again expressed its
condemnation of experiments made for the demonstration of known
facts. In its issue of October 20, 1860, the Lancet editor says:

"The moment that it [vivisection] overpasses the bounds of necessity;
when it ceases to aim at the solution of problems in which humanity is
interested, and becomes a new means of public demonstration, having no
benevolent end--then it is degraded to the level of A PURPOSELESS
CRUELTY. The repetitive demonstration of known facts, by public or
private vivisections, is an abuse that we deplore, and have more than
once condemned."

On January 12, 1861, the Lancet opens its columns to a correspondent,
who invites attention of its readers to the views of Professor Owen,
afterward Sir Richard Owen, and the most distinguished anatomist of
his time:

"Professor Owen, one of the first physiological authorities of the
present day, observes: `That no teacher of physiology is justified in
repeating any vivisectional experiment, merely to show its known
results to his class or to others. IT IS THE PRACTICE OF VIVISECTION,
in place of physiological induction, pursued for the same end, AGAINST
WHICH HUMANITY, CHRISTIANITY, AND CIVILIZATION SHOULD ALIKE PROTEST.'"

It is probable that no stronger denunciation of the cruelty of
vivisection ever appeared than that contained in the leading editorial
of the London Lancet of August 22, 1863. The writer was certainly not
an opponent of all experiments upon animals; he admits that "if
pressed for a categoric answer whether such a practice as vivisection
were permissible under proper restrictions for the purpose of
advancing science and lessening human suffering, the answer would be
in the affirmative." But the practice is evidently spreading. It is
asserted that experiments upon animals "are a common mode of lecture
illustration," and that such investigations "have spread from the hand
of the retired and sober man of matured science into those of everyday
lecturers and their pupils." Against such extension of vivisection the
editor of the Lancet enters an emphatic protest:

"If we were pressed simply for a categoric answer to the question
whether such a practice [as vivisection] were permissible under proper
restrictions and for the purpose of advancing science and lessening
human suffering, we need hardly say that the answer would be in the
affirmative. It is asserted, however, that the practice of
vivisection and such investigatio