102 
VIVISECTION A L CRUELTIES. 
being actuated by a praiseworthy desire to provide a re¬ 
medy for such revolting practices, have had a Report made 
on the subject by some of their most scientific and learned 
men, a copy of which has been sent to the London Society, 
which is equally anxious to co-operate for that purpose. As 
a member of the Committee of this Society, my object in 
troubling you on the present occasion is in the hope of 
eliciting some observations from your numerous professional 
readers as to whether or not such cruel practices are in¬ 
dispensable for the acquirement of physiological knowledge ? 
as when doctors differ on such points, little can be expected 
from the unlearned members of that Committee, with a 
limited knowledge and an unlimited amount of ignorance as 
to the mysteries of the iEsculapian art. I ventured to re¬ 
mind certain members of that art, on a recent visit to Paris 
of a deputation from the London Society, that 
“ Ce que nous connoissons est peu de chose, 
Ce que nous ignorons est immense.” 
That this observation might apply to researches for import¬ 
ant discoveries in the bowels of the earth, with its unli¬ 
mited boundaries; but how it could apply to researches in 
the bowels, flesh, and fibres of living animals on the surface 
of the earth, the boundaries of whose bodies are so limited, 
is incomprehensible to the uninitiated in the mysteries of 
that art, more particularly when they find some of its leading 
professors protesting against its utility, and giving the pre¬ 
ference to experiments on dead bodies. The names of some 
of these eminent men are, nevertheless, quoted in this Report 
as favorable to that practice. 
To the experiments of Sir Charles Bell, for instance, it 
stated that they considered themselves indebted for physio¬ 
logical acquirements so fruitful in therapeutical application, 
and they also gave the names, as favorable to these views, of 
Magendie, Muller, Valentin, Longet, &c. This Report we 
referred, amongst others, to Mr. Macilwain, F.R.C.S., &c., 
who has directed his attention for a series of years to this 
subject, and published various observations on its inutility, 
and who was, moreover, a contemporary of Sir Charles Bell. 
Mr. Macilwain quoted the authority of Sir Charles him¬ 
self, to the effect “ that the object in view could be better 
attained after life was extinct, as he found that on having 
the animal put to death, he was better able to conduct the 
operation, not from consideration of the sufferings of the 
animal, but because its sensations under such sufferings 
