The Royal Commission "On the Practice of subjecting Live Animals to
Experiments for Scientific Purposes," was appointed on 22nd June 1875.
Its members were--Lord Cardwell (chairman), Lord Winmarleigh, Mr. W.
E. Forster, Sir John Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Mr. (Sir John) Erichsen,
and Mr. Hutton. Between 5th July and 30th December, 53 witnesses were
examined, and 6551 questions were put and answered. The report of the
Commission bears date 8th January 1876, and in that year the present
Act received the Royal Assent.
The evidence before the Commission was all, or nearly all, concerned
with physiology, with the work of Magendie, Claude Bernard, and Sir
Charles Bell, the action of curare, the _Handbook of the Physiological
Laboratory_, the teaching of physiology, and so forth. Very little was
said of pathology; and of bacteriology next to nothing. Practically,
physiology alone came before the Commissioners; and such experiments
in physiology as are now, the youngest of them, more than thirty years
old.
Bacteriology, at the time of the passing of the Act, had hardly made a
beginning. Therefore the Act made no special provision for
inoculations, injections, and the whole study of immunisation of
animals and men against disease. Experiments of this kind have to be
scheduled under one of the existing certificates, to bring them under
an Act that was drafted without foreknowledge of them. Certificate A
or Certificate B has to be used for this purpose:--
_Certificate A._
"We hereby certify that, in our opinion, insensibility in the
animal on which any such experiment may be performed cannot be
produced by anæsthetics without necessarily frustrating the
object of such experiment."
_Certificate B._
"We hereby certify that, in our opinion, the killing of the
animal on which any such experiment is performed before it
recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic administered to
it, would necessarily frustrate the object of such experiment."
Under one or other of these certificates must be scheduled all
inoculations, injections, feeding-experiments, transplantations of
particles of disease, immunisations, and the like. They must be
scheduled somehow; and that is the only way of doing it. Where the act
of inducing the disease would itself give any pain, if an anæsthetic
were not administered--as in the subdural inoculation of a rabbit, or
the intra-peritoneal inoculation of an animal with a particle of
cancerous tissue--there the licensee must hold, together with the
license, Certificate B, because the act of inducing the disease is
itself an operation, done under an anæsthetic. If the animal be a dog
or a cat, he must hold Certificates B and EE; if it be a horse, ass,
or mule, Certificates B and F.
Where the act of inducing the disease is not itself painful--as in
ordinary inoculation, and in feeding-experiments--the licensee must
hold, together with his license, Certificate A, because the animal is
not anæsthetised. It is not a painful operation; the experiment
consists not in the act of putting the hypodermic needle under the
animal's skin, but in the subsequent observation of the course of the
disease. Take, for instance, the inoculation of a guinea-pig with
tubercle-bacilli: the experiment is the production of tubercle; the
experiment lasts till the animal is killed and found to be infected;
it is therefore scheduled under Certificate A. Or take the testing, on
an animal, of an antitoxin; the experiment is not the injection, but
the observation of the result; the animal may not suffer, but the
injection must still be done under Certificate A. And, if the animal
be a dog or a cat, the licensee must hold Certificates A and E; or, if
it be a horse, ass, or mule, Certificates A and F.
This want of a special certificate for inoculations is an important
matter, because it has led to the belief that painful operations are
performed, without anæsthesia, in cases where the only instrument used
is a needle. It is hardly reasonable, for instance, that the
inoculation of a mouse should be scheduled as a painful operation
performed without anæsthesia. The disease, thus painlessly induced,
may in many cases be called painless; for instance, snake-venom in the
rat, septicæmia in the mouse, malaria in small birds. In other cases,
there are such pain and fever as are part of the disease. The form
that rabies take in rabbits may fairly be called painless.
Inoculations not under the skin, but into the anterior chamber of the
eye, are very seldom made; they sound cruel, but cocain renders the
surface of the eye wholly insensitive, and the anterior chamber is so
far insensitive that a man with blood or pus (_hypopyon_) in the
anterior chamber of the eye may suffer no pain from it. A horse or an
ass kept for the giving of an antitoxic serum has a more comfortable
life than an omnibus horse; and this preparation of the antitoxins,
since it is not an experiment, but a direct use of animals in the
recognised service of man, does not require a license or certificates
under the Act. But the testing of an antitoxin is an experiment, and
must be made under a license and Certificate A.
It is not the business of this book to consider whether the
sensitiveness of a dog, a rabbit, or a guinea-pig can fairly be stated
in terms of the physical and mental sensitiveness of men and women. In
the world of animals, as in the world of humanity, there are
differences of sensitiveness. Anyhow, the pain inflicted on animals
may in some cases be measured:--
"A guinea-pig that will rest quietly in your hands before you
commence to inject it, will remain perfectly quiet during the
introduction of the needle under the skin; and the moment it is
returned to the cage it resumes its interrupted feeding.
"Arteries, veins, and most of the parts of the viscera, are
without the sense of touch. We have actual proof of this in what
takes place when a horse is bled for the purpose of obtaining
curative serum. With a sharp lance a cut may be made in the skin
so quickly and easily that the animal does nothing more than
twitch the skin-muscle of the neck, or give his head a shake,
whilst of the further proceeding of introducing a hollow needle
into the vein the animal takes not the slightest notice. Some
horses, indeed, will stand perfectly quiet during the whole
operation, munching a carrot, nibbling at a wisp of hay, or
playing with a button on the vest of the groom standing at its
head.
"Harrowing details concerning the horrors of trephining rabbits
for Pasteur's antirabic treatment are frequently supplied for
popular consumption, but how little real existence any
suffering in connection with the operation has, may be gathered
from the fact that if, as a preliminary measure, the skin be
benumbed with carbolic acid, the whole operation, from making
the incision through the skin to cutting out the piece of bone
with a fine trephine and passing a needle under the dura mater,
may be done without once causing the animal to withdraw its
attention from the important business of munching a bit of
cabbage-leaf or a scrap of succulent carrot." (Prof. Woodhead,
_Medical Magazine_, June 1898.)
It may be well to put here--(1) the full text of the Act; (2) an
account of the anæsthetics used for animals; (3) the latest Report of
Government Inspectors appointed under the Act.
1.--AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
_15th August 1876_
Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to cruelty to
animals by extending it to the cases of animals which for medical,
physiological, or other scientific purposes are subjected when alive
to experiments calculated to inflict pain:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as "The Cruelty to Animals
Act, 1876."
2. A person shall not perform on a living animal any experiment
calculated to give pain, except subject to the restrictions imposed by
this Act. Any person performing or taking part in performing any
experiment calculated to give pain, in contravention of this Act,
shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, if it be
the first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds,
and if it be the second or any subsequent offence, be liable, at the
discretion of the court by which he is tried, to a penalty not
exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a period not
exceeding three months.
3. The following restrictions are imposed by this Act with respect to
the performance on any living animal of an experiment calculated to
give pain; that is to say,
(1.) The experiment must be performed with a view to the
advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of
knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or
alleviating suffering; and
(2.) The experiment must be performed by a person holding such
license from one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of
State, in this Act referred to as the Secretary of State, as is
in this Act mentioned, and in the case of a person holding such
conditional license as is hereinafter mentioned, or of
experiments performed for the purpose of instruction in a
registered place; and
(3.) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be
under the influence of some anæsthetic of sufficient power to
prevent the animal feeling pain; and
(4.) The animal must, if the pain is likely to continue after
the effect of the anæsthetic has ceased, or if any serious
injury has been inflicted on the animal, be killed before it
recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic which has been
administered; and
(5.) The experiment shall not be performed as an illustration of
lectures in medical schools, hospitals, colleges, or elsewhere;
and
(6.) The experiment shall not be performed for the purpose of
attaining manual skill.
Provided as follows; that is to say,
(1.) Experiments may be performed under the foregoing provisions
as to the use of anæsthetics by a person giving illustrations of
lectures in medical schools, hospitals, or colleges, or
elsewhere, on such certificate being given as in this Act
mentioned, that the proposed experiments are absolutely
necessary for the due instruction of the persons to whom such
lectures are given with a view to their acquiring physiological
knowledge, or knowledge which will be useful to them for saving
or prolonging life, or alleviating suffering; and
(2.) Experiments may be performed without anæsthetics on such
certificate being given as in this Act mentioned, that
insensibility cannot be produced without necessarily frustrating
the object of such experiments; and
(3.) Experiments may be performed without the person who
performed such experiments being under an obligation to cause
the animal, on which any such experiment is performed, to be
killed before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic,
on such certificate being given as in this Act mentioned, that
the so killing the animal would necessarily frustrate the object
of the experiment, and provided that the animal be killed as
soon as such object has been attained; and
(4.) Experiments may be performed not directly for the
advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, or of
knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life, or
alleviating suffering, but for the purpose of testing a
particular former discovery alleged to have been made for the
advancement of such knowledge as last aforesaid, on such
certificate being given as is in this Act mentioned that such
testing is absolutely necessary for the effectual advancement of
such knowledge.
4. The substance known as urari or curare shall not for the purposes
of this Act be deemed to be an anæsthetic.
5. Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, an experiment
calculated to give pain shall not be performed without anæsthetics on
a dog or cat, except on such certificate being given as in this Act
mentioned, stating, in addition to the statements hereinbefore
required to be made in such certificate, that for reasons specified in
the certificate the object of the experiment will be necessarily
frustrated unless it is performed on an animal similar in constitution
and habits to a cat or dog, and no other animal is available for such
experiment; and an experiment calculated to give pain shall not be
performed on any horse, ass, or mule except on such certificate being
given as in this Act mentioned that the object of the experiment will
be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on a horse, ass, or
mule, and that no other animal is available for such experiment.
6. Any exhibition to the general public, whether admitted on payment
of money or gratuitously, of experiments on living animals calculated
to give pain shall be illegal.
Any person performing or aiding in performing such experiments shall
be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, if
it be the first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty
pounds, and if it be the second or any subsequent offence, be liable,
at the discretion of the court by which he is tried, to a penalty not
exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a period not
exceeding three months.
And any person publishing any notice of any such intended exhibition
by advertisement in a newspaper, placard, or otherwise shall be liable
to a penalty not exceeding one pound.
A person punished for an offence under this section shall not for the
same offence be punishable under any other section of this Act.
_Administration of Law_
7. The Secretary of State may insert, as a condition of granting any
license, a provision in such license that the place in which any
experiment is to be performed by the licensee is to be registered in
such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time by any
general or special order direct; provided that every place for the
performance of experiments for the purpose of instruction under this
Act shall be approved by the Secretary of State, and shall be
registered in such manner as he may from time to time by any general
or special order direct.
8. The Secretary of State may license any person whom he may think
qualified to hold a license to perform experiments under this Act. A
license granted by him may be for such time as he may think fit, and
may be revoked by him on his being satisfied that such license ought
to be revoked. There may be annexed to such license any conditions
which the Secretary of State may think expedient for the purpose of
better carrying into effect the objects of this Act, but not
inconsistent with the provisions thereof.
9. The Secretary of State may direct any person performing experiments
under this Act from time to time to make such reports to him of the
result of such experiments, in such form and with such details as he
may require.
10. The Secretary of State shall cause all registered places to be
from time to time visited by inspectors for the purpose of securing a
compliance with the provisions of this Act, and the Secretary of State
may, with the assent of the Treasury as to number, appoint any special
inspectors, or may from time to time assign the duties of any such
inspectors to such officers in the employment of the Government, who
may be willing to accept the same, as he may think fit, either
permanently or temporarily.
11. Any application for a license under this Act and a certificate
given as in this Act mentioned must be signed by one or more of the
following persons; that is to say,
The President of the Royal Society;
The President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh;
The President of Royal Irish Academy;
The Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons in London,
Edinburgh, or Dublin;
The Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians in London,
Edinburgh, or Dublin;
The President of the General Medical Council;
The President of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of
Glasgow;
The President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or
the President of the Royal Veterinary College, London, but in
the case only of an experiment to be performed under anæsthetics
with a view to the advancement by new discovery of veterinary
science;
and also (unless the applicant be a professor of physiology, medicine,
anatomy, medical jurisprudence, materia medica, or surgery in a
university in Great Britain or Ireland, or in University College,
London, or in a college in Great Britain or Ireland, incorporated by
royal charter) by a professor of physiology, medicine, anatomy,
medical jurisprudence, materia medica, or surgery in a university in
Great Britain or Ireland, or in University College, London, or in a
college in Great Britain or Ireland, incorporated by royal charter.
Provided that where any person applying for a certificate under this
Act is himself one of the persons authorised to sign such certificate,
the signature of some other of such persons shall be substituted for
the signature of the applicant.
A certificate under this section may be given for such time or for
such series of experiments as the person or persons signing the
certificate may think expedient.
A copy of any certificate under this section shall be forwarded by the
applicant to the Secretary of State, but shall not be available until
one week after a copy has been so forwarded.
The Secretary of State may at any time disallow or suspend any
certificate given under this section.
12. The powers conferred by this Act of granting a license or giving a
certificate for the performance of experiments on living animals may
be exercised by an order in writing under the hand of any judge of the
High Court of Justice in England, of the High Court of Session in
Scotland, or of any of the superior courts in Ireland, including any
court to which the jurisdiction of such last-mentioned courts may be
transferred, in a case where such judge is satisfied that it is
essential for the purposes of justice in a criminal case to make any
such experiment.
_Legal Proceedings_
13. A justice of the peace, on information on oath that there is
reasonable ground to believe that experiments in contravention of this
Act are being performed by an unlicensed person in any place not
registered under this Act, may issue his warrant authorising any
officer or constable of police to enter and search such place, and to
take the names and addresses of the persons found therein.
Any person who refuses admission on demand to a police officer or
constable so authorised, or obstructs such officer or constable in the
execution of his duty under this section, or who refuses on demand to
disclose his name or address, or gives a false name or address, shall
be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
14. In England, offences against this Act may be prosecuted and
penalties under this Act recovered before a court of summary
jurisdiction in manner directed by the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
In England "Summary Jurisdiction Act" means the Act of the
session of the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of Her
present Majesty, chapter forty-three, intituled "An Act to
facilitate the performance of the duties of justices of the
peace out of sessions within England and Wales with respect to
summary convictions and orders," and any Act amending the same.
"Court of summary jurisdiction" means and includes any justice
or justices of the peace, metropolitan police magistrate,
stipendiary or other magistrate, or officer, by whatever name
called, exercising jurisdiction in pursuance of the Summary
Jurisdiction Act: Provided that the court when hearing and
determining an information under this Act shall be constituted
either of two or more justices of the peace in petty sessions,
sitting at a place appointed for holding petty sessions, or of
some magistrate or officer sitting alone or with others at some
court or other place appointed for the administration of
justice, and for the time being empowered by law to do alone any
act authorised to be done by more than one justice of the peace.
15. In England, where a person is accused before a court of summary
jurisdiction of any offence against this Act in respect of which a
penalty of more than five pounds can be imposed, the accused may, on
appearing before the court of summary jurisdiction, declare that he
objects to being tried for such offence by a court of summary
jurisdiction, and thereupon the court of summary jurisdiction may deal
with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an
indictable offence and not an offence punishable on summary
conviction, and the offence may be prosecuted on indictment
accordingly.
16. In England, if any party thinks himself aggrieved by any
conviction made by a court of summary jurisdiction on determining any
information under this Act, the party so aggrieved may appeal
therefrom, subject to the conditions and regulations following:---
(1.) The appeal shall be made to the next court of general or
quarter sessions for the county or place in which the cause of
appeal has arisen, holden not less than twenty-one days after
the decision of the court from which the appeal is made; and
(2.) The appellant shall, within ten days after the cause of
appeal has arisen, give notice to the other party and to the
court of summary jurisdiction of his intention to appeal, and of
the ground thereof; and
(3.) The appellant shall, within three days after such notice,
enter into a recognizance before a justice of the peace, with
two sufficient sureties, conditioned personally to try such
appeal, and to abide the judgment of the court thereon, and to
pay such costs as may be awarded by the court, or give such
other security by deposit of money or otherwise as the justice
may allow; and
(4.) Where the appellant is in custody the justice may, if he
think fit, on the appellant entering into such recognizance or
giving such other security as aforesaid, release him from
custody; and
(5.) The court of appeal may adjourn the appeal, and upon the
hearing thereof they may confirm, reverse, or modify the
decision of the court of summary jurisdiction, or remit the
matter to the court of summary jurisdiction with the opinion of
the court of appeal thereon, or make such other order in the
matter as the court thinks just, and if the matter be remitted
to the court of summary jurisdiction the said last-mentioned
court shall thereupon re-hear and decide the information in
accordance with the order of the said court of appeal. The
court of appeal may also make such order as to costs to be paid
by either party as the court thinks just.
17. In Scotland, offences against this Act may be prosecuted and
penalties under this Act recovered under the provisions of the Summary
Procedure Act, 1864, or if a person accused of any offence against
this Act in respect of which a penalty of more than five pounds can be
imposed, on appearing before a court of summary jurisdiction, declare
that he objects to being tried for such offence in the court of
summary jurisdiction, proceedings may be taken against him on
indictment in the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh or on circuit.
Every person found liable in any penalty or costs shall be liable in
default of immediate payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
three months, or until such penalty or costs are sooner paid.
18. In Ireland, offences against this Act may be prosecuted and
penalties under this Act recovered in a summary manner, subject and
according to the provisions with respect to the prosecution of
offences, the recovery of penalties, and to appeal of the Petty
Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and any Act amending the same, and in
Dublin of the Acts regulating the powers of justices of the peace or
of the police of Dublin metropolis. All penalties recovered under this
Act shall be applied in manner directed by the Fines (Ireland) Act,
1871, and any Act amending the same.
19. In Ireland, where a person is accused before a court of summary
jurisdiction of any offence against this Act in respect of which a
penalty of more than five pounds can be imposed, the accused may, on
appearing before the court of summary jurisdiction, declare that he
objects to being tried for such offence by a court of summary
jurisdiction, and thereupon the court of summary jurisdiction may deal
with the case in all respects as if the accused were charged with an
indictable offence and not an offence punishable on summary
conviction, and the offence may be prosecuted on indictment
accordingly.
20. In the application of this Act to Ireland the term "the Secretary
of State" shall be construed to mean the Chief Secretary to the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland for the time being.
21. A prosecution under this Act against a licensed person shall not
be instituted except with the assent in writing of the Secretary of
State.
22. This Act shall not apply to invertebrate animals.
II.--ANÆSTHETICS UNDER THE ACT
In almost every case, the anæsthetic used is chloroform or ether;
sometimes it is combined with or followed by morphia or chloral. The
nature of the anæsthetic used in each case must, of course, be stated
in the returns sent to the Home Office.
Of the use of ether, it need only be said that animals take it well,
and that there is no difficulty in rendering them unconscious with it.
With some animals, chloroform is equally good. Professor Hobday, of
the Royal Veterinary College, published in 1898 an account of 500
administrations of chloroform to dogs, for operations, with only one
death. Still, for dogs and cats, ether is used in preference to
chloroform. Other animals take chloroform well.
Morphia is seldom used alone; but, in some cases, it is used after
chloroform or ether. That morphia is a "real anæsthetic" is certain,
for there are deaths every year from an over-dose of it. Again, it is
certain that an animal, so far under the influence of morphia that it
lies still, cannot be suffering, for the drug does not act directly
on the muscles but on the higher nervous centres.
Very rarely a dog may fail to come readily under the influence of
morphia, may be excited by it, not narcotized. But this is altogether
exceptional. An animal in such a condition would not be suited for
experiment, and another anæsthetic would be given. Except in these
rare cases, animals take morphia well and are profoundly influenced by
it.
Curare is not an anæsthetic under the Act. It is illegal to use it as
an anæsthetic. In this country it is seldom used at all, and it is
never used alone in any experiment involving any sort or kind of
painful operation. In every such case a recognised anæsthetic must be
given, and is given.[43]
[43] See Part IV., "Curare."
A good account of curare was published in the _Edinburgh Review_, July
1899.
"The Act of 1876 expressly forbids its use as an anæsthetic.
When it is used, it must be supplemented with some other drug to
relieve pain. A good deal of misconception exists as to the
actual physiological effect of curare. Claude Bernard believed
that it did not in any way affect the sensory nerves, and he
described in theatrical terms the animal as being unable to
stir, but suffering horrible torture. It is pretty certainly
known now that Claude Bernard was wrong, and that, though curare
acts first upon the motor nerves, it also, though less rapidly,
paralyses the sensory nerves.... Probably the truth is, that,
like all other nerve-poisons, the effect of curare varies with
the dose. The muscular nerves are the first affected, then the
sensory, and finally the central nervous system. As a matter of
fact, however, morphia or some other narcotic is always given in
addition to curare when it is used in laboratory work in
England."
III.--LATEST REPORT (1905) OF INSPECTORS UNDER THE ACT
(The various tables of names, places, &c., and the references to them,
which are contained in this Report, need not be reprinted here. The
Report, and other papers relating to the Act, may be bought for a few
pence from Wyman & Sons, Ltd., Fetter Lane, E.C.)
* * * * *
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND
_April 17th, 1906._
SIR,--I have the honour to submit the following Report on Experiments
performed in England and Scotland during the Year 1905, under the Act
39 & 40 Vict. c. 77.... Six new places were registered for the
performance of experiments, and one place was removed from the
register during the year. All licensees were restricted to the
registered place or places specified on their licenses, with the
exception of those who were permitted to perform inoculation
experiments in places other than a "registered place," with the object
of studying outbreaks of disease occurring in remote districts or
under circumstances which render it impracticable to perform the
experiment in a "registered place."
The total number of licensees was 381. Reports have been furnished by
(or, in a few exceptional cases, on behalf of) these licensees in the
form required by the Secretary for State. The reports show that 122
licensees performed no experiments. The numbers given above include 22
licensees whose licences expired on February 28, 1905, and who
returned no experiments in 1905.
Tables I., II., and III. afford evidence,--
1. That licences and certificates have been granted and allowed
only upon the recommendation of persons of high scientific
standing;
2. That the licensees are persons who, by their training and
education, are fitted to undertake experimental work and to
profit by it;
3. That all experimental work has been conducted in suitable
places.
Table IV. shows the number and the nature of the experiments returned
by each licensee mentioned in Table II., specifying whether these
experiments were done under the licence alone or under any special
certificate.
Table IV. is divided into two parts, A. and B., for the purpose of
separating experiments which were performed without anæsthetics from
experiments in which anæsthetics were used.
The total number of experiments included in Table IV. (A.) is 2506.
Of these there were performed,--
Under Licence alone[44] 1348
" Certificate C. 145
" Certificate B. 665
" Certificate B. + EE 346
" Certificate B. + F. 2
[44] In experiments performed under licence alone, the animal must
during the whole of the experiment be under the influence of some
anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain;
and the animal must, if the pain is likely to continue after the
effect of the anæsthetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has
been inflicted on the animal, be killed before it recovers from
the influence of the anæsthetic which has been administered.
Certificate C. allows experiments to be performed, under the
foregoing provisions as to the use of anæsthetics, in illustration
of lectures.
Certificate B. exempts the person performing the experiment from
the obligation to cause the animal on which the experiment is
performed to be killed before it recovers from the influence of
the anæsthetic; and when the animal is a dog or a cat, Certificate
EE. is also necessary.
Certificate A. allows experiments to be performed without
anæsthetics; and when the animal on which the experiment is
performed is a dog or a cat, Certificate E. is also necessary.
Certificate F. is required in all cases of experiments on a horse,
ass, or mule.
Table IV. (B.) is devoted entirely to inoculations, hypodermic
injections, and some few other proceedings, performed without
anæsthetics. It includes 35,429 experiments, whereof there were
performed,--
Under Certificate A. 34,778
" Certificate A. + E. 549
" Certificate A. + F. 102
The total number of experiments is 37,935, being 5373 more than in
1904; the increase in the number of experiments included in Table IV.
(A.) is 290, and in Table IV. (B.), 5083.
All experiments involving a serious operation are placed in Table IV.
(A.). The larger part of the experiments included in this Table, viz.,
all performed under licence alone, and under Certificate C., 1493 in
number, come under the provision of the Act that the animal must be
kept under an anæsthetic during the whole of the experiment, and must,
if the pain is likely to continue after the effect of the anæsthetic
has ceased, or if any serious injury has been inflicted on the animal,
be killed before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic.
In the experiments performed under Certificate B., or B. linked with
EE. or with F., 1013 in number, the initial operations are performed
under anæsthetics, from the influence of which the animals are allowed
to recover. The operations are required to be performed
antiseptically, so that the healing of the wounds shall, as far as
possible, take place without pain. If the antiseptic precautions fail,
and suppuration occurs, the animal is required to be killed. It is
generally essential for the success of these experiments that the
wounds should heal cleanly, and the surrounding parts remain in a
healthy condition. After the healing of the wounds the animals are not
necessarily, or even generally, in pain, since experiments involving
the removal of important organs, including portions of the brain, may
be performed without giving rise to pain after the recovery from the
operation; and after the section of a part of the nervous system, the
resulting degenerative changes are painless.
In the event of a subsequent operation being necessary in an
experiment performed under Certificate B., or B. linked with EE. or
with F., a condition is attached to the licence requiring all
operative procedures to be carried out under anæsthetics of sufficient
power to prevent the animal feeling pain; and no observations or
stimulations of a character to cause pain are allowed to be made
without the animals being anæsthetised.
In no case has a cutting operation more severe than a superficial
venesection been allowed to be performed without anæsthetics.
The experiments included in Table IV. (B.), 35,429 in number, are all
performed without anæsthetics. They are mostly inoculations, but a few
are feeding experiments, or the administration of various substances
by the mouth, or the abstraction of a minute quantity of blood for
examination. In no instance has a certificate dispensing with the use
of anæsthetics been allowed for an experiment involving a serious
operation. Inoculations into deep parts, involving a preliminary
incision in order to expose the part into which the inoculation is to
be made, are required to be performed under anæsthetics, and are
therefore placed in Table IV. (A.).
It will be seen that the operative procedures in experiments performed
under Certificate A., without anæsthetics, are only such as are
attended by no considerable, if appreciable, pain. The Certificate is,
in fact, not required to cover these proceedings, but to allow of the
subsequent course of the experiment. The experiment lasts during the
whole period from the administration of the drug, or injection, until
the animal recovers from the effects, if any, or dies, or is killed,
possibly extending over several days, or even weeks. The substance
administered may give rise to poisoning, or set up a condition of
disease, either of which may lead to a fatal termination. To
administer to an animal such a poison as diphtheria toxin, for
example, or to induce such a disease as tuberculosis, although it may
not be accompanied by acute suffering, is held to be a proceeding
"calculated to give pain," and therefore experiments of the kind
referred to come within the scope of the Act 39 & 40 Vict., c. 77. The
Act provides that, unless a special certificate be obtained, the
animal must be kept under an anæsthetic during the whole of the
experiment; and it is to allow the animal to be kept without an
anæsthetic during the time required for the development of the results
of the administration that Certificate A. is given and allowed in
these cases.
It must not be assumed that the animal is in pain during the whole of
this time. In cases of prolonged action of an injected substance, even
when ending fatally, the animal is generally apparently well, and
takes its food as usual, until a short time before death. The state of
illness may last only a very few hours, and in some cases it is not
observed at all.
In a very large number of the experiments included in Table IV. (B.),
the results are negative, and the animals suffer no inconvenience
whatever from the inoculation. These experiments are therefore
entirely painless.
In the event of pain ensuing as the result of an inoculation, a
condition attached to the licence requires that the animal shall be
killed under anæsthetics as soon as the main result of the experiment
has been attained.
The number of inoculations and similar proceedings recorded in Table
IV. (B.) continues to increase in accordance with the progressive
importance attached to biological tests generally in practical
medicine for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease, and
to the more widely recognised need for such experiments on the part of
those responsible for the care of the public health. Several County
Councils and Municipal Corporations have their own laboratories in
which bacteriological investigations are carried on, including the
necessary tests on living animals; and many others have arrangements
by which similar observations are made on their behalf in the
laboratories of Universities, Colleges, and other Institutions. A
sewage farm is registered as a place in which experiments on living
animals may be performed in order that the character of the effluent
may be tested by its effects on the health of fish. The Board of
Agriculture has two laboratories which are registered for the
performance of experiments having for their object the detection and
study of the diseases of animals. In other places experiments have
been made on behalf of the Home Office, the War Office, the India
Office, the Local Government Board, the Office of Works, the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board. A very
large proportion of the experiments in Table IV. (B.) have thus been
performed either on behalf of Official Bodies with a view to the
preservation of the public health, or directly for the diagnosis and
treatment of disease. Forty-one licensees return over 8000 experiments
which were performed for Government Departments, County Councils, or
Municipal Corporations; 2187 experiments were made by four licensees
for the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis; twelve licensees performed
6265 experiments, almost all inoculations, for testing antitoxic sera
and vaccines and standardising drugs; and 12,187 experiments, mostly
inoculations into mice, were performed on behalf of the Imperial
Cancer Research Fund.
The number of injections made during the year 1905 for the diagnosis
of rabies in dogs is 27; these are placed in Table IV. (A.).
During the year the usual inspections of registered places have been
made by Sir James Russell, by myself, and by Mr. W. B. L. Trotter, who
was appointed temporary Assistant Inspector during my absence for
three months. We have found the animals suitably lodged and well cared
for, and the licensees attentive to the requirements of the Act, as
well as to the conditions appended to their licences by the Secretary
of State.
The irregularities recorded during the year have been few, and not of
a serious character.
Two licensees, holding certificates (A.) entitling them to perform
inoculations without anæsthetics, administered an anæsthetic during
some of their experiments, whereas the Act prescribes another form of
certificate (B.) when an animal is anæsthetised during an experiment
and allowed to recover from the anæsthetic.
A licensee, through inadvertence, performed 54 inoculation experiments
in excess of the number allowed by his certificate.
Another licensee, not understanding that joint experiments are
reckoned to both of the licensees, took part in the performance of
eight experiments in excess of the number allowed by his certificate.
By direction of the Secretary of State a suitable admonition was
addressed to the licensee in each of the above cases.
In the month of April 1905 the attention of the Secretary of State was
directed to certain experiments which were performed in 1903 and the
early part of 1904 by persons not holding a licence under the Act 39 &
40 Vict. c. 77. The experiments consisted in vaccinating dogs against
distemper and then exposing them to infection, the object being to
test the efficacy of a method of vaccination as a safeguard against
this disease. The Secretary of State thereupon caused inquiries to be
made, and from these it appeared that the experiments, in some
instances at least, had been accompanied by pain, and were, therefore,
illegal. The persons, who were not aware that their experiments were
of such a kind as to come within the provisions of the Act, were
suitably admonished and warned against any similar illegal action in
the future. The matter was not brought to the knowledge of the
Secretary of State until it was too late for further proceedings to be
taken if such had been considered necessary. It is as well to point
out here that to expose an animal to an infectious and painful disease
like distemper is a proceeding calculated to cause pain within the
meaning of the Act, and that such experiments can only be legally
performed by a person holding a licence and appropriate
certificates.--I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
G. D. THANE, _Inspector_.
The Right Hon. HERBERT JOHN GLADSTONE,
_Secretary of State for the Home Department_.
IRELAND
8 ELY PLACE, DUBLIN,
_April 26th, 1906_.
SIR,--I beg to submit Tables showing the experiments performed in
Ireland during the year 1905, under the Act 39 & 40 Vict. c. 77,
together with a list of the Registered Places in Ireland.
Twelve licences were in force during the year; of these four expired,
and two were renewed. One new license was granted.
The certificates in existence or allowed were:--
A. to 4 licensees.
B. " 7 "
C. " 3 "
E. " 2 "
EE. " 3 "
F. " 1 licensee.
One expired during the year, and six new ones were allowed.
The experiments performed number 218; 106 being under licence alone,
and 112 under certificates. Ten licensees performed experiments.
Twenty certificates were in force among 12 licensees, of whom 10
performed experiments, viz.:--
Under Certificate A. 88
" " B. 14
" " C. 8
" " F. 2
The animals experimented on were:--
Guinea pigs 55
Birds 53
Rabbits 48
Cattle 27
Mice 14
Dogs 13
Cats 2
Horses 2
Goats 2
Sheep 2
The experiments were mainly pathological inoculations, done for the
purposes of the investigation or diagnosis of various diseases, such
as canine rabies, tuberculosis, cancer, glanders, and typhoid fever. A
few were physiological, for the investigation of the functions of the
thymus gland, and of the effects of chloroform and ether on renal
activity. All of these seem to have been of a reasonable character and
intended to serve useful purposes in the elucidation of the phenomena
of disease or of vital functions. They are reported to have been free
from pain.
Experiments numbering eight were performed in illustration of
lectures, to demonstrate the phenomena of circulation and respiration
and of nervous control. In these experiments, two dogs, two cats, and
four rabbits were employed.
Some of the investigations were devoted to the study of diseases in
cattle, horses, goats, and sheep, and seem to be useful and of
economic value.
The registered places were inspected and their condition found
satisfactory. The inspectors in Belfast and Cork report that in those
places the provisions of the Act have been satisfactorily complied
with.--I have, &c.,
W. THORNLEY STOKER,
_Inspector for Ireland_.
To the Right Honourable
The Chief Secretary to the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
This Report gives a clear answer to certain false statements alleged
against experiments on animals. It shows that more than 90 _per cent._
of these experiments are inoculations, with a few feeding experiments,
administrations of substances by the mouth, or abstractions of a
minute quantity of blood for examination. _In no instance has a
certificate dispensing with the use of anæsthetics been allowed for an
experiment involving a serious operation. In no case has a cutting
operation more severe than a superficial venesection been allowed to
be performed without anæsthetics._ It shows, also, that the results,
in a very large number of these inoculations, are negative, painless,
not even inconvenient.
The Report shows, also, that the vast majority of all experiments are
inoculations made on the smaller animals; and that the larger animals
(dog, cat, horse, mule, or ass) are seldom used for inoculation.
It shows, also, that a great proportion of these inoculations are made
in the direct practical service of the public health and the public
purse: to standardise drugs, to ensure the purity of food and of
rivers, to protect flocks and herds, and to decide quarantine.
Government Departments, County Councils, Municipal Corporations, and a
Royal Commission made more than one-third of the total number of
inoculations; and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund made more than
one-third, mostly on mice; and a sixth was made over the testing and
standardising of sera and of drugs.
The operations performed under the License + Certificate B, or B + EE,
or B + F, were 3 per cent. of the whole number of experiments. The
majority of the animals were neither cats nor dogs. They can hardly
be compared to the same number of the larger animals mutilated by
breeders and farmers: for these mutilations may be inflicted, and are
inflicted, without an anæsthetic. They can hardly be compared to the
same number of pheasants or rabbits wounded, but not killed, in sport;
for the animals wounded in sport get no subsequent care, and, if they
are in pain, nobody need put them out of it. They may fairly be
compared to the same number of pet animals that have undergone
surgical operations, under anæsthesia, at the hands of a skilled
veterinary surgeon; only with this difference, that many of them lose
health, or suffer disablement or disease, and so die or are killed;
but, if the wound suppurates, the animal must be killed, and, after
the wound has healed, the animals are not necessarily, or even
generally, in pain. And there must be no _further_ experiment without
anæsthesia. _No observations or stimulations of a character to cause
pain are allowed to be made without the animals being anæsthetised._
It is evident that good care is taken to ensure an irreducible minimum
of pain.
PART IV
THE CASE AGAINST ANTI-VIVISECTION
THE CASE AGAINST ANTI-VIVISECTION
[The following pages are taken, with a few changes and
omissions, from a pamphlet which I published in 1904. I am glad
to say that the tone of the Anti-Vivisection Societies is not
quite so bad as it was a few years ago; but I think that what I
wrote in 1904 is still fairly accurate.]
1. ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETIES
The early history of the anti-vivisection movement is given in a
pamphlet by Dr. Leffingwell, of Brooklyn, entitled "The Rise of the
Vivisection Controversy"; and in a pamphlet published by the National
Anti-vivisection Society, entitled "Dates of the Principal Events
connected with the Anti-vivisection Movement." Dr. Leffingwell calls
attention to a fact not generally known--that the movement, in this
country, was begun by the medical journals. The _Medical Times and
Gazette_ in 1858, the _Lancet_ in 1860, and the _British Medical
Journal_ in 1861 condemned in a very outspoken way certain experiments
made on the Continent, and raised the question whether these or any
experiments on animals could be justified. Later, in 1872, the
_Medical Times and Gazette_ declared outright that all experiments,
from the time of Magendie onward, had done nothing for humanity that
could be compared to the discovery and use of cod-liver oil and bark.
In 1874, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
took proceedings against those who had made certain experiments at
Norwich during a meeting of the British Medical Association. These
experiments, and the publication of the _Handbook of the Physiological
Laboratory_, roused public comment; and during 1875 the opposition to
all experiments on animals took more definite form. On June 22nd,
1875, the Royal Commission was appointed; on January 8th, 1876, its
report was dated; and on August 15th, 1876, the present Act received
the Royal assent.
At the time when the Royal Commission was appointed, the only
anti-vivisection society was that which Mr. Jesse had just started;
and if any one will read Mr. Jesse's cross-examination, by Professor
Huxley, before the Royal Commission, he will not attach much
importance to that society. The National Anti-vivisection Society was
founded in November 1875; the Irish Society, the London Society, and
the International Association in 1876; the Church Anti-vivisection
League in 1889, the Humanitarian League and the National Canine
Defence League[45] in 1891, and the British Union about 1898. These
dates show that the oldest of these societies came after the Royal
Commission, not before it; the first societies and the Royal
Commission were alike the expression of a widespread opinion, thirty
years ago, that experiments on animals ought either to be forbidden or
to be restricted. This same opinion had been favoured, fifteen years
before that, by the representative journals of the medical profession.
We have seen something of the work of the medical profession; let us
now see something of the work of the societies.
[45] These two societies have other purposes beside that of
opposition to experiments on animals.
The chief anti-vivisection societies in this country are the National
Society, the London Society, the British Union, the Church League, and
the Canine Defence League. In February 1898, the National Society
declared itself in favour of restriction; it set before itself
abolition as its ultimate policy, and restriction as its immediate
practical policy. Thus, at the present time, these societies are
divided into two parties: one asks for restriction, another asks for
nothing short of abolition. This division between them, and the tone
of the National Society toward the smaller Societies, waste their
energy and their funds, and hinder them from working together. The
National Society, in its official journal (January 1902), speaks as
follows of this schism, in a leader entitled "The Folly of our
Subdivisions":--
"Nobody seems to know how many Anti-vivisection Societies there
are. A few hundred Anti-vivisectionists divide themselves up
into divisions, subdivisions, coteries, and cliques, without
order, without discipline, without cohesion. The
Anti-vivisectionists between them all contribute but a few
thousands a year, and dribble them around among multitudinous
antagonistic associations.... The pitiful absurdity of the
disunion fostered by some Anti-vivisectionists was illustrated
very forcibly last year by the issue of a prospectus of a
Society with a world-embracing title, in which its promoters
declared that irreparable injury would be inflicted upon our
cause if electoral work were not taken up by _them_.... The
accounts of this stupendous organisation showed that its total
expenditure for the year was £13, 19s. 4d., out of which ten
shillings was devoted to 'electoral work.' ... A much graver
injury is done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of
money spent in perfectly unnecessary offices and salaries. We
say that one office would amply suffice for all the work, and
that one office would not need half-a-dozen paid Secretaries.
The existence of many quite needless Societies cannot be
justified on any grounds of humanity combined with common
sense."
Nothing need be added to these very grave admissions, written by Mr.
Coleridge himself. He proposes a very simple remedy for these "quite
needless" societies:--
"The National Society, as the chief Anti-vivisection
organisation in the world, is always ready to put an end to this
grievous waste by receiving into its corporation any of the
smaller Societies."
But the leaders of smaller societies have two grounds of complaint
against Mr. Coleridge's society: they do not believe in his policy,
and they will not submit to his "discipline." They call his society
"the weak-kneed brethren," and say that its policy is "miserable,
cowardly, and misleading"; and they take it ill that he so often
accuses them of inaccuracy. He refers again and again (see the
official journal of the National Society) to this mode of
discipline:--
_December 1901._--"I decline to be made responsible for the
'anti-vivisection party.' There happen to be small
anti-vivisection associations whose chief occupation is the
dissemination of quite inaccurate pamphlets. I have nothing to
do with them, and cannot prevent anything they choose to do."
_January 1902._--"Time after time has this sacred cause been
undermined and betrayed by its professing friends by their
reckless habit of making erroneous statements."
_March 1902._--"I am quite aware that with many of my opponents
in the exclusive total-abolition coterie, the motives that
actuate them are far removed from the question of the salvation
of the wretched animals, and have their foundation in emotions
that seem to me singularly unworthy and petty."
_May 1902._--"As representative of the National Society, I have
again and again written to the representatives of some of the
smaller anti-vivisection societies, protesting in plain terms
against their publication of inaccurate statements."
No society could submit to be thus taken to task four times in six
months. The Church League writes to him, "What the Church League may
or may not think fit to say does not in the very least concern you,
who are not a member of the League. Interference in such a matter from
an outsider is an obvious impertinence." Such rejoinders are met, in
their turn, by angry leaders, "A Stab in the Back," "Stabs in the
Back," in the National Society's official journal; and the Hon.
Secretary of the London Society, who is a lady, is accused of want of
chivalry for Mr. Coleridge. The leader, "A Stab in the Back" (April
1902), is a curious instance of the tone of one anti-vivisection
society toward another:--
"The time when a man is assailed by a large section of the
press, threatened with violence by laymen, attacked on points
relevant by vivisectors and points irrelevant by their
supporters, is scarcely the moment that a generous rival would
have chosen for hurling a dart; and yet, incredible as it may
appear, the Honorary Secretary of another Anti-vivisection
Society, seizing an opportunity afforded by an article in the
_Globe_, enters the arena, and, by a letter repudiating any
connection with Mr. Coleridge, appears to sanction the
unfriendly criticisms expressed in that paper. It needed no
chivalry to refrain from writing such a letter. A small amount
of good taste would have amply sufficed.... This letter, which
will convince the public of nothing but the writer's lack of
taste, might well be ignored were it not that it is but one of
the many attacks made by members of other societies, either by
open statement or innuendo, against the Honorary Secretary of
the National Society."
But we cannot wonder at these occasional stabs. For the National
Society does not stop at charging other societies with inaccuracy. It
makes yet graver charges against them. Here are three made by Mr.
Coleridge's society against Miss Cobbe's and Mr. Trist's societies:--
_March 1901._--"The February number of the _Abolitionist_
contains a leading article in which allusions are made to
subjects that are never discussed by decent people even in
private. As the leading organ of the Anti-vivisection movement,
we enter our solemn protest against the publication of this
unspeakable article, which must inevitably inflict the gravest
injury upon our cause."
_February 1903._--"It is our duty to inform our readers that Mr.
Trist has published the correspondence, but that he has
mutilated it, omitting some of his own letters altogether, and
excising whole paragraphs of Mr. Stewart's letters."
_June 1903._--"Our amiable contemporary, the _Abolitionist_, is
good enough, in a long article in its last issue, to suggest to
those preparing the libel action against Mr. Coleridge what are
the most vulnerable points in his armour."
Thus divided in policy, and quarrelling among themselves, these
societies are still agreed in appealing to the public for approval and
for money. Here the London Society's opposition to the National
Society comes out clearly. In its annual report (1903) the London
Society says:--
"Join a really effective Society with a frank and
straightforward policy--namely, the London Anti-vivisection
Society, 13 Regent Street, London, S.W. This is a National and
International organisation. It has greater medical support than
any other. It is the most 'alive' humane organisation in the
world.... Get into touch with the society. Write to us. We shall
be glad to hear from you and answer any questions."
"If you can provide for the Society's future in your Will, may
we beg of you to do so? If you agree, pray do it now. Thousands
of pounds have been lost to the Society and the Cause by the
fatal procrastination of well-meaning friends. The pity of it!
Legacies should be left in these _exact_ words: 'To the _London_
Anti-vivisection Society.' CAUTION. It is of great importance to
describe very accurately the _Title of this Society_--namely,
THE LONDON ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY--otherwise the benevolent
intentions of the Donor may be frustrated. PLEASE NOTE.--Those
charitable persons who have left money to the Society would do
well to notify the same to the Secretary."
Contrast the tone of this appeal for money with the tone of the
Report:----
"Your Society are glad to note that the Christian Churches are
becoming alarmed at the pretensions of scientific authority....
The Christian laity has been largely uninstructed or misinformed
on this grave question.... Happily, the signs of the times are
propitious; not all of the leaders of religious thought in this
country have succumbed to the dictation and pretensions of the
professors of vivisection ... a base and blatant materialism, a
practice which owes its inception to barbarism, and which has
developed in materialism of the lowest possible order."
Surely such eloquence should avail to tear the money even out of the
hands of the dying, lest the National Society should get it. The
National Society, oddly enough, also says: "CAUTION.--It is of great
importance to describe very accurately the _Title of this
Society_--namely, THE NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY--otherwise
the benevolent intentions of the Donor may be frustrated." I do not
know which of these two societies is the inventor of this phrase.
Still, it is not improbable that the National Society receives more
money than all the smaller societies together. Of course, we cannot
compare the working expenses of an anti-vivisection society with the
working expenses of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
The former of these two societies in one year obtained 8798
convictions; in one month alone, 689 convictions; and it paid the
full costs of committing 34 of the 689 to prison. The Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has an equally good record. But
an anti-vivisectionist society cannot show results of this kind. Nor
can we compare its working expenses to those of a missionary society;
for the missionaries give direct personal service to their fellow-men.
But we can fairly compare an anti-vivisection society to an
anti-vaccination society or a Church of Christian Science. That is to
say, it is a publishing body. In 1902, the National Society's
expenditure, in round numbers, was £970 on printing and stationery;
£1193 on rent, salaries, and wages; £1255 on books, newspapers,
periodicals, &c., including the _Illustrated Catalogue_ and the
_Hospital Guide_; £1380 on lectures, meetings, organising new
branches, &c.; and about £500 on all other expenses. Let us take, to
illustrate these figures, what the National Society says from time to
time in its official journal:--
_June 1899._--(From the Society's Annual Report): "The whole
controversy has been collected and published in pamphlet form by
your Society, and more than 10,000 copies have already been
issued to the public. Over 200 people have joined your ranks
and become members of the Society in consequence of it, while
two cheques of £1000 each were received by Mr. Coleridge in aid
of the cause."
_June 1899._--"We have received more money within the past six
months than we got in any two years previously."
_June 1899._--"We cannot better employ the funds at our disposal
than in securing the constant help of experts to insure the
accuracy of all our statements, and in sending well-informed
lecturers to every city in the kingdom."
_June 1900._--(From the Society's Annual Report): "The receipts
of the society from subscriptions and donations show an increase
over those of the previous year. This increase in itself,
however, would hardly have justified the increase in the
expenses which it has been found necessary to incur in almost
every department, and especially in the distribution of
pamphlets and papers, had it not been for some legacies which
fell due, notably one from----, of £6386."
_May 1901._--"With heartfelt gratitude we have once more to
announce that the National Society has received a gift of a
thousand pounds from an anonymous donor. Nothing could be more
opportune for the Cause than this munificent support, coming as
it does just as the issue of 20,000 copies of Mr. Stephen
Coleridge's _Hospital Guide_ has been made at so great a cost to
the Society."
_June 1901._--"Our editorial table is buried deep in press
cuttings from all parts of the kingdom."
_March 1902._--"We employ two press-cutting agencies to send us
cuttings from the journals of the whole English-speaking world."
_July 1903._--"We start branches in various towns, and send
lecturers to speak at working men's clubs and debating
societies. All this means a very large expense. We very often
issue a pamphlet likely to do good by the tens of thousands.
Last year we issued 50,000 copies of the 'Illustrated German
Catalogue of Vivisectional Instruments and Appliances.'"
The smaller societies, of course, spend their funds in the same sort
of way. Thus the National Canine Defence League says that its
anti-vivisection work, the most important of all its works, is
earnestly carried forward by (1) The Writer's League, in a ceaseless
flow of letters to the press; (2) The circulation of lists of
hospitals free from the shameful practice; (3) The publication of
twenty-one strong leaflets on the subject; (4) The circulation of 300
copies of a book on the subject. This society in two years sent out
650,000 leaflets and pamphlets; but they were not all of them about
experiments on animals. Another Society, in a report published in
1902, enumerates the methods which it employs for "the education of
the public at large." These include (_a_) the publication of
literature; (_b_) the holding of public meetings in all parts of the
United Kingdom; (_c_) the delivery of lectures with or without
limelight illustrations; (_d_) participation in debates even with high
scientific authorities; (_e_) inducing the clergy and ministers of all
Churches to deliver sermons dealing with the subject; (_f_)
organisation of a press bureau, through which the newspaper press of
the country is watched, and correspondence and articles contributed.
This Society has also a van, "the only one of its kind in existence.
No sooner is our winter and spring campaign concluded than the van
takes up the thread of the work and carries it on through the summer,
and it may truly be said that the track of the van across country is
white with the literature which the van circulates on its educational
mission."
It is evident, from these and the like statements, that these
Societies, during the last quarter of a century, have published a vast
quantity of literature. We must examine the style of that literature
during some recent years, and the arguments which it puts forward.
But, before we do this, let us consider what attitude is taken by
these Societies, or by well-known members of this or that Society,
toward certain problems and interests that closely concern them.
I
They do not hesitate to take advantage of all those improvements of
medicine and surgery which have been made by the help of experiments
on animals. They denounce the work of the present; but they enjoy all
the results of the past, and will enjoy all those of the near future.
"If anything of value to medicine has been discovered by vivisection,
it would be as absurd to reject it on that account as it would be to
abandon Ireland because centuries ago we took it by force." And again:
"We are no more morally bound to reject benefits acquired by
indefensible means than are the descendants of slaveholders bound to
abandon wealth originally acquired by the detestable abomination of
slavery." And again, the _Animal's Friend_ (November 1903) takes as
further instances the benefits derived from body-snatching, political
assassination, and the French Revolution. But, in the matter of
experiments on animals, it is the very same men and women who denounce
these experiments and who profit by them. What should we say of an
anti-slavery reformer who was himself drawing a vast income out of the
slave trade?
But there is one gentleman, and, so far as I know, only one, who did
carry his opinions into practice. He told the story at a debating
meeting--how his little girl had a sore throat, and the doctor wanted
to give antitoxin, and he forbade it, and the child recovered. "Of
course," he says, "it was only an ordinary sore throat." Truly, a
great victory, and a brave deed, to make an experiment on your own
sick child.
II
The attitude of these Societies toward sport may seem at first sight
purely negative; but it is worth study. I have the honour of knowing a
very eminent physiologist who will never shoot, because he thinks it
cruel--a man much abused by the National Society. And Lord
Llangattock, the President of that Society, is well known as an a
"ardent sportsman."
This contrast is of some interest. Let us see what the National
Society says about sport. Of course, it is not bound to attack sport.
But the reasons which it gives for remaining neutral are to be noted.
1. It says, very truly, that it is in great part supported by
sportsmen.
2. It says, further, that the cruelties of sport lie outside its own
proper work:--
"Our opponents frequently ask us why we do not attack some form
of cruelty other than vivisection, which they consider more
heinous. Our Honorary Secretary recently summarised this
argument in his own amusing manner thus: We must not arrest the
man in Tooting for kicking his wife till we have stopped the
woman in Balham starving her children, and we must not arrest
the woman in Balham for starving her children until we have
stopped the man in Tooting kicking his wife." (1901.)
Later (1903) the _dramatis personæ_ are a man in East Islington
jumping on his wife, and a woman in West Islington stabbing her
husband. But this argument, of course, will not hold. For it is the
same men who denounce wounds made (under anæsthetics) for physiology,
and who make wounds (without anæsthetics) in sport.
3. It says that the "object" of the sportsman is to kill; but the
"object" of the experimenter is to torture:--
"There is a vast difference between the killing of animals and
the torturing of them before killing them. The object of the
sportsman is to kill his quarry; the object of the vivisector is
to keep his victim alive while he dissects it."--Mr. Wood
(1903).
"The object of the sportsman is to kill, and the object of the
vivisector is to keep his victim alive while he cuts it
up."--Lord Llangattock (1901).
"The vivisector is nothing if not a tormentor; the sportsman is
not a true sportsman if he seeks to inflict pain on his
quarry.... One (the pain of a horse falling on asphalt) is the
result of an accident to be deplored, the other (the pain from
an experiment) is done of devilish malice prepense."--Leader in
the Society's official journal, (1899).
"I am not so mentally and ethically confused as to be unable to
distinguish between the entirely different moral acts of killing
and torturing."--Mr. Coleridge (1901).
Here are four statements. One is by Mr. Wood, the Society's lecturer;
one by Lord Llangattock, its President; one is published in its
official journal; and one is by Mr. Coleridge, its honorary secretary
and treasurer. That is the sort of thing which seems good enough to
the National Society to say to its friends in Parliament; this
childish nonsense about the true sportsman and his quarry.
III
The attitude of these Societies toward the medical profession, and
toward the Hospitals, must be studied. Let us look through some
numbers of the official journal of the National Society, and see the
attitude that it sometimes takes toward the medical profession:--
_June 1899._--"The charm of this sort of thing is that you are
always sure of the _post-mortem_ if of nothing else."
_July 1899._--"There is a disease, well known to the vestrymen
of London, called 'the half-crown diphtheria.' This is common
sore throat, notified as diphtheria because the vestry pays a
fee of half-a-crown to the medical notifier."
_December 1899._--"The patient died, made miserable by the
effect of inoculations which even on bacteriological grounds
gave no promise of success, but the scientific physician,
nowadays, must inject something in the way of a serum."
_March 1901._--"There will always be those who, unable to think
for themselves or exercise their independence on therapeutic
methods, are prone to bow down before authority which is
self-assertive enough to compel the obedience of weak minds.
Such men would inject antitoxin though every case died. They
administer it not knowing why."
_April 1901._--(From "Our Cause in the Press"): "What effort
does the medical profession make to make clear to its clients
what is well known to itself, that disease is the result of
wrong living? Practically none at all. The medical profession as
a whole have winked at sin, and have merely sought to antidote
its results."
_September 1901._--"Some day we shall have our surgeons
disembowelling us just to see what daylight and fresh air will
do for the stomach-ache."
_December 1901._--"The new medicine demands a mere laboratory
habit; the patient is nothing, the disease everything. He is a
test-tube; such and such reagents are needed to produce a
certain result, and there you are. The patient's malady, be it
what it may, is due to a microbe, a toxin, or a ptomaine; he
must be inoculated with the serum or antitoxin which counteracts
his disease, and this must be done not _secundum artem_ but
_secundum scientiam_, and the science means the inoculating
syringe and so many cubic centimetres of filth wherewith to
poison the man's blood and so cure his disease, though the
victims die."
_December 1903._--(From "Our Cause in the Press"): "Not only did
we see great callousness in the field hospitals in South Africa,
but conversation with the class that finds its way into our
hospitals in England will reveal that a great deal of refined
cruelty is constantly occurring."
Why does the official journal of Mr. Coleridge's society publish these
things? For this reason--that it must attack those methods that were
discovered by the help of experiments on animals. The medical
profession uses these methods. Therefore, that profession must be
attacked.
The same reason, of course, helps to explain the National Society's
attack on the great Hospitals of London. It would take too long to
tell here the whole story of that attack. Three charges were made
against the Hospitals: (1) that they maltreat patients; (2) that they
promote the torture of animals; (3) that they endow this torture at
the cost of the patients. They were accused, to put it plainly, of
treachery and fraud; and of course the Council of the King's Hospital
Fund got its share of abuse. Mr. Coleridge said on this subject:--
1. (Annual meeting at St. James's Hall, May 1901): "How have
Lord Lister, the vivisector, and his Committee distributed the
Prince of Wales's Hospital Fund? They have so distributed this
fund as to make it clear to hospital managers that the more they
connect their hospitals with the torture of animals the larger
will be the grant they may expect to get from the Prince of
Wales's Fund. That fund, therefore, has been used as an
insidious but powerful incentive to vivisection."
2. (Annual meeting at St. James's Hall, 1902): "Sheltering
itself now in its most repulsive form behind those ancient and
glorious institutions, founded and sustained for their
Christ-like work of healing the sick, sapping their foundations
and smirching their fair fame, malignant cruelty has taken up
its position in its last ditch. There it has summoned to its aid
vast interests, ancient prejudices, enormous endowments, and
under illustrious patronage it has pilfered the funds subscribed
for the poor."
With these statements before us (and it would be easy to add to them)
we cannot doubt that the plan of campaign against all experiments on
animals is also hostile to the Hospitals, whenever that hostility
seems likely to be of the very least use to the cause.
* * * * *
Surely there are charities more worthy of subscriptions, donations,
and legacies than these Anti-vivisection Societies. They quarrel among
themselves; they spend vast sums of money on offices, salaries,
press-cuttings, reprints, lectures and meetings, tons of pamphlets and
leaflets. Their members denounce all experiments done now, while they
enjoy the profit of all experiments done before now; they say that the
object of the physiologist is to torture his victim out of devilish
malice prepense; they accuse doctors of fraud, and lying, and refined
cruelty, and madness, and winking at sin; they blacklist and boycott
the best Hospitals. And the whole costly business, these thirty years,
has done nothing to stop these experiments; they have increased
rapidly. Surely, if a man wishes to help and comfort animals, he had
better give his money to the Home for Lost Dogs, or the Home of Rest
for Horses.
II. LITERATURE.
We have now to examine the style of the literature of these societies.
But, out of such a vast store of journals, pamphlets, and leaflets, we
can only take one here or there.
From time to time a book or a pamphlet is, for good reasons,
withdrawn. Thus, in 1902, the London Society withdrew _Dark Deeds_.
(_The Shambles of Science_, now impounded, was published by a chairman
of committee of the National Society, but not by that society.) In
1900 the National Society withdrew one or more pamphlets involving
acceptance of Dr. Bowie's mistranslation of Harvey. In 1902 it
withdrew and destroyed a whole store of diverse pamphlets, and
appealed to its supporters to "refrain from circulating any literature
not issued from our office by the present committee"; that is to say,
it warned them to distribute no literature but its own, and not all
even of that. But the withdrawal of a few books and pamphlets makes
very little difference; and most of them are "revised" and brought out
again. Take, for example, the _Nine Circles_. It was planned and
compiled for Miss Cobbe; Mr. Berdoe was "urgently requested by her to
point out to her any scientific errors or possible inadvertent
misrepresentations of fact, and correct or expunge them"; and he
"carefully read through the proof-sheets." The book purported to be an
exact account, from original sources, of certain experiments, some
made abroad, some in this country. It was attacked by Sir Victor
Horsley at the Church Congress at Folkestone, October 1892, and was
withdrawn, revised, and brought out again. Our only concern here is to
see what the official journal of the National Society said of the
revised issue. This official journal, the _Zoophilist and Animal's
Defender_, was started in May 1881, under the shorter title of the
_Zoophilist_. It speaks of itself as a "scientific journal," and as
"the recognised organ of the anti-vivisection movement in England." It
is published monthly, and may be obtained through any bookseller. In
1883 it was edited by Miss Cobbe; in 1884 by Mr. Benjamin Bryan; in
1898 by Mr. Berdoe. In 1903, Mr. Coleridge, apologising for an error
made in it in 1898, says: "At that time I had not the control over its
pages that is at present accorded to me." Thus it is, I believe, still
edited by Mr. Berdoe, and is, or was in 1903, controlled by Mr.
Coleridge. And we are bound to note here that Mr. Berdoe was in great
part responsible for the _Nine Circles_; and in 1897 was responsible
for certain statements as to the use of curare, which the Home
Secretary, in the House of Commons, called "absolutely baseless."
Let us now examine the style of this "official journal." And, to begin
with, what does it say about the _Nine Circles_? To make this point
clear, let us put in parallel columns what was said by Sir Victor
Horsley of the original edition in 1892, and what was said by the
_Zoophilist_ in 1899 of the revised edition:--
_Sir Victor Horsley, Oct. 1892._
I have taken the trouble to collect all the experiments in which
cutting operations are described as having been performed by
English scientists, and in which I knew anæsthetics to have been
employed. These experiments are 26 in number. In all of them
chloroform, ether, or other anæsthetic agent was employed. But
of these 26 cases, Miss Cobbe does not mention this fact at all
in 20, and only states it without qualification in two out of
the remaining six. When we inquire into these 20 omissions in
the 26 cases, we find in the original that again and again Miss
Cobbe has, in making her extracts, had directly under her eyes
the words "chloroform," "ether," "etherised," "chloroformed,"
"anæsthetised," "during every experiment the animal has been
deeply under the influence of an anæsthetic," and so forth.
_The "Zoophilist," July 1899._
A revised edition has been issued, which is a stronger
indictment against the vivisectors than the original work. There
were some half-dozen omissions in the first edition concerning
the administration of anæsthetics in the preliminary operations,
but the cruelty of the experiments was in no case modified by
the fact that a whiff of chloroform was possibly administered,
as stated in the reports, at the beginning of the operation. Our
opponents may boast of their success in detecting the omission
to dot the i's and cross the t's in the first edition of the
_Nine Circles_, but there are some victories which are worse
than a defeat. We have replaced the lantern with which we
examined the dark deeds of the laboratories by the electric
searchlight. The "researcher" will find it hard to discover a
retreat where its rays will not follow and expose him.
For another instance of the inaccuracy of the _Zoophilist_ we have
what it said about Professor Sanarelli's experiments in South America
on five human beings. Nobody defends him here. But the point is that
the _Zoophilist_ in 1899 said that they had all been killed; and in
1902 admitted that they had all recovered. Or, for another instance,
we have what it said in 1902 about the case of His Majesty the King.
(For these statements, see _Zoophilist_, August 1902 and September
1903; also its report, October 1902, of Mr. Wood's speech at Exeter.)
But let us take a wider view. A journal, like a man, is known by the
company that it keeps. Whose company does the _Zoophilist_ keep? Why
does it talk of _Our excellent cotemporary, Humanity_--_Our valiant
cotemporary, Le Médecine_--_Our excellent cotemporary, The Herald of
the Golden Age_? Again, among the journals that it quotes, some of
them very frequently, are the _Topical Times_, _Broad Views_, _Modern
Society_, _Madame_, the _Humanitarian_, the _Pioneer_, the
_Vegetarian_, the _Voice of India_, the _Herald of Health_, the
_Rock_, the _New Age_, the _Journal of Zoophily_, the _Homoeopathic
World_, _Medical Liberty_, and the _Honolulu Humane Educator_. This
may be very good company, but it is not all of it the best company for
a "scientific journal." Still, it may be better company than the
American _Medical Brief_, the _Journal de Médecine de Paris_, and the
Belgian _Le Médecine_. These journals, being veritable "medical
journals," are quoted in the _Zoophilist_ with the most amazing
frequency and at great length; which is a compliment that they do not
receive from other medical journals. They are, indeed, as vehemently
anti-Pasteur and anti-antitoxin as the _Zoophilist_ itself. Take what
the _Medical Brief_ says:--
"Bacteriology originated in Continental Europe, where the minds
of a superstitious race were further unbalanced by constant
delving in pathology, putrefaction, and morbid anatomy. When it
spread to the new world, it also became blinded with the
revolutionary and fanatical tendencies lying near the surface in
such a civilisation."
"They say if you give a calf rope enough, he will hang himself.
Bacteriology is equally clumsy and stupid.... What excuse can be
found for the cowardice and ferocious ignorance which, under
the shadow of the stars and stripes, resurrects the sentiment of
the Middle Ages to protect the fraud, seeks to rob the
individual physician of free judgment, and denounces him for
failing to use the nasty stuff?"
"All Continental Europe is suffering from a sort of leprosy of
decadence, mental and moral. The spiritual darkness of the
people affects all the learned professions, but more especially
medicine."
Such is the _Medical Brief_, which the official journal of Mr.
Coleridge's society quotes incessantly, calling it "an American
monthly of great ability and without a trace of the scientific bigotry
and narrow-mindedness which is so prominent a feature in some of our
own organs of medical opinion." Next we come to the _Journal de
Médecine de Paris_. This is anti-Pasteur; the editor, Dr. Lutaud, came
to London in 1899, and gave a lecture on "the Pasteur superstition" at
St. Martin's Town Hall. From a report of it in the _Star_ we may take
the following sentences:--
"The result of the serum craze had been that the hospital was
neglected for the laboratory. Microbes of all the diseases were
found in perfectly healthy subjects. Microbes existed, but as a
consequence, not a cause. Toxins which the seropaths professed
to find were only the results of normal fermentation. The
English public had always supported him in his fifteen years'
struggle against Pasteurism."
Dr. Lutaud, says the National Society, is "the great authority." The
_New England Anti-vivisection Monthly_ in 1900 calls him one of "the
brightest scientists of modern times." His _Journal de Médecine de
Paris_ recalls the _Medical Brief_:--
"To wish to apply the same methods of treatment, whether
preventive or curative, for two morbid conditions (a _wound_
with the point of entry _abnormal_ and an infectious _malady_)
in essence so different, is to commit a gross error.... The sick
are destroyed by that which cures their wounds."
These two "medical journals," the _Medical Brief_ and the _Journal de
Médecine de Paris_, are upheld by the National Society as though they
were expert witnesses of irresistible authority, and are quoted with a
sort of ceaseless worship in that Society's official journal. Also it
quotes the _Herald of Health_; and _Medical Liberty_, "a monthly
publication issued by the Colorado Medical Liberty League, Denver,
Colo., whose eloquent editor seems to be an uncompromising foe to
medical bigotry and monopoly, and humbugs of every description."
Such are the medical journals which support the _Zoophilist_ as a
scientific journal. Now let us take another point of view. Let us
consider whom the _Zoophilist_ praises, and whom it condemns. That,
surely, is a fair test of an official journal. And we get a clear
result. The late Lord Salisbury and Mr. Arthur Balfour are
"notoriously pro-vivisectionist"; Lord Lister has "apostatised from
the anti-septic faith"; M. Pasteur is a "remorseless torturer"; the
late Mr. Lecky was "degenerate," because he "performed the
_volte-face_ and went over to our opponents"; and the late Professor
Virchow was subjected to "scathing criticism" by one Paffrath, and was
proved to be absurd. But its praises are given to a very different set
of men.
There is no room here to note the lighter moods of the _Zoophilist_;
its jokes about cats and catacombs, and two-legged donkeys and
four-legged donkeys, and how to catch mosquitoes by putting salt on
their tails--and it will even _break its jest on the dead_--but it
rebukes another journal for levity, saying, _We regret to see our_
_painful subject treated in this manner._ No room, either, for its
description of anti-vivisectionist plays, poems, novels, and sermons.
Let us, to finish with, take a few statements from its pages, almost
at random; some of them are reprinted there from other sources. The
supply is endless; let us limit ourselves to six of them:--
1. "As other bacteria (beside those of malaria) were found not
to bear sunlight or air, but to habitats in _loca scuta situ_ (?
to inhabit _loca senta situ_), in filth and noisomeness, their
habits and customs preached again the old doctrine, 'Let in sun
and air and be clean,' as earnestly as those who thought health
was due to sun and air and water and fire, the four old
elements, and act accordingly, without dissecting hecatombs of
animals to prove a thousand times over that if you boiled or
baked or drowned or freezed living creatures they would die, or
that microscopic parasites did pretty much what visible
parasites have been always known to do." (Loud applause)--Report
of a speech by the Bishop of Southwell (1901).
2. "It is just as well that you should have heard what the
clever level-headed lawyer (Mr. Coleridge) thinks about this
abominable conspiracy of cruelty and fraud and impious
inquisitiveness which is called vivisection. (Cheers.) ... We
are sending out on the world in every direction multitudes of
young men who have been trained as surgeons, and they have lived
by cutting (reference here to the medical students in
_Pickwick_), and we are sending these young men out with this
_cacoëthes secandi_, this mania for cutting for the mere sake of
cutting. I should not be surprised if they tackle our noses or
our ears, and set about mutilating us in that way."--Archdeacon
Wilberforce (1901).
3. "The task of the crusader against vivisection is not to
reason with the so-called scientist, not to truckle to pedants
in the schools, or palter with callous doctrinaires, but to
inform and arouse the people; and when John Bull is prodded from
his apathy, and startled from his stertorous snore, he will rise
and bellow out a veto on the elegant butcheries of pedantic
libertines, and rush full tilt with both his horns against their
abattoirs of cruelty and passion, pharisaically vaunted as
research, until the gates of hell shall not prevail against
him."--The Rev. Arthur Mursell (1901).[46]
4. "It has been my experience of anti-vivisection among
Romanists, that nothing suited my purpose better than taking it
for granted that the worshippers of St. Francis, St. Bernard,
&c., must, _of course_, be on our side."--(1902.)
5. "Given money, and influential patronage, the vivisector now
expects a time after his own heart, while professedly engaged in
investigating the supposed causes of cancer, or the
transmissibility of tuberculosis. He can inflict the most
horrible and prolonged tortures on miserable animals, with such
a plausible excuse in reserve, that he is endeavouring all the
while to find cures for the ailments of high personages and
millionaires."--(1902.)
6. "The day of drugging and scientific butchery is drawing to a
close. Already the calm, reassuring voice of the new Life
Science, loud and clear to the few, is faintly audible to the
many. The sharp, crucial knife, with its dangerous quiver so
dear to the heart of the surgeon, the poisonous drug, will be
things of the past. Wisdom, thy paths are harmony and joy and
peace."--(1902.)
[46] Even the _Zoophilist_, which quotes this speech from the
_Clapham Observer_, seems to feel that it might have been put more
simply.
* * * * *
Such is the frequent level of the _Zoophilist_, the official journal
of the National Society, edited by Mr. Berdoe, controlled by Mr.
Coleridge. Let us now take one more of that society's publications, a
pamphlet entitled _Medical Opinions on Vivisection_. Here, if
anywhere, should be the society's stronghold. If it could show a large
and important minority of the medical profession opposed to all
experiments on animals, its power would be greatly increased. On three
occasions, many years ago, the medical profession did express its
opinion. At two of the annual meetings of the British Medical
Association, and at a meeting of the London International Medical
Congress, resolutions were passed affirming the value and the
necessity of these experiments. At one of these meetings there was one
dissentient vote; at one, two;[47] at one, none. These three meetings
were truly representative; they were the great meetings of the clans
of the profession, from all parts of the kingdom, for a week of
practical work tempered by festivities. What more could any profession
do than to go out of its way three times that it might record, in
fullest assembly, its belief? And most certainly it would do the same
thing again, if it thought that any further declaration were needed.
[47] I think it was two; it was either one or two.
There are in this country about 40,000 medical men. The National
Society's pamphlet quotes 39, or one in 1000. It could quote more; but
we must take what it gives us. Of these 39, we may fairly exclude
Professor Koch, Sir Frederick Treves, and the late Sir Andrew Clark,
who would certainly wish to be thus excluded. Sir Frederick Treves,
who is quoted with a sort of explanatory note, has told us in the
_Times_ what he thinks of the way in which his name has been used; Sir
Andrew Clark is quoted, also with an explanatory note, for an _obiter
dictum_; and Professor Koch for no discoverable reason. That leaves
36. Of these 36, at least 11 (probably more) are dead; one died about
1838, another was born in the eighteenth century, another died more
than twenty years ago. Of the remaining 25, one is Dr. Lutaud, one is
Mr. Berdoe, one an American doctor, not famous over here, one a
veterinary surgeon, one (I think) opposed to vaccination, and three
inclined to homoeopathy; one has mistranslated Harvey to the advantage
of the National Society's cause, one has written _Hints to Mothers_,
and one has written _How to Keep Well_. Of these 25 gentlemen, one
belongs to a homoeopathic hospital, two to provincial hospitals, and
one to a hydropathic institute and a children's sanatorium; the rest
of them hold no hospital or school appointment of any sort or kind. I
may be wrong over one or two of these names; but, so far as I can see,
I have given an exact account of the value of these _Medical Opinions
on Vivisection_. And, if we take the dates of these opinions, we find
one in 1830, one in 1858, and seven in 1870-1880. Anyhow, what is the
value of an opinion that all experiments on animals are _arrant and
horrible Sepoyism wearing the mask of Art and Science_?
Let us leave the National Society, and turn to the Canine Defence
League, and examine that part of its literature which is concerned
with experiments on animals. Take the following sentences from
pamphlets 179 and 204:--
"Among the general public the majority are under the impression
that these so-called physiological experiments are conducted
under the influence of anæsthetics, and that the subjects are
rendered insensible to pain; this, however, is _not the case_,
and I am informed that a large proportion--considerably more
than half--of the licenses dispense with anæsthetics entirely.
The phenomena of pain are absolutely essential to any practical
issue."
"All diseases have a mental or spiritual origin. Upon this
subject a large treatise might be written. I have carefully
thought this matter over, and can come to no other conclusion.
Can we imagine any wild bird confined to its nest with
rheumatism, or neuralgia, or consumption, or asthma, or any
other affection whatever? I believe them all to be entirely free
from disease; that is, all which have retained their freedom,
and thus have not come under the baneful influence of man. Take,
again, the fishes, and ask whether any fisherman ever caught a
fish found to be diseased. This subject is an interesting,
though a somewhat melancholy one."
Next, as an example of the literature of the London Society, let us
take a speech made at St. James's Hall, May 26, 1903, by Dr. Hadwen,
of Gloucester, who is also vehemently opposed to vaccination. He
and Lieutenant-General Phelps, at the time of the disastrous
smallpox epidemic in Gloucester in 1896, were leaders of the
anti-vaccinationists. It would be easy to give other instances of the
sympathy between anti-vivisection and anti-vaccination. But our
business is not with Dr. Hadwen at Gloucester, but with him at St.
James's Hall. He says to the London Society:--
"We are told we must pay attention to what the experts tell us.
My opinion is this: If there is one person in the whole of God's
creation that wants looking after, it is the expert.
(Laughter.)"
Of the House of Commons, he says:--
"If there is one thing in the world that will move a member of
Parliament, it is to know that any particular policy will carry
votes along with it. (Hear, hear.) You can bring any member of
Parliament to your knees as long as you show him that he has
his constituency at his back; and with all due respect to our
noble chairman, I am bound to say that my experience of members
of Parliament is this--that their consciences go as far as
votes, and do not extend very much farther." (Laughter and
applause.)
He describes an imaginary experiment under curare, and is interrupted
by a cry of "Demons!" He goes on:--
"Yes, madam, they are demons. (Applause.) I know no other word
to describe experimenters who can submit sentient and sensitive
creatures, almost human in intelligence and faith, to diabolical
experiments, whilst their victims are rendered helpless and
voiceless by a hellish drug. (Applause.) I cannot understand how
in a land like this, that boasts of her Christianity and of her
liberty, men, women, clergy, and politicians can allow this
cowardly science to stand before us, and this demoniacal work to
be carried on. (Loud cheers.)"
* * * * *
We have now seen something of the style of the literature of these
Societies; and, in the next chapter, we will consider its arguments. I
do not deny that its style is sometimes at a higher level than the
examples which I have quoted. But I do say that I could fill a book of
100 pages with quotations from journals or pamphlets of the last few
years, all of them on the lower level. And in this chapter I have
practically quoted nobody but those who are the leaders of the
opposition to all experiments on animals. The official journal of this
Society, the annual report of that Society, the leaflets which are
sent in answer to a formal request for literature--I have quoted
these, as they came to hand, just going through them and marking those
passages which were to my purpose.
III. ARGUMENTS
We have seen that the societies arose out of the Act, and not the Act
out of them; that they are divided or hostile; and that they have next
to nothing to show for all the vast sums which they have received.
Also we have noted the style of literature which they send broadcast
over the country; and the "medical journals" and "medical opinions"
that are in favour of the cause; and the general tone and frequent
level of the official journal of the National Society. Still, a good
cause may be ill served; nobody minds, after all, the style of a
thing, so long as it is true. Let us come to the heart of the matter.
What is the nature of the arguments and evidences of these societies?
They desire to bring about the absolute prohibition, as a criminal
offence, of all experiments on animals. By what facts, what records,
what statistics, do they maintain this attempt to mend or end the
present Act?
Here, at the risk of repetition, let me make quite clear what they are
fighting against. Nine out of ten experiments are bacteriological.
That is to say, 90 or 95 per cent. Of these inoculations, more than a
third are made in the direct service of the national health, and as it
were by the direct orders of Government. A vast number of them are
wholly painless; nothing happens; the result is negative; the thing
does not take. Some are followed by disease, and the animal is
painlessly killed at the first manifestation of the disease, or
recovers, or dies of the disease. The fate of that animal is the fate
of all of us; it has got to die of something, and it dies of it.
Anyhow, the talk about torture-troughs and cutting-up has no place
here; and the word vivisection, by a gross and palpable abuse, is
false nine times out of every ten. Of the remaining 10 per cent. of
all experiments; in those that are made under the License alone, or
under the License _plus_ Certificate C, the question of pain does not
arise. The animal is anæsthetised, and is killed under that
anæsthetic. The remaining 3 per cent. of all experiments are those
that are made under the License _plus_ Certificate B (or B + EE, or B
+ F). The initial operation is done under the anæsthetic; the animal
is allowed to recover; it may be, practically, none the worse for it.
Or it may be the worse for it, and therefore die, or be killed. But
Certificate B is _not_ allowed for any infliction of pain on the
animal through the operation wound, and never will be.
Here are two sets of experiments: those under Certificate A, and those
under Certificate B. One is 90 per cent. of all experiments; the other
is 3 per cent. Nine out of ten experiments are inoculations, and the
operation of the tenth is done under an anæsthetic. That is the first
fact, which we must fix in our minds, before we consider the arguments
of the societies.
Next, the dates and the sources of their evidence. They wish to stop
the experiments that are now made in this country. They are bound,
therefore, to produce "up-to-date" evidence, and from home sources;
not that which is thirty years old, or comes from sources far away.
This present use of animals, here and now, under the restrictions of
the Act, is what they are fighting; they are bound to draw their
instances from here and now.
But this would not suit them at all: they could not bear to be thus
limited to here and now. Their arguments and their instances extend
over thirty or more years, and are drawn from all parts of the world,
from the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, Italy,
from every country. Journals of Physiology, text-books, reports,
medical journals, British and foreign, are ransacked to find evidence
for the cause; there is a regular system, year in year out, a sort of
secret service or detective force, a persistent hunting-up of all
scraps and shreds of evidence. One society advertised, in a daily
paper, that it wanted confidential communications, from medical
students, as to the practices of the laboratory. Another, seeing the
chance of a prosecution, says, "Special inquiries were made on the
subject, and the society's solicitor went to Belfast to conduct these
inquiries on the spot." All this espionage is sure now and again, in
thirty years, to detect something which it can magnify into a scandal.
And when a fault is found, even a little one, oh the joy in the ranks
of the societies. And, at once, the fault, exaggerated, and highly
coloured, is made a _locus classicus_, a commonplace of every
drawing-room meeting. What is the date of it, what was the place of
it? Was it long ago, was it far from here? Still, never let it drop;
what one did then, they are all doing now, all of them of malice
prepense; let us proclaim the blessed news from every platform; and
please remember us in your Wills.
Among the arguments against all experiments on animals, is this very
common argument, that the truth about them is too horrible to be told.
"We dare not produce our brief," says the Rev. Nevison Loraine, at the
annual meeting of the London Society in 1901; "it is only the courage
of a lady that dares to produce tales so harrowing as those that have
been briefly alluded to to-day; and it is part of the weakness of our
cause with the public that we cannot tell the whole story." But, not
long ago, the courage of two ladies, officers of a Swedish
Anti-vivisection Society, honorary members of Mr. Coleridge's society,
did produce a book full of harrowing tales; they told the whole story
to the Lord Chief Justice and a jury. Was not that producing their
brief? _I have here in my pocket something I have not got the nerve to
read to you_, says Archdeacon Wilberforce, at the annual meeting of
the National Society in 1901; and the next minute a lady in the
audience is crying out, _Do not go on, we cannot bear it_; and he
says, _You have got to bear it. Good God, they have got to suffer it._
Is not that producing his brief? Mr. Coleridge, in 1902, sends out
12,000 copies, just to begin with, of an illustrated German catalogue
of laboratory instruments: _The question of thus scattering abroad
this fearful document has been the subject of very grave
consideration.... We have launched upon the world this terrible proof
of what vivisection really is, with a full sense of our
responsibility._ Is not that producing his brief? These things in the
pocket, and fearful documents, and briefs that Mr. Loraine dares not
produce, are apt to say little or nothing about anæsthetics, and to be
silent over the fact that nine out of every ten experiments are
bacteriological, and to over-emphasise experiments made many years ago
or a thousand miles away. You bring the speaker down to now and here,
to the text of the Act, to the reports to Government, to the Home
Secretary's own words in Parliament; and you are told that they are
all in a conspiracy, all liars more or less, and that the truth is in
the societies, especially in one of them. Or you bring him down to the
good that these experiments have done, the lives that they have
saved; and at once he is off like the wind:--
"The society does not concern itself with the results of
vivisection, whether good or bad, and thinks it is beside the
mark to discuss them." (Report of the Canine Defence League,
1903.)
"When the angel of pity is driven from the heart; when the
fountain of tears is dry, the soul becomes a serpent crawling in
the dust of the desert." (Colonel Ingersoll.)
"I make no pretence to criticise vivisectional experiments on
the ground of their technical failure or success. I dogmatically
postulate humaneness as a condition of worthy personal
character." (Mr. Bernard Shaw.)
"The vivisector, when he stands over his animal, whether with
anæsthetics or without anæsthetics, is creating, even if the
physical health of the nation is enhanced by it, a moral shroud
not only for himself, but a moral shroud the edges of which are
continually extending into the thought atmosphere, and so
deadening the national conscience at large." (Mr. Herbert
Burrows.)
"The developed taste for blood and cruelty must in the end find
its full satisfaction in the vivisection of human beings when
they have the misfortune to come under the power of our future
doctors." (Bishop Bagshawe.)
Here, in these five sentences taken merely out of the heap, is the
ethical argument; so facile, so pleasant to self, so confident of a
good hearing. No wonder that the societies, now that the facts of
science are too strong for them, are falling back on the facts of
ethics. In the beginning, thirty years ago, they were created out of
ethics; they were born auspiciously. What a welcome they had! Tennyson
and Browning and Ruskin, Westcott and Martineau, the late Lord
Shaftesbury, and her Majesty the late Queen--these all, and many
more, among whom were some of the best men and women of the Victorian
Age, were their friends. There never was a cause that enjoyed a better
send-off. Everything was in its favour. Magendie and Schiff and
Mantegazza had made people sick of experiments on animals. The
advocates of the method had not very much to show on its behalf; no
bacteriology, save as a far-off vision; no great discoveries lately in
physiology or pathology. Thirty years ago, good and true men fought a
way for the Act; and there are few now who think the worse of them for
it, or grudge them that victory. But, though ethics may be the same
always, yet the arguments from them are not. The ethical argument
now--we try to find it, and it takes all shapes, and vanishes in a
cloud of foul language. That text about the sparrows, which is never
quoted in full; that fear about the vivisection of hospital patients;
and all that nonsense about moral shrouds, and serpents in the desert,
and developed tastes for blood; and Mr. Bernard Shaw, who on May 22nd,
1900, suggests to the National Society that "_the laceration of living
flesh quickens the blood of the vivisector as the blood of the hunter,
the debauchee, or the beast of prey is undoubtedly quickened in such
ways_,"[48] and a week later, before the London Society, dogmatically
postulates humaneness as a condition of worthy personal character; and
the lady who says, _Oh, Pharisees and hypocrites! Oh, cruel and
ruthless egotists!_ and the Falstaff's army of the osteopath, and the
fruitarian, and the _anti_ this, that, and the other, who follow the
cause; and all these discordant societies, and the begging for
money--where, in all this confusion, can we find the ethical argument?
Mercy is admirable, but I will wait till mercy and truth are met
together. Let us leave the societies to their ethics, and see what
they have to say for themselves in the lower realms of science.
[48] Mr. R. B. Cunninghame-Graham's variant on this theme, in the
_Daily News_, Aug. 27, 1903, is really too filthy to be put here.
Like Mr. Loraine, I dare not produce my brief.
I
First, there are the general arguments. That experiments on animals
are useless, or of very little use; that they contradict each other;
that you cannot argue from animals to men, or from an animal under
experiment to a man not under experiment; that the discoveries made by
the help of experiments on animals might have been made as well, or
better, without that help; that the way to advance medicine and
surgery has been, and is, and always will be, not by experiments on
animals, but by clinical and _post-mortem_ studies. These and the like
arguments we may call general; they are the complement of the horrible
stories and magic-lantern slides of the itinerant lecturer.
1. The vague statement that these experiments are of little use, may
be answered in several ways. It does not come well from those who say
that the question is ethical, not utilitarian; who neither know, nor
care, nor are agreed, what is the real value of these experiments. "I
challenge you," says one, "to show me what good they have done."
Another says, "I admit that they may perhaps have done a little good;
but so little; they are a bad investment; you would get a better
return from other methods of work." Another says, "I don't care
whether they have or have not done good; this is a matter of
conscience; we must not do evil that good may come; I grant all, or
nearly all, your instances--malaria, and diphtheria, and cerebral
localisation, and so forth; but the question is a moral question, and
we must not inflict pain on animals, save for their own good."
Probably the best answer is, that good has indeed come, and is coming,
and so far as we can see will come, out of these experiments; that the
instances given are indeed true; that these results were won out of
many failures, and contradictions, and fallacies, and harkings-back;
and that they have stood the test of time, and will underlie all
better results, all surer methods, that shall take their place.
2. The statement that "you cannot argue from animals to man" is not
true. Why should it be? Take tubercle, tetanus, or rabies. The
tubercle-bacillus is the same thing in a man, a test-tube, or a
guinea-pig; the virus of rabies is transmitted from dogs to men;
oysters harbour typhoid, fleas carry the plague, diverse mosquitoes
carry malaria, yellow fever, filariasis, and dengue. Take the
circulation of the blood, the nature and action of the motor centres
of the brain, the vaso-motor nerves, the excretory organs, the
contractility of muscle, the blood-changes in respiration--where are
the differences to support this statement that you cannot argue from
animals to men?
3. The twin statements, that all the results got by the help of
experiments might have been got some other way, and that clinical
study and _post-mortem_ study are infinitely more fruitful than
experimental study, may be taken together. We are told that anybody
could have discovered the circulation by injecting the vessels of a
dead body. Well, Malpighi tried to discover the capillaries by this
method, and failed. We are asked to admit that phrenology, long
before physiology, discovered the truth about the surface of the
brain; _I have been told_, says Mr. Coleridge at an annual meeting of
his society, _that the physiologists can now triumphantly map out the
human brain. I think the phrenologists have always been able to do
that, and whether they or the vivisectors do it best does not much
matter._ We are told that the use of thyroid extract could have been
discovered right away by mere chemistry and thinking. We hear of a
proposal for a bacteriological laboratory on anti-vivisectionist
principles, where no inoculations shall be made. This argument, that
the whole thing might have been done some other way, must repair its
wit, and find better instances. Then comes the incessant appeal:
"Stick to clinical work; study diseases at the bedside, in the
_post-mortem_ room, in the museum, anywhere but in the laboratory. The
Hospital taught you to neglect these methods; it made experiments on
its patients, it cheated the public, it sheltered malignant cruelty in
its most repulsive form under illustrious patronage. Set aside
pathology; just sit by your patients long enough; that is the way of
discovery."
Or the appeal takes another tone: "Stick to sanitation. If only
everybody were healthy, everybody would be well. Diseases are due to
dirt, to vice, to overcrowding, to want of common-sense. Abolish all
slums, disinfect all mankind, body and soul, make every house clean
and wholesome, no bad drainage, or ventilation, or water, or food.
Leave your torture-chambers, and open your eyes to the blessed truth
that, if everybody were healthy, and everybody were good, everybody
would be well." What is the use of talking in this way? Suppose that
all the physiologists suddenly rushed into practice, and all the
bacteriologists were turned into medical officers of health. What
would be gained? What difference would it make? The physiologists, of
course, would merely vivisect their hospital patients; and the
bacteriologists would hardly feel the change, for many of them are
medical officers of health already, public servants, appointed by the
State.
This argument, that practice is fruitful of discoveries, and science
is barren of them, reaches its highest absurdity in the National
Society's official journal; which praises extravagantly those methods
of practice which were not discovered by the help of experiments on
animals; praises them without experience, criticism, or understanding.
It finds a statement, in the _Medical Annual_, that a year has passed
without any great improvement in practice; and at once it lays the
blame not on practice but on science. It fights hard against a fact
which began in science, though it has been proved a thousand times
over in practice. It accuses the bacteriologists now of caring nothing
for human suffering, now of rushing after every new method of
treatment and flooding the market with drugs. _There is money in the
business_--that is the phrase of the _Zoophilist_. But there is money,
also, in the anti-vivisection business. _If you can provide for the
society's future in your will, may we beg of you to do so? If you
agree, pray do it now_, says the London Society: _this is the most
alive humane organisation in the world_. But the National Society
says, _A grave injury is done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable
waste of money spent in perfectly unnecessary offices and salaries. We
say that one office would amply suffice for all the work, and that one
office would not need half-a-dozen paid secretaries._
II
Let us leave the general arguments and come to the special arguments.
Some of them are concerned with the experiments themselves, some with
the men who made them, some with the administration of the Act. These
special arguments must be arranged in some sort of order; but they
cross and recross, and are of diverse natures, and any attempt at
strict arrangement would fail. That the arrangement may be useful for
immediate reference, and may help anybody to answer statements made at
debates and lectures, a separate heading has been given to each
argument. Those arguments are put first which are concerned with the
experiments themselves, or with the men who made them; afterward come
those which are concerned with the administration of the Act.
HARVEY
"It is perfectly true," says Mr. Berdoe, "that Harvey again and again,
in the plainest terms, declares that his experiments on living animals
aided him in his discoveries." I agree here with Mr. Berdoe. Then
comes this sentence: _But that is not so important as it appears to
be_. Why not? What is gained by this attempt to explain Harvey away?
Dr. Bowie mistranslates him; Dr. Abiathar Wall half-quotes him; Mr.
Adams says that Harvey did not ascribe his discoveries to experiments
on animals; Mr. Berdoe says that he did; and Mr. Berdoe's society
withdraws every pamphlet that involves acceptance of Dr. Bowie's
mistranslation. Why should we take, on Harvey's work, any opinion but
that of Harvey?
SIR CHARLES BELL
For the argument from Sir Charles Bell's words, and for the truth
about his work, see Part I., Chap. VII.
CEREBRAL LOCALISATION
Mr. Berdoe says that it is "pure nonsense" to argue from the motor
areas of a monkey's brain to those of a man's brain. Why is it
nonsense? What is the difference between the movement of a group of
muscles in a monkey's arm and the same movement of the same group of
muscles in a man's arm? With a very weak current, so weak that it is
not diffused beyond the area where it is applied, the surface of a
monkey's brain is stimulated at one spot; and forthwith its opposite
arm is flexed, or its opposite leg is drawn up, or whatever the
movement may be, according to the spot. A man has some disease, acute
or chronic, of his brain; and, as the disease advances, twitchings
occur in one arm or one leg, little irrational useless movements, or
rigidity, or loss of power, according to the case. Is it pure nonsense
to believe that the disease has reached a certain spot on the surface
of his brain? There is no question here of the mental differences
between men and monkeys; no question of consciousness or of will. But
Dr. Holländer, who thinks very highly of Gall's system of phrenology,
says, _Is the laboratory-man, the experimental physiologist, to teach
us the mental functions of the brain from his experiments on frogs,
pigeons, rabbits, dogs, cats, and monkeys?_ That is the argument; that
we must not compare the monkey's motor areas with the man's motor
areas, for we cannot find the mind of a man in the brain of a frog.
But, putting aside phrenology, which is a broken reed for
anti-vivisection to lean on, what other arguments are urged against
the facts of cerebral localisation? First, that the speech-centres
were discovered without the help of experiments on animals. That is
true; and there, practically, the work of discovery stopped, till
experiments on animals were made. Next, that the physiologists have
not always been agreed as to the facts of cerebral localisation; that
Charcot doubted them, that Goltz criticised Munk, and so on. What is
the date of these doubts and criticisms? They are twenty years old.
Next, that the surgery of the brain often fails to save life. That is
true; and the anti-vivisection societies make frequent use of this
fact. But they are unable to suggest any better method. Mr. Berdoe
tells us that he cannot remember hearing, in his student days,
anything about brain-experiments on animals:--
"Our work was to observe as closely as possible the symptoms and
physical signs exhibited by patients in the hospital wards who
suffered from any form of nerve or brain disease, and having
carefully noted them in our case-books, to avail ourselves, when
the patient died, of any opportunity that was offered us in the
_post-mortem_ of correcting our diagnosis."
That is an exact picture of the state of things thirty years ago; the
student taking notes, waiting for the _post-mortem_ examination, then
correcting his notes there, etc. Every case of brain-tumour in those
days died, but many are saved now; and every case of brain-abscess in
those days died (one or two were saved by a sort of miracle of
surgical audacity); but many are saved now.
ANTITOXINS AND CARBOLIC ACID
It is said by opponents of experiments on animals, that the active
principle, in antitoxin, is not the antitoxin, but the carbolic acid
which is added to it. They take this statement from the _Medical
Brief_; and we have learned something of the style of that journal.
Here is a sentence from the official journal of the National
Society:--
"The _Medical Brief_ calls antitoxin 'the fraud of the age,' and
says: _Would that physicians could all realise the hideous
horror of using this nasty stuff as a remedial agent_. It would
be nothing less than ghoulishness to inject the matter from an
abscess into a child's arm, yet antitoxin is not much better; it
is the decomposing fluid from a diseased horse, partially
neutralised by carbolic acid."
For a commentary on this sentence, take the following letter from an
eminent bacteriologist:--
"As regards diphtheria antitoxin, the addition of an antiseptic
is by no means necessary or universal. For fully two years I
added none to the serum which I prepared, but contented myself
with filtration through a Kieselguhr filter, and bottling under
aseptic conditions. At one time Roux used to put a small piece
of camphor in each bottle as some sort of safeguard against
putrefaction. Nowadays I believe that most makers preserve their
sera by adding a trace of trikresol--I am not quite sure of the
amount, but it is either .04 per cent. or .004 per cent.!"
But it is probable that the _Zoophilist_ will still accept the
authority of the _Medical Brief_. Baccelli got good results, in
tetanus, from the administration of carbolic acid; therefore, in
diphtheria, the good results from diphtheria-antitoxin are due to the
carbolic acid in it. That is the argument. But there is no carbolic
acid in it? Oh, then the patient got well of himself, the treatment
didn't kill him, it was not diphtheria after all, the disease has
altered its type lately, he was well nursed, the back of his throat
was painted with something, the doctor got half-a-crown by calling it
diphtheria, the bacillus diphtheriæ may be found in healthy mouths,
and all bacteriology is _base and blatant materialism_.
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE DEATH-RATE
There is another argument against diphtheria-antitoxin; we may call
it, for brevity, the death-rate argument. It is this. _The doctors say
that the antitoxin does save lives; they give us statistics from every
part of the world. But, if it saves lives, then the total mortality
ought to go down. But the Registrar-General's returns do not go down;
indeed, they tend to go up. Therefore diphtheria-antitoxin is useless,
or worse than useless._ By this kind of logic, umbrellas are useless.
If they were useful, then the more umbrellas there were, the less rain
there would be. But the increase in umbrellas coincides with a
positive increase of rain. Therefore umbrellas are useless, or worse
than useless.
Despite the absurdity of this argument, Mr. Coleridge and Mr.
Somerville Wood, the National Society's lecturer, have worked hard
with it; Mr. Coleridge in the press, Mr. Wood on the platform. Surely
this confusion between the total mortality and the case-mortality of
an epidemic disease is a very serious offence. That there may be no
doubt of the confusion, let us consider a set of quotations, out of a
correspondence published in September-October 1902, between G. P.,
whose initials we may take to mean general practitioner, and Mr.
Somerville Wood. This correspondence is a good instance of the
argument in its usual form:--
G. P.: "The antitoxin treatment of diphtheria has lessened the
mortality from that disease by nearly 50 per cent. In the
hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board the average
case-mortality for the last five years of the pre-antitoxin
period, _i.e._ previous to 1895, was 30.6; that for 1895 and the
successive four years was 18.1, the successive figures being
22.8, 21.2, 17.7, 15.4, and 13.6, the mortality steadily falling
with increased familiarity with the use of the remedy. This has
not been the result of a diminished virulence of the disease, as
similar experience has been gained all over the world. The
figures for Chicago are even more striking, as the averages are
35.0 and 6.79 for the pre-and the post-antitoxin periods
respectively."
Mr. WOOD: "Nowadays, almost every sore throat is called
diphtheritic, antitoxin is given, and wonderful statistics are
formulated to bolster up the latest medical craze. The real test
is whether the introduction of antitoxin has lowered the
death-rate generally from diphtheria. Here are the
Registrar-General's figures: In 1887, the death-rate from
diphtheria per million persons in this country was 140. In 1897,
after the treatment had been used several years, the death-rate
from this disease increased to 246 per million."
G. P.: "Mr. Wood's statistics do not vitiate my argument in the
very slightest. His selected figures, using the lowest rate
since 1881, merely show that diphtheria as a whole was more
prevalent in 1897 than in 1887. He cannot and does not attack
the statement that the case-mortality has been lessened where
antitoxin has been used, and his test is no test at all."
Mr. WOOD: "Let me give the annual death-rate from diphtheria to
a million living persons from 1881 to 1900, taken from the
Registrar-General's returns." (Gives them.)
G. P.: "One last word in answer to Mr. Wood. I repeat that his
figures show nothing more than the accepted fact that diphtheria
as a whole has been increasing for the last 30 years. This has
no bearing at all on the also accepted fact that where antitoxin
is used the mortality is lessened, and Mr. Wood has not, in
fact, denied this. His confusion of total mortality and
case-mortality only shows that he does not understand the
elementary principles of statistics."
A few weeks later, at the _Bournbrook and Selly Oak Social Club_, Mr.
Wood gives his "thrilling lecture, with lantern views," _Behind the
Closed Doors of the Laboratory_: one of his stock lectures. In it, he
says:--
"The proof of the pudding was in the eating. In 1881 the
death-rate from diphtheria was 127 per million; in 1900 it was
290 per million. He had but to state that the antitoxin
treatment was introduced about 1894."
Four days later, at an _overflowingly-attended Citizen Social_ at
Birkenhead:--
"The proof of the pudding lay in the eating. In 1881 in each
million of the population 121 persons died from diphtheria,
while in 1900 the mortality from the same disease was 290
persons in each million of the population, and the antitoxin
treatment was introduced in 1894."
A few weeks later, at Ipswich, the same thing. This time, he is
challenged by letters in the _East Anglian Daily Times_, and again
quotes the Registrar-General.
A few weeks later, at the _Hyde Labour Church_: the _Closed Doors of
the Laboratory_ again:--
"He found from the Registrar-General's returns that the
death-rate had gone up in cases in which they were told that
wonderful things had been done by experiments on living
animals. If a lower death-rate could be shown, then the
vivisectionists might have something to go upon; but they could
not show a lower death-rate."
That was in January 1903. In December 1903, Mr. Wood is still using
the same argument; this time it is a lecture at Ashton on _Vivisection
and the Hospitals_:
"Again and again had they defied the so-called scientific world
to put their finger on the Registrar-General's returns, and show
them a single instance where the death-rate had been lowered by
vivisection, and they had not been able to do it. On the
contrary, he found that the death-rate had gone up in the last
20 years, despite the thousands of animals that had been
experimented upon. The death-rate in diphtheria was 100 per
million more than it was in 1878."
Mr. Wood in the provinces, and Mr. Coleridge in the papers, have used
this argument hard. Let us look at it well. It has been refuted again
and again. Take a thousand cases of diphtheria from any civilised part
of the world, in the days before antitoxin; how many of them died?
Take a thousand cases now, treated with antitoxin; how many of them
die? Why do Mr. Wood and Mr. Coleridge run away from that easy
question? There is nothing unfair in it; they have all the reports
before them; they know the facts well. We do not find any evidence
that they are willing to acknowledge the truth of those facts. Follow
Mr. Somerville Wood, from place to place, with his magic-lantern and
his stock of lectures. The lantern-pictures are many of them taken
from foreign sources, and some of them are of great age; but they
include a portrait of Mr. Coleridge, and some comic slides to be shown
at the end of the lecture, rabbits vivisecting a professor, and so
forth. Certainly, he works hard; 95 lectures in one year; _we cannot
better employ the funds at our disposal than in sending well-informed
lecturers to every city in the kingdom to rouse the just indignation
of the people_. The year after that, 74 lectures; _on two occasions he
has spoken when unsupported to over 1000 people, and an audience of
several hundreds is quite the rule_. Here he is at Windsor, with
Bishop Barry in the chair, and he says to them:--
"Unhappily, Pasteur left his microscope and chemicals and took
up the vivisectionist's knife. In that he got utterly astray and
became nothing more than a mere quack."
Here, with a different audience, at the Mechanics' Lecture Hall,
Nottingham, giving his lantern-lecture on _Pasteurism_ to a _most
respectable audience of working men, their wives, sons, and daughters,
and in many cases children_.
"The thesis he set out to elaborate and maintain was that
Pasteurism produces hydrophobia rather than cures it; that
vivisection under any circumstances is both cruel and immoral;
and that with special reference to bacterial toxicology and the
treatment by inoculation, the preparation of toxins by the
Pasteur methods was the most horrible form of repulsive quackery
and hideous cruelty."