of thinking that I have often said, when consulted by despairing sanitary reformers, that what London needs to make her healthy is an earthquake.  Why, then, it may be asked, do not I, as a public-spirited man, employ incendiaries to set it on fire, with a heroic disregard of the consequences to myself and others?  Any vivisector would, if he had the courage of his opinions.  The reasonable answer is that London can be made healthy without burning her down; and that as we have not enough civic virtue to make her healthy in a humane and economical way, we should not have enough to rebuild her in that way.  In the old Hebrew legend, God lost patience with the world as Nero did with Rome, and drowned everybody except a single family.  But the result was that the progeny of that family reproduced all the vices of their predecessors so exactly that the misery caused by the flood might just as well have been spared:  things went on just as they did before.  In the same way, the lists of diseases which vivisection claims to have cured is long; but the returns of the Registrar-General show that people still persist in dying of them as if vivisection had never been heard of.  Any fool can burn down a city or cut an animal open; and an exceptionally foolish fool is quite likely to promise enormous benefits to the race as the result of such activities.  But when the constructive, benevolent part of the business comes to be done, the same want of imagination, the same stupidity and cruelty, the same laziness and want of perseverance that prevented Nero or the vivisector from devising or pushing through humane methods, prevents him from bringing order out of the chaos and happiness out of the misery he has made.  At one time it seemed reasonable enough to declare that it was impossible to find whether or not there was a stone inside a man’s body except by exploring it with a knife, or to find out what the sun is made of without visiting it in a balloon.  Both these impossibilities have been achieved, but not by vivisectors.  The Rontgen rays need not hurt the patient; and spectrum analysis involves no destruction.  After such triumphs of humane experiment and reasoning, it is useless to assure us that there is no other key to knowledge except cruelty.  When the vivisector offers us that assurance, we reply simply and contemptuously, “You mean that you are not clever or humane or energetic enough to find one.”

CRUELTY FOR ITS OWN SAKE

It will now, I hope, be clear why the attack on vivisection is not an attack on the right to knowledge:  why, indeed, those who have the deepest conviction of the sacredness of that right are the leaders of the attack.  No knowledge is finally impossible of human attainment; for even though it may be beyond our present capacity, the needed capacity is not unattainable.  Consequently no method of investigation is the only method; and no law forbidding any particular method can cut us off from the knowledge we hope to gain by it.  The only knowledge we lose by forbidding cruelty is knowledge at first hand of cruelty itself, which is precisely the knowledge humane people wish to be spared.