tm:' ^

 
 w 
 
 ISSUED BY THE 
 
 ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICINE 
 
 BY RESEARCH. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 
 
 ON THE SECOND READING OF 
 
 ^IR. REID'S BILL FOR THE TOTAL SUPPRESSION OF 
 SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS UPON ANIMALS. 
 
 APRIL 4, 1883. 
 
 BY 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir LYON PLAYFAIR, K.C.B., 
 
 LL.D., F.R.S. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 J. W. KOLCKMANN, 2, LANGHAM PLACE, W. 
 
 J883.
 
 I AM glad, Sir, that the rejection of this Bill has been moved by 
 my hon. friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), 
 who is entirely unconnected with the Medical Profession ; and I 
 second his Motion, because I am intimately connected with it, 
 having many hundred medical constituents, and representing, as I 
 •do, the largest medical University in the world. 
 
 I will try to avoid the subjects so ably treated by my hon. 
 friend. I would, however, emphasize what he has said. This 
 Bill does not only deal with vivisection in the abstract, but it seeks 
 to repeal the Act passed in 1876 for so regulating vivisection as to 
 produce either no suffering, or the minimum amount of suffering, 
 in animals experimented upon. My hon. friend the Member for 
 Hereford (Mr. Reid) proposes to abolish all experiments on verte- 
 brate animals for the purposes of physiology, medicine, or science. 
 The experiments prohibited are not confined to painful ones. 
 Under the plain interpretation of this Bill, a man could not stroke 
 the back of a cat, to show a student that electricity was developed, 
 without committing a crime, and could not give a constipated 
 patient a dose of castor oil, as an experiment, to see whether he 
 •could do without a drastic dose of croton oil. This is positively 
 the case, unless my hon. friend is prepared to deny that a man is 
 a vertebrate animal. The Bill not only repeals the regulating 
 Act of 1876, but it renders illegal all experiments on animals made 
 for the purposes of physiology, medicine, and science, even if they 
 are wholly innocent and painless. A physiologist, after this Bill 
 becomes law, could not put the web of a living frog under a. 
 microscope to show the circulation of the blood.
 
 Now, my hon. friend the Member for Oxfordshire has explained 
 the nature of the Act which it is proposed to repeal. It provides 
 that all painful experiments, with the rarest exceptions, must be 
 made when the animals are unconscious under anaesthetics. As 
 a matter of fact, only i per cent, of all the experiments made under 
 the Act is as painful as a surgical operation. Of the 300 experi- 
 ments made last year, only ten were attended with real pain.. 
 The Reports of the Government Inspector for Great Britain, Mr. 
 Busk, and of the Inspector for Ireland, Dr. Stokes, are conclusive 
 on this point. The question is not only whether vivisection, in the 
 abstract, may or may not be right, but whether a regulating Act^ 
 which was passed in the year 1876, and which the Government 
 Inspectors assure us works well, and enforces the utmost possible 
 diminution of pain, is to be repealed. 
 
 The hon. Member for Hereford, to prove that experiments were 
 cruel, cited experiments made before the regulating Act was 
 passed. He described, in terms which, to those unacquainted 
 with physiology, appear horrible, some experiments made on the 
 brains of cats and monkeys by my constituent, Dr. Ferrier. But 
 he did not explain that the animals on which these experiments 
 were made were wholly unconscious, and not susceptible to pain. 
 This is fully proved in the evidence before the Royal Commission. 
 The hon. Member for Oxfordshire has, however, answered these 
 allegations, as well as those against Professor Rutherford, so I 
 will not repeat his reply. With these exceptions, the hon. 
 Member for Hereford, and the societies which back his efforts to 
 prevent vivisection, chiefly rely on cases of alleged foreign cruel- 
 ties, although such are impossible under the present law in 
 England, and are now, as they have been at all times, repugnant 
 to the spirit of the English physiologists. That some of the 
 old experiments, made before anaesthesia was discovered, were 
 carried on in France and other foreign countries, with an indiffer- 
 ence to animal suffering that was truly horrible, I entirely ad- 
 mit. That they are still carried on in foreign countries without 
 due regard to the use of anaesthetics, is, I fear, only too true, 
 although to a much less extent than formerly. But we are not 
 called upon to legislate for foreign countries ; we are asked to 
 repeal an Act which has worked well in England, and to subsli-
 
 / 
 
 tute for ft another Act^ which prohibits all physiological experi- 
 ■raents in this country. And yet the evidence is conclusive that 
 English physiologists have always been remarkable for the careful 
 and humane consideration with which such experiments have 
 been made. The hon. Member for Hereford does not care for 
 proofs that experiments on animals have been carefully and 
 humanely practised in England. His Bill proposes to abolish 
 them altogether as being opposed to the moral law. I at once make 
 the admission to my hon. friend that I am bound to traverse this 
 argument, and not to shelter myself under the fact that he is 
 attacking a mere microscopical point in the field of animal suffer- 
 ing. It is no sound, argument against his Bill to say that, because 
 ■only lo out of the 300 animals experimented on last year suffered 
 considerable pain, therefore it is right to continue such experi- 
 ments. The real question is, whether there is a justification for 
 •sacrificing or inflicting suffering on any animals with a view to 
 benefit man ? You do not doubt this in the case of nojiious animals. 
 Last year, in India, we hunted down, without mercy, 6,000 tigers 
 and leopards, besides many wolves, and we paid for killing 300,000 
 -snakes. And what was our justification ? It consisted in the fact 
 that they had killed more than 20,000 of the Natives of India. 
 
 The justification is that man's duty to man is greater than man's 
 'duty to beasts. 
 
 The benefit to man is, in fact, our only justification for a vast 
 <imount of pain which we are constantly inflicting on animals 
 during their lives. How otherwise can the farmer justify the 
 cruel mutilation of oxen, sheep, or swine, to improve their con- 
 dition for food, or of horses, to fit them for labour ? How other- 
 wise could we justify the cruel and continued punishment of 
 animals when we employ them in labour ? If I thought that a 
 -comparative argument as to cruelty had much force, I could 
 •allude to the continued sufferings of the horses, mules, and 
 camels in the Afghan and Egyptian Wars, in terms which would 
 be too horrible for this House to listen to. But even in 
 ithe relation of man to man, how, otherwise than by a common 
 -or national benefit, could we justify the sacrifice of whole 
 battalions in assaulting fortified positions? Or how could we 
 justify the frightful suftering which a surgeon inflicts when he
 
 excises a joint, or cuts out a huge tumour ? How otherwise:- 
 could you justify a parent when he corrects a child, or the State 
 when it flogs a garrotter ? It is not the mere, or even the con- 
 tinuous, infliction of pain which is an offence against moral law, 
 but the unnecessary infliction of pain without an adequate motive 
 to benefit mankind by the act. It is not the mere act, but the 
 motive for that act which either makes it an offence against 
 morality, or gives to it a justification. 
 
 Still, you may grant the motive, but deny the necessity. I 
 need say little as to the motive. Unquestionably the motive is. 
 a high one Avhich seeks to extend oar knowledge of life and 
 disease, so as, by a few experiments on animals, to ameliorate 
 disease and suffering, not only in the whole human race, but also 
 in all the animals which come in direct relation to man. This, 
 is so clear that it requires no argument in its support. The 
 opponents of vivisection, however, deny its utility under all 
 circumstances, because they assert that experiments on animals 
 give no results to be relied on as regards the human body. This- 
 is only one of the ordinary appeals to human vanity, which seeks 
 to find a wide abyss between man and other animals. It is. 
 altogether contradicted by the discoveries of modern science. 
 Except in regard to his highly developed brain, man does not 
 differ widely in his bodily functions from other animals. As 
 Aristotle has truly said : " Nature never marches by leaps." 
 There is a continuous chain, with slowly diminishing links, from 
 man to the lowest animal. If you place the blood or flesh of a 
 man and the blood or flesh of a sheep in the most expert 
 chemist's hands, he can detect no difference between them. The 
 same kind of heart, lungs, liver, and spleen is found in the animals 
 experimented upon as in man ; and the same anaesthetics, the 
 same drugs or poisons, and the same parasites, act upon man and 
 such animals in the same way. It is quite certain that the: 
 observations made upon animals can be applied by physiology to 
 man, for man physiologically is the king of all animals. But. 
 I deny altogether that an unskilled public can form an adequate 
 judgment on these points. The utility and the necessity for such, 
 experiments are most important considerations, but they must be 
 determined by the opinion of experts. I do not mean by the few
 
 experimentalists, not above forty or fifty in number, but by the 
 whole body of medical men, who devote themselves to the cure 
 and amelioration of disease. They are the qualified judges of the 
 utility and need of making such experiments, and from the results 
 of which they benefit. Outsiders, who have no knowledge of 
 the requirements of surgical and medical science, are not 
 witnesses having a right to be heard in such a case. Now, 
 among 24,000 medical men in this country you will no doubt find 
 a few who deny the utility of such experiments. But the vast 
 majority of the medical profession are emphatic in their testimony. 
 In August, 1881, there was a great International Congress of 
 medical men in London, and the Congress passed the following 
 resolution : — 
 
 " That this Congress records its conviction that experiments on living ani- 
 mals have proved of the utmost service to medicine in the past, and are indis- 
 pensable to its future progress ; that, accordingly, while strongly deprecating 
 the infliction of unnecessary pain, it is of opinion, alike in the interest of man 
 and of animals, that it is not desirable to restrict competent persons in the 
 performance of such experiments." 
 
 This Congress was remarkably representative of all countries, 
 both from the Continent of Europe and of America. But lest 
 you should think it tainted by the presence of foreign experi- 
 mentalists, I may cite the testimony of the British Medical Asso- 
 ciation, which, on the loth of August, in the same year, passed 
 the following resolution : — 
 
 " Tliat this Association desires to express its deep sense of the importance 
 of vivisection to the advancement of medical science, and the belief that the 
 further prohibition of it would be attended with serious injury to the commu- 
 nity, by preventing investigations which are calculated to promote the better 
 knowledge and treatment of disease in animals as well as man." 
 
 I cannot conceive that the House would reject such testimtony, 
 coming from the great body of medical men, and including such 
 names as Jenner, Owen, Paget, Darwin, Carpenter, Sanderson, 
 Huxley, Gull, and a host of others, whose scientific knowledge is 
 only equalled by their broad humanity. 
 
 While, however, the House will admit the weight of such testi- 
 mony, it is entitled to ask what is the nature of the knowledge 
 acquired which has produced this conviction on the minds of the 
 great body of the medical profession.
 
 8 
 
 There are three classes of experiments made upon animals. 
 The first class aims at acquiring knowledge concerning the pro- 
 cesses of disease ; the second is concerned with the action of 
 drugs or poisons ; and the third tests the origin of disease by 
 actually producing it. 
 
 The first class seeks for knowledge of vital processes, or 
 diseased conditions. Such experiments were made by the an- 
 cients, and, since medicine became a science, by physiologists in 
 our own country. The great discovery of the circulation of the 
 blood by Harvey was determined by experiments on a variety of 
 animals, and was ultimately demonstrated before Charles I. and 
 the Princesses upon a living animal. In the progress of such 
 experiments by men like Harvey, Hunter, Bell, Brodie, and many 
 others, great and leading discoveries, such as of the circulation of 
 the blood, the lacteal and lymphatic system 'of vessels, and the 
 compound function of the spinal nerves, were established. Such 
 experiments, probably, often originated in the love of knowledge 
 only, without immediate reference to its application to the ame- 
 lioration of human or animal existence. 
 
 But nothing is more shortsighted than the utilitarian cry of 
 the ignorant against investigators in science. It is as superficial 
 as the remark of Savarin, when he said '' He who invents a new 
 dish does more for humanity than he who discovers a star." But 
 exactly as navigation is an outcome of astronomy, or as bleaching 
 or dyeing is an outcome of chemistry, or as engineering is an appli- 
 cation of mathematics, so is medicine an outcome of the sciences of 
 physiology and pathology. To strangle these sciences, by refusing 
 to them the only modes of research w-hich render their progress 
 jDOssible, would be to relegate the medicine of the future to em- 
 piricism and quackery. Indeed, nothing is more certain than 
 that every abstract truth given to the world constantly leads to 
 the most unexpected and most useful applications to humanity. 
 Thus, when Galvani put a copper hook through the spine of 
 frogs, and hung them on the iron rails of his balcony at Bologna, 
 in order to study the muscular contractions which were thus 
 produced, who could have predicated that this experiment was to 
 originate the science of Galvanism, and lead to the discovery of 
 the electric telegraphy to the electric light, to new motors for our
 
 machinery, and to the important use of electricity in the cure of 
 •disease and relief of human suffering ? So it is with other dis- 
 coveries in physiology, which, even when they appear remote from 
 practical application, constantly lead to the most important 
 benefits. Thus, when Pasteur and Lister made experiments on 
 the minute organisms which appear during fermentation and putre- 
 faction, who could have predicated that the experiments of the 
 former philosopher would have opened up to such a wide field of 
 promise in the treatment of diseases which afflict our flocks and 
 herds, or that the observations of Lister would give us that 
 admirable method of antiseptic treatment which now ranks as 
 one of the greatest improvements of modern surgery? And yet 
 Lister had to go abroad to perform a few experiments on animals, 
 as the present Act was too restrictive for him to perform them in 
 this country, though the pain inflicted was no greater than the 
 healing of some slight wound. When you recollect the horrible 
 pain which used to be inflicted after a surgical operation, by 
 burning the bleeding vessels with a red-hot iron, the successive 
 •steps in surgery that have attended experiments in the healing of 
 wounds, and which have culminated in the antiseptic treatment 
 of Lister, have surely justified the small amount of brute suffering 
 by giving comparative safety to the most formidable surgical 
 operations in the case of man. 
 
 The second class of experiments, with drugs or poisons, are 
 :Sometimes absolutely necessary, not only in the interests of medi- 
 cal science, but in the cause of justice. The promoters of this 
 Bill would not even allow experiments in the cause of justice. 
 For myself, although formerly a Professor of Chemistry in the 
 greatest medical school of this country, I am only responsible for 
 the deaths of two rabbits by poison ; and I ask the attention of 
 the House to the case, as a strong justification for experiments on 
 animals. And yet I should have been treated as a criminal under 
 the present Act, had it then existed. Sir James Simpson, who 
 introduced chloroform — that great alleviator of animal suffering — 
 was then alive, and in constant quest of new anaesthetics. He 
 came to my laboratory one day to see if I had any new substances 
 likely to suit his purpose. I showed him a liquid which had just 
 been discovered by one of my assistants, and Sir James Simpson,
 
 lO 
 
 who was bold to rashness in experimenting on himself, desired 
 immediately to inhale it in my private room. I refused to give 
 him any of the liquid, unless it was first tried upon rabbits. Twa 
 rabbits were accordingly made to inhale it ; they quickly passed 
 into anaesthesia, and apparently as quickly recovered, but from an 
 after action of the poison they both died a few hours afterwards. 
 Now, was not this a justifiable experiment on animals ? Was not 
 the sacrifice of two rabbits worth saving the life of the most dis- 
 tinguishediphysician of his time — of one, who, by the introduction 
 of chloroform, had done so much to mitigate animal suffering ?' 
 Would that an experiment of a like kind on a rabbit, or a guinea- 
 pig had been used by John Hunter, who probably shortened his 
 own noble life by experimenting on himself with the ignoble 
 poison of syphillis. Let me give one other instance^ in which twO' 
 valuable lives were sacrificed from want of such experiments. A few 
 years ago two young German chemists were assistants in a London 
 laboratory. They were experimenting upon a poison which I will 
 not even name, for its properties are so terrible. It is postponed 
 in its action, and then produces idiotcy or death. An experiment 
 on a mouse or a rabbit would have taught them the danger of this- 
 frightful poison ; but, in ignorance of its subtle properties, they 
 became its unhappy victims, for one died and the other suffered 
 intellectual death. Yet the promoters of this Bill would not suffer 
 us to make any experiments on the lower animals so as to 
 protect man from such catastrophes. It is by experiments on 
 animals that medicine has not only learned the benefits, but also 
 has been taught how to avoid the dangers of many potent drugs, 
 as chloroform, chloral, and morphia. 
 
 The third class of experiments is in the production of disease. 
 At the first blush, this would appear to be the infliction of animal 
 suffering without a beneficent motive. But this is the exact reverse 
 of the truth, for no one can know how to prevent disease without 
 knowing how to cause it. Prevention of disease is a much higher 
 aim of medical science than its amelioration or cure. Now, ia 
 this class of experiments, the greatest progress has been made in 
 recent years by the sacrifice of a few of the lower animals. A 
 large class of disease, both in man and animals, is now ascertained. 
 to arise from the introduction into the system of self-multiply-
 
 II 
 
 ing and destructive germs of a very low class of living organisms. 
 The promoters of this Bill would not deny this, but would say — 
 *• Observe the necessary facts when disease occurs, and draw your 
 deductions from them, without experimenting upon animals." So 
 you may, if you are content with the sacrifice of hecatombs of 
 human beings to obtain knowledge which the sacrifice of a few 
 mice or guinea-pigs would equally give you. 
 
 Take an instance in point. A foreign experimentalist — 
 Thiersch — by sacrificing 14 mice, found that the germs in choleraic 
 discharges, imbibed through water, reproduced cholera with 
 certainty. The same fact, it is true, was suspected in the cholera 
 epidemics of 1848-9, and of 1853-4, when the Southwark and 
 Vauxhall, as well as the Lambeth Water Companies, supplied 
 water tainted with choleraic evacuations to about half a million of 
 their consumers. In the case of Lambeth, during the first of the 
 epidemics, 125 out of every 10,000 of the population died; but 
 in the second epidemic, only 37 ; for, in the interval, the quality of 
 the water was improved. But the Southwark and Vauxhall 
 Company made no such improvement, and the cholera deaths 
 were 118 to 10,000 in the first, and 130 in the second epidemic. 
 These experiments with water, charged with faecal matter, on 
 500,000 human beings were valuable to medical science, but not 
 in the least more valuable than Thiersch's recent experiments on 
 56 mice, of which 44 took the disease, and 14 died. Had these 
 been made anterior to the cholera epidemics, the great mortality 
 might have been averted. 
 
 It is thus that much needless experimentation on man is 
 constantly saved by a few experiments on animals. The recent ex- 
 periments made for producing disease in animals are full of promise 
 for the future prevention and amelioration of disease in man. 
 Especially in the case of consumption, which is accountable for 
 one-seventh of the total deaths, and for one-third of those persons 
 who die young. But time does not allow me to describe these. 
 I will only mention one fact, that the milk of consumptive cows is 
 found to produce tuberculosis in animals. As the milk of such 
 cows is frequently distributed, it is surely wise to make some ex- 
 periments on animals, rather than to parody them on some thousand. 
 men and women before the danger is either negatived or affirmed^
 
 12 
 
 The House then will perceive that numerous consequences must 
 flow from the establishment of the fact that many diseases of 
 animals arise from the planting in their blood of minute germs 
 of alien life. Take one instance merely. Since the time when 
 in Egypt there was a grievous murrain, " the breaking forth of 
 blains upon man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt," 
 the same disease anthrax, or splenic fever, has desolated the flocks 
 and herds of all countries, from the reindeer in Lapland to the 
 cavalry horses in India. In France, this fever kills sheep to the 
 value of 20,000,000 francs annually. Pasteur has shown how the 
 bacillus, which produces it, may in a milder form mitigate its 
 virulence, by becoming as protective and innocuous as vaccine 
 virus. Large flocks of sheep are now thus protected by it in 
 France. 
 
 I do not like quotations from the Bible in this House ; but I 
 cannot help recollecting that He who is all merciful has said " How 
 much then is a man better than a sheep." If we extend such 
 protection to man against the attacks of many maladies which are 
 produced by similar germs, the sacrifice of a few mice or guinea- 
 pigs, which would only suffer a short and scarcely sensible pain in 
 inoculation, would surely be justifiable in obtaining a lasting boon 
 to humanity. How much more limited is this infliction of suffer- 
 ing than that of our daily intercourse with animals. If the House 
 desire not to interfere with the cruel operations on cattle to fit 
 them for human food or labour, if it does not wish to stop the in- 
 oculations which have produced such important consequences in 
 splenic fever and chicken cholera, in protecting cattle and poultry, 
 why should we be asked to prevent the extension of knowledge 
 for the benefit of the human race ? 
 
 I am much indebted to the House for listening to me so long 
 on a subject which requires so much scientific explanation ; but 
 to my medical constitutents, who are numbered by thousands, the 
 decision of the House this day will either carry dismay or satis- 
 faction. I must remind you what the Royal Commission told us 
 would be the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind. They 
 said, to prohibit experiments on living animals — 
 
 " Would inevitably lead either to a general evasion of the law, or to a uni- 
 versal flight of medical and physiological investigators to foreign schools and
 
 13 
 
 laboratories, and that by this means, the general treatment of animals would 
 certainly not be altered for the better." 
 
 You may retard, but you cannot arrest, the progress of science. 
 Even the burning of the Alexandrian Library did not stop the 
 growth of literature. By passing this Bill you might produce the 
 result which the Royal Commission so much deplores. This 
 House has already passed an Act to regulate experiments on 
 living animals, and I have shown how successful that Act has 
 been in its operation. You might increase its restrictions ; but 
 these are already too tightly drawn, and increased restriction 
 might be followed by evasion. The present Act excludes the 
 unqualified from making such experiments, and entrusts them, 
 with suitable precautions, to the skilled physiologist. Why should 
 you show increased distrust, when there is no evidence of any 
 breach of the existing law ? The general presumption of law is, 
 that well-qualified medical men may be trusted for their skill, and 
 for their humanity, even with human life. You allow a medical 
 man to judge whether, in certain cases of childbirth, he may kill 
 the child in order to save the mother ; and we are asked to 
 distrust the few and the most specially qualified of that pro- 
 fession to judge whether a mouse, a guinea-pig, or a frog may 
 be sacrificed for the benefit of the human race. You cannot 
 be surprised that, as a representative of a great medical con- 
 stituency, I should speak warmly on this subject. That pro- 
 fession has always been marked for its selfsacrifice and 
 devotion to the interests of humanity ; and its members naturally 
 resent the imputations of cruelty which are made upon them, 
 because they desire that knowledge all-important to man should 
 be extended in the only way which is possible. I do not at all 
 undervalue the humane feelings and sentiments of many of the 
 promoters of this Bill. But much of the out-of-door agitation in 
 regard to it has been got up in a spirit of unthinking and aggres- 
 sive ignorance. I assert that physiologists are actuated by a 
 higher humanity than that of the opponents of vivisection. Their 
 aim is to mitigate the sufferings of humanity by studying the 
 processes of life and of disease. The only way in which they can 
 prosecute this aim is to experiment on living beings, not on dead 
 corpses.
 
 14 
 
 I'he total number of laboratories in the whole world engaged 
 in studying the laws of life, with a view of lessening the im- 
 mense amount of suffering among all animated beings are but 
 few in number. In this country, at least, they are conducted and 
 regulated under an Act which has given statutory effect to the 
 pervading spirit of English physiologists, that the experiments on 
 animals should be made with a minimum amount of suffering. 
 
 I cannot believe that this House will give a second reading to 
 the Bill, which would drive English physiologists to foreign coun- 
 tries, or make them work secretly to evade an unjust law, and 
 would thus brand as criminals men whose whole object is to 
 ameliorate the condition of suffering humanity. Limited as is 
 the scope of this Bill, its purpose is to repeal an Act under which 
 the official inspectors assure us that scarcely ten animals in the 
 year suffer sensible pain ; but it would take no account whatever 
 of the torture or cruelty perpetrated upon animals out of the most 
 wanton and purposeless malignity. [Mr. R. T. Reid : That is a 
 crime already.] I beg your pardon. It is not a crime already. 
 It is a crime only in the case of domestic animals. I say, it is 
 only experiments made with the noble motive of relieving the ills 
 of suffering humanity with which you propose to interfere. The 
 existing Cruelty to Animals Act, called Martin's Act, is confined 
 to domestic animals only. All other vertebrate animals are 
 excluded from the operation of that Act. If this Bill passes into 
 law, no more protection is given to them, however wantonly, 
 wickedly, and cruelly any boy or man may treat such animals. 
 It would be a complete defence under this Bill to show that the 
 most cruel experiments were made out of pure malignity, and 
 without any reference to the promotion of physiology, medicine, or 
 science. But as soon as the motive is high, noble, and humane, 
 you propose to brand those who experiment as criminals. 
 
 I cannot believe that this House will consent to pass a Bill which 
 has originated in philanthropy, but in a philanthropy wholly in- 
 discriminate, and which, I believe, will infinitely augment the 
 animal suffering that it ignorantly seeks to alleviate. 
 
 PRINTED nv BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO. 
 LONDON AND EDINBURGH
 
 mmmm 
 
 St',
 
 Ct A 
 
 -* 
 
 \i^./ 
 
 A 
 
 ^-li' 
 
 M 
 
 '}■•. !'';■■ 
 
 
 ^. V