There are in this country about 40,000 medical men. The National Society's pamphlet quotes 39, or one in 1000. It could quote more; but we must take what it gives us. Of these 39, we may fairly exclude Professor Koch, Sir Frederick Treves, and the late Sir Andrew Clark, who would certainly wish to be thus excluded. Sir Frederick Treves, who is quoted with a sort of explanatory note, has told us in the _Times_ what he thinks of the way in which his name has been used; Sir Andrew Clark is quoted, also with an explanatory note, for an _obiter dictum_; and Professor Koch for no discoverable reason. That leaves 36. Of these 36, at least 11 (probably more) are dead; one died about 1838, another was born in the eighteenth century, another died more than twenty years ago. Of the remaining 25, one is Dr. Lutaud, one is Mr. Berdoe, one an American doctor, not famous over here, one a veterinary surgeon, one (I think) opposed to vaccination, and three inclined to homoeopathy; one has mistranslated Harvey to the advantage of the National Society's cause, one has written _Hints to Mothers_, and one has written _How to Keep Well_. Of these 25 gentlemen, one belongs to a homoeopathic hospital, two to provincial hospitals, and one to a hydropathic institute and a children's sanatorium; the rest of them hold no hospital or school appointment of any sort or kind. I may be wrong over one or two of these names; but, so far as I can see, I have given an exact account of the value of these _Medical Opinions on Vivisection_. And, if we take the dates of these opinions, we find one in 1830, one in 1858, and seven in 1870-1880. Anyhow, what is the value of an opinion that all experiments on animals are _arrant and horrible Sepoyism wearing the mask of Art and Science_? Let us leave the National Society, and turn to the Canine Defence League, and examine that part of its literature which is concerned with experiments on animals. Take the following sentences from pamphlets 179 and 204:-- "Among the general public the majority are under the impression that these so-called physiological experiments are conducted under the influence of anæsthetics, and that the subjects are rendered insensible to pain; this, however, is _not the case_, and I am informed that a large proportion--considerably more than half--of the licenses dispense with anæsthetics entirely. The phenomena of pain are absolutely essential to any practical issue."