VIVISECTIONS. 
161 
with quadrupeds, who have no other guardians than Protection Societies. 
M. Alexis Godin, a distinguished member of the Paris Society, and equally 
distinguished as an advocate in the Imperial Court of Paris, observes on 
this point, in one of the voluminous works he published in the cause of 
humanity, and against vivisectional cruelties— 
{£ c That these quadrupeds have the more need of kind defenders, as they 
cannot defend themselves—as they suffer more ill-treatment and injustice— 
as they can pay no fees—as they can neither praise, extol, nor fraternise their 
advocates—nor feed their luxury, their vanity, nor their ambition ! ! 5 
“ Vivisection he considered an outrage on God and man. c Is it/ he asks, 
‘ the progress of anatomy or surgery that is sought ? If so, these scieuces 
would be studied with greater calmness, and consequently with greater suc¬ 
cess, on dead than on living bodies; for harden ourselves as we will, we are 
always more or less affected by the sight of suffering, when you see nought 
but disorder and confusion in the sound of cries, groans, and resistance of 
the poor victim. To acquire a knowledge of the normal state of the animal, 
is not by means of horrible suffering, transported into a convulsive state, 
which has no resemblance to the original one; so that this cruel procedure, 
under the plea of science, is no more than an imaginary, false, and erroneous 
conclusion/ 
“ So long, however, as assemblies of physiologists sit with closed doors, 
and exclude such independent advocates of humanity as M. Godin, they 
would be sure to have the decision on their side; but if such advocates were 
permitted to plead for mercy to dumb animals, and to protest, in the name 
of humanity, Christianity, and civilization, against a decision that a con¬ 
tinuation of such cruel practices was indispensable for the benefit of the 
human race, when their own principal witnesses declared ‘that experiments 
on animals of a different species, so far from leading to useful results, as 
regarded human beings, had a tendency to mislead, as in seeking benefits to 
mankind it was necessary to have recourse to pathological facts, founded on 
experiments on human beings/—the decision would probably be in a different 
sense from that implied by the question, as thus put in this quotation. 
“ This committee can come to no other conclusion, under these circum¬ 
stances, than that, in order to put a termination to all future discussions on 
this subject, an assembly, or a committee of physiologists, or other compe¬ 
tent judges, should be formed in London, and another in Paris, by the 
London and Paris Societies, at which, like other tribunals of justice, the 
doors should be thrown open, and advocates on both sides admitted, to ascer¬ 
tain whether or not the practice of vivisection is necessary for the benefit of 
human beings? if not, whether it should not be interdicted by law? or, 
whether, if continued, it should be restricted within certain defined limits, 
and under a licence, first obtained from heads of dissecting schools, or other 
competent authorities? 
“ That, in the mean time, every publicity should be given to all publica¬ 
tions and reports that have appeared on the subject, and such other steps 
taken as may be calculated to make an impression on the public in favour of 
this interdiction of its abuses, if not of the practice itself. 
“ In order to promote this object, wc have inserted, in an Appendix, such 
extracts from publications, which recently appeared in Prance and in this 
country, as we have considered calculated for that purpose/’ 
[Extracts from the <c Appendix” will be given in our next 
number.— Editors.] 
