It shows, also, that a great proportion of these inoculations are made in the direct practical service of the public health and the public purse: to standardise drugs, to ensure the purity of food and of rivers, to protect flocks and herds, and to decide quarantine. Government Departments, County Councils, Municipal Corporations, and a Royal Commission made more than one-third of the total number of inoculations; and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund made more than one-third, mostly on mice; and a sixth was made over the testing and standardising of sera and of drugs. The operations performed under the License + Certificate B, or B + EE, or B + F, were 3 per cent. of the whole number of experiments. The majority of the animals were neither cats nor dogs. They can hardly be compared to the same number of the larger animals mutilated by breeders and farmers: for these mutilations may be inflicted, and are inflicted, without an anæsthetic. They can hardly be compared to the same number of pheasants or rabbits wounded, but not killed, in sport; for the animals wounded in sport get no subsequent care, and, if they are in pain, nobody need put them out of it. They may fairly be compared to the same number of pet animals that have undergone surgical operations, under anæsthesia, at the hands of a skilled veterinary surgeon; only with this difference, that many of them lose health, or suffer disablement or disease, and so die or are killed; but, if the wound suppurates, the animal must be killed, and, after the wound has healed, the animals are not necessarily, or even generally, in pain. And there must be no _further_ experiment without anæsthesia. _No observations or stimulations of a character to cause pain are allowed to be made without the animals being anæsthetised._ It is evident that good care is taken to ensure an irreducible minimum of pain. PART IV THE CASE AGAINST ANTI-VIVISECTION THE CASE AGAINST ANTI-VIVISECTION [The following pages are taken, with a few changes and omissions, from a pamphlet which I published in 1904. I am glad to say that the tone of the Anti-Vivisection Societies is not quite so bad as it was a few years ago; but I think that what I wrote in 1904 is still fairly accurate.] 1. ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETIES