1. "Your questionrecurare is easily answered. We didnoexperiments 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.theleastmuscular 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 theuse 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.
1. "Your questionrecurare is easily answered. We didnoexperiments 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.theleastmuscular 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 theuse 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 notthat 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 ofinvestigations 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 theBradford Observersaid, "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 theTimes, 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 thespreading 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,plusCertificate A,plusCertificate E; to operate on a dog, and let him recover, it is necessary to hold a License,plusCertificate B,plusCertificate 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 withthe 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, entitledA 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 ofthe 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 THENATION'S PETITIONTO PARLIAMENT AGAINST THEDISSECTION OF LIVE DOGSIn Medical Laboratories1. 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 usedagainandagainfor 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"?
SIGN THENATION'S PETITIONTO PARLIAMENT AGAINST THEDISSECTION OF LIVE DOGSIn 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 usedagainandagainfor 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 theTimes, 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 experimentsauthorised 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 ismoney in the business; there ismilk in the cocoa-nut; andtwopence 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, theZoophilist. Truly, a fine result; a high-class official journal, therecognised 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 theEcho, 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 theJournal 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 honourablemember 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 theJournal 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 theNine 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 thatwe may be sure the narcosis becomes profound when the inspectors knock at the door of the laboratory; Dr.Brand, saying thatin 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 thatvivisectors, 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 (seeBritish 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.
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 ofthe grave injury done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of money spent in perfectlyunnecessary 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, theZoophilisthints 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."
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, theZoophilisthints 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 theaverage 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 ishard 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 partyand vote against you on the next occasion that you present yourself."
... "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 partyand 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?
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 onThe 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 beforegoing 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.... Acalumny 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, tohis 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, 'Whatwillthey 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, mercifultowards 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 thatweshould be guilty thantheymistaken; 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?"
... "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 beforegoing 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.... Acalumny 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, tohis 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, 'Whatwillthey 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, mercifultowards 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 thatweshould be guilty thantheymistaken; 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.
A
A, Certificate,268,286Abolitionist, the,302Absorbable ligature, the,264Act 39 & 40 Vict. c. 77,267-293Actinomycosis,246Adrenalin,263Aga Khan, Sir,179Air, compressed,71Algeria, malaria in,230America, diphtheria in,109; tetanus in,133,135; yellow fever in,232-240Amoy, plague in,194Amyl nitrite,254; false argument,345Anaemia,71; pernicious,263Anæsthesia, grades of,357; false statements,366Anæsthetics, discovery and study of,55,256; use under the Act,281Anderson, Mr.,190Andrews, Staff-Surgeon,263Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Africans,228Animal heat,68Animals, protective inoculation of,89-95,113; action of drugs on,255Annett, Dr.,223Anopheles and Culex,214-242Anthrax,76,87-95Antiseptics,78-86; use of under the Act,285Antitoxins, testing of,270; false arguments against,338-342. See also Diphtheria, Tetanus, &c.Anti-vivisection Societies,297sqq.; dissensions,299-302; expenditure,304-306,334,367; acceptance of all advantages from past discoveries,307; attitude toward sport,308; toward doctors and hospitals,310; literature,313-324; method of espionage,327; general arguments,326-334; special arguments,335-367; electoral and parliamentary tactics,367-371Aphasia,62Arguments, anti-vivisection,326-367Aristotle,3,44,243Arloing and Courmont,100Artificial respiration,264Asellius,19Assam-Burmah railway, cholera on,162Athens, Pasteur Institute at,143Aubertin,62
B
B, Certificate,268,349. See also ExperimentsBaccelli, Prof.,133Bacteriology,77sqq.; not before the 1875 Commission,75; the foundation of Lister's work,85; hardly recognised in the wording of the Act,267; the cause of more than90per cent, of all experiments,292; false statements,316,340Baginsky, Prof.,105Bagshawe, Bishop,329Bainbridge, Surgeon-General,169Baker, Major,172Bang, Prof.,99Bannerman, Major,173,175,178Barbadoes, filariasis in,240Barry, Bishop,343Battipaglia-Reggio railway, and malaria,221Bazan, Dr.,42Beaumont, Dr. William,28Behring, Prof.,102Belchier, Mr.,40Belgaum, plague at,174Bell, Sir Charles,46,57,65Bell, Dr.,88Belladonna, action of,255van Beneden,244Berdoe, Mr.,314sqq.Bernard, Claude,24,30,56,248,254,282Bernard Shaw, Mr.,330Beveridge, Surgeon,263Beyrout, experiments at,214Bezoar-stone, the,252Bichat,253Bilaspur, cholera at,164Bircher, Dr.,249Bird-malaria,217,218Birt, Surgeon-Major,212Bloemfontein, typhoid at,203Blondlot,29Blood, circulation of the,3-10; blood-pressure,11-16,70; collateral circulation,13Blood-letting, rational use of,264"Blood-poisoning,"84Board of Agriculture laboratories,288Board Hospitals, diphtheria in,116Boehmer,42Bohn,37Böllinger,246Bombay, plague in,170Bone, growth of,40,55; transplantation of,264Borelli,25Borrel,168Bouillard,62Brain, localisation of functions,59-67; not sensitive to touch,65,285; false argument against experiments on,336; surgery of,337Brieger,153Broca,59Brown, Captain Harold,162Brown-Séquard, Prof.,56Bruce, Major,211Brunton, Sir T. Lauder, on nitrite of amyl,254Buchanan, Major,219Buenos Ayres, plague in,194Buisson bath, the,345Buisson, Dr.,347Burrows, Mr. Herbert,329Busk, Prof.,244Byculla jail, plague in,170
C