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, andhave 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."
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, andhave 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 theGlobe, 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 oftaste, 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 theAbolitionistcontains 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, theAbolitionist, 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."
March 1901.—"The February number of theAbolitionistcontains 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, theAbolitionist, 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. Thisis 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 theseexactwords: 'To theLondonAnti-vivisection Society.'Caution.It is of great importance to describe very accurately theTitle 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 theTitle 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 theIllustrated Catalogueand theHospital 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'sHospital Guidehas 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.'"
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'sHospital Guidehas 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 mustexamine 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.
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, theAnimal'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 girlhad 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.
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) thedramatis personæare a man in East Islington jumping on his wife, and a woman in WestIslington 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).
"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.
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 thepost-mortemif 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 oursurgeons 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 notsecundum artembutsecundum 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."
June 1899.—"The charm of this sort of thing is that you are always sure of thepost-mortemif 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 oursurgeons 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 notsecundum artembutsecundum 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."
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 ofdevilish 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.
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 withdrewDark 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, theNine Circles. It was planned and compiled for Miss Cobbe; Mr. Berdoewas "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, theZoophilist and Animal's Defender, was started in May 1881, under the shorter title of theZoophilist. 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 theNine 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 theNine Circles? To make this point clear, let us put in parallel columns what was said by Sir Victor Horsleyof the original edition in 1892, and what was said by theZoophilistin 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 theNine 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.
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 theNine 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 theZoophilistwe 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 theZoophilistin 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, seeZoophilist, August 1902 and September1903; 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 theZoophilistkeep? Why does it talk ofOur 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 theTopical Times,Broad Views,Modern Society,Madame, theHumanitarian, thePioneer, theVegetarian, theVoice of India, theHerald of Health, theRock, theNew Age, theJournal of Zoophily, theHomœopathic World,Medical Liberty, and theHonolulu 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 AmericanMedical Brief, theJournal de Médecine de Paris, and the BelgianLe Médecine. These journals, being veritable "medical journals," are quoted in theZoophilistwith 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 theZoophilistitself. Take what theMedical Briefsays:—
"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 ferociousignorance 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."
"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 ferociousignorance 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 theMedical 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 theJournal 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 theStarwe 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." TheNew England Anti-vivisection Monthlyin 1900 calls him one of "the brightest scientists of modern times." HisJournal de Médecine de Parisrecalls theMedical Brief:—
"To wish to apply the same methods of treatment, whether preventive or curative, for two morbid conditions(awoundwith the point of entryabnormaland an infectiousmalady) in essence so different, is to commit a gross error.... The sick are destroyed by that which cures their wounds."
These two "medical journals," theMedical Briefand theJournal 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 theHerald of Health; andMedical 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 theZoophilistas a scientific journal. Now let us take another point of view. Let us consider whom theZoophilistpraises, 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 thevolte-faceand 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 theZoophilist; 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 evenbreak its jest on the dead—but it rebukes another journal for levity, saying,We regret to see ourpainful 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 inloca scuta situ(? to inhabitloca 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 inPickwick), and we are sending these young men out with thiscacoëthes 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.)
1. "As other bacteria (beside those of malaria) were found not to bear sunlight or air, but to habitats inloca scuta situ(? to inhabitloca 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 inPickwick), and we are sending these young men out with thiscacoëthes 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.)
Such is the frequent level of theZoophilist, the official journal of the National Society, edited by Mr. Berdoe, controlled by Mr. Coleridge. Let us now take onemore of that society's publications, a pamphlet entitledMedical 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.
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 theTimeswhat he thinks of the way in which his name has been used; Sir Andrew Clark is quoted, also with an explanatory note, for anobiter dictum; and Professor Koch for no discoverable reason. That leaves 36. Ofthese 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 homœopathy; one has mistranslated Harvey to the advantage of the National Society's cause, one has writtenHints to Mothers, and one has writtenHow to Keep Well. Of these 25 gentlemen, one belongs to a homœopathic 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 theseMedical 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 arearrant 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, isnot the case, and I am informed that a large proportion—considerably more than half—of the licensesdispense 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."
"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, isnot the case, and I am informed that a large proportion—considerably more than half—of the licensesdispense 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 aslong 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.
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 LicenseplusCertificate 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 LicenseplusCertificate 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 isnotallowed 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 moreyears, 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 alocus 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 ofour 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 goodthat these experiments have done, the lives that they have saved; and at once he is off like the wind:—