclusively to the research of positive fact 
and example. Its claim to be considered amongst the 
