Chapter XIV: Part IV: The Case Against Anti-Vivisection (1)

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

The early history of the anti-vivisection movement is given in a pamphlet by Dr. Leffingwell, of Brooklyn, entitled "The Rise of the Vivisection Controversy"; and in a pamphlet published by the National Anti-vivisection Society, entitled "Dates of the Principal Events connected with the Anti-vivisection Movement." Dr. Leffingwell calls attention to a fact not generally known--that the movement, in this country, was begun by the medical journals. The _Medical Times and Gazette_ in 1858, the _Lancet_ in 1860, and the _British Medical Journal_ in 1861 condemned in a very outspoken way certain experiments made on the Continent, and raised the question whether these or any experiments on animals could be justified. Later, in 1872, the _Medical Times and Gazette_ declared outright that all experiments, from the time of Magendie onward, had done nothing for humanity that could be compared to the discovery and use of cod-liver oil and bark. In 1874, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took proceedings against those who had made certain experiments at Norwich during a meeting of the British Medical Association. These experiments, and the publication of the _Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory_, roused public comment; and during 1875 the opposition to all experiments on animals took more definite form. On June 22nd, 1875, the Royal Commission was appointed; on January 8th, 1876, its report was dated; and on August 15th, 1876, the present Act received the Royal assent.

At the time when the Royal Commission was appointed, the only anti-vivisection society was that which Mr. Jesse had just started; and if any one will read Mr. Jesse's cross-examination, by Professor Huxley, before the Royal Commission, he will not attach much importance to that society. The National Anti-vivisection Society was founded in November 1875; the Irish Society, the London Society, and the International Association in 1876; the Church Anti-vivisection League in 1889, the Humanitarian League and the National Canine Defence League[45] in 1891, and the British Union about 1898. These dates show that the oldest of these societies came after the Royal Commission, not before it; the first societies and the Royal Commission were alike the expression of a widespread opinion, thirty years ago, that experiments on animals ought either to be forbidden or to be restricted. This same opinion had been favoured, fifteen years before that, by the representative journals of the medical profession. We have seen something of the work of the medical profession; let us now see something of the work of the societies.

[45] These two societies have other purposes beside that of
opposition to experiments on animals.

The chief anti-vivisection societies in this country are the National Society, the London Society, the British Union, the Church League, and the Canine Defence League. In February 1898, the National Society declared itself in favour of restriction; it set before itself abolition as its ultimate policy, and restriction as its immediate practical policy. Thus, at the present time, these societies are divided into two parties: one asks for restriction, another asks for nothing short of abolition. This division between them, and the tone of the National Society toward the smaller Societies, waste their energy and their funds, and hinder them from working together. The National Society, in its official journal (January 1902), speaks as follows of this schism, in a leader entitled "The Folly of our Subdivisions":--

"Nobody seems to know how many Anti-vivisection Societies there
are. A few hundred Anti-vivisectionists divide themselves up
into divisions, subdivisions, coteries, and cliques, without
order, without discipline, without cohesion. The
Anti-vivisectionists between them all contribute but a few
thousands a year, and dribble them around among multitudinous
antagonistic associations.... The pitiful absurdity of the
disunion fostered by some Anti-vivisectionists was illustrated
very forcibly last year by the issue of a prospectus of a
Society with a world-embracing title, in which its promoters
declared that irreparable injury would be inflicted upon our
cause if electoral work were not taken up by _them_.... The
accounts of this stupendous organisation showed that its total
expenditure for the year was £13, 19s. 4d., out of which ten
shillings was devoted to 'electoral work.' ... A much graver
injury is done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of
money spent in perfectly unnecessary offices and salaries. We
say that one office would amply suffice for all the work, and
that one office would not need half-a-dozen paid Secretaries.
The existence of many quite needless Societies cannot be
justified on any grounds of humanity combined with common
sense."

Nothing need be added to these very grave admissions, written by Mr. Coleridge himself. He proposes a very simple remedy for these "quite needless" societies:--

"The National Society, as the chief Anti-vivisection
organisation in the world, is always ready to put an end to this
grievous waste by receiving into its corporation any of the
smaller Societies."

But the leaders of smaller societies have two grounds of complaint against Mr. Coleridge's society: they do not believe in his policy, and they will not submit to his "discipline." They call his society "the weak-kneed brethren," and say that its policy is "miserable, cowardly, and misleading"; and they take it ill that he so often accuses them of inaccuracy. He refers again and again (see the official journal of the National Society) to this mode of discipline:--

_December 1901._--"I decline to be made responsible for the
'anti-vivisection party.' There happen to be small
anti-vivisection associations whose chief occupation is the
dissemination of quite inaccurate pamphlets. I have nothing to
do with them, and cannot prevent anything they choose to do."

_January 1902._--"Time after time has this sacred cause been
undermined and betrayed by its professing friends by their
reckless habit of making erroneous statements."

_March 1902._--"I am quite aware that with many of my opponents
in the exclusive total-abolition coterie, the motives that
actuate them are far removed from the question of the salvation
of the wretched animals, and have their foundation in emotions
that seem to me singularly unworthy and petty."

_May 1902._--"As representative of the National Society, I have
again and again written to the representatives of some of the
smaller anti-vivisection societies, protesting in plain terms
against their publication of inaccurate statements."

No society could submit to be thus taken to task four times in six months. The Church League writes to him, "What the Church League may or may not think fit to say does not in the very least concern you, who are not a member of the League. Interference in such a matter from an outsider is an obvious impertinence." Such rejoinders are met, in their turn, by angry leaders, "A Stab in the Back," "Stabs in the Back," in the National Society's official journal; and the Hon. Secretary of the London Society, who is a lady, is accused of want of chivalry for Mr. Coleridge. The leader, "A Stab in the Back" (April 1902), is a curious instance of the tone of one anti-vivisection society toward another:--

"The time when a man is assailed by a large section of the
press, threatened with violence by laymen, attacked on points
relevant by vivisectors and points irrelevant by their
supporters, is scarcely the moment that a generous rival would
have chosen for hurling a dart; and yet, incredible as it may
appear, the Honorary Secretary of another Anti-vivisection
Society, seizing an opportunity afforded by an article in the
_Globe_, enters the arena, and, by a letter repudiating any
connection with Mr. Coleridge, appears to sanction the
unfriendly criticisms expressed in that paper. It needed no
chivalry to refrain from writing such a letter. A small amount
of good taste would have amply sufficed.... This letter, which
will convince the public of nothing but the writer's lack of
taste, might well be ignored were it not that it is but one of
the many attacks made by members of other societies, either by
open statement or innuendo, against the Honorary Secretary of
the National Society."

But we cannot wonder at these occasional stabs. For the National Society does not stop at charging other societies with inaccuracy. It makes yet graver charges against them. Here are three made by Mr. Coleridge's society against Miss Cobbe's and Mr. Trist's societies:--

_March 1901._--"The February number of the _Abolitionist_
contains a leading article in which allusions are made to
subjects that are never discussed by decent people even in
private. As the leading organ of the Anti-vivisection movement,
we enter our solemn protest against the publication of this
unspeakable article, which must inevitably inflict the gravest
injury upon our cause."

_February 1903._--"It is our duty to inform our readers that Mr.
Trist has published the correspondence, but that he has
mutilated it, omitting some of his own letters altogether, and
excising whole paragraphs of Mr. Stewart's letters."

_June 1903._--"Our amiable contemporary, the _Abolitionist_, is
good enough, in a long article in its last issue, to suggest to
those preparing the libel action against Mr. Coleridge what are
the most vulnerable points in his armour."

Thus divided in policy, and quarrelling among themselves, these societies are still agreed in appealing to the public for approval and for money. Here the London Society's opposition to the National Society comes out clearly. In its annual report (1903) the London Society says:--

"Join a really effective Society with a frank and
straightforward policy--namely, the London Anti-vivisection
Society, 13 Regent Street, London, S.W. This is a National and
International organisation. It has greater medical support than
any other. It is the most 'alive' humane organisation in the
world.... Get into touch with the society. Write to us. We shall
be glad to hear from you and answer any questions."

"If you can provide for the Society's future in your Will, may
we beg of you to do so? If you agree, pray do it now. Thousands
of pounds have been lost to the Society and the Cause by the
fatal procrastination of well-meaning friends. The pity of it!
Legacies should be left in these _exact_ words: 'To the _London_
Anti-vivisection Society.' CAUTION. It is of great importance to
describe very accurately the _Title of this Society_--namely,
THE LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY--otherwise the benevolent
intentions of the Donor may be frustrated. PLEASE NOTE.--Those
charitable persons who have left money to the Society would do
well to notify the same to the Secretary."

Contrast the tone of this appeal for money with the tone of the Report:----

"Your Society are glad to note that the Christian Churches are
becoming alarmed at the pretensions of scientific authority....
The Christian laity has been largely uninstructed or misinformed
on this grave question.... Happily, the signs of the times are
propitious; not all of the leaders of religious thought in this
country have succumbed to the dictation and pretensions of the
professors of vivisection ... a base and blatant materialism, a
practice which owes its inception to barbarism, and which has
developed in materialism of the lowest possible order."

Surely such eloquence should avail to tear the money even out of the hands of the dying, lest the National Society should get it. The National Society, oddly enough, also says: "CAUTION.--It is of great importance to describe very accurately the _Title of this Society_--namely, THE NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY--otherwise the benevolent intentions of the Donor may be frustrated." I do not know which of these two societies is the inventor of this phrase. Still, it is not improbable that the National Society receives more money than all the smaller societies together. Of course, we cannot compare the working expenses of an anti-vivisection society with the working expenses of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The former of these two societies in one year obtained 8798 convictions; in one month alone, 689 convictions; and it paid the full costs of committing 34 of the 689 to prison. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has an equally good record. But an anti-vivisectionist society cannot show results of this kind. Nor can we compare its working expenses to those of a missionary society; for the missionaries give direct personal service to their fellow-men. But we can fairly compare an anti-vivisection society to an anti-vaccination society or a Church of Christian Science. That is to say, it is a publishing body. In 1902, the National Society's expenditure, in round numbers, was £970 on printing and stationery; £1193 on rent, salaries, and wages; £1255 on books, newspapers, periodicals, &c., including the _Illustrated Catalogue_ and the _Hospital Guide_; £1380 on lectures, meetings, organising new branches, &c.; and about £500 on all other expenses. Let us take, to illustrate these figures, what the National Society says from time to time in its official journal:--

_June 1899._--(From the Society's Annual Report): "The whole
controversy has been collected and published in pamphlet form by
your Society, and more than 10,000 copies have already been
issued to the public. Over 200 people have joined your ranks
and become members of the Society in consequence of it, while
two cheques of £1000 each were received by Mr. Coleridge in aid
of the cause."

_June 1899._--"We have received more money within the past six
months than we got in any two years previously."

_June 1899._--"We cannot better employ the funds at our disposal
than in securing the constant help of experts to insure the
accuracy of all our statements, and in sending well-informed
lecturers to every city in the kingdom."

_June 1900._--(From the Society's Annual Report): "The receipts
of the society from subscriptions and donations show an increase
over those of the previous year. This increase in itself,
however, would hardly have justified the increase in the
expenses which it has been found necessary to incur in almost
every department, and especially in the distribution of
pamphlets and papers, had it not been for some legacies which
fell due, notably one from----, of £6386."

_May 1901._--"With heartfelt gratitude we have once more to
announce that the National Society has received a gift of a
thousand pounds from an anonymous donor. Nothing could be more
opportune for the Cause than this munificent support, coming as
it does just as the issue of 20,000 copies of Mr. Stephen
Coleridge's _Hospital Guide_ has been made at so great a cost to
the Society."

_June 1901._--"Our editorial table is buried deep in press
cuttings from all parts of the kingdom."

_March 1902._--"We employ two press-cutting agencies to send us
cuttings from the journals of the whole English-speaking world."

_July 1903._--"We start branches in various towns, and send
lecturers to speak at working men's clubs and debating
societies. All this means a very large expense. We very often
issue a pamphlet likely to do good by the tens of thousands.
Last year we issued 50,000 copies of the 'Illustrated German
Catalogue of Vivisectional Instruments and Appliances.'"

The smaller societies, of course, spend their funds in the same sort of way. Thus the National Canine Defence League says that its anti-vivisection work, the most important of all its works, is earnestly carried forward by (1) The Writer's League, in a ceaseless flow of letters to the press; (2) The circulation of lists of hospitals free from the shameful practice; (3) The publication of twenty-one strong leaflets on the subject; (4) The circulation of 300 copies of a book on the subject. This society in two years sent out 650,000 leaflets and pamphlets; but they were not all of them about experiments on animals. Another Society, in a report published in 1902, enumerates the methods which it employs for "the education of the public at large." These include (_a_) the publication of literature; (_b_) the holding of public meetings in all parts of the United Kingdom; (_c_) the delivery of lectures with or without limelight illustrations; (_d_) participation in debates even with high scientific authorities; (_e_) inducing the clergy and ministers of all Churches to deliver sermons dealing with the subject; (_f_) organisation of a press bureau, through which the newspaper press of the country is watched, and correspondence and articles contributed. This Society has also a van, "the only one of its kind in existence. No sooner is our winter and spring campaign concluded than the van takes up the thread of the work and carries it on through the summer, and it may truly be said that the track of the van across country is white with the literature which the van circulates on its educational mission."

It is evident, from these and the like statements, that these Societies, during the last quarter of a century, have published a vast quantity of literature. We must examine the style of that literature during some recent years, and the arguments which it puts forward. But, before we do this, let us consider what attitude is taken by these Societies, or by well-known members of this or that Society, toward certain problems and interests that closely concern them.

I

They do not hesitate to take advantage of all those improvements of medicine and surgery which have been made by the help of experiments on animals. They denounce the work of the present; but they enjoy all the results of the past, and will enjoy all those of the near future. "If anything of value to medicine has been discovered by vivisection, it would be as absurd to reject it on that account as it would be to abandon Ireland because centuries ago we took it by force." And again: "We are no more morally bound to reject benefits acquired by indefensible means than are the descendants of slaveholders bound to abandon wealth originally acquired by the detestable abomination of slavery." And again, the _Animal's Friend_ (November 1903) takes as further instances the benefits derived from body-snatching, political assassination, and the French Revolution. But, in the matter of experiments on animals, it is the very same men and women who denounce these experiments and who profit by them. What should we say of an anti-slavery reformer who was himself drawing a vast income out of the slave trade?

But there is one gentleman, and, so far as I know, only one, who did carry his opinions into practice. He told the story at a debating meeting--how his little girl had a sore throat, and the doctor wanted to give antitoxin, and he forbade it, and the child recovered. "Of course," he says, "it was only an ordinary sore throat." Truly, a great victory, and a brave deed, to make an experiment on your own sick child.

II

The attitude of these Societies toward sport may seem at first sight purely negative; but it is worth study. I have the honour of knowing a very eminent physiologist who will never shoot, because he thinks it cruel--a man much abused by the National Society. And Lord Llangattock, the President of that Society, is well known as an a "ardent sportsman."

This contrast is of some interest. Let us see what the National Society says about sport. Of course, it is not bound to attack sport. But the reasons which it gives for remaining neutral are to be noted.

1. It says, very truly, that it is in great part supported by sportsmen.

2. It says, further, that the cruelties of sport lie outside its own proper work:--

"Our opponents frequently ask us why we do not attack some form
of cruelty other than vivisection, which they consider more
heinous. Our Honorary Secretary recently summarised this
argument in his own amusing manner thus: We must not arrest the
man in Tooting for kicking his wife till we have stopped the
woman in Balham starving her children, and we must not arrest
the woman in Balham for starving her children until we have
stopped the man in Tooting kicking his wife." (1901.)

Later (1903) the _dramatis personæ_ are a man in East Islington jumping on his wife, and a woman in West Islington stabbing her husband. But this argument, of course, will not hold. For it is the same men who denounce wounds made (under anæsthetics) for physiology, and who make wounds (without anæsthetics) in sport.

3. It says that the "object" of the sportsman is to kill; but the "object" of the experimenter is to torture:--

"There is a vast difference between the killing of animals and
the torturing of them before killing them. The object of the
sportsman is to kill his quarry; the object of the vivisector is
to keep his victim alive while he dissects it."--Mr. Wood
(1903).

"The object of the sportsman is to kill, and the object of the
vivisector is to keep his victim alive while he cuts it
up."--Lord Llangattock (1901).

"The vivisector is nothing if not a tormentor; the sportsman is
not a true sportsman if he seeks to inflict pain on his
quarry.... One (the pain of a horse falling on asphalt) is the
result of an accident to be deplored, the other (the pain from
an experiment) is done of devilish malice prepense."--Leader in
the Society's official journal, (1899).

"I am not so mentally and ethically confused as to be unable to
distinguish between the entirely different moral acts of killing
and torturing."--Mr. Coleridge (1901).

Here are four statements. One is by Mr. Wood, the Society's lecturer; one by Lord Llangattock, its President; one is published in its official journal; and one is by Mr. Coleridge, its honorary secretary and treasurer. That is the sort of thing which seems good enough to the National Society to say to its friends in Parliament; this childish nonsense about the true sportsman and his quarry.

III

The attitude of these Societies toward the medical profession, and toward the Hospitals, must be studied. Let us look through some numbers of the official journal of the National Society, and see the attitude that it sometimes takes toward the medical profession:--

_June 1899._--"The charm of this sort of thing is that you are
always sure of the _post-mortem_ if of nothing else."

_July 1899._--"There is a disease, well known to the vestrymen
of London, called 'the half-crown diphtheria.' This is common
sore throat, notified as diphtheria because the vestry pays a
fee of half-a-crown to the medical notifier."

_December 1899._--"The patient died, made miserable by the
effect of inoculations which even on bacteriological grounds
gave no promise of success, but the scientific physician,
nowadays, must inject something in the way of a serum."

_March 1901._--"There will always be those who, unable to think
for themselves or exercise their independence on therapeutic
methods, are prone to bow down before authority which is
self-assertive enough to compel the obedience of weak minds.
Such men would inject antitoxin though every case died. They
administer it not knowing why."

_April 1901._--(From "Our Cause in the Press"): "What effort
does the medical profession make to make clear to its clients
what is well known to itself, that disease is the result of
wrong living? Practically none at all. The medical profession as
a whole have winked at sin, and have merely sought to antidote
its results."

_September 1901._--"Some day we shall have our surgeons
disembowelling us just to see what daylight and fresh air will
do for the stomach-ache."

_December 1901._--"The new medicine demands a mere laboratory
habit; the patient is nothing, the disease everything. He is a
test-tube; such and such reagents are needed to produce a
certain result, and there you are. The patient's malady, be it
what it may, is due to a microbe, a toxin, or a ptomaine; he
must be inoculated with the serum or antitoxin which counteracts
his disease, and this must be done not _secundum artem_ but
_secundum scientiam_, and the science means the inoculating
syringe and so many cubic centimetres of filth wherewith to
poison the man's blood and so cure his disease, though the
victims die."

_December 1903._--(From "Our Cause in the Press"): "Not only did
we see great callousness in the field hospitals in South Africa,
but conversation with the class that finds its way into our
hospitals in England will reveal that a great deal of refined
cruelty is constantly occurring."

Why does the official journal of Mr. Coleridge's society publish these things? For this reason--that it must attack those methods that were discovered by the help of experiments on animals. The medical profession uses these methods. Therefore, that profession must be attacked.

The same reason, of course, helps to explain the National Society's attack on the great Hospitals of London. It would take too long to tell here the whole story of that attack. Three charges were made against the Hospitals: (1) that they maltreat patients; (2) that they promote the torture of animals; (3) that they endow this torture at the cost of the patients. They were accused, to put it plainly, of treachery and fraud; and of course the Council of the King's Hospital Fund got its share of abuse. Mr. Coleridge said on this subject:--

1. (Annual meeting at St. James's Hall, May 1901): "How have
Lord Lister, the vivisector, and his Committee distributed the
Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund? They have so distributed this
fund as to make it clear to hospital managers that the more they
connect their hospitals with the torture of animals the larger
will be the grant they may expect to get from the Prince of
Wales's Fund. That fund, therefore, has been used as an
insidious but powerful incentive to vivisection."

2. (Annual meeting at St. James's Hall, 1902): "Sheltering
itself now in its most repulsive form behind those ancient and
glorious institutions, founded and sustained for their
Christ-like work of healing the sick, sapping their foundations
and smirching their fair fame, malignant cruelty has taken up
its position in its last ditch. There it has summoned to its aid
vast interests, ancient prejudices, enormous endowments, and
under illustrious patronage it has pilfered the funds subscribed
for the poor."

With these statements before us (and it would be easy to add to them) we cannot doubt that the plan of campaign against all experiments on animals is also hostile to the Hospitals, whenever that hostility seems likely to be of the very least use to the cause.

* * * * *

Surely there are charities more worthy of subscriptions, donations, and legacies than these Anti-vivisection Societies. They quarrel among themselves; they spend vast sums of money on offices, salaries, press-cuttings, reprints, lectures and meetings, tons of pamphlets and leaflets. Their members denounce all experiments done now, while they enjoy the profit of all experiments done before now; they say that the object of the physiologist is to torture his victim out of devilish malice prepense; they accuse doctors of fraud, and lying, and refined cruelty, and madness, and winking at sin; they blacklist and boycott the best Hospitals. And the whole costly business, these thirty years, has done nothing to stop these experiments; they have increased rapidly. Surely, if a man wishes to help and comfort animals, he had better give his money to the Home for Lost Dogs, or the Home of Rest for Horses.

II. LITERATURE.

We have now to examine the style of the literature of these societies. But, out of such a vast store of journals, pamphlets, and leaflets, we can only take one here or there.

From time to time a book or a pamphlet is, for good reasons, withdrawn. Thus, in 1902, the London Society withdrew _Dark Deeds_. (_The Shambles of Science_, now impounded, was published by a chairman of committee of the National Society, but not by that society.) In 1900 the National Society withdrew one or more pamphlets involving acceptance of Dr. Bowie's mistranslation of Harvey. In 1902 it withdrew and destroyed a whole store of diverse pamphlets, and appealed to its supporters to "refrain from circulating any literature not issued from our office by the present committee"; that is to say, it warned them to distribute no literature but its own, and not all even of that. But the withdrawal of a few books and pamphlets makes very little difference; and most of them are "revised" and brought out again. Take, for example, the _Nine Circles_. It was planned and compiled for Miss Cobbe; Mr. Berdoe was "urgently requested by her to point out to her any scientific errors or possible inadvertent misrepresentations of fact, and correct or expunge them"; and he "carefully read through the proof-sheets." The book purported to be an exact account, from original sources, of certain experiments, some made abroad, some in this country. It was attacked by Sir Victor Horsley at the Church Congress at Folkestone, October 1892, and was withdrawn, revised, and brought out again. Our only concern here is to see what the official journal of the National Society said of the revised issue. This official journal, the _Zoophilist and Animal's Defender_, was started in May 1881, under the shorter title of the _Zoophilist_. It speaks of itself as a "scientific journal," and as "the recognised organ of the anti-vivisection movement in England." It is published monthly, and may be obtained through any bookseller. In 1883 it was edited by Miss Cobbe; in 1884 by Mr. Benjamin Bryan; in 1898 by Mr. Berdoe. In 1903, Mr. Coleridge, apologising for an error made in it in 1898, says: "At that time I had not the control over its pages that is at present accorded to me." Thus it is, I believe, still edited by Mr. Berdoe, and is, or was in 1903, controlled by Mr. Coleridge. And we are bound to note here that Mr. Berdoe was in great part responsible for the _Nine Circles_; and in 1897 was responsible for certain statements as to the use of curare, which the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, called "absolutely baseless."

Let us now examine the style of this "official journal." And, to begin with, what does it say about the _Nine Circles_? To make this point clear, let us put in parallel columns what was said by Sir Victor Horsley of the original edition in 1892, and what was said by the _Zoophilist_ in 1899 of the revised edition:--

_Sir Victor Horsley, Oct. 1892._

I have taken the trouble to collect all the experiments in which
cutting operations are described as having been performed by
English scientists, and in which I knew anæsthetics to have been
employed. These experiments are 26 in number. In all of them
chloroform, ether, or other anæsthetic agent was employed. But
of these 26 cases, Miss Cobbe does not mention this fact at all
in 20, and only states it without qualification in two out of
the remaining six. When we inquire into these 20 omissions in
the 26 cases, we find in the original that again and again Miss
Cobbe has, in making her extracts, had directly under her eyes
the words "chloroform," "ether," "etherised," "chloroformed,"
"anæsthetised," "during every experiment the animal has been
deeply under the influence of an anæsthetic," and so forth.

_The "Zoophilist," July 1899._

A revised edition has been issued, which is a stronger
indictment against the vivisectors than the original work. There
were some half-dozen omissions in the first edition concerning
the administration of anæsthetics in the preliminary operations,
but the cruelty of the experiments was in no case modified by
the fact that a whiff of chloroform was possibly administered,
as stated in the reports, at the beginning of the operation. Our
opponents may boast of their success in detecting the omission
to dot the i's and cross the t's in the first edition of the
_Nine Circles_, but there are some victories which are worse
than a defeat. We have replaced the lantern with which we
examined the dark deeds of the laboratories by the electric
searchlight. The "researcher" will find it hard to discover a
retreat where its rays will not follow and expose him.

For another instance of the inaccuracy of the _Zoophilist_ we have what it said about Professor Sanarelli's experiments in South America on five human beings. Nobody defends him here. But the point is that the _Zoophilist_ in 1899 said that they had all been killed; and in 1902 admitted that they had all recovered. Or, for another instance, we have what it said in 1902 about the case of His Majesty the King. (For these statements, see _Zoophilist_, August 1902 and September 1903; also its report, October 1902, of Mr. Wood's speech at Exeter.)

But let us take a wider view. A journal, like a man, is known by the company that it keeps. Whose company does the _Zoophilist_ keep? Why does it talk of _Our excellent cotemporary, Humanity_--_Our valiant cotemporary, Le Médecine_--_Our excellent cotemporary, The Herald of the Golden Age_? Again, among the journals that it quotes, some of them very frequently, are the _Topical Times_, _Broad Views_, _Modern Society_, _Madame_, the _Humanitarian_, the _Pioneer_, the _Vegetarian_, the _Voice of India_, the _Herald of Health_, the _Rock_, the _New Age_, the _Journal of Zoophily_, the _Homoeopathic World_, _Medical Liberty_, and the _Honolulu Humane Educator_. This may be very good company, but it is not all of it the best company for a "scientific journal." Still, it may be better company than the American _Medical Brief_, the _Journal de Médecine de Paris_, and the Belgian _Le Médecine_. These journals, being veritable "medical journals," are quoted in the _Zoophilist_ with the most amazing frequency and at great length; which is a compliment that they do not receive from other medical journals. They are, indeed, as vehemently anti-Pasteur and anti-antitoxin as the _Zoophilist_ itself. Take what the _Medical Brief_ says:--

"Bacteriology originated in Continental Europe, where the minds
of a superstitious race were further unbalanced by constant
delving in pathology, putrefaction, and morbid anatomy. When it
spread to the new world, it also became blinded with the
revolutionary and fanatical tendencies lying near the surface in
such a civilisation."

"They say if you give a calf rope enough, he will hang himself.
Bacteriology is equally clumsy and stupid.... What excuse can be
found for the cowardice and ferocious ignorance which, under
the shadow of the stars and stripes, resurrects the sentiment of
the Middle Ages to protect the fraud, seeks to rob the
individual physician of free judgment, and denounces him for
failing to use the nasty stuff?"

"All Continental Europe is suffering from a sort of leprosy of
decadence, mental and moral. The spiritual darkness of the
people affects all the learned professions, but more especially
medicine."

Such is the _Medical Brief_, which the official journal of Mr. Coleridge's society quotes incessantly, calling it "an American monthly of great ability and without a trace of the scientific bigotry and narrow-mindedness which is so prominent a feature in some of our own organs of medical opinion." Next we come to the _Journal de Médecine de Paris_. This is anti-Pasteur; the editor, Dr. Lutaud, came to London in 1899, and gave a lecture on "the Pasteur superstition" at St. Martin's Town Hall. From a report of it in the _Star_ we may take the following sentences:--

"The result of the serum craze had been that the hospital was
neglected for the laboratory. Microbes of all the diseases were
found in perfectly healthy subjects. Microbes existed, but as a
consequence, not a cause. Toxins which the seropaths professed
to find were only the results of normal fermentation. The
English public had always supported him in his fifteen years'
struggle against Pasteurism."

Dr. Lutaud, says the National Society, is "the great authority." The _New England Anti-vivisection Monthly_ in 1900 calls him one of "the brightest scientists of modern times." His _Journal de Médecine de Paris_ recalls the _Medical Brief_:--

"To wish to apply the same methods of treatment, whether
preventive or curative, for two morbid conditions (a _wound_
with the point of entry _abnormal_ and an infectious _malady_)
in essence so different, is to commit a gross error.... The sick
are destroyed by that which cures their wounds."

These two "medical journals," the _Medical Brief_ and the _Journal de Médecine de Paris_, are upheld by the National Society as though they were expert witnesses of irresistible authority, and are quoted with a sort of ceaseless worship in that Society's official journal. Also it quotes the _Herald of Health_; and _Medical Liberty_, "a monthly publication issued by the Colorado Medical Liberty League, Denver, Colo., whose eloquent editor seems to be an uncompromising foe to medical bigotry and monopoly, and humbugs of every description."

Such are the medical journals which support the _Zoophilist_ as a scientific journal. Now let us take another point of view. Let us consider whom the _Zoophilist_ praises, and whom it condemns. That, surely, is a fair test of an official journal. And we get a clear result. The late Lord Salisbury and Mr. Arthur Balfour are "notoriously pro-vivisectionist"; Lord Lister has "apostatised from the anti-septic faith"; M. Pasteur is a "remorseless torturer"; the late Mr. Lecky was "degenerate," because he "performed the _volte-face_ and went over to our opponents"; and the late Professor Virchow was subjected to "scathing criticism" by one Paffrath, and was proved to be absurd. But its praises are given to a very different set of men.

There is no room here to note the lighter moods of the _Zoophilist_; its jokes about cats and catacombs, and two-legged donkeys and four-legged donkeys, and how to catch mosquitoes by putting salt on their tails--and it will even _break its jest on the dead_--but it rebukes another journal for levity, saying, _We regret to see our_ _painful subject treated in this manner._ No room, either, for its description of anti-vivisectionist plays, poems, novels, and sermons. Let us, to finish with, take a few statements from its pages, almost at random; some of them are reprinted there from other sources. The supply is endless; let us limit ourselves to six of them:--

1. "As other bacteria (beside those of malaria) were found not
to bear sunlight or air, but to habitats in _loca scuta situ_ (?
to inhabit _loca senta situ_), in filth and noisomeness, their
habits and customs preached again the old doctrine, 'Let in sun
and air and be clean,' as earnestly as those who thought health
was due to sun and air and water and fire, the four old
elements, and act accordingly, without dissecting hecatombs of
animals to prove a thousand times over that if you boiled or
baked or drowned or freezed living creatures they would die, or
that microscopic parasites did pretty much what visible
parasites have been always known to do." (Loud applause)--Report
of a speech by the Bishop of Southwell (1901).

2. "It is just as well that you should have heard what the
clever level-headed lawyer (Mr. Coleridge) thinks about this
abominable conspiracy of cruelty and fraud and impious
inquisitiveness which is called vivisection. (Cheers.) ... We
are sending out on the world in every direction multitudes of
young men who have been trained as surgeons, and they have lived
by cutting (reference here to the medical students in
_Pickwick_), and we are sending these young men out with this
_cacoëthes secandi_, this mania for cutting for the mere sake of
cutting. I should not be surprised if they tackle our noses or
our ears, and set about mutilating us in that way."--Archdeacon
Wilberforce (1901).

3. "The task of the crusader against vivisection is not to
reason with the so-called scientist, not to truckle to pedants
in the schools, or palter with callous doctrinaires, but to
inform and arouse the people; and when John Bull is prodded from
his apathy, and startled from his stertorous snore, he will rise
and bellow out a veto on the elegant butcheries of pedantic
libertines, and rush full tilt with both his horns against their
abattoirs of cruelty and passion, pharisaically vaunted as
research, until the gates of hell shall not prevail against
him."--The Rev. Arthur Mursell (1901).[46]

4. "It has been my experience of anti-vivisection among
Romanists, that nothing suited my purpose better than taking it
for granted that the worshippers of St. Francis, St. Bernard,
&c., must, _of course_, be on our side."--(1902.)

5. "Given money, and influential patronage, the vivisector now
expects a time after his own heart, while professedly engaged in
investigating the supposed causes of cancer, or the
transmissibility of tuberculosis. He can inflict the most
horrible and prolonged tortures on miserable animals, with such
a plausible excuse in reserve, that he is endeavouring all the
while to find cures for the ailments of high personages and
millionaires."--(1902.)

6. "The day of drugging and scientific butchery is drawing to a
close. Already the calm, reassuring voice of the new Life
Science, loud and clear to the few, is faintly audible to the
many. The sharp, crucial knife, with its dangerous quiver so
dear to the heart of the surgeon, the poisonous drug, will be
things of the past. Wisdom, thy paths are harmony and joy and
peace."--(1902.)

[46] Even the _Zoophilist_, which quotes this speech from the
_Clapham Observer_, seems to feel that it might have been put more
simply.

* * * * *

Such is the frequent level of the _Zoophilist_, the official journal of the National Society, edited by Mr. Berdoe, controlled by Mr. Coleridge. Let us now take one more of that society's publications, a pamphlet entitled _Medical Opinions on Vivisection_. Here, if anywhere, should be the society's stronghold. If it could show a large and important minority of the medical profession opposed to all experiments on animals, its power would be greatly increased. On three occasions, many years ago, the medical profession did express its opinion. At two of the annual meetings of the British Medical Association, and at a meeting of the London International Medical Congress, resolutions were passed affirming the value and the necessity of these experiments. At one of these meetings there was one dissentient vote; at one, two;[47] at one, none. These three meetings were truly representative; they were the great meetings of the clans of the profession, from all parts of the kingdom, for a week of practical work tempered by festivities. What more could any profession do than to go out of its way three times that it might record, in fullest assembly, its belief? And most certainly it would do the same thing again, if it thought that any further declaration were needed.

[47] I think it was two; it was either one or two.

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."

"All diseases have a mental or spiritual origin. Upon this
subject a large treatise might be written. I have carefully
thought this matter over, and can come to no other conclusion.
Can we imagine any wild bird confined to its nest with
rheumatism, or neuralgia, or consumption, or asthma, or any
other affection whatever? I believe them all to be entirely free
from disease; that is, all which have retained their freedom,
and thus have not come under the baneful influence of man. Take,
again, the fishes, and ask whether any fisherman ever caught a
fish found to be diseased. This subject is an interesting,
though a somewhat melancholy one."

Next, as an example of the literature of the London Society, let us take a speech made at St. James's Hall, May 26, 1903, by Dr. Hadwen, of Gloucester, who is also vehemently opposed to vaccination. He and Lieutenant-General Phelps, at the time of the disastrous smallpox epidemic in Gloucester in 1896, were leaders of the anti-vaccinationists. It would be easy to give other instances of the sympathy between anti-vivisection and anti-vaccination. But our business is not with Dr. Hadwen at Gloucester, but with him at St. James's Hall. He says to the London Society:--

"We are told we must pay attention to what the experts tell us.
My opinion is this: If there is one person in the whole of God's
creation that wants looking after, it is the expert.
(Laughter.)"

Of the House of Commons, he says:--

"If there is one thing in the world that will move a member of
Parliament, it is to know that any particular policy will carry
votes along with it. (Hear, hear.) You can bring any member of
Parliament to your knees as long as you show him that he has
his constituency at his back; and with all due respect to our
noble chairman, I am bound to say that my experience of members
of Parliament is this--that their consciences go as far as
votes, and do not extend very much farther." (Laughter and
applause.)

He describes an imaginary experiment under curare, and is interrupted by a cry of "Demons!" He goes on:--

"Yes, madam, they are demons. (Applause.) I know no other word
to describe experimenters who can submit sentient and sensitive
creatures, almost human in intelligence and faith, to diabolical
experiments, whilst their victims are rendered helpless and
voiceless by a hellish drug. (Applause.) I cannot understand how
in a land like this, that boasts of her Christianity and of her
liberty, men, women, clergy, and politicians can allow this
cowardly science to stand before us, and this demoniacal work to
be carried on. (Loud cheers.)"

* * * * *

We have now seen something of the style of the literature of these Societies; and, in the next chapter, we will consider its arguments. I do not deny that its style is sometimes at a higher level than the examples which I have quoted. But I do say that I could fill a book of 100 pages with quotations from journals or pamphlets of the last few years, all of them on the lower level. And in this chapter I have practically quoted nobody but those who are the leaders of the opposition to all experiments on animals. The official journal of this Society, the annual report of that Society, the leaflets which are sent in answer to a formal request for literature--I have quoted these, as they came to hand, just going through them and marking those passages which were to my purpose.

III. ARGUMENTS

We have seen that the societies arose out of the Act, and not the Act out of them; that they are divided or hostile; and that they have next to nothing to show for all the vast sums which they have received. Also we have noted the style of literature which they send broadcast over the country; and the "medical journals" and "medical opinions" that are in favour of the cause; and the general tone and frequent level of the official journal of the National Society. Still, a good cause may be ill served; nobody minds, after all, the style of a thing, so long as it is true. Let us come to the heart of the matter. What is the nature of the arguments and evidences of these societies? They desire to bring about the absolute prohibition, as a criminal offence, of all experiments on animals. By what facts, what records, what statistics, do they maintain this attempt to mend or end the present Act?

Here, at the risk of repetition, let me make quite clear what they are fighting against. Nine out of ten experiments are bacteriological. That is to say, 90 or 95 per cent. Of these inoculations, more than a third are made in the direct service of the national health, and as it were by the direct orders of Government. A vast number of them are wholly painless; nothing happens; the result is negative; the thing does not take. Some are followed by disease, and the animal is painlessly killed at the first manifestation of the disease, or recovers, or dies of the disease. The fate of that animal is the fate of all of us; it has got to die of something, and it dies of it. Anyhow, the talk about torture-troughs and cutting-up has no place here; and the word vivisection, by a gross and palpable abuse, is false nine times out of every ten. Of the remaining 10 per cent. of all experiments; in those that are made under the License alone, or under the License _plus_ Certificate C, the question of pain does not arise. The animal is anæsthetised, and is killed under that anæsthetic. The remaining 3 per cent. of all experiments are those that are made under the License _plus_ Certificate B (or B + EE, or B + F). The initial operation is done under the anæsthetic; the animal is allowed to recover; it may be, practically, none the worse for it. Or it may be the worse for it, and therefore die, or be killed. But Certificate B is _not_ allowed for any infliction of pain on the animal through the operation wound, and never will be.

Here are two sets of experiments: those under Certificate A, and those under Certificate B. One is 90 per cent. of all experiments; the other is 3 per cent. Nine out of ten experiments are inoculations, and the operation of the tenth is done under an anæsthetic. That is the first fact, which we must fix in our minds, before we consider the arguments of the societies.

Next, the dates and the sources of their evidence. They wish to stop the experiments that are now made in this country. They are bound, therefore, to produce "up-to-date" evidence, and from home sources; not that which is thirty years old, or comes from sources far away. This present use of animals, here and now, under the restrictions of the Act, is what they are fighting; they are bound to draw their instances from here and now.