could not long continue the practice of vivisection. They are always
ready to repudiate any implied want of tender feeling, but I must say
that they seldom show much pity; on the contrary, in practice they
frequently show the reverse. Hundreds of times I have seen, when an
animal writhed with pain and thereby deranged the tissues, during a
delicate dissection, instead of being soothed, it would receive a slap
and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. At other times, when
an animal had endured great pain for hours without struggling or
giving more than an occasional low whine, instead of letting the poor
mangled wretch loose to crawl painfully about the place in reserve for
another day’s torture, it would receive pity so far that it would be
said to have behaved well enough to merit death; and, as a reward,
would be killed at once by breaking up the medulla with a needle, or
‘pithing,’ as this operation is called. I have often heard the
professor say when one side of an animal had been so mangled and the
tissues so obscured by clotted blood that it was difficult to find the
part searched for, ‘Why don’t you begin on the other side?’ or ‘Why
don’t you take another dog? What is the use of being so economical?’
One of the most revolting features in the laboratory was the custom of
giving an animal, on which the professor had completed his experiment,
and which had still some life left, to the assistants to practice the
finding of arteries, nerves, &c., in the living animal, or for
performing what are called fundamental experiments upon it—in other
words, repeating those which are recommended in the laboratory
hand-books. I am inclined to look upon anæsthetics as the greatest
curse to vivisectible animals. They alter too much the normal
conditions of life to give accurate results, and they are therefore
little depended upon. They, indeed, prove far more efficacious in
lulling public feeling towards the vivisectors than pain in the
vivisected.”
I had met Dr. Hoggan one day just before this occurrence at Mdme.
Bodichon’s house, but I had no idea that he would, or could, bear such
valuable testimony; and I have never ceased to feel that in thus nobly
coming forward to offer it spontaneously, he struck the greatest blow on
our side in the whole battle. Of course I expressed to him all the
gratitude I felt, and we thenceforth took counsel frequently as to the
policy to be pursued in opposing vivisection.
It soon became evident that if a Bill were to be presented to Parliament
that session it must be promoted by some parties other than the
Committee of the R.S.P.C.A. Indeed in the following December _The Animal
World_, in a leading article, avowed that “the Royal Society (P.C.A.) is
not so entirely unanimous as to desire the passing of any special
legislative enactment on this subject” (vivisection). Feeling convinced
that some such obstacle was in the way I turned to my friends to see if
it might be possible to push on a Bill independently, and with the most
kind help of Sir William Hart Dyke (the Conservative whip), it was
arranged that a Bill for “Regulating the Practice of Vivisection” should
be introduced with the sanction of Government into the House of Lords by
Lord Henniker (Lord Hartismere). It is impossible to describe all the
anxiety I endured during the interval up to the 4th May, when this Bill
was actually presented. Lord Henniker was exceedingly good about it and
took much pains with the draft prepared at first by Sir Frederick
Elliot, and afterwards completed for Lord Henniker by Mr. Fitzgerald.
Lord Coleridge also took great interest in it, and gave most valuable
advice, and Mr. Lowe (who afterwards bitterly opposed the almost
identical measure of Lord Cross in the Commons), was willing to give
this earlier Bill much consideration. I met him one day at luncheon at
Airlie Lodge, where were also Lord Henniker, Lady Minto, Lord Airlie and
others interested, and the Bill was gone over clause by clause till
adjusted to Mr. Lowe’s counsels.
Lord Henniker introduced the Bill thus drafted “for _Regulating the
Practice of Vivisection_” into the House of Lords on the 4th May, 1875;
but on the 12th May, to our great surprise another Bill _to prevent
Abuse in Experiments on Animals_ was introduced into the House of
Commons by Dr. (now Lord) Playfair. On the appearance of this latter
Bill, which was understood to be promoted by the physiologists
themselves—notably by Dr. Burdon-Sanderson, and by Mr. Charles
Darwin—the Government, which had sanctioned Lord Henniker’s Bill,
thought it necessary to issue a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the
subject before any legislation should be proceeded with. This was done
accordingly on the 22nd June, and both Bills were then withdrawn.
The student of this old chapter of the history of the Anti-vivisection
Crusade will find both of the above-named Bills (and also the
ineffective sketch of what might have been the Bill of the R.S.P.C.A.)
in the Appendix to the _Report of the Royal Commission_, pp. 336–8. Mr.
Charles Darwin, in a letter to the _Times_, April 18th, 1881, said that
he “took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed such as would
have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left
the physiologists free to pursue their researches,”—a “_Bill very
different from that which has since been passed_.” As Mr. Darwin’s
biographer, while reprinting this letter, has not quoted my challenge to
him in the _Times_ of the 23rd to point out “_in what respect the former
Bill is very different from the Act of 1876_,” I think it well to cite
here the lucid definition of that difference as delineated in the
_Spectator_ of May 15th, doubtless by the editor, Mr. Hutton.
“THE VIVISECTION-RESTRICTION BILLS.
“On Wednesday afternoon last, Dr. Lyon Playfair laid on the table of
the House of Commons a Bill for the Restriction of Vivisection, which
has been drawn up by physiologists, no doubt in part, in the interest
of physiological science, but also in part, no doubt in the interest
of humanity. The contents of this Bill are the best answer which it is
possible to give to the ignorant attack made in a daily contemporary
on Tuesday on Lord Henniker’s Bill, introduced into the House of Lords
last week. The two Bills differ in principle only on one important
point. Both of them clearly have been maturely considered by men of
science as well as by humanitarians. Both of them assume the great and
increasing character of the evil which has to be dealt with. Both of
them approach that evil in the same manner, by insisting that
scientific experiments which are painful to animals shall be tried
only on the avowed responsibility of men of the highest education,
whose right to try them may be withdrawn if it be abused. Both of them
aim at compelling the physiologists who are permitted to try such
experiments at all, to use anæsthetics throughout the experiment,
whenever the use of anæsthetics is not fatal to the investigation
itself.... The Bills differ, however, on a most important point. It is
certain that all the contempt showered on Lord Henniker’s Bill by the
ignorant assailants of the humanitarian party might equally have been
showered on Dr. Lyon Playfair’s. But Lord Henniker’s Bill contemplates
making physiological and pathological experiments on living animals,
even under complete anæsthesia, illegal, except under the same
responsibility and on the same conditions as those experiments which
are not, and cannot be, conducted under complete anæsthesia,—while Dr.
Lyon Playfair leaves all experiments conducted under anæsthetics,—and
will practically, though not theoretically, leave, we fear, those
which only PROFESS to be so conducted (a very different thing),—as
utterly without restriction as they now are. Indeed, it attempts no
sort of limitation upon them. If a whole hecatomb of guinea-pigs, or
even dogs, were known to be imported, and their carcases exported
daily from the private house of any man who declared that he _always
used anæsthetics_, Dr. Playfair’s Bill provides, we believe, no sort
of machinery by which the truth of his assertion could be even
tested.... It is, however, no small matter to have obtained this clear
admission on scientific authority that the victimisation of animals in
the interest of science is an evil of a growing and serious kind which
needs legislative interference, and calls for at least the threat of
serious penalties....”
In short, the Bill promoted by the physiologists and Mr. Darwin, was,
like the Resolutions of the Liverpool British Association, a “Pious
Opinion” or _Brutum fulmen_. Nothing more.
The Royal Commission on Vivisection was issued, as I have said, on the
22nd June, 1875, and the _Report_ was dated January 8th, 1876. The
intervening months were filled with anxiety. I heard constantly all that
went on at the Commission, and my hopes and fears rose and fell week by
week. Of the constitution of the Commission much might be said. Writing
of it in the _British Friend_, May, 1876, the late Mr. J. B. Firth,
M.P., Q.C., remarked:—
“If it were possible for a Royal Commission to be appointed to inquire
into the practice of Thuggee, I should have very little confidence in
their report if one-third of the Commissioners were prominent practisers
of the art. On the same principle the constitution of this Commission is
open to the observation that it included two notorious advocates of
vivisection, Dr. Erichsen and Professor Huxley, both of whom had to
‘explain’ their writings and practices in connection with it, in the
course of the inquiry.”
Certain it is, as I heard at the time, and as anyone may verify by
looking over the _Minutes of Evidence_, these two able gentlemen acted,
not as Judges on the Bench examining evidence dispassionately, but as
exceedingly vigorous and keen-eyed Counsel for the Physiologists. On the
humanitarian side there was but a single pronounced opponent of
Vivisection,—Mr. R. H. Hutton,—who nobly sacrificed his time for half a
year to doing all that was in the power of a single Member of the
Commission, and he a layman, to elicit the truth concerning the alleged
cruelty of the practice. At the end, after receiving a mass of evidence
in answer to 3,764 questions from 53 witnesses, the Commission reported
distinctly _in favour of legislative interference_. They say:—
“Even if the weight of authority on the side of legislative
interference had been less considerable, we should have thought
ourselves called upon to recommend it by the reason of the thing. It
is manifest that the practice is, from its very nature, liable to
great abuse, and that since it is impossible for society to entertain
the idea of putting an end to it, it ought to be subjected to due
regulation and control.... It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may
be found in persons of very high position as physiologists.... Beside
the cases in which inhumanity exists, we are satisfied that there are
others in which carelessness and indifference prevail to an extent
sufficient to form a ground for legislative interference.”
Yet in the face of these and other weighty sentences to the same
purpose, it has been persistently asserted that the Royal Commission
_exonerated_ English physiologists from all charge of cruelty! In Mr.
Darwin’s celebrated letter to Professor Holmgren, of Upsala, published
in the _Times_, April, 1881, he said: “The investigation of the matter
by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our
English physiologists _were false_.” Commenting on this letter the
_Spectator_, April 23rd, 1881 (doubtless Mr. Hutton himself) observed:
“The Royal Commission did not report this. They came to no such
conclusion, and though that may be Mr. Darwin’s own inference from
what they did say, it is only his inference, not theirs. In our
opinion it was proved that very great cruelty had been practised, with
hardly any appreciable results, by more than one British
physiologist.”
Nor must it be left out of sight in estimating the disingenuousness of
the advocates of vivisection, that the above quoted sentences from the
_Report_ of the Commission were countersigned by those representatives
of Science, Prof. Huxley and Mr. Erichsen; as were, of course, also the
subsequent paragraphs, formally recommending a measure almost identical
with Lord Carnarvon’s Bill. In spite of this the Vivisecting clique has
not ceased to assert that English physiologists were exculpated, and to
protest against the measure which we introduced in strict accordance
with that recommendation; a measure which was even still further
mitigated, (as regarded freedom to the vivisectors,) under the pressure
of their Deputation to the Home Office, till it became the present
_quasi_ ineffectual Act.
While the Royal Commission was still sitting in the autumn, and when it
had become obvious that much would remain to be done before any
effectual check could be placed on Vivisection, Dr. Hoggan suggested to
me that we should form a Society to carry on the work. I abhorred
Societies, and knew only too well the huge additional labour of working
the machinery of one, over and above any direct help to the object in
view. I had hitherto worked independently and freely, taking always the
advice of the eminent men who were so good as to counsel me at every
step. But I felt that this plan could not suffice much longer, and that
the authority of a formally constituted Society was needed to make
headway against an evil which daily revealed itself as more formidable.
Accordingly I agreed with Dr. Hoggan that we should do well to form such
a Society, he and I being the Honorary Secretaries, _provided_ we could
obtain the countenance of some men of eminence to form the nucleus. “I
will write,” I said, “to Lord Shaftesbury and to the Archbishop of York.
If they will give me their names, we can conjure with them. If _not_, I
will not undertake to form a Society.”
I wrote that night to those two eminent persons. I received next day
from Lord Shaftesbury a telegram (which he must have dispatched
_instantly_ on receiving my letter) which answered “Yes.” Next day the
post brought from him the letter which I shall here print. The next post
brought also the letter from Archbishop Thomson. Thus the Society
consisted for two days of Lord Shaftesbury, the Archbishop, Dr. Hoggan
and myself!
“Lord Shaftesbury to Miss F. P. C.
“St. Giles’s House, Cranbourne, Salisbury,
“November 17th, 1875.
“Dear Miss Cobbe,
“It is needful I am sure, to found a Society, in order to have unity
and persistency of action.
“I judge, by the terms of the circular, that the object of the Society
will be restriction and not prohibition.
“Possibly, this end is as much as you will be able to attain.
Prohibition, I doubt not, would be evaded; but restriction will, I am
certain, be exceeded.
“Not but that a little is better than nothing.
“But you will find many who will think with much show of reason, that,
by surrendering the principle, you have surrendered the great
argument.
“Faithfully yours, SHAFTESBURY.”
“Bishopthorpe, York,
“November 16th, 1875.
“Dear Miss Cobbe,
“I am quite ready to join the Society for restricting Vivisection. I
agree with you; total prohibition would be impossible.
“I am, yours very truly,
“W. EBOR.”
With these names to “conjure with,” as I have said, we found it easy to
enrol a goodly company in the ranks of our new Society. Cardinal Manning
was one of the first to join us. On the 2nd Dec., 1875, the first
Committee meeting was held in the house of Dr. and Mrs. Hoggan, 13,
Granville Place, Portman Square, Mr. Stansfeld taking the chair. Mrs.
Wedgwood, wife of Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood and mother of my friend Miss
Julia Wedgwood, was present at that first meeting, and (so long as her
health permitted,) at those which followed,—a worthy example of
“heredity,” since her father and mother, Sir James and Lady Mackintosh,
had been among the principal supporters of Richard Martin, and founders
of the R.S.P.C.A. At the third meeting of the Committee, on Feb. 18th,
1876, Lord Shaftesbury took the Chair, for the first time, and again he
took it on the occasion of a memorable meeting on the 1st of March, but
vacated it on the arrival of Archbishop Thomson, who proved to be an
admirably efficient Chairman. We had a serious job, that day; that of
discussing the “_Statement_” of our position and objects. I had drafted
this _Statement_ in preparation, as well as compiled from the _Minutes
of Evidence_, a series of Extracts exhibiting the extension and abuses
of Vivisection; and also evidence regarding Anæsthetics and regarding
foreign physiologists. These appendices were all accepted and appear in
the pamphlet; but my _Statement_ was most minutely debated, clause for
clause, and at last adopted, not without several modifications. After
summarising the Report of the Royal Commission which “has been in some
respects seriously misconstrued” (I might add, persistently misconstrued
ever since) and also Mr. Hutton’s independent _Report_, in which he
desired that the “Household Animals” should be exempted from
Vivisection, the Committee carefully criticise this Report and express
their confident hope that “a Bill may be introduced immediately by
Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission.” They
observe, in conclusion, that they find “a just summary of their
sentiments in Mr. Hutton’s expression of his view:—
“‘The measure will not at all satisfy my own conceptions of the needs
of the case, unless it result in putting an end to all experiments
involving not merely torture _but anything at all approaching
thereto_.’”
Such was our attitude at that memorable date when we commenced the
regular steady work which has now gone on for just 18 years. On the 2nd
or 3rd of March I took possession of the offices where so large a part
of my life was henceforth to be spent. When my kind colleagues had left
me and I locked the outer door of the offices and knew myself to be
alone, I resolved very seriously to devote myself, so long as might be
needful, to this work of trying to save God’s poor creatures from their
intolerable doom; and I resolved “never to go to bed at night leaving a
stone unturned which might help to stop Vivisection.” I believe I have
kept that resolution. I commend it to other workers.
It may interest the reader to know who were the persons then actually
aiding and supporting our movement.
There was,—first and most important,—my colleague and friend Dr. George
Hoggan, who laboured incessantly (and wholly gratuitously) for the
cause. His wife, Dr. Frances Hoggan, who I am thankful to say, still
survives, was also a most useful member of the Committee.
The other Members of the Executive were: Sir Frederick Elliot, K.C.M.G.
who had long been Permanent Secretary at the Colonial Office;
Major-General Colin Mackenzie, a noble old hero of the Afghan wars and
the Mutiny; Mr. Leslie Stephen; Mrs. Hensleigh Wedgwood; Dr. Vaughan
(the late Master of the Temple); the Countess of Portsmouth; the
Countess of Camperdown; my friend Miss Lloyd; my cousin, Mr. Locke,
M.P., Q.C.; Mr. William Shaen; Col. (now Sir Evelyn) Wood; and Mr.
Edward de Fonblanque. The latter gentleman was one of the most useful
members of the Committee, whose retirement three years later after our
adoption of a more advanced policy, I have never ceased to regret.
Beside these Members of the Committee we had then as Vice-Presidents,
the Archbishop of York, the Marquis of Bute, Cardinal Manning, Lord
Portsmouth, Mr. Cowper-Temple (afterwards Lord Mount-Temple), Right Hon.
James Stansfeld, Lord Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol
(Dr. Ellicott), the Bishop of Manchester (Dr. Fraser), Lord Chief
Justice Coleridge, and the Lord Chief Baron, Sir Fitzroy Kelly.
Dr. Hoggan had invited Mr. Spurgeon to join our Society, but received
from him the following reply:—
“Rev. C. H. Spurgeon to Dr. Hoggan.
“Nightingale Lane, Clapham,
“Dec. 24th.
“Dear Sir,
“I do not like to become an officer of a Society for I have no time to
attend to the duties of such an office, and it strikes me as a false
system which is now so general, which allows names to appear on
Committees and requires no service from the individuals.
“In all efforts to spare animals from needless pain I wish you the
utmost success. There are cases in which they _must_ suffer, as we
also must, but not one pang ought to be endured by them from which we
can screen them.
“Yours heartily,
“C. H. SPURGEON.
“I shall aid your effort in my own way.”
Mr. Spurgeon wrote on one occasion a letter to Lord Shaftesbury to be
read from the Chair at a Meeting; but, much as we wished to use it, the
extreme strength of the _expletives_ was considered to transgress the
borders of expediency!
We invited Prof. Rolleston to give us his support. The following was his
reply:—
“Oxford, Nov. 28th, 1875.
“Dear Miss Cobbe,
“I would have answered your letter before had I been able to make up
my mind to do as you ask. This, however, I think I should not, in the
interests of the line of legislation which I advocate, do well to do.
I believe I speak with greater weight from keeping an independent
position. And as I have a great desire to throw away none of the
advantages which that position gives me, I am obliged to decline your
invitation. Allow me to say that I am much gratified by your writing
to ask me to do what I decline to do out of considerations of
expediency.
“It is also a great pleasure to me to think that what I said at
Bristol has met with your approbation. The bearing of parts at the end
or towards the end of that Address upon the future of Vivisection was,
I hope, tolerably obvious.
“I am,
“Yours very truly,
“GEORGE ROLLESTON.”
The newly-formed Society had been clumsily named by Dr. Hoggan: “The
_Society for Protection of Animals liable to Vivisection_,” and its aim
was: “_to obtain the greatest possible protection for animals liable to
vivisection_.” I was obliged to yield to my colleague as regarded this
awkward title which exactly defined the position he desired to take up;
but it was a constant source of worry and loss to us. As soon as
possible, however, after we had taken our offices in Victoria Street, I
called our Society, unofficially and for popular use, simply “_The
Victoria Street Society_.”
These offices are large and handsome, and so conveniently situated that
the Society has retained them ever since. They are on the first floor of
a house—formerly numbered “1,” now numbered “20,”—in Victoria Street,
ten or eleven doors up the street from the Broad Sanctuary and the
Westminster Palace Hotel; and with Westminster Abbey and the Towers of
the Houses of Parliament in view from the street door. The offices
contain an ante-room (now piled with our papers), a large airy room with
two windows for the clerks, a Secretary’s private room, and a spacious
and lightsome Committee-room with three windows. Out of this last
another room was accessible, which at one time was taken for my especial
use. I put up bookshelves, pictures, curtains, and various little
feminine relaxations, and thus covered, as far as might be, the
frightful character of our work, so that friends should find our office
no painful place to visit.
We did not let the grass grow under our feet after we had settled down
in these offices. On the 20th March there went out from them to the
neighbouring Home Office a Deputation to Mr. (now Lord) Cross to urge
the Government to bring in a Bill in accordance with the recommendations
of the Royal Commission. The Deputation was headed by Lord Shaftesbury,
and included the Earl of Minto, Cardinal Manning, Mr. Froude, Mr.
Mundella, Sir Frederick Elliot, Col. Evelyn Wood, and Mr. Cowper-Temple.
Mr. Carlyle was to have joined the Deputation, but held back sooner than
accompany the Cardinal.
Chief Baron Kelly wrote us the following cordial expressions of regret
for non-attendance:—
“Western Circuit, Winchester,
“4th March, 1876.
“The Lord Chief Baron presents his compliments to Miss Cobbe, and very
greatly regrets that, being engaged at the assize on the Western
Circuit until nearly the middle of April, he will be unable to
accompany the deputation to Mr. Cross on the subject of Vivisection,
to which, however, he earnestly wishes success.”
We had invited Canon Liddon, who was a subscriber to our funds from the
first, to join this Deputation, but received from him the following
reply:
“Amen Court, 6th March, 1876.
“My dear Miss Cobbe,
“I should be sincerely glad to be able to obey your kind wishes in the
matter of the proposed Deputation, if I could. But I am unable to be
in London again between to-morrow and April 1st, and this, I fear will
make it impossible.