lliDtw, and n
��didn
��I fall.
��mentary losa of
��I, but
��Hehaa i
other epileptic Bytoptoms whatever, for a period of nearly six months. When he began working after his discharge from the bospital, he noticed, in trying to keep in mind Ihe orders for deliveries to customers, tbat his memory wiis not go good as before the In- jury. He now follows the same occupation, and per- forms the same duties In It, as before he was shot. He feels perfectly well, and, by llie teat mentioned »bove, is sure that his memory Is constantly growing
��W^B.
��In our last issue we gave a brief notice of the pro- ceedings in an overflowing convocation at Oxford, which resulted in a majority of 412 votes to 244 In favor of the decree promulgated by the Hebdomadal GOUDcil. This decree had only an indirect t>earlng upon the question of viviseclJon ; hut as it was made an Dccailou for a freab, and, let us hope, a final, trial of strength between the scietitiSc and antt-ccientiBe forces of the university, it is de.'-irable to furnish our readers with a somewhat more full account of what took place than ne had time tu print last week. See- iug that the debate hod clearly been oi^anized with no small amount of care on the side of the q^-vivi- aeclionisls, and that the ablest as well as the most authoritative speakers in Oxford who could support their cause were put forward, we may regard the ar- guments which were adduced as a fair example of the best that can be said against vivisection by cul- tured thouglit and cultured speech. We will there- fore conllne our remarks to what was said on this aide of the question.
Regarded as a piece of oratory, the speech of Canon Llddon was, in our opinion, perfect; and the effect of what we may term an artistic eloquence was en- hanced by the appearance and costume of the speaker, aa well as by the appropriateness of his surroundings in the densely crowded Sheldonian theatre. But when we look from the manner to the matter of hts speech, we are unable to bestow such unqualified praise, although we confess that even here we were agreeably surprised by the judicious moderation of its tone. His views, briefly staled, were, that so longaa we hold it morally lawful to kill animals fvr food, or otherwise to use them for our own pur- poses, so lung must we in consistency hold, that, under certain circumstances, it is morally lawful Ui iafllcC pain upon anlmata for the benefit of man. Tbe special case of vivisection does not differ hi principle from other cases where pain is thus inflicted; but it ought to be quallBed by three conditions: it should be resorted to a» rarely aa possible, it should be guarded agaijist the iustiuct of cruelty, and it abould be to used aa not to demoralize spectators. With
���all this, every physiologist would of course agree. The canon, however, proceeded to talk what, in the strictest meaning of the word, must be termed non- sense, when he affirmed that pliysiology might b« 'divorced' from vivisection. That this statement has gained currency among the antl-vivisectionista does nut alter its essentially unreasonable character. It is perfectly true that In many departments of phy Biol laical research vivisection is not required; but it is no less true that in many other departments vivisection is an unconditional necessity. This fact, one would think, admits of being rendered obvloiu to any impartial mind, howsoever ignorant of physi- ological science; for. if this science consists in the study of vital processes going on In the living organ- ism, does it not obviously follow that some of them can only be studied while nctually taking place? How, for example, would it be possible to gain any knowledge of the electrical and other changes which occur in a gland during the process of secre- llon, except by estimating these changes during the act of secretion ? The gratuitous Information which physiologists receive from technically ignorant sources, touching the nature and the value of their own methods, can only suggest the presumption of inexperienced youth when venturing to instruct a maternal grandparent in the practical aspects of ooli^y.
It appeal that Professor Burdon-Sanderson hod pledged bimseif not to exhibit vivisections to his class for the purposes of teaching, and for this concession to the unreasoning prejudice of his opponents he ra- o$lv*d a warm expression of gratitude from Canon Liddon, Probably enough, under the circumstances in which he Is placed, the concession is a prudent one ; hut that It merited the eulogium which was be- stowed upon It by Canon Lidd<m an moral grounds, no man of common sense could very well suppose. Demonstrations on the living subject, if performed in a class-room at Oxford, would of course be always performed on animals under the Influence of anaes- thetics ; and therefore the ' demoralizing ' eSects upon the minds of young men, which Canon Liddon takes to have been averted by Professor Sanderson's con- cession, can only be understood to consist in dis- regarding the mawkish sentimentality which can- not stand the sight of a painless dissection. Thi« kind of 'morality' may be regarded as tolerable in a girl: in a man it Is not tolerable, and deserves the same kind of pitying contempt as is accorded to personal cowardice, with which it Is most nearly allied.
Canon Llddon, however, regretted that Professor Sanderson had not further pledged himself to restrict his experiments /or the purposes qf reiearch to ani- mals kept under the influence of anaesthetics during the operations, and killed before recovering from their anaesthesia. We have no doubt that Professor San- derson mighthave compiled with the first of these sug- gestions without any serious detriment to bis future researches ; for, as a matter of fact, the cases In which anaesthetics interfere with the progress of an experi- ment, are, curnparatlvely speaking, very rare Indeed,
�� �
