Here he is at Birmingham, asking for mon_Experiments on Animals

all experiments on animals are stopped, _the poor will be the ultimate

victims_. Here, at Gloucester, saying that _it is silly to experiment

at all_, and that he is not going to take his views as to right and

wrong from any man of science, however learned he may be. Here, at

Edinburgh, with the _Closed Doors_ again, and the picture of the

rabbit "roasted alive": three grains of opium, he tells them, would be

enough to kill the strongest navvy in Edinburgh, but 16 grains can be

administered to a pigeon; and the death-rate has gone up every year

in spite of vivisection. Here, at a drawing-room meeting, asking for

money; here, at a garden party, with a _considerable number of persons

ranging themselves on the grass_, and he tells them that they have on

their side all that is best in every department of public life; here,

at Blackburn, with the _Closed Doors_ again, calling the law _a sham

and a farce_; here, at Cheltenham, with Bishop Mitchinson in the

chair, still quoting the Registrar-General, and saying that _he does

not think the outlook was ever more promising than it is to-day_. All

over the kingdom, he and his magic-lantern, year after year, goes Mr.

Wood. He is a fluent speaker; he has things in his pocket; they are

brought out, if you contradict him; or he "challenges" you, or

explains you away, or says that you "are not quite playing the game."

Let him alone; to-morrow he will pack up his lantern, and be gone.

Mr. Coleridge, in his use of the death-rate argument, carries it even

further than Mr. Wood; for he applies it over a wider range. "Look at

myxoedema," he says; "the doctors tell us that they can cure it with

thyroid extract, and that the use of thyroid extract was discovered by

the help of experiments on animals. Very good. Myxoedema is due to

some fault in the thyroid gland. Very good. But here are the

Registrar-General's returns of the annual death-rate for all diseases

of that gland. See, the death-rate has gone up, steadily, during the

last 20 years." Was there ever such an argument? It is only of late

years that myxoedema has been generally recognised. Till it was

recognised, it was not diagnosed; till it was diagnosed, it was not

returned as a cause of death. Again, there are many other diseases of

the thyroid gland, including various forms of malignant disease. It is

cancer of the thyroid gland that decides the death-rate. The number

of deaths from myxoedema, especially since the discovery of thyroid

extract, must be small indeed. Moreover, apart from Mr. Coleridge's

fallacy of argument, it is impossible to see how he can really doubt

the efficacy of the thyroid treatment, both in myxoedema and in

sporadic cretinism.

Again, "Look at the diseases of the circulation," he says. "The

doctors say that digitalis and nitrite of amyl act on the heart; and

that the action of these drugs was discovered by the help of

experiments on animals. Very good. The heart is concerned with the

circulation. Very good. But here are the Registrar-General's returns

of the annual death-rate for all diseases of the circulation. See how

it has gone up, from 1371 per million persons in 1881 to 1709 in 1900.

Therefore, either these two drugs are never used, or they are useless,

or the Registrar-General's returns are false." It is impossible to

understand how Mr. Coleridge could bring himself to write thus.

Digitalis has a certain effect on the heart-beat; nitrite of amyl

diminishes arterial tension. The Registrar-General's returns for all

diseases of the circulation include every sort and kind of organic

disease of the valves of the heart; include also pericarditis,

aneurism, senile gangrene, embolism, phlebitis, varicose veins, and

35,499 deaths from "other and undefined diseases of heart or

circulatory system."

RABIES

For rabies, Mr. Berdoe praises the "Buisson Bath Treatment for the

Prevention and Cure of Hydrophobia." The virtues of this treatment are

proclaimed by the Chairman of the Canine Defence League, F. E.

Pirkis, Esq., R.N., of Nutfield, Surrey, and it is founded, we are

told, _on the simple common-sense principle that if poison is injected

into a person's veins the best thing to do is to get it out as quickly

as possible_. This sentence, and the reference to Mr. Pirkis for

further particulars, and the fact that there is, or was, a Buisson

Bath at the "National Anti-vivisection Hospital," bring us to the

question, What is the value of the evidence in favour of this

treatment?

Mr. Berdoe, in his Catechism of Vivisection (1903), gives this

evidence at considerable length. _The treatment_, he says, _is

simplicity itself. It is merely the use of the vapour bath, which

causes a free action of the skin to be set up, this draws the blood to

the surface of the body, and so relieves the congestion of the

internal organs._ Let us consider this sentence. (1.) Suppose that

X---- were bitten by a mad dog, say on March 1st, and on March 8th he

took a course of Buisson Baths, for safety's sake. There would be no

congestion, at that period, of his internal organs; what would be the

good of drawing the blood to the surface of his body? Mr. Pirkis says

that there would be poison in his veins; it would be a very subtle

poison. How can Mr. Pirkis tell that it is all in his veins and none

of it elsewhere? Again, X---- would be feeling perfectly well. How

would a vapour-bath get this poison out of his veins? It could not do

it by relieving the congestion of his internal organs, for they would

not be congested. How would it do it? And how would Mr. Pirkis know

when it had done it? (2.) Suppose that X---- were bitten by a mad dog,

and, in due time, were seized by hydrophobia. Has Mr. Pirkis ever seen

a case of that disease--ever seen a case of hydrophobia? Are they

going to tie X---- down, or steam him under chloroform, or what? And

how many baths would he want? But there are cases; there is evidence;

a "mass of cures in Asia." Let us look at them; and let us divide them

into cases of prevention and cases of cure. Let us take, first, the

cases of cure.

There are five of these. Five, and no more. One is Dr. Buisson; cured

by one bath, while he was trying to commit suicide; nothing said about

the dog. One is a case at Kischineff, near Odessa, 18 years ago; no

evidence is given that the dog was rabid. One is a case at Arlington,

New Jersey, 18 years ago; no evidence is given that the dog was rabid.

One is the case of Pauline Kiehl; no date; no reference to say where

the case is published; no account of her symptoms. And one is a case

at the Jaffna Hospital, Ceylon; no date; and nothing said about the

dog. Of these five cases, three were a boy, a lad, and a little girl;

but their ages are not given. Five cases in 20 years; they hail from

all parts of the world, France, Russia, the United States, Ceylon, and

France again; three of them happened 18 years ago, or more. And, we

may be certain, not one of them is genuine. Spurious hydrophobia, the

simulation of the disease out of sheer terror of it, as in Dr.

Buisson's case, is well known.

Now we come to the cases of prevention. Over 80 of them, we are told;

but seven are especially noted. Four in 1895, under the care of Dr.

Ganguli of Dinajpur; two in 1896, under the care of Dr. Dass of

Narainganj; and one in 1896, Mr. Kotwal of Bassein. Of this "mass of

cures in Asia," we all know what would have been said if Pasteur had

been in charge of them; that the dogs were not rabid, that the bites

were not infected, that the wonder is that the poor deluded victims

were not added to Pasteur's hecatomb.

Next, what does Mr. Berdoe say of the division of all patients at the

Pasteur Institute into classes A, B, and C? Does he admit that a dog

is proved to have been rabid, if a minute portion of its nervous

tissue, taken from it after death, and put into a rabbit, causes the

rabbit to have paralytic rabies? No; there are still two things left

for him to say:--

1. He says, on the authority of the _Veterinary Record_ of ten years

ago, that _the death of a rabbit with cerebral symptoms is not a

positive indication of death from rabies_.

2. He says that Vulpian discovered that healthy human saliva was

poisonous to rabbits, and that it contained a micro-organism which

Pasteur had also found in the saliva of a rabid patient. What does

this statement prove or disprove? It is twenty-five years old; but Mr.

Somerville Wood, not long ago, used it at a debating society with

great fervour.

Also Mr. Berdoe quotes the late M. Peter, Dr. Lutaud's forerunner;

quotes an _obiter dictum_ of Professor Billroth, but without any date;

tells us that Pasteur himself, in a letter, referring to one

particular case, declared cauterisation to be a sufficient preventive,

but does not tell us the date of the letter, or the facts of the case;

and quotes a death-rate, but stops at 1890. Of course, any method of

treatment, if you ransack its records over a sufficient number of

years, will show, now and again, failures or disasters. Take, for

instance, those methods of light-treatment, which Mr. Berdoe praises

so highly. They have had many failures, and one or two disasters. If

they had been discovered by the help of experiments on animals, we

might have had a pamphlet from the National Society, _The Roentgen

"Cure": its list of Victims_.

CERTIFICATE A AND CERTIFICATE B

Frequent use has been made of some words spoken by the Home Secretary

in Parliament, on July 24th, 1899. He was asked whether he would state

what rules were laid down with regard to the granting or signing of

certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics in experiments on

animals; and whether there was any limit to the number of such

certificates which one person might sign, or to the number of

experiments upon different animals which might be performed by the

person holding one such certificate. There can be no doubt as to the

meaning of these questions. Certificate A, which is granted only for

inoculation experiments or similar proceedings, and never for any

serious cutting operation, dispenses wholly with anæsthetics.

Certificate B, which is granted for any kind of operation _plus_

observation of the animal after operation, dispenses partly with

anæsthetics; that is to say, the operation is done under an

anæsthetic, and the subsequent observation of the animal, which is

counted as part of the experiment, is made without an anæsthetic. The

questions come to this: When the Home Office grants Certificate A, or

Certificate B, what precautions does it take against any abuse of

these certificates, and what restrictions does it impose on them?

The Home Secretary answered:

"It is the practice of the Home Office, in addition to the fact

that all certificates expire on December 31st of the year in

which they are granted, to limit the number, and this is always

done in the case of serious experiments in which the use of

anæsthetics is wholly or partly dispensed with."

The _Times_ says that the Home Secretary said "serious experiments."

Mr. Coleridge says that _Hansard_ says that the Home Secretary said

"serious operations." We need not doubt that Mr. Coleridge is right;

but we may doubt whether Hansard underlines the word _wholly_, as Mr.

Coleridge does. Anyhow, it does not matter now whether the Home

Secretary, seven years ago, said _experiments_ or _operations_. His

meaning is clear enough; that, in all serious procedures, whether they

be under Certificate A or under Certificate B, a limit is put to the

number of experiments. Which is the plain truth, as everybody knows

who is concerned in the administration of the Act; and the limit may

be very strict indeed. After this statement by the Home Secretary in

1899, we still find Dr. Abiathar Wall, the Hon. Treasurer of the

London Anti-vivisection Society, saying in 1900 that a _vivisector has

only to say that he has a theory whereby he hopes to discover a cure

for, say, neuralgia of the little finger, and the Home Secretary

promptly arms him with a license to torture as diabolically as he

pleases and as many animals as he deems fit_. And the National Society

has made constant use of this phrase about "serious experiments";

declaring that the Home Secretary himself has said that animals are

tortured under the Act. Here are three statements to that effect, made

by the National Society's Parliamentary Secretary, by its Lecturer,

and by its Hon. Secretary:--

1. (Annual Meeting, Queen's Hall, May 1900.)--"If you are still

unconvinced--if any one is not thoroughly satisfied that there

is ample cause for the anti-vivisectionist movement to-day--it

is only necessary for me to refer you to the words of the Home

Secretary, as spoken in Parliament, in the year 1898.[49] He

said: 'There are serious operations which are performed, during

which the use of anæsthetics is wholly or partially dispensed

with.' Could there be any more sweeping indictment than that? Is

there any need for me to attempt to convince you that the lower

animals are vivisected painfully, after the words officially

spoken by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons?"

2. "If you want any further proof I will quote from Hansard,

July 24th, 1899, when the then Home Secretary stated in the

House of Commons that serious experiments take place under the

law of England, in which the use of anæsthetics is wholly or

partially dispensed with. Now, I affirm that serious experiments

in which anæsthetics are wholly or partially dispensed with mean

torture pure and simple."

3. (Annual Meeting, St. James's Hall, May 1901.)--"If this were

not enough, the late Home Secretary has told us the facts. I

have Hansard here. On July 24th, 1899, the late Home Secretary

in his place in Parliament, and in his official capacity as Home

Secretary, told us that 'serious experiments, in which the use

of anæsthetics have been wholly or partially dispensed with,' do

take place in English laboratories. We know, therefore, that

torture does take place."

[49] This should be 1899.

Each of the three speakers uses this phrase as a final and

irresistible argument. _If you are still unconvinced. If you want any

further proof. If this were not enough_--they all of them play the

Home Secretary, as a sure card: at Queen's Hall, at St. James's Hall,

they produce him as though it were indeed unanswerable. Since they are

willing to go back to July, let us take them back to May. This phrase

about "serious experiments" was spoken on July 24th, 1899. On May 9th

of that year, a question was put and answered in the House. It was put

by the same gentleman who put the question in July; it was answered by

the same Home Secretary; and it was practically the same question.

The Home Secretary, in his answer to it, said:--

"The sole use of this Certificate (B) is to authorise the

keeping alive of the animal, after the influence of the

anæsthetic has passed off, for the purpose of observation and

study. I should certainly not allow any certificate involving

dissections or painful operations without the fresh use of

anæsthetics."

Here, in May 1899, we have this emphatic statement, that Certificate B

is _not_ allowed for "serious operations without anæsthetics." Why did

the National Society stop at July? If it had only gone a few weeks

further back, a surprise was in store for it. But at July it stuck;

thus it was still able to say all sorts of things about "legalised

torture." So late as May 6th, 1902, at the great annual meeting at St.

James's Hall, the Rev. Reginald Talbot said:--

"Certificate B makes it necessary that the operator should

produce complete anæsthesia during the initial operation, but

(please mark this) after the initial operation is over, after

the animal has returned to the state of semi or complete

consciousness, there is then allowed by this certificate a

period of observation upon a semi-sensible or completely

sensible animal. The animal is opened, is disembowelled, and in

that condition his vital organs can be probed and stimulated.

Now that is something more than pain; it deserves something more

than the name of even severe and prolonged pain. Surely this

comes within the tract and region of what we may call agony."

As for Certificate A, the inoculations-certificate, which is used for

inoculations only, and therefore is granted for nine experiments out

of every ten, he said:--

"There is a Certificate A, which, if it were granted, and when

it is granted--and pray you mark my words, for I know what I am

speaking about, and I want you to know too--would allow major

operations to be performed upon animals, cats, dogs, or any

other animals, without the use of any anæsthetic at all. I know

quite well that that certificate has not been applied for, or

has not been granted this last year, or, so far as I know, in

any previous year, but I say this," &c.

It is impossible to understand these words. Certificate A is never

granted for major operations. It is never granted (save in conjunction

with another certificate) for any sort or kind of experiment on a cat

or a dog, or a horse, or an ass, or a mule. It is more in use than all

the other certificates put together; it covers nine experiments out of

every ten. We shall try in vain to guess how this mistake arose in the

speaker's mind. But, at the great annual meeting of the chief of all

the anti-vivisection societies, it is strange indeed that nobody seems

to have corrected him. This description of a certificate which does

not exist--_I know what I am speaking about_, he says, _and I want you

to know too_--was applauded by an audience that filled the whole hall.

Nobody on the platform put him right. And, in the next number of its

official journal, the National Society reported every word of his

speech, and said that he had _analysed the Act and its administration

in a striking and powerful manner_.

CURARE

"Curare," says Mr. Berdoe, "paralyses the peripheral ends of motor

nerves, even when given in very minute doses." That is to say, it

prevents all voluntary motion. Then comes this frank admission, "Large

doses paralyse the vagus nerve and the ends of sensory nerves." That

is to say, it can be pushed, under artificial respiration, till it

paralyses sensation. With small doses, the ends of the motor nerves

lose touch with the voluntary muscles. With large doses, under

artificial respiration, the ends of the sensory nerves lose touch with

the brain. Let us agree with Mr. Berdoe that curare does act in this

way; that it does not heighten sensation, and has no effect, save in

very large doses, on sensation, and then abolishes sensation. Only, of

course, to procure this anæsthetic effect, the animal may have to be

subjected to artificial respiration.

(The evidence as to the action of curare on the sensory nerves rests

not on the case of accidental poisoning recorded by Mr. White, though

that case does point that way, but on Schiff's experiments on the

local exclusion of the poison from one leg of the frog by ligature of

an artery.)

This, surely, is a true definition of curare, that it is a painless

poison, which in small doses prevents the transmission of motor

impulses; and, in large doses, which may necessitate the use of

artificial respiration, prevents the transmission of sensory impulses.

Mr. Berdoe can hardly refuse to accept this definition; indeed, it is

his own. And, certainly, he would be a bold man who said that a small

dose of curare has any effect on sensation; or that the exact strength

of any one specimen of curare is standardised as a supply of antitoxin

is standardised.

Now we have a perfect right to take a practical view of curare. At the

present time, and in our own country, how is it used? The Act forbids

its use as an anæsthetic. What evidence does Mr. Berdoe bring that it

is so used?

1. He quotes Professor Rutherford's experiments. These were made at

least 16 or 17 years ago.

2. He quotes Dr. Porter's paper, "On the Results of Ligation of the

Coronary Arteries." (_Journal of Physiology_, vol. xv. 1894, p. 121.)

Dr. Porter speaks of four experiments made under morphia _plus_

curare. These experiments were made at Berlin, 14 years ago, by the

Professor of Physiology at Harvard, U.S.A.

3. He refers to Professor Stewart's papers, in the same volume of the

_Journal of Physiology_. The one experiment which he quotes at some

length was made at Strasburg, 14 years ago or more.

But we want to know what is done now and here under the Act, not what

was done at Berlin or Strasburg 14 or more years ago. Still, the

experiments by Professor Stewart have been in constant use, among the

opponents of all experiments on animals. In May 1900, at the great

annual meeting of the National Society, at Queen's Hall, Dr. Reinhardt

said:--

"I will pass on to prove to you, by a few conclusive evidences,

for which I can give you chapter and verse, that torture is

inflicted on animals by British vivisectors to-day. Now, if you

buy the 15th volume of the _Journal of Physiology_, and look at

page 86, you will find there," etc.

To prove that animals are tortured in England to-day, he quotes one

experiment made at Strasburg ever so long ago. And, in 1901, Mr.

Coleridge wrote, in the _Morning Leader_, saying: _It is with curare,

which paralyses motion and leaves sensation intact, that all the most

shocking vivisections are performed._ And, the same year, Mr. Stephen

Smith, a "Medical Patron" of the London Society, wrote: _I state

emphatically that when curare is used, proper anæsthesia is out of the

question...._ _Curare is used daily throughout England. Mention of an

anæsthetic in a report is no guarantee that the animal was

anæsthetised._

I cannot find, in all the anti-vivisection literature which I have

read, any shadow of evidence that any experiment of any sort or kind

has been made in this country, on any sort or kind of animal, under

curare alone, for the last sixteen or seventeen years. I believe that

I might go further back than that. But surely that is far enough.

Certainly, so long as any curare is used (not as an anæsthetic, but in

conjunction with an anæsthetic) in any experiments on animals in this

country, the societies will not trouble to inquire how much of it is

used. I wrote, therefore, to the Professors of Physiology at

Edinburgh, Cambridge, and Oxford, and asked them to tell me how much

curare was used in their laboratories throughout 1903, and what

anæsthetics were given with it. Some opponents of experiments on

animals seem to think that curare is used very often. One of them says

that it is "used daily throughout England." So I wrote to these

Professors at our Universities, and they kindly sent the following

answers:--

1. "Your question _re_ curare is easily answered. We did _no_

experiments with it during the past year. Indeed, I have given

it up almost entirely for years, chiefly because it is very

difficult to get a preparation which--I suppose from

impurities--does not seriously affect the heart. There might

still be occasions during which it is necessary to use it--if,

_e.g._ the _least_ muscular movement would vitiate the results

of an experiment. But I find it possible in nearly all cases to

get such absolute quiescence with morphia or chloral (besides

ether and chloroform) that to all intents and purposes I have

long given up the use of curare. Of course, if I had occasion

to use it, an anæsthetic would be administered at the same

time."

2. "I have asked those who worked in the physiological

laboratories in 1903 to give me a return of the number of

experiments done and of the number in which curare was used.

Including my own experiments, I find that 160 in all were made

under the License and Certificates B, EE, C. Curare was given in

four cases; in two of these the A.C.E. mixture was the

anæsthetic, in the other two ether."

3. At the third laboratory, during 1903, curare was given to

seven frogs deprived of their brains before it was given, and to

one rabbit under ether.

That was the whole use of curare, during a whole year, in three great

Universities: at one, seven inanimate frogs, and one rabbit under

ether; at another, four animals, under A.C.E. or ether; at another,

nothing.

INCOMPLETE ANÆSTHESIA

It sometimes happens, at an operation, that the patient moves. Mostly,

this movement is at the moment of the first incision through the skin;

but it may be at some later period during the operation. He does not

remember, after the operation, that he moved, or that he felt

anything. That is incomplete anæsthesia, or light anæsthesia. The

corneal reflex may be abolished, and still the patient may move.

Seven years ago some experiments were made in this country by an

American surgeon. In the published account of them, it was said that

one of the animals was, at one time, under incomplete anæsthesia, and

that, in the case of another animal, the anæsthesia was at one time

overlooked. This latter phrase meant not that the anæsthetic had been

left off, but that it had been given in excess, so that the

blood-pressure suddenly fell. The character of the experiments, and

the occurrence of these two phrases about the anæsthesia, roused some

criticism, and the Home Office instituted an inquiry into the matter.

"That inquiry," it said, October 11th, 1899, "resulted in showing no

evidence whatever that the animals experimented on by Dr. Crile felt

pain. On the contrary, all the evidence shows they did not." The Act

does not go into questions of corneal reflex, and unconscious muscular

movements, and all the undefinable shades between incomplete

anæsthesia and complete anæsthesia and profound anæsthesia. "The only

substantial question," says the Home Office, "is whether or no the

animal has been during the operation under the influence of an

anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent it feeling pain. This is the

requirement of the law." We cannot refuse to call morphia and chloral

anæsthetics, for there are deaths every year from an over-dose of

them. And we cannot admit that an animal under an anæsthetic, because

it makes a movement, is in pain or is conscious; for we know that a

patient under operation may move yet feel nothing. Every hospital

surgeon, and every anæsthetist, who has seen a whole legion of

patients go under chloroform or ether and come out of it, and

everybody who has been under these anæsthetics, they all know that

incomplete anæsthesia is not "sham anæsthesia," and that movements,

even purposive movements, may occur without consciousness, without

pain, alike in men and in animals.

ONE ANIMAL AND ONE EXPERIMENT

When the Home Office allows a licensee to make a certain number of

experiments, it means that he may experiment on that number of animals

and no more. The Home Office, having heard what the experiments are to

be, where they are to be made, on what kind of animals, and for what

purpose, and having taken advice about them, allows him to make a

fixed number, and adds any restrictions that it likes, _e.g._ that he

must send in a preliminary report when he has made half that number.

And one thing is certain, that one experiment = one animal, and that

10 experiments = 10 animals, and no more. Everybody knows that, who

knows anything at all about the administration of the Act.

Now take a false statement, which has been made again and again during

many years, that one experiment = any number of animals, and observe

how it spread.

1. In the House of Commons, on March 12th, 1897, Mr. MacNeill asked

whether any record were kept of the number of animals used in

experiments during 1895, and said that 200 or 300 animals are

sometimes used in a single experiment, and that 80 or 90 is a common

number. The Home Secretary answered: "The honourable member is under

an entire misapprehension. The number of animals used does not exceed

the number of experiments given in the return."

2. A year later, May 18th, 1898, at the Annual Meeting of the National

Society, Mr. MacNeill said again: "Any one casually reading that

report (the Inspector's report to Government) would imagine that each

experiment was on the body of a single animal. It is nothing of the

kind. An experiment is a series of investigations in some particular

branch, and sometimes 20, 30, or 40 animals are sacrificed in the one

experiment." The National Society published this speech in its

official journal.

3. A few weeks later, an anonymous letter in the _Bradford Observer_

said, "Any one casually reading the report would imagine that each

experiment was on the body of a single animal. It is nothing of the

kind. An experiment is a series of investigations in some particular

branch, and sometimes 20, 30, or 40 animals are sacrificed in the one

experiment."

4. On August 1st, 1898, the National Society published this letter in

its official journal, under the heading, "Our Cause in the Press."

5. On October 21st, 1902, a letter in a provincial paper said that

"one experiment" means "not one animal, but a series of operations on

many animals."

6. In January 1903, the National Society admitted that its action in

1898 (see 4) was "unfortunate."

7. On June 25, 1903, in Parliament, Mr. MacNeill again said that "an

experiment" did not mean one operation, but a series of researches,

"often performed by persons who had no more skill than the children

who broke up a watch."

8. About this time, the same false statement was made by an

Anti-vivisection Society at Manchester.

9. A little later, it was made by the National Canine Defence League,

in these words, "Each experiment may include any number of dogs. There

is no limit fixed by law." On January 11th, 1904, in the _Times_, the

leaflet containing this and other "grossly false and misleading

statements" was vehemently denounced by the National Society.

It would be hard to find a better instance of the spreading of a

false report. An experiment? Oh, it is any number of animals--20 of

them, 30 of them; 200, 300 of them; hecatombs, and triple hecatombs;

any young doctor can get leave to cut them up.

CERTIFICATES E AND EE

For all inoculations and similar proceedings, Certificate A is

necessary. For all experiments where the animal is allowed to recover

from the anæsthetic, Certificate B is necessary. But these

certificates do not extend to the dog, the cat, the horse, the mule,

or the ass. The three latter animals are also scheduled under

Certificate F; the dog and the cat under Certificates E and EE. That

is to say, to inoculate a dog, _e.g._ for the study of the preventive

treatment against distemper, it is necessary to hold a License, _plus_

Certificate A, _plus_ Certificate E; to operate on a dog, and let him

recover, it is necessary to hold a License, _plus_ Certificate B,

_plus_ Certificate EE.

And it is certain that the Home Office does enforce and emphasise here

the spirit of the Act; and that it does guard and restrict and tie up

Certificate EE with its own hands.

Now let us take an instance, which shows in a very unfavourable light

the methods of the National Canine Defence League. Three years ago,

certain experiments were made on dogs, for the purpose of finding the

best way of resuscitating persons apparently drowned. The Home

Secretary was asked whether he knew that certain of these experiments

were to be made without anæsthetics; and he answered, "In view of the

great importance of the subject in connection with the saving of

human life, and of the strong recommendations received in support of

the experiments, I have not felt justified in disallowing the

certificates."

A great outcry was raised against these experiments by the National

Anti-vivisection Society and the Canine Defence League. The National

Society, in its official journal, August 1903, said that it was now

proved, "that in England to-day experiments are performed without

anæsthetics which involve inconceivable agony to dogs, and this with

the deliberate permission of the Home Secretary." Mr. Coleridge made a

public appeal to all humane societies, to go down with all their

strength into Kent, on that not far distant day when the Home

Secretary would have to face his constituents, and turn him out of

Parliament. The Canine Defence League sent two memorials to the Home

Office, circulated a petition, and issued leaflets, entitled _A

National Scandal_, _Scientific Torture_, _A Peep behind the Scenes_,

and so forth. We must consider one of these leaflets at some length;

but first let us see what is the truth about these experiments. They

were made by the Professor of Physiology at Edinburgh; and he has

kindly written to me about them. _In every experiment, except two, the

animal was, throughout the whole experiment, under complete anæsthesia

with chloroform or ether. In two cases, and in two only, a small

preliminary operation, under anæsthesia, having been performed, the

animal was allowed to recover from the anæsthetic, or almost to

recover from it, and was then and there submerged and drowned, at once

and completely, to death; no attempt at resuscitation was made; it

became unconscious in a little more than a minute._

In the face of these facts, what is to be said of the outcry raised

by the Canine Defence League? They presented two memorials to the Home

Secretary: they got up a monster petition with thousands of

signatures; and they issued the following leaflet:---

SIGN THE NATION'S PETITION TO PARLIAMENT AGAINST THE

DISSECTION OF LIVE DOGS _In Medical Laboratories_ */

1. Dogs, on account of their docility and obedience to the word

of command, are the animals chiefly selected for torture.

2. Thousands of dogs are tortured yearly by licensed

experimenters.

3. The total number of experiments performed in 1902 was 14,906,

12,776 of which were without anæsthetics.

4. The Home Secretary stated in Parliament on July 22nd, 1903,

that neither the starving of animals to death nor the forced

over-feeding of animals were included in these returns.

5. Nor does the number 14,906 give the number of dogs used, for

each experiment may include any number of dogs--there is no

limit fixed by law.

6. The Home Secretary stated in Parliament on May 11th, 1903,

that at one laboratory alone in London 232 dogs were used for

vivisectional experiments last year.

7. There are now laboratories scattered over the whole of the

United Kingdom.

8. The Home Secretary stated in Parliament on 10th July 1903,

that one dog may be used _again_ and _again_ for vivisectional

experiment or demonstration--and this without anæsthetics.

Think of the condition of the poor dog between each

living-dissection.

Has not the time come for the nation to rise as one man and

say--

"This shall not be"?

It is no wonder that even the National Anti-vivisection Society, in a

letter to the _Times_, December 11th, 1903, denounced this leaflet.

The wonder is, that Mr. Pirkis, R.N., the chairman of the Canine

League, tried to defend it. _This deplorable leaflet_, said the

National Society: _It contains a series of grossly false and

misleading statements._ Let us take it paragraph by paragraph. The

first two paragraphs are grossly false. The third suppresses the

truth. The fourth is grossly false; the Home Secretary said that

neither the starving of animals to death nor the forced over-feeding

of animals was included among the experiments _authorised or

performed_. Paragraph five is grossly false. So is paragraph six: not

one word was said about any experiments, either by the Home Secretary

or by anybody else. The entire number of all dogs and cats together,

under Certificates A, B, E, and EE, throughout the whole kingdom, that

year, was 344. Paragraph eight is grossly false.

* * * * *

For want of space, it is impossible to consider all the special

arguments of the anti-vivisection societies. Of course, among these

special arguments, there are a few which have something in them. How

could they all of them be utterly false? They go back over thirty

years; they are drawn from all parts of the world. This incessant

rummaging of medical books and journals, British and foreign; and all

this everlasting espionage; the whole elaborate system of a sort of

secret service--these methods, year in year out, are bound to find,

now and again, a fault somewhere. But I do say, having read and

re-read a vast quantity of the publications of these societies, that

they are, taken as a whole, a standing disgrace to the cause; that

they are tainted through and through with brutal language, imbecile

jokes, and innumerable falsehoods; that they have neither the honesty,

nor the common decency, which should justify them. Still, here it is

that the money goes. There is _money in the business_; there is _milk

in the cocoa-nut_; and _twopence more, and up goes the donkey_. These

are the phrases used, by the National Anti-vivisection Society, of the

bacteriologists, and the men who are working at cancer. But these

societies, that spend thousands every year, what have they got to show

for it all? They have, with much else of the same kind, the

_Zoophilist_. Truly, a fine result; a high-class official journal, the

_recognised organ of the anti-vivisection movement in England_.

Take, for a final instance, one or two of the things said about

anæsthetics. On June 12th, 1897, in the _Echo_, Mr. Berdoe said that

certain experiments, involving severe operations, had been made on

dogs under morphia and curare. He based this assertion on the account

of the experiments in the _Journal of Physiology_. On June 18th, Mr.

Weir, in the House of Commons, called attention to this assertion; and

the Home Secretary promised to inquire into the matter. On July 18th,

Mr. Weir asked whether this inquiry had been made; and the Home

Secretary answered:--

"Yes, I have made full inquiry into the allegations contained in

the letter and statement which the honourable member forwarded

to me, and find that they are absolutely baseless. The

experiments referred to were performed on animals under full

chloroform anæsthesia; the morphia, to which alone allusion was

made in the published account of the experiments, being used in

addition. Curare was used, but not as an anæsthetic."

It is simple enough. The gentlemen who made the experiments did not

know that the National Society buys and ransacks the _Journal of

Physiology_; or did not care. But the National Society called this

answer a "Fruitless Official Denial"; and Mr. Coleridge sent an

"explanatory letter" to the London daily papers, accusing all the

experimenters of "amending their published record so as to make it fit

in with the Government report." In 1899, the National Society

published that sentence, which has already been quoted, about the

_Nine Circles_, and the "whiff of chloroform possibly administered."

In 1900, it said, "The chloroformists of the physiological

laboratories are doubtless common porters, with no technical knowledge

of their work." In 1901, it said, "Our readers will remember that Mr.

Coleridge has had more than one battle with the Home Office on the

question of complete and incomplete anæsthesia. We need hardly say

that the victory on each occasion rested with our Honorary Secretary."

And again, "By many turns of the anti-vivisection screw we have at

last extracted (from the Home Office) the admission that pain is not

unknown in the laboratories." In 1902, it said, "The blessed word

anæsthesia warns off the profane anti-vivisectionist who would rob the

altars of science of their victims." Take later instances. In 1903, we

find Mr. Wood saying that _we may be sure the narcosis becomes

profound when the inspectors knock at the door of the laboratory_;

Dr. Brand, saying that _in all experiments, other than inoculations,

it is probable that only a whiff of chloroform is given, to satisfy

the experimenter's conscience, and to enable him to make humane

statements to the public_; and Mr. Berdoe, saying that _vivisectors,

where they use anything except curare, employ sham anæsthetics_.

Beside such statements as these, there is the argument from the very

rare action of morphia as a stimulant (see _British Medical Journal_,

January 14th, 1899); but this argument is not in question. The real

argument is, that a man who makes experiments on animals is likely

enough to tell lies about them. As Mr. Berdoe says, of a very explicit

statement about anæsthetics, made by the late Professor Roy, _It is

and must be absolutely untrue_. Read again that sentence about the

"whiff of chloroform." The phrase is thirty years old; but, like Sir

William Fergusson's evidence in 1875, it is still in use. Or take that

one phrase--_where they use anything but curare_. It affords, in six

words, a perfect instance of the anti-vivisectionist at his worst.

IV. "OUR CAUSE IN PARLIAMENT"

Under this heading the official journal of the National Society

reports questions asked in Parliament, and the answers given to them.

This aspect of the work of the anti-vivisection societies, and the

part taken by them in elections, and their plans to amend or abolish

the Act, must be noted here.

In one year, the National Society spent £888, 13s. 2d. on "purely

electoral work." That is a very large sum, when we think of _the grave

injury done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of money

spent in perfectly_ _unnecessary offices and salaries_. The Society's

journal tells us something of this electoral work:--

1899.--"The Parliamentary League has again been successful in

its work at bye-elections. At ---- the two candidates were

approached, and both gave more or less satisfactory answers.

Sir ----'s reply was thought to be the more satisfactory one,

and consequently our supporters gave him their votes. As our

readers are aware, he was returned." (In a later number, the

_Zoophilist_ hints that "further pressure" may be applied to

this gentleman in Parliament.)

1900.--"The efforts of the Society will not be confined to

forwarding the interests of any one candidate or any one party.

As soon as the names of candidates were announced, Mr. Coleridge

issued to all of them a circular letter demanding their views on

the vivisection question. The numerous replies which have

already arrived, and are still arriving, afford results more

gratifying than we for a moment anticipated, and show clearly

that we are now recognised throughout Great Britain to be a

power that cannot be ignored.... Volunteer workers are also

being despatched from headquarters to various places. Readers

who have votes or who will help in any way are invited to

communicate immediately to the head office, when information

about the views of their candidates will be at once sent to

them."

The London Society also, like the National Society, desires to have a

representative in Parliament; and this desire is stated in emphatic

words in one of its reports. The general tone of that report has

already been noted. It loves big black headlines, NO SURRENDER, THE

AWAKENING CHURCHES, A TRUCULENT SCIENCE, THE SINEWS OF WAR, THE APPEAL

TO THE PEOPLE. They had better ensure the return of that opponent of

vaccination who says that you can bring any member of Parliament to

your knees.

And, of course, these societies follow the successful candidates on

their subsequent careers. "In Parliament," says the London Society,

"the Society's work is carried on as occasion permits. Members of

Parliament are written to or are personally seen at the House of

Commons. Questions are drafted for them to submit to the Home

Secretary, and one or more officers of the Society are in constant

attendance at the House of Commons when the question of vivisection is

likely to be raised." And the National Society says, "In order to

stimulate attention (to Mr. Coleridge's Bill) our lecturer has been

assiduous in his attendance in the lobby of the House during the

present session, and by personal interviews has been able to arouse a

good deal of interest in it on both sides of the House." It is evident

that "Our Cause in Parliament" is urged with diligence, and is not

left to stand or fall according to the unsolicited conscience of what

the London Society calls the _average lay member_. Take, for example,

the system of drafting questions to be put to the Home Secretary. It

may or may not take off the edge of sincerity; anyhow, the question

should be drafted with great care. On February 26th, 1900, a question

was asked as to certain observations which were alleged to have been

made on living animals, but in fact had been made on their organs

removed after death. The National Society said of this mistake:--

"We wish our readers to know that the question was not prompted

by any communication from our Society, and we think it

unfortunate that members of Parliament should be asked to put

questions in the House by persons who do not realise that

questions based on inaccurate premises can do nothing but harm

to our cause. It is hard that the whole anti-vivisection

movement should suffer through the carelessness and indolence of

those who will neither be at the pains to avoid inaccuracy by

their own study and investigation, nor by consulting the

National Society's officers."

These careless, indolent, inaccurate persons, who think so lightly of

the National Society's officers, and draft a question so silly that

the whole cause is damaged, bring us back to the point whence we

started: the want of unity between the societies, the frequent jarring

of one with another. We have still to see something of the dealings of

the National Society with Government. It is at its best, doubtless, in

the formal letters from Mr. Coleridge to the Home Office; but these,

after all, are his own work, and the Society cannot take the credit of

them. _Per contra_, we may credit to the Society, and not to Mr.

Coleridge, certain threats to Ministers in 1898:--

... "Should we be so unfortunate as to be left by you without

such an open assurance, we shall feel it our duty to employ the

strength and resources of this Society in an endeavour to

prevent your return to Parliament at the next election. We know

of a large and increasing number of your constituents who are

ready, in the unfortunate event of your being unable to reassure

them as to your attitude in the matter of endowing torture, to

place humanity above party politics."

... "This Society will feel it to be its duty to use every means

in its power to prevent your return to Parliament at the next

election."

... "We beg leave to inform you that at the next election the

forces of this Society will be used with the utmost vigour to

prevent your return to Parliament. We know of many, and shall no

doubt soon secure more of your constituents, pledged to place

humanity above party and vote against you on the next occasion

that you present yourself."

What are we to think of these three letters? The resources of the

Society, given with some vague hope of keeping animals out of pain,

are to be used for keeping Ministers out of Parliament. Note the

bullying tone of the letters. It is the same thing, two years later,

at the General Election, with the heckling of candidates: _We are now

recognised throughout Great Britain to be a power that cannot be

ignored_. A Society that bullies Ministers of State, what will it not

do to the average lay member?

V. A HISTORICAL PARALLEL

It is a long way, from the plain duty to take care of animals, to the

arguments and general behaviour of these societies. Of course, we have

seen them here from the most unfavourable point of view. From that

point of view, apart from any more favourable aspect, they have their

parallel in history. The two instances are, in some ways, very unlike:

but the parallelism is worthy of note. The historical instance is more

than fifty years old: we have what was said, in 1851, against his

worst opponents, by a man who had an unpopular cause to defend.

Newman, in 1851, gave a set of lectures on _The Present Position of

Catholics in England_: and his sayings, some of them, seem apt to our

present subject. Take the following examples. Only, here and there, a

word is altered, or a phrase left out, that all offence may be

avoided:--

... "We should have cause to congratulate ourselves, though we

were able to proceed no further than to persuade our opponents

to argue out one point before going on to another. It would be

much even to get them to give up what they could not defend, and

to promise that they would not return to it. It would be much to

succeed in hindering them from making a great deal of an

objection till it is refuted, and then suddenly considering it

so small that it is not worth withdrawing. It would be much to

hinder them from eluding a defeat on one point by digressing

upon three or four others, and then presently running back to

the first, and then to and fro, to second, third, and fourth,

and treating each in turn as if quite a fresh subject on which

not a word had yet been said."

... "No evidence against us is too little: no infliction too

great. Statement without proof, though inadmissible in every

other case, is all fair when we are concerned. An opponent is at

liberty to bring a charge against us, and challenge us to

refute, not any proof he brings, for he brings none, but his

simple assumption or assertion. And perhaps we accept his

challenge, and then we find we have to deal with matters so

vague or so minute, so general or so particular, that we are at

our wits' end to know how to grapple with them."

... "For myself, I never should have been surprised, if, in the

course of the last nine months of persecution, some scandal in

this or that part of our cause had been brought to light and

circulated through the country to our great prejudice. No such

calamity has occurred: but oh! what would not our enemies have

paid for only one real and live sin to mock us withal. Their

fierce and unblushing effort to fix such charges where they were

impossible, shows how many eyes were fastened on us all over the

country, and how deep and fervent was the aspiration that some

among us might turn out to be a brute or a villain."

... "We are dressed up like a scarecrow to gratify, on a large

scale, the passions of curiosity, fright, and hatred. Something

or other men must fear, men must loathe, men must suspect, even

if it be to turn away their minds from their own inward

miseries.... A calumny against us first appeared in 1836, it

still thrives and flourishes in 1851. I have made inquiries, and

I am told I may safely say that in the course of the fifteen

years that it has lasted, from 200,000 to 250,000 copies have

been put into circulation in America and England. A vast number

of copies has been sold at a cheap rate, and given away by

persons who ought to have known that it was a mere fiction. I

hear rumours concerning some of the distributors, which, from

the respect which I wish to entertain towards their names, I do

not know how to credit."

... "The perpetual talk against us does not become truer because

it is incessant; but it continually deepens the impression, in

the minds of those who hear it, that we are impostors. There is

no increase of logical cogency; a lie is a lie just as much the

tenth time it is told as the first; or rather more, it is ten

lies instead of one; but it gains in rhetorical influence....

Thus the meetings and preachings which are ever going on against

us on all sides, though they may have no argumentative force

whatever, are still immense factories for the creation of

prejudice."

... "The Prejudiced Man takes it for granted that we, who differ

from him, are universally impostors, tyrants, hypocrites,

cowards, and slaves. If he meets with any story against us, on

any or no authority, which does but fall in with this notion of

us, he eagerly catches at it. Authority goes for nothing;

likelihood, as he considers it, does instead of testimony; what

he is now told is just what he expected. Perhaps it is a random

report, put into circulation merely because it had a chance of

succeeding, or thrown like a straw to the wind; perhaps it is a

mere publisher's speculation, who thinks that a narrative of

horrors will pay well for the printing: it matters not, he is

equally convinced of its truth: he knows all about it

beforehand; it is just what he always has said; it is the old

tale over again a hundred times. Accordingly he buys it by the

thousand, and sends it about with all speed in every direction,

to his circle of friends and acquaintance, to the newspapers,

to the great speakers at public meetings.... Next comes an

absolute, explicit, total denial or refutation of the precious

calumny, whatever it may be, on unimpeachable authority. The

Prejudiced Man simply discredits this denial, and puts it aside,

not receiving any impression from it at all, or paying it the

slightest attention. This, if he can: if he cannot, if it is

urged upon him by some friend, or brought up against him by some

opponent, he draws himself up, looks sternly at the objector,

and then says the very same thing as before, only with a louder

voice and more confident manner. He becomes more intensely and

enthusiastically positive, by way of making up for the

interruption, of braving the confutation, and of showing the

world that nothing whatever in the universe will ever make him

think one hair-breadth more favourably than he does think, than

he ever has thought, and than his family ever thought before

him. About our state of mind, our views of things, our ends and

objects, our doctrines, our defence of them, he absolutely

refuses to be enlightened.... The most overwhelming refutations

of the calumnies brought against us do us no good at all. We

were tempted, perhaps, to say to ourselves, 'What _will_ they

have to say in answer to this? Now at last the falsehood is put

down for ever, it will never show its face again.' Vain hope!

Such is the virtue of prejudice--it is ever reproductive; future

story-tellers and wonder-mongers, as yet unknown to fame, are

below the horizon, and will unfold their tale of horror, each in

his day, in long succession."

... "Perhaps it is wrong to compare sin with sin, but I declare

to you, the more I think of it, the more intimately does this

Prejudice seem to me to corrupt the soul, even beyond those sins

which are commonly called more deadly. And why? because it

argues so astonishing a want of mere natural charity or love of

our kind. They can be considerate in all matters of this life,

friendly in social intercourse, charitable to the poor and

outcast, merciful towards criminals, nay, kind towards the

inferior creation, towards their cows, and horses, and swine;

yet, as regards us, who bear the same form, speak the same

tongue, breathe the same air, and walk the same streets,

ruthless, relentless, believing ill of us, and wishing to

believe it. They are tenacious of what they believe, they are

impatient of being argued with, they are angry at being

contradicted, they are disappointed when a point is cleared up;

they had rather that _we_ should be guilty than _they_ mistaken;

they have no wish at all we should not be unprincipled rogues

and bloodthirsty demons. They are kinder even to their dogs and

their cats than to us. Is it not true? can it be denied? is it

not portentous? does it not argue an incompleteness or hiatus in

the very structure of their moral nature? has not something, in

their case, dropped out of the list of natural qualities proper

to man?"

* * * * *

These sentences, many of them, might be used now to describe

Anti-vivisection at its lowest level. It might keep a higher level:

but we have seen that the literature, arguments, and general methods

of the Anti-vivisection Societies fail to do that. The Parliamentary

interviewer, the itinerant lecturer, and the letter-writer, are not,

after all, of much help to any cause: and surely it is time, after all

this waste of huge sums of money, that a Royal Commission should

inquire, not only into experiments on animals, but also into

Anti-vivisection.

INDEX

A, Certificate, 268, 286

_Abolitionist_, the, 302

Absorbable ligature, the, 264

Act 39 & 40 Vict. c. 77, 267-293

Actinomycosis, 246

Adrenalin, 263

Aga Khan, Sir, 179

Air, compressed, 71

Algeria, malaria in, 230

America, diphtheria in, 109;

tetanus in, 133, 135;

yellow fever in, 232-240

Amoy, plague in, 194

Amyl nitrite, 254;

false argument, 345

Anaemia, 71;

pernicious, 263

Anæsthesia, grades of, 357;

false statements, 366

Anæsthetics, discovery and study of, 55, 256;

use under the Act, 281

Anderson, Mr., 190

Andrews, Staff-Surgeon, 263

Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Africans, 228

Animal heat, 68

Animals, protective inoculation of, 89-95, 113;

action of drugs on, 255

Annett, Dr., 223

Anopheles and Culex, 214-242

Anthrax, 76, 87-95

Antiseptics, 78-86;

use of under the Act, 285

Antitoxins, testing of, 270;

false arguments against, 338-342.

Here he is at Birmingham, asking for money, and hinting that, unless