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.