ve no hesitation in employing any number of
experiments, or repeating them indefinitely to illustrate every step
he takes; but we may fairly assume that the physiologist would be
restrained by the thought that the materials with which he has to deal
are not so much inert, lifeless matter, but sentient, living things.
We hold, therefore, that it would be both unnecessary and cruel to
demonstrate every physiological truth by experiment, or to repeat
indefinitely the same experiment, simply because by such
demonstrations the lecturer could make his teaching more definite,
precise, and valuable."[1]

[1] The London Lancet, (Editorial) August 21, 1875.

Again, somewhat later the same journal brings into prominence one of
the greatest difficulties attending all discussion of vivisection--the
lack of agreement upon the meaning of words:

"It is extremely difficult to get at the exact meaning of the terms
used. The physiologist would be ready to declare his utter abhorrence
of all `cruelty,' BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HIS OWN DEFINITION OF THE
WORD. We hope Sir William Thompson was not justified in stating that
revolting cruelties are sometimes practised in this country, in the
name of vivisection, although we may concur with him in reprehending
the performance of experiments on animals in illustration of truths
already ascertained.... When the Cardinal (Manning) laid it down as
the expression of a great moral obligation that we had no right to
inflict NEEDLESS pain, he begged the whole question. By all means lay
down and enforce any restriction that will prevent the infliction of
NEEDLESS pain."[1]

[1] The London Lancet (Editorial), March 25, 1876.

We see how valueless, therefore, is the assertion so frequently made
in this country that "no NEEDLESS pain is ever inflicted." The
physiologist has his own interpretation of the word.

The testimony given before the Royal Commission was of utmost value.
Leading members of the medical profession, such as Sir Thomas Watson,
physician to the Queen, and Sir William Fergusson, surgeon to the
Queen, gave evidence against the unrestricted practice of animal
experimentation. Physiologists after the Continental school stated
their side of the controversy, usually with significant caution; but
one of them, Dr. Emanuel Klein, with an honest frankness of confession
that astounded his friends, made himself for ever famous in the
history of the vivisection controversy. It is hardly acc