Chapter XXIV: Introduction (24)

“I am not able, as I say, to take part in a meeting, but as soon as I
am able I intend to preach on the subject, and if you can forward to
me any information which will be useful I shall be much obliged to
you. Believe me

“Ever my dear Miss Cobbe,
“Yours very faithfully,
“J. BALDWIN BROWN.”
(Rev. J. B. Brown.)

By this time there were two other Anti-vivisection Societies in London, beside Mr. Jesse’s Society at Macclesfield, all working for total prohibition; and though of course we had various small difficulties and rivalries in the course of time, yet practically we all helped each other and the cause. Eventually the _International Society_, of which Mr. and Mrs. Adlam were the spirited leaders, coalesced with ours and added to our Committee several of its most valuable members including our present much respected Chairman, Mr. Ernest Bell. The _London Anti-vivisection Society_, though I expended all my blandishments on it, has never consented to amalgamation, but has done a great work of its own for which we have all reason to hold it in honour.

The revolt against the cruelties of science spread also about this time to the continent. Baron Weber read his _Torture Chamber of Science_ in Dresden, and created thereby a great sensation, followed by the formation of the German League, of which he is President, and the foundation of its organ, the _Thier-und-Menschen-Freund_, edited by Dr. Paul Förster, now a member of the Reichstag. Other Anti-vivisection Societies were founded then or in subsequent years in Hanover, in Berlin, and in Stockholm. In Copenhagen those devoted friends of animals, M. and Mdme. Lembcké, had long contended vigorously against the local vivisector, Panum. In Italy the Florence _Società Protettrice_, of which our Queen is Patroness and Countess Baldelli the indefatigable Hon. Sec., has steadily worked against vivisection from its foundation; and so has the Torinese Society of which Dr. Riboli is President and Countess Biandrate Morelli the leading member. In Riga there has also been a persevering movement against Vivisection by the excellent Society of which the _Anwalt der Thiere_ is the (first-class) organ, and Madame V. Schilling the presiding spirit.

In short, by the end of the decade, though we had been so cruelly defeated, we were conscious that our movement had extended and had become to all appearance one of those permanent agitations, which, once begun, go on till the abuses which aroused them are abolished. In America the movement only took definite shape in February, 1883, when, under the auspices of the indefatigable Mrs. White, the _American Anti-vivisection Society_ was founded at Philadelphia; to be followed up by its most flourishing Illinois Branch, carried on with immense spirit by Mrs. Fairchild Allen. Mr. Peabody and Mr. Greene have since established at Boston the _New England Anti-vivisection Society_, which has already become one of our most powerful allies.

On the 2nd May, Mr. Holt’s Bill for total prohibition was debated in the House of Commons, and on a division there were 83 votes in its favour and 222 against it.

At last the Committee of the Victoria Street Society formally adopted the thoroughgoing policy; and at a Meeting, August 7th, 1878, resolved “to appeal henceforth to public opinion in favour of the total prohibition of Vivisection.” We then changed our title to that of the _Society for Protection of Animals from Vivisection_. Dr. Hoggan and his wife, Mrs. Hoggan, M.D., and also Mr. de Fonblanque retired from the Committee with cordial goodwill on both sides, and the Archbishop of York withdrew from the Vice-Presidency. But, beside these losses, I do not believe that we had any others, and there was soon a large batch of fresh recruits of new Members who had long resented our previous half-hearted policy,—as they considered it to have been.

For my own part I had accepted from the outset the assurance I received on all hands that a Bill for the total prohibition of Vivisection had not the remotest chance of passing through Parliament in the present state of public opinion; but that a Bill might be framed, which, proceeding only on the grounds of Restriction, might effectually and thoroughly exclude “_not only torture but anything at all approaching thereto_”; and that such a Bill had every chance of becoming law. To promote such a Bill had been my single aim and hope, and when it had been prepared and presented and received so favourably, it really appeared as if we were on the right and reasonable tack; much as we hated any concession whatever to the demands of the vivisectors.

But when we found that the compromise which we proposed had failed, and that our Bill providing the _minimum_ of protection for animals at all acceptable by their friends, was twisted into a Bill protecting their tormentors, we were driven to raise our demands to the total prohibition of the practice, and to determine to work upon that basis for any number of years till public opinion be ripe for our measure.

This was one aspect of our position; but there was another. We had in truth gone into this crusade almost as our forefathers had set off for the Holy Land, with scarcely any knowledge of the Power which we were invading. We knew that dreadful cruelties had been done; but we fondly imagined they were abuses which were _separable_ from the _practice_ of experimenting on living animals. We accepted blindly the representation of Vivisection by its advocates as a rare resource of baffled surgeons and physicians, intent on some discovery for the immediate benefit of humanity or the solution of some pressing and important physiological problem; and we thought that with due and well considered restrictions and safeguards on these occasional experiments, we might effectually shut out cruelty. By slow, very slow degrees, we learned that nothing was much further from the truth than these fancy pictures of ideal Vivisection, and that real Vivisection is _not_ the occasional and regretfully-adopted resource of a few, but the _daily employment_ (Carl Vogt called it his “daily bread”) of hundreds of men and students, devoted to it as completely and professionally as butchers to cutting up carcases. Finally we found that to extend protection by any conceivable Act of Parliament to animals once delivered to the physiologists in their laboratories, was chimerical. Vivisection, we recognized at last to be a _Method of Research_ which may be either sanctioned or prohibited as a Method, but which cannot be restricted efficiently by rules founded on humane considerations wholly irrelevant to the scientific enquiry.

On the moral side also, we became profoundly impressed with the truth of the principle to which Canon Liddon refers in the letter I have quoted, viz., that the Anti-Vivisection cause is “of even greater importance to human character than to the physical comfort of our fellow-creatures who are most immediately concerned.” As I wrote of it, about this time in _Bernard’s Martyrs_:—

“We stand face to face with a _New Vice_, new, at least in its vast
modern development and the passion wherewith it is pursued—the Vice of
Scientific Cruelty. It is not the old vice of _Cruelty for Cruelty’s
sake_. It is not the careless brutal cruelty of the half-savage
drunken drover, the low ruffian who skins living cats for gain, or of
the classic Roman or modern Spaniard, watching the sports of the arena
with fierce delight in the sight of blood and death. The new vice is
nothing of this kind.... It is not like most other human vices, hot
and thoughtless. The man possessed by it is calm, cool, deliberate;
perfectly cognisant of what he is doing; understanding, as indeed no
other man understands, the full meaning and extent of the waves and
spasms of agony he deliberately creates. It does not seize the
ignorant or hunger-driven or brutalized classes; but the cultivated,
the well-fed, the well-dressed, the civilized, and (it is said) the
otherwise kindly disposed and genial men of science, forming part of
the most intellectual circles in Europe. Sometimes it would appear as
we read of these horrors,—the baking alive of dogs, the slow
dissecting out of quivering nerves, and so on,—that it would be a
relief to picture the doer of such deeds as some unhappy, half-witted
wretch, hideous and filthy in mien or stupified by drink, so that the
full responsibility of a rational and educated human being should not
belong to him, and that we might say of him, ‘He scarcely understands
what he does.’ But, alas! this _New Vice_ has no such palliations; and
is exhibited not by such unhappy outcasts, but by some of the very
foremost men of our time; men who would think scornfully of being
asked to share the butcher’s honest trade: men addicted to high
speculation on all the mysteries of the universe; men who hope to
found the Religion of the Future, and to leave the impress of their
minds upon their age, and upon generations yet to be born.”

Regarding the matter from this point of view,—as our leaders, the most eminent philanthropists of their generation, Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Mount-Temple, Samuel Morley, and Cardinal Manning, emphatically did,—the reasons for calling for the total Prohibition of Vivisection rather than for its Restriction became actually clearer in our eyes on the side of the human moral interests than on that of the physical interests of the poor brutes. We felt that so long as the practice should be sanctioned at all, so long the Vice of Scientific Cruelty would spring up in the fresh minds of students, and be kept alive everywhere. It was therefore absolutely needful to reach the germ of the disease, and not merely to endeavour to allay the worst symptoms and outbreaks. It is the _passion itself_ which needs to be sternly suppressed; and this can only be done by stopping altogether the practice which is its outcome, and on which it feeds and grows.

But (say our opponents), “Are you prepared to relinquish all the benefits which this practice brings to humanity at large?”

Our answer to them, of course, is, that we question the reality of those benefits altogether, but that, placing them at their highest estimation, they are of no appreciable weight compared to the certain moral injury done to the community by the sanction of cruelty. The discovery of the _Elixir Vitæ_ itself would be too dearly purchased if the hearts of men were to be rendered one degree more callous and selfish than they are now. And that the practice of vivisection by a body of men at the intellectual summit of our social system, whose influence must dribble down through every stratum of society, would infallibly tend to increase such callousness, there can exist no reasonable doubt. For my own part, though believing that little or nothing worth mentioning has been discovered for the Healing Art through Vivisection, and that Dr. Leffingwell is right in saying that “if agony could be measured in money, no Mining Company in the world would sanction prospecting in such barren regions,” I yet deprecate the emphasis which many of our friends have laid on this argument against vivisection. We have gone off our rightful ground of the simple moral issues of the question and have seemed to admit (what very few of us would deliberately do) that _if_ some important discovery _had been_ made by Vivisection, our case against it would be lost or weakened. I have been so anxious to warn our friends against this, as I think, very grave mistake in tactics, that I circulated some time ago a little _Parable_ which I may as well summarize here:—

“A party of Filibusters once proposed to ravage a neighbouring island,
inhabited by poor and humble people who had always been faithful
servants and friends of our country, and had in no way deserved
ill-treatment. Some friends of justice protested that the Filibusters
ought to be prohibited from carrying on their expedition, but
unluckily they did not simply arraign the moral lawfulness of the
project, but went on to discuss the _inexpediency_ of the invasion,
arguing that the island was very poor and barren, and would not repay
the cost of conquest. Here the Filibusters saw their advantage and
broke in: ‘No such thing! _We_ are the only people who know anything
about the island, and we assure you it is full of mines of gold and
silver.’ ‘Bosh!’ replied the just men; ‘we defy you to show us a
single nugget.’ On this there was a good deal of shuffling of feet
among the Filibusters, and they exhibited some glittering fragments as
gold, but being tested these proved to be worthless, and again other
fragments which they produced were traced to quite another part of the
district, far away from the island. Still it became evident that the
Filibusters would go on interminably bringing up specimens, and some
day might possibly produce one the value of which could not be well
disputed. Moreover the Filibusters (who, like other pirates, were
addicted to telling fearful yarns) had the great advantage of talking
all along of things they had studied and seen, whereas the men of the
party of justice were imperfectly informed about the resources of the
island, having never gone thither, and thus they were easily placed at
a disadvantage and made to appear foolish. It is true that the
Filibusters had set them on the wrong track by clamouring for the
invasion on the avowed ground of the spoil they should gather for the
nation, and they had only tried to nullify the effect of such appeals
to general selfishness by showing that there was really no spoil to be
had; and that the invasion was a blunder as well as a crime. But in
bandying such appeals to expediency they had put themselves in the
wrong box; because _to discuss the value of the spoil was_, by
implication _to admit that, if it only were rich, it might possibly be
justifiable to go and seize it_!”

I have made this long explanation of our policy, because I am painfully aware that among practical people and men of the world, accustomed to compromise on public questions, our adoption of the demand for total prohibition has placed us at a great disadvantage as “irreconcilables;” and our movement has appeared as the “fad” of enthusiasts and fanatics. For the reasons I have given above I think it will appear that while compromise offered any hope of protecting our poor clients from the very worst cruelties, we tried it frankly and in earnest; first in Lord Henniker’s and secondly in Lord Carnarvon’s Bill. When this last effort failed we were left no choice but either to abandon our dumb friends to their fate, or demand for them the removal of the source of their danger.

It will not be necessary for me to recount further with as much detail the history of the Victoria Street Society, of which I continued to act as Hon. Secretary till I finally left London in 1884. Abundance of other friends of animals, active and energetic, were in the field, and our movement, in spite of a score of checks and defeats, continued to spread and deepen. Campbell’s familiar line often occurred to me (with a variation)—

“The cause of _Mercy_ once begun,
Though often lost is always won!”

On July 15th, 1879, Lord Truro brought into the House of Lords a Bill for the Prohibition of Vivisection. It was not promoted by us, and was in many respects unfortunately managed, but our Society, of course, supported it, Lord Shaftesbury made in defence of it one of his longest speeches. I was in the House of Lords at the time, and thought that there could never be a much more affecting sight than that of the noble old man, who had pleaded so often in that “gilded chamber” for men, women and children, standing there at last in his venerable age, urging with all his simple eloquence the claims of dumb animals to mercy. Against him rose and spoke Lord Aberdare, actually (as he took pains to explain) _as President_ of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals! The Bishop of Peterborough, Dr. Magee, afterwards Archbishop of York, also made then his unhappy speech about the rabbits and the surgical operation; (with which the inventor of that operation, Dr. Clay, said they had “no more to do than the Pope of Rome”). Only 16 Peers voted for the Bill, 97 against it.

On the 16th March, 1880, Mr. Holt’s Bill for total prohibition was down for second reading in the House of Commons, but was stopped by notice of dissolution. From that time our friend, Sir Eardley Wilmot, took charge of a similar Bill promoted by our Society. Notice of it was given by Mr. Firth on the 3rd February, 1881. The second reading was postponed, first to July 13th, next to July 27th, and then that day was taken by government. In October of that year (1881) Mr. R. T. Reid took charge of our Bill, on the resignation of Sir Eardley Wilmot. The second reading was postponed on June 28th, 1882, and not till the 4th of April, 1883, after all these heart-breaking postponements and failures, there was at last a Debate. Mr. Reid and Mr. George Russell spoke admirably in favour of the Bill, but they were talked out without a division by a whole series of advocates of vivisection, of whom Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Cartwright, and Lord Playfair, were most eminent. This was the last occasion on which we have been able to obtain a debate in either House. Mr. Reid brought in his Bill again in 1884, but could obtain no day for a second reading.

One touching incident of these earlier years I must not omit. Our Hon. Correspondent at the Hague, Madame van Manen-Thesingh, had written me several letters exhibiting remarkable good sense as well as ardent feeling. One day I received a short note from her telling me that she was dying; and begging me to send over some trustworthy agent at once to the Hague, if, (as she feared) I could not go to her myself. I telegraphed that I would be with her next day, and accordingly sailed that night to Flushing. When I reached her house M. van Manen received me very kindly; but as a man half bewildered with grief. His wife’s disease was cancer of the tongue, and she could no longer speak. She was waiting for me in her drawing-room. It may be imagined how affecting was our half-speechless interview. After a time M. van Manen, at a sign from his wife, unlocked a bureau and took out a large packet of papers. These he placed before her on the table and then left the room. Of course I understood this proceeding was intended to satisfy me that it was with her husband’s entire consent that Madame van Manen gave these papers to me. There were a great many of them, Dutch, Russian, and American securities of one sort or another, and she marked them off one by one on a list which she had prepared. Then she wrote down that she gave me all these, and also some laces and jewellery, to further the Anti-vivisection cause in whatever way I thought best; reserving a donation for the _London Anti-vivisection Society_. A few efforts to convey my gratitude and sympathy were all I could make. The dear, noble woman stood calm and brave in the immediate prospect of death in its most painful form, and all her anxiety seemed to be that the poor brutes should be effectually aided by her gifts. I left her sorrowfully, and carried her parcel in my travelling bag, first to Amsterdam for a day or two, and then to London, where having summoned our Finance Committee, I placed it in their hands. The contents (duly estimated and sold through the _Army and Navy Society_) realised (over and above the legacy to the _London Society_) about £1,350. With this sum we started the _Zoophilist_.

The _Zoophilist_ thus founded (May 2nd, 1881) under the editorship of Mr. Adams, then our Secretary, has of course been of enormous value to our cause. A new series began on the 1st January, 1883, which I edited till my resignation of the Hon. Secretaryship June, 1884. I also started and edited a French journal of the same size and character, _Le Zoophile_, from November 1st, 1883, to April, 1884, when the undertaking was abandoned, French readers having obviously found the paper too dry for their taste. Some of them also remonstrated with me against the occasional references in it to religious considerations, and I was frankly counselled by a very influential French gentleman to _cease altogether to mention God_,—a piece of advice which I distinctly declined to take! The late celebrated Mdlle. Deraismes sent me a beautiful article for _Le Zoophile_, of which I should have gladly availed myself if she would have allowed me the editorial privilege of dropping about half a page of aggressive atheism; but this, after a pretty sharp correspondence, she refused peremptorily to do. Altogether I was evidently out of touch both with my French staff and French readers.

Beside these two periodicals our Society from the first issued an almost incredible multitude of pamphlets and leaflets. I should be afraid to make any calculation of the number of them and of the thousands of copies sent into circulation. My own share must have exceeded four hundred. Beside these and those of our successive Secretaries (some extremely able) we printed valuable pamphlets, Sermons and Speeches by Lord Shaftesbury, Cardinal Manning, the Lord Chief Justice, the Dean of Llandaff, Professor Ruskin, Bishop Barry, Mr. R. T. Reid, Hon. B. Coleridge, Lady Paget, Canon Wilberforce, Mr. Mark Thornhill, Mr. Leslie Stephen, the Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Mackarness), Rev. F. O. Morris, Dr. Arnold, George Macdonald, Mr. Ernest Bell, Baron Weber, and (above all for scientific importance) Mr. Lawson Tait, Dr. Bell Taylor, Dr. Berdoe, and Dr. Clarke.

Some of my own Anti-vivisection pamphlets were collected a few years ago and published by Messrs. Sonnenschein in a volume (crown 8vo., pp. 272) entitled the _Modern Rack_. Several very useful books of reference were compiled by our Secretary, Mr. Bryan, and published by the Society; notably the _Vivisectors’ Directory_, the _English Vivisectors’ Directory_, and _Anti-vivisection Evidences_. Of the _Nine Circles_, compiled for me and printed (first edition) at my expense, I shall speak presently.

I must here be allowed to say that the spirited letters, pamphlets and articles by our medical allies, Dr. Berdoe, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Bowie and Dr. Arnold,—above all Dr. Berdoe’s contributions to our scientific literature, have been an immeasurable value to our cause. The day of Dr. Berdoe’s accession to our party at one of our annual meetings must ever be remembered by me with gratitude. His ability, courage and disinterestedness have been far beyond any praise I can give them. Mr. Mark Thornhill also (a distinguished Indian Civil Servant, author of _The Indian Mutiny_, etc.), has done us invaluable service by his calm, lucid and most convincing writings, notably “_The Case against Vivisection_,” and “_Experiments on Hospital Patients_.” Mr. Pirkis, R.N., has been for many years not only by his steady attendance at the Committee but by his unwearied exertions in preparing and disseminating anti-Pasteur literature, one of the chief benefactors of the Society.

Among our undertakings on behalf of the victims of science was the prosecution of Prof. Ferrier at Bow Street on the 17th November, 1881, on the strength of certain reports in the two leading Medical Journals. We had ascertained that he had no license for Vivisection and yet we read as follows in a report of the proceedings at the International Medical Congress of 1881:—

“The members were shown two of the monkeys, a portion of whose cortex had been removed by Professor Ferrier.”—_British Medical Journal_, 20th August, 1881.

“The interest attaching to the discussion was greatly enhanced by the fact that Professor Ferrier was willing to exhibit two monkeys which he had operated upon some months previously....

“In startling contrast to the dog were two monkeys exhibited by Professor Ferrier. One of them had been operated upon in the middle of January, the left motor area having been destroyed.”—_Lancet_, October 8th, 1881.

When the reporters who had sent in their reports to the two journals were produced, the following ludicrous examination took place in court:—

Dr. Charles Smart Roy (the Reporter for the _British Medical Journal_)
was asked—

“_Q._ Did Professor Ferrier offer to exhibit two of the monkeys upon
which he had so operated?

“_A._ At the Congress, no.

“_Q._ Did he subsequently?

“_A._ No; he showed certain of the members of the Congress two monkeys
at King’s College.

“_Q._ What two monkeys?

“_A._ Two monkeys upon which an operation had been performed.

“_Q._ By whom?

“_A._ BY PROFESSOR YEO” (!!)

The Editor of the _Lancet_, Dr. Wakeley, was next examined:—

Dr. Wakeley, _sworn, examined by Mr. Waddy_:—

“_Q._ Are you the Editor of the _Lancet_?

“_A._ I am.

“_Q._ Can you tell me who it was furnished his Report?

“_A._ I have the permission of the gentleman to give his name,
Professor Gamgee, of Owen’s College, Manchester.

“Mr. Waddy: What I should ask is that one might have an opportunity of
calling Professor Gamgee.

“Mr. Gully (Counsel for the defendant): We have communicated with
Professor Gamgee, and I know very well he will say precisely what was
said by Dr. Roy.”

—_Report of Trial_, November 17th, 1881.

The position of the Anti-vivisectionists on the occasion was, it must be confessed, like that of the simple countryman in the fair. “You lay your money that Professor Ferrier is under that cup?” “Yes, certainly! I saw both Professor Roy and Professor Gamgee put him there about five minutes ago.” “Here then, see! Hay Presto! Hocus-pocus! There is only Professor Yeo!”

The group of Vivisectors and their allies, Dr. Michael Foster, Dr. Burdon-Sanderson, Dr. Ernest Hart, Prof. Ferrier, Dr. Roy and many more who filled the court, all evinced the utmost hilarity at the success of the device whereby (as a matter of necessity) the Anti-vivisection case collapsed.

At last, in the _Philosophical Transactions_ of the Royal Society for 1884, the truth came to light. In the Prefatory Note to a record of Experiments by David Ferrier and Gerald F. Yeo, M.D., occurs the statement:—

“The facts recorded in this paper are partly the results of a research
made conjointly by Drs. Ferrier and Yeo, aided by a grant from the
British Medical Association, and partly of a research made by Dr.
Ferrier alone, aided by a grant from the Royal Society.”

The conjoint experiences are distinguished by an asterisk; and among them we find those of the two monkeys which formed the subject of the trial. Thus it stands confessed,—actually in the _Transactions of the Royal Society_,—that Professor Ferrier _had_ the leading share (his name always appears first) in the experiments; and that, conjointly with Professor Yeo, he received a grant from the British Medical Association for performing the same!

If after this experience we have ceased to hope much from proceedings in Courts of Justice against our antagonists, it will not be thought surprising. The Society has been frequently twitted with the failure of this prosecution, “for which” our opponents say, we “had not a tittle of evidence.” Elaborate reports in the two leading Medical journals do not, it appears, afford even “a tittle of evidence!”[34]

Among other modes in which we endeavoured to push forward our cause, have been special appeals to win over particular churches or other bodies to adopt our principles. Enormous numbers of circulars have been addressed in this manner by our Society to the Clergy of the Church of England, and it is believed that at least 4,000 are on our side in the controversy; more than 2,000 had signed our Memorial several years ago.

Another appeal was addressed by me personally to the Society of Friends through the Clerks of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings in England and Ireland.

It has proved eminently successful, and has led to the formation of a powerful “_Friends’ Anti-vivisection Society_,” which lately issued an appeal to other members of their body signed by 2,000 friends, many of them being among the most eminent in England. This has again formed the ground of a fresh appeal on an immense scale in Pennsylvania. Another recent appeal to the Congregationalists has, I hear, been very well received. On one occasion a special Petition to the House of Lords was signed by every Unitarian Minister in London. It was presented by the Archbishop of York, who also presented a Memorial (for Restriction) in 1876 signed by all the heads of Colleges in Oxford.

Another appeal which I ventured to make (printed as a large pamphlet) to “_the Humane Jews of England_,” entreating them to remonstrate with the 40 German Jews who are the worst vivisectors in Europe, was, unfortunately, a deplorable failure. Four of my own private friends, Jewesses, all expressed their sympathy warmly, and sent handsome contributions to our funds; but _not one_ other Jew or Jewess, high or low, rallied to us, albeit I presented pamphlets to nearly 200 recommended to me as specially well disposed. I shall never be tempted to address the “_Humane_” Jews of England again!

One other circular I may mention as more successful. I sent to seven hundred Head Schoolmasters the following Letter, with which were enclosed the pamphlets mentioned therein:—

“Hengwrt, Dolgelly,
“September, 1886.

“Dear Sir,

“Permit me respectfully to ask your perusal of the accompanying little
paper on ‘Physiology as a Branch of Education.’ I have written it
under a strong sense of the necessity which at present exists for some
similar caution.

“The leaflet describing a ‘Specimen of Modern Physiological
Instruction,’ refers to a scene in Paris which could not be precisely
paralleled in an English school, so far as concerns the actual torture
of the animals used for exhibition, since the Vivisection Act of 1876
provided that anæsthetics must be used in all cases of Vivisection for
Illustration of Lectures.

“It is, however, to be seriously questioned whether even painless,
(and therefore not _shocking_), operations on living animals,
performed before boys and girls, by the enthusiastic English admirers
of Claude Bernard and Paul Bert, may not excite in the minds of the
young witnesses a curiosity unmingled with pity, such as may
subsequently prompt them to become the most merciless experimenters;
or, at least, advocates and apologists of scientific cruelty.

“Trusting, Sir, that you will pardon the trespass of this letter,

“I am, sincerely yours,
“FRANCES POWER COBBE.”

Twelve of these Head Masters, including some of the most eminent, _e.g._, Mr. Welldon, of Harrow; Dr. Haig, of the Charterhouse; and the lamented Mr. Thring, of Uppingham, wrote me most interesting letters in reply expressing approval of my views. I shall here insert that of Mr. Thring as in many respects noteworthy.

“Rev. Edward Thring to Miss F. P. C.
“Pitlochry, Perthshire, N.B.,
“September 6th, 1889.

“My dear Madam,

“I received your little pamphlet on physiology, but I hardly know what
you expect me to do. My writings on Education sufficiently show how
strongly I feel on the subject of a Literary Education; or rather how
confident I am in the judgment that there can be no worthy education
which is not based on the study of the highest thoughts of the highest
men, in the best shape.

“As for Science (most of it falsely so called) if a few leading minds
are excepted, it simply amounts, to the average dull worker, to no
more than a kind of upper shopwork, weighing out, and labelling, and
learning alphabetical formulæ; a superior Grocery-assistant’s work;
and has not a single element of higher mental training in it. Not to
mention that it leaves out all knowledge of man and life, and
_therefore_ is eminently fitted to train men for life and its
struggles! Physiology, in its worser sense adds to this a brutalising
of the average practitioner, or rather a devilish combination of
intellect-worship and cruelty at the expense of feeling and character.
For my part, if it were true that vivisection had wonderfully relieved
bodily disease for men, if it were at the cost of lost spirits, then I
should say, Let the body perish! And it _is_ at the cost of lost
spirits! I do not say that under no circumstances should an experiment
take place, but I do say that under no circumstance should an
experiment take place for teaching purposes. You will see how decided
my judgment is on this matter. I send you three Addresses on
Education, which in smaller space than my books, will illustrate the
positive side of my experience and beliefs.

“Yours faithfully,
“EDWARD THRING.”

Our Committee was, in all the years in which I had to do with it, the most harmonious and friendly of which I have ever heard. Lord Shaftesbury, who presided 49 times, and never once failed us when he was expected, was, of course, as all the world knows, a first-rate Chairman, getting through an immense amount of business, while allowing every member his, or her, legitimate rights of speech and voting. He never showed himself, (I have been told,) anywhere more genial and zealous than with us. Lord Mount-Temple attended very frequently, and Lady Mount-Temple from first to last has been one of our warmest and wisest friends. General Colin Mackenzie, a devout and noble old soldier, spoke little, but what he did say was always straight to the mark, and the affectionate respect we all felt for him made his presence delightful. Lady Portsmouth (now the Dowager Countess) attended in those days very regularly and Lady Camperdown has given us her unwearied help from that time to this. I have spoken of the very valuable services of Mr. E. de Fonblanque. In later years my friend Rev. William Henry Channing was a great support to me. The Cardinal was, perhaps, a little reserved, but always carefully kind and courteous, and whatever he said bore great weight. Lord Bute’s advice was very valuable and full of good sense. Mr. Shaen’s legal knowledge served us often. In brief, each member was useful. There never were any parties or cabals in the Committee. It was my business as Hon. Sec. (especially after my colleague, Dr. Hoggan, retired) to lay proposals for action before the Committee. They were sometimes rejected and often completely modified; but we all felt that the one thing we desired was simply to find the best way of forwarding our cause, and we were thankful for the guidance of the wise and experienced men who were our leaders. In short, the feelings which inspired us round that long oak office-table were not ill befitting our work; and now that so many of those who sat there beside me in the earlier years have passed from earth, I find myself pondering whether they have met “_Elsewhere_;” where, ere long I may join them. They must form a blessed company in any world. May my place be with _them_, please God! rather than with the votaries of Science, in the “secular to be.”

In later years the _personnel_ of the Committee has of course been largely renewed. Lady Mount-Temple, Lady Camperdown and Mrs. Frank Morrison almost alone remain from the earlier body. Miss Marston also, who originally founded the _London Anti-vivisection Society_, has been for many years one of the firmest and wisest friends of the Victoria Street Society also. I have spoken above of all that we owe to Capt. Pirkis’ unfailing help at the Committee, even while residing far out of town; and of the zeal wherewith he and his gifted wife founded the first of our Branches, and have laboured in circulating our literature. Miss Monro, Miss Rees, Miss Bryant, and Mrs. Arthur Arnold have never wearied through many years in patiently and vigorously aiding our work. Of our excellent chairman, Mr. Ernest Bell’s services to the Anti-vivisection cause it is needless for me to speak as they must be recognised gratefully by the whole party throughout England.

We have had several successive Secretaries who sometimes took the work much off my hands, sometimes left it to fall very heavily on me and Miss Lloyd. On one occasion, we two, having also lost the clerk, did the entire work of the office for many weeks, inclusive of writing, editing, folding, addressing, and actually _posting_ an issue of the _Zoophilist_! But my toils and many of my anxieties ended when I was fortunate enough to obtain the services, as Secretary, of Mr. Benjamin Bryan, who had long shown his genuine interest in the cause as editor of a Northern newspaper; and, after a year or two of work in concert with him, I felt free to leave the whole burden on his shoulders and tendered my resignation. The constant presence on the Committee of my long-tried and most valued allies Mr. Ernest Bell, Capt. Pirkis, and Miss Marston left me entirely at rest respecting the course of our future policy in the straight direction of Prohibition.

The last event which I need record is a disagreeable incident which occurred in the autumn of 1892. I had been seriously ill with acute sciatica, and had been only partially relieved by a large subcutaneous dose of morphia given me by my country doctor. In this state, with my head still swimming and scarcely able to sit at a table, I found myself involved in the most acrimonious newspaper controversy which I ever remember to have seen in any respectable journal. It will be best that another pen than mine should tell the story, so I will quote the calm and lucid statement of the author of the excellent pamphlet, “_Vivisection at the Folkestone Church Congress_” (page 6).

After a _résumé_ of the notorious debate at Folkestone the writer says:—

“The main point of attack in Mr. Victor Horsley’s paper was a book
called the _Nine Circles_ which had been published some months before,
and contained reports of different classes of cruel experiments on
animals, both in England and on the Continent. To this book Miss Cobbe
had given the sanction of her name, but she was not personally
responsible for any of the quotations, having intrusted the
compilation of the book to friends living in London, and who had
access to the journals and papers in which the experiments were
recorded. Mr. Horsley’s indignation was roused because in a certain
number of cases—22 out of the 170 narratives of different classes of
experiments, many of them involving a _series_, and the use of large
numbers of animals in each—the mention of the use of morphia or
chloroform was omitted. Miss Cobbe, in a letter to the _Times_ of
October 11th, while acknowledging that the compilers were bound to
quote the fact if stated, expressed her conviction that such
statements are misleading, because insensibility is not and cannot be
complete during the whole period of the experiment. Dr. Berdoe also
wrote in several papers defending Miss Cobbe against Mr. Horsley’s
imputations of fraud and intent to deceive, &c., and explaining that
the compilers of the book were alone responsible for the omissions. He
added, however, a further explanation that, as it was often the
painful results, and not the operations which caused them, that it was
desired to illustrate, and as these results lasted sometimes for many
days or weeks or months and to maintain insensibility during that
period was impossible, the omissions were not so important after
all.”...

“... The assailant, however, returned to the charge and in a more
violent style than before. His letter to the _Times_ of October 17th,
was a tirade against Miss Cobbe, worthy, as the _Spectator_ remarked,
only of the fifteenth century, in which the words ‘false’ and ‘lie’
were freely used. It was a letter of so libellous a character that it
is a matter for wonder that it obtained publication. Miss Cobbe very
naturally and properly at once retired from a controversy conducted,
as she expressed it in a letter to the _Times_, ‘outside of all my
experience of civilised journalism.’ She concluded with these words:
‘I need scarcely say that I maintain the veracity of every word of the
letter which you did me the honour to publish of the 15th inst., as
well as the _bona fides_ of all I have spoken or written on this or
other subjects during my three-score years and ten.’”

After a week or two I went to Bath to recruit my health after the attack of sciatica; and the first newspaper I took up at the York Hotel, contained a still more violent attack on me than those which had preceded it. On reading it I walked into the telegraph office next door, wired for rooms at my favourite South Kensington Hotel and went up to town with my maid, presenting myself at once to our Committee, which happened to be sitting and arranging for the impending meeting in St. James’s Hall. “Shall I attend,” said I, “and speak, or not? I will do exactly what you wish.” The Committee were unanimously of opinion that I should go to the meeting and take part in the proceedings, and I have ever since rejoiced that I did so. It was on the evening of October 27th. My ever kind friend, Canon Basil Wilberforce took the chair, Col. Lockwood, Bishop Barry, Dr. Berdoe, Mr. Bell, and Captain Pirkis were on the platform supporting me, but above all Mr. George W. E. Russell (then Under Secretary of State for India) made a speech on my behalf for which I shall feel grateful to him so long as I live. We had but slight acquaintance previously, and I shall always feel that it was a most generous and chivalrous action on his part to stand forth in so public a manner as my champion on such an occasion. The audience was more than sympathetic. There was a storm of genuine feeling when I rose to make my explanation, and I found it, for once, hard to command my voice. This is what I said, as reported in the _Zoophilist_, November 1st, 1892:

“Now to come to the story of the _Nine Circles_, which I will tell as
quickly as possible. When I gave up the Honorary Secretaryship of the
Victoria Street Society six years ago, I retired to live among the
mountains in Wales; and the chief thing which remained for me to do
was to publish as many pamphlets and papers as seemed likely to help
the cause. I have just got here my printer’s list of the papers which
I have printed in those six years. I have made up the totals, and I
find that the number in the six years of books, pamphlets, and
leaflets has been 320—that is about one a week—and that 271,350 copies
of them were printed; 173 papers having been written by myself.
(Cheers.) Some of these were adopted by the Society and honoured by
coming out under its auspices; and others I issued quite
independently. Amongst those which I issued ‘on my own hook,’ I am
happy to say, was this book called the _Nine Circles_. Therefore our
dear and honoured Society is not responsible for that book. I am alone
responsible; it was printed at my expense, and Messrs. Sonnenschein
published it for me. Therefore, I am the only person concerned with
it, and the Society has nothing to do with it. I am thankful to hear
that the revised edition will come out under the auspices of the
Society. My only privilege will be to pay for it, and that I shall
most thankfully do, in order to wipe out the wrong I have done as
concerns the present edition. When the present book was got up, I
sketched a plan of it, and asked a lady often employed by us who was
living in London, and is a good German scholar, to make extracts for
me. She knows a great deal about the subject; she also knows German
(which I do not do sufficiently for the purpose), and she was living
in London while I was 200 miles away. Therefore I asked her to make
the extracts of which this book is compiled, and it was afterwards
revised,—as Dr. Berdoe has told us,—by him. The book came out; and it
appears now that there are some mistakes in it. My assistant had left
out certain things which ought to have been stated. I took it for
granted,—I was quite wrong to do so,—that all my directions had been
carried out, and I made myself responsible for the book. Therefore,
whatever error there is in the matter is mine, and I beg that that
will be quite understood. (Cheers.) But what is all this tremendous
storm which has been raised, and this pulling of the house down about
these mistakes? Do they wish us to understand that there are no such
things as painful experiments in England? Apparently that is what they
are trying to make us think—that there never has been anything of the
kind; that they are perfectly incapable of putting any animal to pain.
Do they really mean that? Is that what they wish us to understand? If
they do _not_ mean that, I do not know what it is they mean. It seems
to me that they are raising this tremendous storm very much as if the
old slave-holders were to have danced a war-dance round Mrs. Stowe and
scalped her for having said that Legree had flogged Uncle Tom with a
thousand lashes, when really there were only nine hundred and
ninety-nine. (Laughter.) That seems to me to be the case in a
nutshell.”—_Zoophilist_, November 1st, 1892.

I had the gratification to receive soon after the following most kind Address and expression of confidence from the leading Members of the Victoria Street Society:—

ADDRESS.

_To Miss Frances Power Cobbe_,

We, the undersigned, being supporters of the Victoria Street Society,
and others interested in the movement against Vivisection, wish to
express the strong feeling of indignation with which we have seen your
integrity called in question by men who seem unable to conceive of the
pure unselfish devotion of high intellectual gifts to the service of
God’s humbler creatures.

It is impossible for those who know anything of the early history of
this movement to forget the great personal sacrifice at which you
undertook to make it the chief work of your life.

It is equally impossible for us who have watched its progress, to say
how highly we have esteemed the indomitable courage and forcible
eloquence with which you have exposed the evils inseparable from
experiments on living animals.

Further, we wish to record our firm conviction that you have,
throughout, recognised the wisdom and the duty of founding your attack
on Vivisection upon the truth, and nothing but the truth, so far as
you have been able to arrive at it.

We wish, in conclusion, to assure you not only of our special sympathy
with you at a time when you have been subjected to a personal attack
of an unusually coarse and violent character, but also of our
determination to give still more earnest support to the Cause to which
you have, at so great a cost, devoted yourself:

Strafford (_Earl of Strafford_)
Coleridge (_Lord Chief Justice_)
Worcester (_Marquis of Worcester_)
Haddington (_Earl of Haddington_)
Arthur, Bath and Wells (_Bishop of Bath and Wells_)
J., Manchester (_Bishop of Manchester_)
W. Walsham, Wakefield (_Bishop of Wakefield_)
H. B., Coventry (_Bishop of Coventry_)
John Mitchinson (_Bishop_)
F. Cramer-Roberts (_Bishop_)
Edward G. Bagshawe (_R. C. Bishop of Nottingham_)
Sidmouth (_Viscount Sidmouth_)
Pollington (_Viscount Pollington_)
Colville of Culross (_Lord Colville of Culross_)
Cardross (_Lord Cardross_)
H. Abinger (_Lady Abinger_)
Robartes (_Lord Robartes_)
Leigh (_Lord Leigh_)
C. Buchan (_Dow. Countess of Buchan_)
Harriet de Clifford (_Dow. Lady de Clifford_)
F. Camperdown (_Countess of Camperdown_)
Kinnaird (_Lord Kinnaird_)
Alma Kinnaird (_Lady Kinnaird_)
Clementine Mitford (_Lady Clementine Mitford_)
Eveline Portsmouth (_Dowager Countess of Portsmouth_)
Georgina Mount-Temple (_Lady Mount-Temple_)
H. Kemball (_Lady Kemball_)
J. Brotherton (_Lady Brotherton_)
Evelyn Ashley (_Hon. Evelyn Ashley_)
Bernard Coleridge (_Hon. B. Coleridge, M.P._)
Geraldine Coleridge (_Hon. Mrs. S. Coleridge_)
Stephen Coleridge (_Hon. Stephen Coleridge_)
George Duckett (_Sir George Duckett, Bt._)
Henry A. Hoare (_Sir Henry Hoare, Bt._)
Geo. F. Shaw, LL.D.
Samuel Smith, M.P.
Theodore Fry, M.P.
George W. E. Russell, M.P.
Jacob Bright, M.P.
Th. Burt, M.P.
Julius Barras (Colonel)
Richard H. Hutton
R. Payne Smith
H. Wilson White, D.D., LL.D.
Edward Whately (_Archdeacon Whately_)
George W. Cox (_Revd. Sir George Cox, Bart._)
R. M. Grier (_Prebendary Grier_)
Eleanor Vere C. Boyle (_Hon. Mrs. R. C. Boyle_)
E. G. Deane Morgan (_Hon. Mrs. Deane Morgan_)
Charles Bell Taylor, M.D.
Edward Berdoe, M.R.C.S.
Alex. Bowie, M.D., C.M.
John H. Clarke, M.D.
Henry Downes, M.D.
Henry M. Duncalfe
William Adamson, D.D.
William Adlam
Amelia E. Arnold
Ernest Bell
Rhoda Broughton
Olive S. Bryant
W. K. Burford
A. Gallenga and Mrs. Gallenga
Maria G. Grey
Emily A. E. Shirreff
Frances Holden
Eleanor Mary James
Francis Griffith Jones
E. J. Kennedy
Edith Leycester
W. S. Lilly
Mary Charlotte Lloyd
Ann Marston
Mary J. Martin
S. S. Munro
Frank Morrison
Harriet Morrison
Josiah Oldfield
Rose Pender
Fred. Pennington
Herbert Philips
Fred. E. Pirkis and Mrs. Pirkis
R. Ll. Price
Evelyn Price
R. M. Price
Lester Reed
Ellen Elcum Rees
J. Herbert Satchell
Mark Thornhill, J.P.

Looking back on this long struggle of twenty years, in which so much of my happiness and the happiness of others dearer than myself, has been engulfed, I can see that, starting from the apparently small and subordinate question of Scientific Cruelty, the controversy has been growing and widening till the whole department of ethics dealing with man’s relation to the lower animals has gradually been included in it. That this department is an obscure one, and that neither the Christian Churches nor yet philosophic moralists have hitherto paid it sufficient attention, is now admitted. That it is time that it should be carefully studied and worked out, is also clear.

Sometimes I have thought (as by a law of our being we seem driven to do whenever our hearts are deeply concerned) that a Divine guidance may have presided over all the heart-breaking delays and disappointments of this weary movement; and that it has not been allowed to terminate, as it would certainly have done, had we carried our Bill of 1876 in its original form through Parliament. _Then_ our Society would have dissolved at once; and, after a time, perhaps, the Act, however well designed, would have become more or less a dead letter; and the hydra-heads of Vivisection would have reared themselves once more. But, as it has actually happened, the delay and failure of our earlier efforts and our consequent persistence in them, have fixed attention on this culminating sin against the lower animals, and through it on all other sins against them. A great revision of opinion on the subject is undoubtedly taking place; and while some (especially Roman Catholic) Zoophilists have diligently sought in decrees and manuals and treatises of casuistry for some authority defining Cruelty to animals to be a Sin, the poverty of the results of all such investigations, and of the anxious collation of Biblical texts by Protestants, is gradually revealing the fact that, in this whole department of human duty, we must look to the God-enlightened consciences of _living_ men rather than to the _dicta_ of departed saints, or casuists, whose attention was directed exclusively to the relations of human beings with each other and with God, and who obviously never contemplated those which we hold to the brutes with adequate seriousness,—if at all. Of course we are here met, just as the first anti-Slavery apostles were met, and as the advocates of every fresh development of morality will be met for many a day to come, by the fundamental fallacy of the Christian Churches (in that respect resembling Islam) that there is a finality in Divine teaching, and that they have been for two thousand years in possession of the last word of God to man. Protestants are certainly not bound in any way to occupy such a position, or to assume that a final revise has ever been issued, or ever will be issued by Divine authority, of a _Whole Duty of Man_. Rather are they called on piously and gratefully to look for fresh light to come down, age after age, from the Father of lights: or (if they please rather so to consider it) further development of the Christian Spirit to be manifested as men learn better to incarnate it in their minds and lives. As for Theists like myself, it is natural for us and in accordance with all our opinions, to believe that such a movement as is now taking place over the civilised world on behalf of dumb animals, is a fresh Divine impulse of Mercy, stirring in thousands of human hearts, and deserving of reverent cherishing and thankful acceptance.