We must here note the demand lately made by some leading members of the profession for increased facilities for experimentation on animals. Now, anyone who studies the Cruelty to Animals Bill (30 and 40 Vict.), which in 1876 licensed vivisection in Great Britain,[15] will see how easy it now is to obtain a license, and how carefully the provisions of the Bill are arranged to give freedom to experimentation--in fact, to protect experimenters rather than their helpless victims. Thus, whilst in Section 2 a penalty of £100 or three months’ imprisonment is imposed for acts of cruelty, the Bill proceeds in Section 3 to give absolute freedom to every licensed person to torture, to mutilate, to disease to any extent if he considers it advisable to do so. In Section 11 it gives exceedingly wide scope for procuring licenses. By Sections 7 to 10 it makes the efficient oversight of licensed persons almost impossible, and by the provisions of Sections 13 to 15 it virtually excludes the influence of growing humanitary conscience in the community from being exerted on the persons and places licensed. In short, the Bill would rather seem to be skilfully devised to give a free hand to persons who may call themselves ‘scientific’ than to protect living creatures who cannot protect themselves. The plea put forward by the gentlemen referred to--viz., that medical progress is now hindered in England by restrictions--is practically a justification by them of the inhuman practices which prevail in France, Germany, Russia, and the United States, and in all countries where the conscience of the people has not been aroused to the moral and intellectual dangers involved in the torture of animals.[16] Surely these English physicians who demand entire freedom for vivisection do not realize what the result of foreign methods is. They cannot have noted the innumerable examples of atrocious cruelty which are occurring in the records of medical research as practised on the Continent and in America. They cannot have taken note of such typical examples as the utterly useless barbarity of Senn of Philadelphia, setting fire to a dog that he had pumped full of hydrogen gas, before the Medical Congress of Berlin in 1890. Nor the experiments in massage on a series of large disjointed dogs performed in Professor Charles Richet’s Paris laboratory, not only with the permission, but with the consultative advice of that gentleman. A set of more unjustifiable experiments were never devised. Certainly, no body of honourable English physicians who are in the habit of reading _Les Archives Générales de Médecine_ would fail to condemn such fallacious experiments, where the pretence of anæsthesia served to diminish the resistance of the victims--not to annihilate pain.