was in operation, and
criticism could no longer serve any purpose of delay. The British
Medical Journal of August 19, 1876, announcing to its readers the
passage of the Bill, says:

"Taking the measure altogether, we think the profession may be
congratulated on its having passed.... So far, the Act facilitates the
prosecution of science by competent persons, while it protects animals
from the cruelty which might be inflicted by ignorant and unskilful
hands. THE ACT IS A GREAT STEP IN ADVANCE TOWARD PROMOTING KINDNESS
TO ANIMALS GENERALLY...."

The Medical Times and Gazette also regained its equanimity, and an
editorial referring to the Act admits that "the profession may regard
it without much dissatisfaction."[1] There are even advantages to be
discerned:

"It gives scientific inquirers the protection of the law; it protects
animals from cruelties which might be inflicted by unscientific and
unskilled persons, and it satisfies to a great extent a demand made by
a hypersensitive ... portion of the public."

[1] December 30, 1876.

Nor did further experience with the working of the Act appear greatly
to disturb this favourable impression. For instance, after the law
had been in operation nearly three years, the London Lancet in its
issue of July 19, 1879, editorially remarked:

"There is no reason to regret the Act of 1876 which limits vivisection,
except on the ground that it places the interests of science at the
arbitration of a lay authority.... MEANWHILE, THE ACT WORKS WELL, AND
FULFILLS ITS PURPOSE."

There can be no doubt, however, that the law has always been regarded
with marked disfavour by the extreme vivisectionists of Great
Britain. They had planned, as we can see, to introduce in the United
Kingdom the freedom of vivisection which obtained on the Continent.
They had failed, and instead of liberty to imitate Be'rnard, Magendie,
and Brown-Se'quard, they saw between them and the absolute power they
had craved and dreamed of obtaining, the majesty of English law.
Among American representatives of the same school--the strenuous
opponents of all legal supervision--it has been the fashion on every
possible occasion to cast discredit upon this Act. For obvious
reasons they have sought to represent it to the American public as
having proven a serious detriment to medical science and an
obstruction to medical advancement. The idea is absurd. English
physicians and surgeons are as well educated and eq