en 
 
 c 
 
 i 
 
 v 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 V) 
 
 9) 
 
 «) 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 V) 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 VJ 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 \> 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 ^> 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 /-* 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 Q> 
 
 ^i- 
 
 VP 
 
 1 
 
 
 £ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/rightoftormentinOOcobb 
 
>, 
 
 THE 
 
 RIGHT OF TORMENTING; 
 
 Being part of an Address delivered in Edinburgh, 
 August, 1881, 
 
 BY ^ 
 
 MISS FRANCES POWER COBBE. 
 
 Mr. Lecky observes that, "only during the present century have the 
 relations of man to brute been brought within the scope of ethics." It is 
 no wonder that such should be the case, for the sense of moral obligations 
 towards alien races of men has only been developed in modern times. The 
 old Jew had scanty mercy for the Gentile, the Greek for the Barbarian, and 
 all the wild tribes of Africa and America still regard their neighbours much 
 as dogs regard cats, — the Red Indian travelling hundreds of miles merely 
 to destroy the villages of the inoffensive Esquimaux ; and so on. By 
 degrees, however, the blessed lessons of sympathy and mutual obligation 
 have extended among civilized mankind, albeit very imperfectly, especially 
 between races distinguished by the difference of colour. How many white 
 men in America, for example, really recognise in full the rights of negroes ? 
 No wonder is it then that the idea of owing any duty or forbearance towards 
 non-human creatures has only quite recently developed itself, and among 
 the highest nations only. In the memory of men now alive, the pen of 
 Sydney Smith occupied the pages of your great Edinburgh Review by scoffs 
 and sneers at Richard Martin and Erskine for introducing the first Act of 
 any legislation in the world against cruelty to animals ; and that the state 
 of things at that time needed such legislation, we have only to read one of 
 the novels or tour books of the period, to satisfy ourselves. Horses were 
 ridden and driven to death by every young "spark" who could afford to 
 

 hire one ; dogs were used cruelly for draught, and tormented about the 
 streets by brutal boys; cats were skinned alive; and the pious Alleyne 
 recorded in his journal that he paid thirteen pence to afford his friends the 
 pleasure of " Whipping the Blind Bear ! " 
 
 Now it is my contention that the physiologists, immersed in their studies, 
 have just stopped at this point. They are not before the age, as they would 
 have us think, and in the " foremost files of time," but they are behind it, — 
 at the same moral level as the lower orders were generally in England 
 eighty or a hundred years ago. 
 
 Meanwhile the rest of mankind have morally advanced, and in no direc- 
 tion more markedly than in that of a newly awakened sense of the duty of 
 kindness to animals. But this sense is as yet vague and scarcely formulated, 
 and we all feel when we reflect on the subject, that the nature of that duty 
 and the limits of our rights are exceeding difficult to define. ' Bishop 
 Butler's great axiom (which cannot be too often called to mind) — that on 
 the simple fact of a creature being sentient, i.e., conscious of pain, arises 
 our duty to spare it pain — forms the broad basis for all we have to build. 
 But I confess I heartily wish that that noble thinker — the greatest name 
 in the great Church of England — the man, be it remembered in this con- 
 nection, who said he found no reason why animals should not be immortal, 
 — I wish that this man had gone further, and helped us to define better 
 where to draw the line between cruelty on the one hand, and on the other 
 such impracticable tenderness as that which would spare noxious insects 
 and parasites, and, indeed, establish the mistaken kindness of vegetarians 
 altogether. 
 
 Pondering over these things for years, a method has suggested itself to 
 me of testing the justice of our conduct in any particular towards the 
 brutes. Let me venture to lay it before you, and if it approve itself to you, 
 we may then take it with us and apply it to this grievous question of Vivi- 
 section. Let us suppose that there is an Umpire between man and brute — 
 a disinterested and just spectator, who can alike understand the man'swants 
 and needs, and the inarticulate cries of the humble brute. Such an Umpire, 
 my friends, I believe, docs exist, and I name Him, God ; but for sake of 
 argument with the physiologist it may be better to speak simply of a 
 hypothetical umpire and referee. What sentence, I ask, would such a 
 dispassionate Arbiter pass on our general conduct towards the lower 
 creatures ? 
 
 Let us suppose the man to say, " I wish to rear sheep, cows, swine, 
 fowls. I will take pains that the species be multiplied; and each individual, 
 so far as I can do it, shall be comfortably fed and sheltered, and supplied 
 with the necessaries of a happy animal's existence for a certain number of 
 months or years, — on condition that at the end of that time I am at liberty 
 to take its life in the quickest and least painful way possible ; a way far 
 preferable to natural death by old age." Would the Umpire, on behalf of 
 the animal, accept of this bargain ? There can be no question he would 
 freely sanction it. 
 
 Or suppose the man to say, " I wish to rear horses to drag my plough or 
 carry me on their backs, and dogs and cats to guard my property and be my 
 own fireside companions. I will give them amply sufficient food and water, 
 and I will not overwork my horses, or cause my dog's life to be miserable by 
 chaining it constantly like a criminal. They shall be mercifully killed if at 
 any time their lives become burdensome." Again the Umpire would surely 
 say, " So be it." 
 
 Here, then, all our relations to the domestic animals are sufficiently 
 
covered and sanctioned. We have only to fulfil our side of the implied 
 contract of careful provision for them while they live and a quick death at 
 the end, to feel that our use of them is morally right, and such as cannot 
 offend their Maker and ours. 
 
 Then we have to consider the case of wild animals ; and, regarding some 
 of them, the man may say, "They and I are natural enemies, and must 
 always be in a state of war. I must kill them in defence of my life if they 
 be lions or wolves, or in defence of my property or health if they be vermin 
 or parasites." 
 
 Again the Arbiter says : " It is well ; these creatures would prey on you 
 if you did not prey on them. You are within your rights in destroying 
 them." 
 
 The last case is more difficult. It is that of wild animals, such as really 
 wild game and fish (I am not speaking of deer and pheasants whose 
 case is the same as that of cattle), creatures on which we have con- 
 ferred no benefit and which threaten us with no hurt if we leave them 
 alone, but which we kill for food. The man pleads, " I need food, and in 
 devouring these animals I only take my place among the carnivora of the 
 world. Nearly all of them live upon other and smaller creatures. Why 
 should my life, the most valuable of all, not be sustained at the cost of theirs ? 
 I engage to kill them as quickly as possible." 
 
 The answer to this, I believe, would still be acquiescent, though, perhaps, 
 less completely so than in the former cases. Man is here not the lord of 
 the world, but merely a link in the chain of animal life. A clear limitation, 
 however, exists in the terms of the authorization. It must be bond fide for 
 use that the harmless wild creature is deprived of life, not killed for the 
 pleasure of killing — as people shoot seagulls by the shore, or pigeons in the 
 disgusting matches at Hurlingham. 
 
 Lastly, we come to quite another problem. The man says, " I wish to 
 vivisect an animal. Up to this hour we will suppose its life has been well 
 cared for, and it has, on its part, served and loved mankind as its powers 
 permitted. Now I wish to tie it down on a vivisecting table, and ascertain, 
 by cutting it open, various interesting facts of science likely to be more or 
 less useful by-and-bye. Its death will not occur for several hours, and in 
 the interval (if the truth be told), it will suffer excruciating agony. Nothing 
 can comfort it, for it knows nothing of the hopes and faith which have sus- 
 tained human martyrs on the rack. It will feel only that the men whom it 
 loved as if they were gods, have turned to become its tormentors. Utterly 
 helpless, bound, and gagged, and, perhaps, paralysed with curare, it will lie 
 for hours on its torture-trough till my mangling work on its flesh, and bones, 
 and nerves, and brain is fully and slowly accomplished ; and then it may be 
 suffered to expire. 
 
 What does the Arbiter say now ? The lives of the animals in all the 
 other cases we have supposed were — taken as a whole — a joy and blessing, 
 and their deaths were not more painful (generally much less so) than the 
 natural deaths of old age or disease. But the vivisected creature's whole 
 existence has been turned into a misfortune and a curse. The hours of its 
 keen and excessive agony outweigh immeasurably all its poor little harmless 
 joys of food and sunshine, and the love of its master and its offspring. It were 
 well for that creature had it never been born. Does the Supreme Umpire 
 then view such things and sanction them ? Can we for a moment suppose 
 him to pass sentence justifying the vivisector ? Nay, my friends, it seems 
 to me that a heavy, heavy condemnation must fall on such tyrannous misuse 
 of human power, and that the voice of every unbiased conscience must 
 
pronounce such vivisection a moral offence in the forum of ethics, and a 
 heinous sin before the judgment-seat of God. 
 
 This is one view of the case. In another way we may look at it, and note 
 that one of two things must hold. Either Bishop Butler's axiom is false, 
 and a creature, although sentient, has no right to be spared pain, and the 
 whole brute creation has absolutely no claims at all upon man, who may act 
 to them the part of a devil without offence ; or else, at the very least, man is 
 forbidden to inflict on any animal a torture worse than death. That is the 
 very minimum to which we can reduce their claims, if they have any claims 
 at all. Taking their lives is the last stretch of human rights ; making their 
 lives such a curse as that they had better have perished at their birth, is a 
 step far beyond killing them, and one which stands condemned an any prin- 
 ciple which we can formulate, except the renunciation of all duty towards 
 them. That vivisectors and their supporters do practically regard animals 
 as having no rights as against man, and that they think la hi du plus, fort 
 all that is needed for the justification of their cruelties, is unhappily too 
 evidently the real state of the case, albeit not a few of these tormentors are 
 actually members of societies (and in one notorious case, a Vice-President 
 of a Society) for the prevention of cruelty to animals ! 
 
 You will observe that all these arguments concern the question only of 
 excessively painful Vivisection. It is the infliction of torture which stands 
 condemned by what we have said. That is the first thing. Now I shall 
 tell you why we think that Vivisection, even when it does not inflict torture 
 or severe pain, ought to be forbidden by law, and why the whole practice 
 ought to be totally prohibited. 
 
 Assuming that we have proved that the infliction of torture is a moral 
 offence, the corollary follows that, if vivisection cannot be sanctioned without 
 opening a door to that offence — if no line can be drawn between the experi- 
 ments per se almost harmless and those involving gross cruelty — if no pro- 
 tection can be given to an animal once it is laid on the vivisecting table in 
 a laboratory — and no guarantee can be obtained of a vivisector's mercy — 
 then the whole practice ought to be stopped. If it be found impossible 
 to separate the use of a thing from the abuse, and that abuse amount to 
 a great moral offence, then it becomes needful to prohibit the use. 
 Your Scottish Society and several English societies stepped before us in 
 Victoria Street, in demanding, from the outset, the total prohibition of vivi- 
 section ; while we only asked for " the utmost possible protection to 
 animals liable to vivisection." But, though personally I have been always 
 working towards the higher and completer end, I think we may all rejoice 
 that the Victoria Street Society tried the more moderate demand in the first 
 place ; and that thus, without fear of being deemed hasty, or hot-headed, 
 or doctrinaire, it has exhibited the spectacle of a band of men of high 
 political and social importance, des homines scrieux, in short, driven on by 
 the logic of facts and the lessons of experience, taught by infructuous 
 legislation and delusive Returns, to quit their original standing ground, and 
 raise their demands to the absolute suppression of the practice which 
 cannot be curbed within the bounds of humanity. The speeches which were 
 made at our meeting of this summer — which you all may read in the 
 Reports on our table — will show you why men so little likely to be 
 borne away by impulse, and differing so widely from each other politically 
 and religiously as Lord Shaftesbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of West- 
 minster, and the Lord Chief Justice of England, yet have one and all come 
 round to the same unhesitating conclusion — that Vivisection must be totally 
 abolished. 
 
 The practical fact is that Vivisection is a method of research — a useful 
 method, we must presume, in the opinion of those who employ it, a misleading 
 
one in our opinion and in that of many better competent than we to judge the 
 matter. Now a method like this cannot be pursued half-and-half; employed to a 
 certain extent and then dropped or exchanged for another. It must be main- 
 tained as a method, or stopped as a method; and the labours of pysiologists 
 turned into the other and, as we think, more truly scientific channels of clinical 
 and microscopic observation. There is no compromise really possible. 
 The idea of the Royal Commission of the " reconciliation of the claims of 
 science and humanity " was wholly delusive. Science ignores humanity, 
 and will be " reconciled " with nothing which stops her invasions. 
 
 And, after all, is not this just what might have been expected ? How 
 should it be otherwise ? How should such a monstrous idea of our relations 
 to the animals as lies at the root of Vivisection be reconcilable in any way 
 with true feelings of sympathy and humanity ? 
 
 Hitherto I have been discussing the question from the barest and coldest 
 ground of pure ethics. But there are some animals to whom we men and women 
 stand in relations, which it is impossible to reduce to a hard moral question, 
 even as it would be to discuss as a mere matter of right and wrong the 
 cruel treatment of some dear little child. If I saw a little blue-eyed, fair-haired 
 baby crowing in the sunshine, and holding up its little arms for my embrace, 
 and a wretch of a nurse were to come and deliberately knock its hands on 
 the stones, I should not, I think, require to appeal to ethical arguments to 
 satisfy myself that the nurse was doing wrong ; or to induce me to rush 
 forward and save the baby, and pitch the nurse to Jericho — or further. In 
 a similar way we who have made pets of our dogs, or horses, or cats, or 
 even our poor little guinea-pigs and rabbits and doves, when we think ot 
 them as kept for days in a vivisecting cellar, then brought out into the day- 
 light of the laboratory — trembling and terrified — piteously, perchance, 
 begging for mercy, but thrown on the torture-trough, tied down, gagged — only 
 the speaking eye still pleading, — then slowly carved alive, the nerves dissected 
 out, and all the horrible apparatus of science brought to bear on the poor 
 little quivering frame, which used to respond so lovingly to the caress of our 
 hand, — when we think of this, I say, we do not need to go over all the 
 moral reasons which prove that such deeds stand condemned by God's eternal 
 law. We feel, — well, it is better not to say what I, for one, feel towards 
 the smooth, cool man of science who stands by that torture-trough. Is it 
 wrong to feel so ? Nay ; but I should be a miserable wretch if I failed to 
 feel it towards a creature who has loved me and on whom I have bestowed 
 affection. Remember this : If Vivisection is to be tolerated at all — if we 
 are to regard the dog (for example) as the two thousand doctors expressed 
 it in their Memorial to the Home Office in 1875, as " a carnivorous creature, 
 specially valuable for the purposes of research " (i.e. to be carved alive to 
 satisfy scientific curiosity), — then we must, for very shame sake, and to pre- 
 vent our children from becoming cynical hypocrites, stop at once all talking 
 and teaching of sympathy and love to animals. If we are going to give up 
 the poor brute to be dissected alive, then, in Heaven's name, let us try to 
 think of it as a mere automaton, a senseless bit of animated matter, which 
 can have no feeling, no intelligence, no faithful affection. To admire its 
 intelligence and its fidelity, and lead our children to caress it and to note all 
 its beautiful instincts, and then to deliver it to the tormentors, that is some- 
 thing baser and more odious than the perfidy of an Eastern tyrant. It is 
 only because of our utter ignoring of the claims of the brutes which prevents 
 us from feeling sick with disgust at such cold-blooded hypocrisy. Let us 
 fancy superior beings — angels, or God himself — treating us in like manner ; 
 accepting our humble services, drawing forth our adoring love and fidelity, 
 and then, coldly consigning us to the torture chambers whence we shall 
 never escape ! Truly when we think of these things the awful words seem 
 
to sound in our ears — " With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to 
 you again." 
 
 I have, I hope, said enough of the reasons why we ask for the total pro- 
 hibition of Vivisection, on grounds of morality, and of natural, honest human 
 feeling. As I said at starting, if we prove the practice to involve a great 
 moral offence (perhaps I ought to say more exactly, is so inextricably con- 
 nected with a great moral offence as that it is practically impossible to 
 sanction it and yet avert the offence), then the exhibition of the fortunate 
 results which might be expected from the practice, is irrelevant. If we 
 have no right to invade a defenceless country which lies at our mercy, it 
 would he deemed cynically immoral to write leading articles and make 
 parliamentary speeches, to show how much plunder we might obtain by 
 ravishing it. 
 
 But our opponents, who are almost to a man Utilitarians, if 
 not Agnostics, are by no ■ means willing to settle the question 
 on the grounds of simple deductive morals. For a large benefit to 
 the human race, they will generally contend that almost anything is 
 justifiable ; and certainly such a small thing in their account as the 
 torture of animals. In short, not a few of them talk grandiloquently of their 
 duty to vivisect, in the " sacred cause of humanity; " and bid us stand by 
 and admire their deep sympathy with human suffering, which makes them 
 sacrifice all their own tender sentiments of compassion to animals in the 
 hope of bringing some relief to the sick bed from the laboratory. Thus, 
 then, we are brought up short out of what, I suppose, they would call the 
 high priori road of discussion, and challenged to say whether Vivisection, 
 even if it be a wrong to the brutes, is not such a service to man as amply to 
 justify its professors in disregarding the lesser obligation. As this line of 
 appeal reaches many good and conscientious hearts, and has been fortified 
 by Dr. Darwin's solemn denunciation of Anti-vivisectors, as persons who 
 would sacrifice the great interests of the human race to mistaken sentiment, 
 I feel bound to confront it straightforwardly and carefully. 
 
 My friends, do not be afraid that you will sacrifice the interests of man- 
 kind by stopping the torture of animals. Those interests never can, and 
 never will, while God reigns on high, be furthered by cruelty and wrong. 
 We need never fear that we relinquish any real good for our race by following 
 out the dictates of justice and mercy. It is an impious doctrine ; I say it 
 deliberately, an impious doctrine, that God has made it any man's duty 
 to commit the great sin of cruelty by way of obtaining a benefit for suffering 
 humanity, or the duty of the community to sanction such cruelty for its own 
 benefit. After all, what are these boasted benefits to be obtained by 
 Vivisection ? I do not deny that a remedy for any of the diseases of our 
 fleshly tabernacles would be a great benefit ; but, I say, that even for that, 
 the price of hardened hearts, and blunted sympathies, and intellects trained 
 to the passionless registration of agony, would be too heavy a price. I do not 
 believe in the cures said to be effected by help of Vivisection. When we sift 
 any of these stories so often dinned in our ears, we usually find, either that the 
 doctors have only found out, like Pharoah's magicians, how to cause the 
 disease, but not how to cure it ; or if they have really found a cure or an 
 improved mode of treatment, it has been by methods which — as Dr. Clay says 
 of his most famous operation, "have no more to do with Vivisection than 
 the Pope of Rome."— (Brit. Med. Journal, July 17, 1880). * 
 
 But even if I be mistaken ; if Vivisectors have already made or shall here- 
 after make discoveries, tending directly and importantly to relieve our bodily 
 
 * The operation claimed by the Bishop of Peterborough in the House of Lords as the 
 great triumph of Vivisection, and of which Dr. Clay was the originator. 
 
pains; even then, would Vivisection, I ask, stand justified ? Not so, my friends, 
 assuredly. Bodily health, relief from pain, prolongation of life, are not the 
 only or the greatest good to be sought for man. The arguments which these 
 doctors, and, alas ! several Bishops also, adopt, all rest on the crude, stupid, 
 heathenish assumption that the moral interests of mankind are not worth 
 considering, and the physical interests are all in all. The unexpressed major 
 term of the whole argument of the Bishop of Peterborough, as I heard him in 
 the House of Lords, was this — " That a practice which, in the opinion of 
 experts, conduces to the bodily health of one or more persons, becomes, ipso 
 facto morally lawful and right." I leave you to reflect on the consequences of 
 the adoption of this principle in the present state of medical opinion, and 
 the sort of practices which would be lifted accordingly from the rank of 
 Vices to Virtues ! 
 
 Yet, if this major term be unsound, the whole argument of the lawfulness 
 of Vivisection deduced from its supposed beneficent results falls entirely to 
 the ground. The Inquisitors of old took really higher ground when they 
 professed to burn a few heretics in the immortal interests of mankind, and to 
 save, not merely this life, but the life hereafter from destruction. 
 
 I often think, however, that we are very " soft " as regards these 
 Vivisectors, when we listen to their pretentions to zeal for the benefit of 
 humanity as justifying their disgusting pursuit. These English augurs, like 
 those of ancient Rome, must smile, when they find one another practising 
 on the gullibility of the public. Foreign physiologists — to one of whom our 
 home-bred tormentors subscribed the other day to raise a statue — do not think 
 it worth their while to make pretensions to such a sublime and Prometheus-like 
 Enthusiasm of Humanity. Dr. Hoggan tells us they have no such hypocrisies, 
 and that they laugh at such an idea in the great laboratory in Paris, where he 
 witnessed such reckless cruelties ; and Dr. Herman, of Zurich, frankly wrote 
 in his famous pamphlet (Die Vivisections-frage), " The advancement of our 
 knowledge and not practical utility to medicine is the true and straightforward 
 object of all vivisection " (p. 16). I do not deny that there may have been 
 here and there a vivisector who loathed his work (as any man with a heart 
 in his bosom must loathe it), and yet occasionally performed painful experi- 
 ments in the ardour of scientific research. Such a man, I believe, was 
 Sir Charles Bell. But few and rare are the experiments such a man would 
 or did perform ; and often, like your own great Dr. Syme, they would end by 
 repenting all they have done, and denouncing the practice. But if you tell 
 me that Claude Bernard baked his seventeen dogs in a stove, and Mantegazza 
 larded his forty animals with nails, and Schiff tormented his fourteen 
 thousand dogs, all with compunction and regret, and such pain to themselves 
 as any one with natural unperverted feelings would experience, then, I say, 
 simply, " I don't believe it." I consider the pretence that they did so as one 
 more of the tolerably numerous, — shall we say illusions ? — of which a certain 
 " noble profession " will some day be ashamed. 
 
 So much for the supposed motive of Vivisectors, which (I have heard 
 it argued) may nullify the deadly moral consequence of a life spent 
 in the work of torture. We Anti-Vivisectors are sad sceptics. It is 
 true that we almost to a man believe in God, and in such a thing as 
 Duty ; but then, we somehow do not believe quite implicitly in physiolo- 
 gists ! We think a man who will bake, and burn, and lard with nails, and 
 dissect alive, harmless, and helpless creatures, is possibly capable of cloaking 
 his hateful proceedings with a mantle of philanthrophy when he is talking 
 to the mere Philistine lay-public. We think that a man who freely chooses 
 for himself the life-woik of a Familiar of this modern Inquisition; a sworn 
 Tormentor of the new Question Chamber ; a man who devotes his few 
 
8 
 
 years under the sun, in God's bright world, to the task which the imagina- 
 tion of a Dante has given to the Fiends in the pit of darkness — we think, 
 I say, that that man's soul suffers under more deadly disease than the 
 palsies and cancers for which he vainly pretends to seek the cure. For 
 my own part, I say, and I think you will all say with me, Let me bear the 
 burdens which God may lay on me, and die when to Him seems good. 
 But let me go out of this life of shadows into the eternal world, able to 
 think it would not be an implied curse I should invoke on my soul were I to 
 desire, like Theodore Parker, that over my grave should be read the words, 
 " Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain money." 
 
 Office of the Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection, 
 i, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W. 
 
 A PROBLEM. 
 
 Impromptu lines upon a remark with reference to vivi- 
 section, ' ' but they have no souls. " 
 
 Come Carlo, dear four-footed friend, 
 
 And look at me that I may trace 
 Once more that glance of loving light, 
 
 Which lends such beauty to thy face. 
 But whence it comes, and what it means, 
 
 Can take small place in Nature's roll ; 
 Thy gaze is but atonic play, 
 
 For Carlo, dear, thou hast no soul. 
 
 Give me thy paw ; 'tis trustier far 
 
 Than many a hand of human mould ; 
 And greet me with thy honest tongue 
 
 Which never a human lie has told. 
 And yet thy steadfastness and truth 
 
 'Twere idle folly to extol ; 
 They're only matter's fleeting form 
 
 For, Carlo, dear, thou hast no soul. 
 
 There let my vivisecting knife 
 
 Slow make thee, dumb, and maimed, and blind ; 
 Thy torture weighs not in the scale, 
 
 Matter must be the store of mind. 
 Ah ! God, that look ; that piteous cry, 
 
 What is this thought beyond control ? 
 Can Science be a cruel lie, tenter lie 
 
 And faithful Carlo have a soul? L ' collection 
 
 — L. H. E. in London Zoophilist.