it is literally as trifling as the prick of a pin, and in the great majority of cases more severe experiments are rendered painless by the use of anaesthetics. I believe the words of Dr. Pye Smith in his address before the British Association in 1879 convey the spirit of all scientific men in England. He says:

The only restriction which Christian morality imposes upon such practices is that no more pain shall be inflicted than is necessary for the object in view. Killing or hurting domestic animals when moved by passion or by the horrible delight which some depraved natures feel in the act of inflicting pain was until lately the only recognised transgression against the law of England. It is only under such restrictions that physiologists desire to work. They are, in fact, the very limits that were accepted by physiologists long before the agitation began. Any one who would inflict a single pang beyond what is necessary for a scientific object, or would by carelessness fail to take due care of the animals he has to deal with, would be justly liable to public reprobation.

I do not pretend to speak for physiologists, but I apprehend that they would deprecate as much as anybody the practice of experiments by untrained and incompetent persons; they would regard it as a public scandal if, in any house in any street, animals were liable to be made use of for experimentation. It is not likely that this would ever occur; but, to satisfy public feeling, I have no doubt that no physiologist would object to his laboratory being licensed in the same way as are dissecting-rooms under the Anatomy Act, and to the license being given only to persons of adequate knowledge and known character. When this was done, the expert should be allowed to work in his own way and after his own method. I have little doubt that this would be acceptable to physiologists, and ought sufficiently to appease the public mind; for it should be remembered, as Lord Sherbrooke well put it, that some of these experimenters are practising physicians and surgeons; and it is absurd to trust defenceless children in their hands, and forbid them performing vaccination on a mouse.

There is an important part of the question which has not been sufficiently dwelt upon by physiologists. They have defended their cause by showing the benefits which have accrued from experiments on animals. All they have said is perfectly true; but it must be remembered that these good results were not immediately in view, nor were they always the chief object for which the physiologist performed his experiment. Every fact in nature, being of necessity the exemplification of a general law, has its meaning; and thus the most important consequences have resulted from an observation of the most trivial phenomena. Illustrations of this truth abound in every chapter of the history of science. It is, therefore, only the single object before him at which the experimenter is aiming—he is seeking after truth, and if he finds it he is satisfied. Indeed, the true 2 See Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1871, p. 144.

scientific worker is known by the singleness of his purpose, for it is certain that if he is looking to some splendid ulterior object his eyes become dazzled and he misses his mark. How absurd, then, for experimenters to be asked by the Government official before he permits them to commence their work, what good object they can foresee in pursuing their researches! The only answer which a really scientific man could give would be-knowledge.

Although this feeling is quite unappreciated by many persons, the perusal of the biographies of great scientific men shows that they were impelled by as strong a passion as any in the human breast. We know, if a lad has a passion for music or painting, that no penalties which it would be in our power to inflict would prevent him in secret or in bye paths from following his constraining passion. So it is with the thirst for knowledge; it cannot be restrained. The naturalist will wander in the pathless forest to discover some new form of life, or he will watch for hours over the fertilising process in his flowers, or the habits of his ants, or the slow operation of the worms in the earth. An enthusiastic medical student will watch all night at the bedside of a sick man in the hospital; not only when impelled by duty to minister to his wants, but also when impelled by the thirst for knowledge to watch the ever-changing symptoms of some mysterious malady. It therefore manifests a lamentable want of knowledge of mankind in our governing bodies to think that an Act of Parliament can eventually arrest scientific research; it may hamper and harass for a time, but it is powerless to do more.

As there will always be certain men engaged in the cultivation of the fine arts or of letters, so there will be others engaged in unravelling the enigmas of nature; and it should be thoroughly and clearly understood that this can only be done by one method-by experiment and proof. The mysteries of nature are not to be understood by looking at them; in all ages and all times this has been done, but without profit. If it had been possible at any former period for a superior intelligence to have endeavoured an explanation of the growth of a plant, of the causes of animal heat, or the laws of nervous conduction, the very terms would have been unintelligible; the description of the tissues now known to the microscopist, the various chemical changes, the electric currents, would have sounded as jargon. All knowledge is self-created; it comes step by step through experiment and verification: this knowledge, when obtained, is then made use of in explanation of the more complex structures and phenomena. Just as the steam engine has been built up step by step through a series of years, so is our knowledge a continuous growth after the same fashion. If there be, then, a particular process which alone the human mind can make use of for the investigation of the phenomena of nature, there will always be found certain

persons ready for the work. Whether it be a question of the nature of the rocks beneath us, or the composition of the ocean, or of vegetable life or of animal life, the method of inquiry is the same. The rocks are broken and put in the crucible, the water is submitted to analysis, the plant is dissected, and, in order to ascertain the laws which govern its growth and propagation, experiments are made by grafting and by cross fertilisation. In animal life the same method must be adopted to unlock the secrets of nature. The question of the animal being sensitive cannot alter the mode of investigation. It is, therefore, sheer folly and ignorance to stand in the path and forbid any one walking in the one right direction; it cannot be done. All that society should demand is that their rights. and privileges should not be interfered with. I may not enter a man's garden to examine his plants, though my aim is a scientific one. I ought not to be allowed to dissect a dead body in my house to the annoyance of my neighbours-it would be a public scandal; and in the same spirit experiments should not be allowed on animals anywhere and by anybody. But when the public mind is appeased in these respects, perfect freedom should be given to the scientific investigator. He cannot but pursue one course, and no law can hinder him.

Having alluded to the Anatomy Act, I may be allowed to add that public feeling has already put restraint enough on scientific and medical men. Our profession is unduly weighted; we are really, as Dr. Foster remarked, asked to make bricks without straw. It may not be in the knowledge of all, that, between forty and fifty years ago, there was so much scandal caused by the stealing of bodies for dissection that the present Anatomy Act was passed. This is a very stringent Act and most rigidly worked. Amongst other clauses it is obligatory that the body when dissected shall be buried. Consequently it is quite impossible to obtain a skeleton, and probably none has been made in England for many years. As a result of this, all the skeletons and bones for the use of students are obtained from abroad. When I was curator of the museum at Guy's Hospital, I paid about twenty pounds a year for French skeletons, and had sometimes difficulty in avoiding the duty on works of art. I would submit the case to the fair trader. It is clear, therefore, that if England had no communication with the Continent, a student here could not thoroughly learn anatomy. The English public is very exacting of the physician as regards his skill, and yet it forbids him the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of anatomy, and now the same public is endeavouring to stand in the way of his acquiring a knowledge of physiology and pathology.

The ostensible reason offered for the suppression of vivisection is its cruelty; but when it is objected that other forms of cruelty are unmolested, we are met by the answer that it is useless cruelty. If by useless is meant that it is unattended by scientific results, I leave

the statement to the reader of the testimony above quoted from the foremost men of science. It must, therefore, be meant that all physiological knowledge is useless; and this I leave to the judgment of the medical profession, which has already been conclusively pronounced.

The 'vivisection question' is a burning one, and the sooner it is settled in favour of science and humanity the better, for assuredly it must one day be so determined. The laws of human progress cannot be withstood by any human enactments. Moreover, if ignorant public opinion is kept alive to the question, so is instructed public opinion; for Harvey, the arch-vivisector, left it as an instruction to the College of Physicians, that once a year an oration should be delivered with the object of encouraging its members to search out the secrets of nature by way of experiment.'

SAMUEL WILKS.

ABERDEENSHIRE, land tenure in, BABER Cdr.), report of on opium