5n flftemoriam. 
 
 THE LATE 
 
 EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, K.G., 
 
 FIEST PRESIDENT 
 
 ( )F THE 
 
 Utctoria Street Socirrg 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 protection of Animals from Ftbisectton. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Publisher! by the Victoria. Strket Society for the Protection of 
 
 Animals from Vivisection, 
 
 united with the 
 
 Intern A'HONAii Association for the Total Suppression- of 
 
 Vivisection. 
 
 1885. 
 

 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY 
 MEDICAL CENTER LIBRARY 
 HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS 
 
 fe= 
 
 A 
 
THE MERCIFUL MAN. 
 
 In straight and simple lines his pathway ran. 
 Little of books he knew. The strifeful 
 world 
 Beyond his circling hills roared on unheard. 
 And, so he died — the gnarled, old, work- 
 worn man ! 
 
 His unshaped thought has been — "Alone I've 
 lived : 
 Alone I've wandered to that life beyond. 
 Others have friends — wife — children— when I 
 come 
 To that strange land, O who will welcome 
 me?" 
 
 No grieving tears fell when he passed away. . 
 
 A hireling's hand arrayed him for the tomb. 
 A neighbor lingered decently, as fell 
 
 'J he clods about him in the twilight gray. 
 
 yet, as they fell, along a pathway sped — 
 Beneath celestial blooms his boyhood 
 knew — 
 
 The earth-freed spirt; and about him flew 
 The little joyous birds his hands had fed. 
 
 And when before a gateway, flower-bespanned, 
 He humbly paused, nor dared to pass or 
 turn, 
 
 A dog he once befriended bounded forth 
 And with a joyous whine caressed his hand, 
 
 And walked before him, showing him thewny, 
 The old horse he had loved he too came 
 forth. 
 
 And pressed his head against his breast 
 Uttering a welcome in his gladsome neigh. 
 
 And all about him pressed a loving throng, 
 Of birds and beasts most gentle-eyed and 
 kind. 
 (Since this new world held neither pain nor 
 fear.) 
 And all about him rang a joyous song: 
 
 •'Oh, soul so merciful, we welcome thee ! 
 
 Unto all life thou hast been ever kind. 
 Unto the deathless life we welcome thee ! 
 
 Pass on, beloved, and thy rewarding see ! 
 
 In trembling, thrilling hope he forward passed. 
 
 Before him swung a portal grandly fair. 
 And the young mother he had n^ver known 
 
 Flew forth and caught him to her yearning 
 breast. 
 
V 
 
 -(^M/^Jyz^^i "oo^j i^*^ a^^ 
 
 -' 
 
 fajfe 'fi^^^Y^ ^^ 
 
 tj 
 
 Lord Shaftsbury said concerning vivisec- 
 tion: "The thought of this diabolical crime 
 disturbs rne night and day." 
 
Jn flfoemorfam. 
 
 THE LATE 
 
 EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, K.G., 
 
 FIRST PRESIDENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Ftctorta Street Society 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 protection of Animals from Fibisection. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 Published by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of 
 
 Animals from Vivisection, 
 
 united with the 
 
 International Association for the Total Suppression of 
 
 Vivisection. 
 
 1885. 
 
THE STEALTHY ADVANCE OF VIVISECTION. 
 
 In the year 1875, in consequence of the cruel experiments 
 which had been published in the works of some English 
 physiologists, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into 
 the practice of subjecting live animals to painful experiments 
 for scientific purposes. In their Report the Commissioners 
 express the opinion that " the practice is, from its very nature, 
 liable to great abuse," and say that, " looking to the circum- 
 stance that a great increase is to be expected in physiological 
 inquiry, it appears to us most important that some legislative 
 control should be established to prevent abuse extending." 
 
 The practical result of this Commission was, that an Act of 
 Parliament was passed in the following year making vivisec- 
 tion illegal, except for specially-licensed persons. It was 
 further provided in the Act that additional certificates 
 might be granted to the operators, permitting them to 
 dispense with the necessity of keeping the animals under 
 the influence of chloroform or other anaesthetics during 
 the operations, and that inspectors should be appointed to 
 visit all registered places. With these results the majority 
 of the public were content, and considered tbat the question 
 had been satisfactorily and finally settled. A few persons, 
 however, who looked below the surface, foresaw, what has 
 actually proved to be the case, that the Act would be merely 
 a temporary compromise, and, being grounded on no firm 
 moral principle, could not but prove a failure. In fact, it 
 afforded protection, not so much to the animals as to their 
 tormentors, who, provided with licenses and left unvisited by 
 an " inspector " who was one of themselves, were henceforth 
 at liberty to do what they pleased. The number of licenses 
 has been steadily on the increase, and during the last two 
 years it has crept up from thirty-three to fifty-three, and there 
 seems to be no reason why it should not be indefinitely 
 extended, since we have been told that the hcenses are 
 granted on the recommendation of an influential scientific 
 society, founded with the express object of protecting the 
 interests of the vivisecting party. Add to this, that some of 
 
the experiments during the last ten years have been as cruel 
 as almost any on record, and apparently of no practical use in 
 medicine, and it cannot be said that the endeavour of the 
 Commission to ' ' prevent abuse ' ' has been crowned with 
 success. 
 
 On the other hand, their prediction that there would be a 
 great increase in physiological inquiry has been amply fulfilled 
 both here and abroad. Everything now-a-days, be it a fresh 
 drug, a new surgical operation, or merely a fanciful theory, 
 has to be tested ou the living animal, and that not by any 
 means to draw conclusions as to the effect on men, but often 
 after it has been used on patients to try what will happen 
 when it is applied to animals. When, in Paris, a man has 
 demonstrated that he can fast for six weeks, a physiologist 
 thinks it an interesting scientific experiment to starve two dogs 
 to the point of death to try how long they can live — the one 
 with water and the other without it — and the Times devotes a 
 paragraph to reporting this senseless barbarity, adding a 
 flippant and unfeeling comment. 
 
 But the surest sign of the increase in public favour of this 
 practice will be found in the manner in which it has lately 
 been endowed. In 1879 was founded the G. H. Lewes 
 scholarship (value ±"200 a year) for physiological research, by 
 the aid of which Professor Roy was enabled to perform the 
 agonising experiments which were quoted by Mr. Reid in the 
 House of Commons. Three years ago the University of 
 Oxford voted ±10,000 for the erection of a laboratory for 
 Professor Burdon Sanderson, joint editor of the manual 
 which was one of the immediate causes of the appointment of 
 the Rc^al Commission. It was on account of this act on tbe 
 part of his University that Professor Buskin felt called upon 
 to resign his professorship. A few weeks ago only another 
 sum of ±10,000 was left by Mr. J. Lucas Walker for the 
 purposes of scientific and literary research. The Attorney- 
 General, into whose hands the bequest was committed, acting 
 on the advice of three friends well known for their advocacy 
 and practice of vivisection, has determined to found with it a 
 studentship for experimental pathology, the holder of which 
 is to be under the immediate control of the above-mentioned 
 Professor Roy. 
 
 But the most ominous sign of the times has yet to be told. 
 As is well known, Sir Erasmus Wilson bequeathed upwards 
 of ±200,000 to the Royal College of Surgeons for the benefit 
 of their College. In the British Medical Journal of January 
 15th appears a round-robin addressed to the President, Vice- 
 Presidents, and Council of the College, praying that a portion 
 
of this suni may be devoted to the erectiou of an institution 
 like the " splendid laboratories " of Berlin, Paris, Leipzig, &c. 
 Of the fifty-two scientific men by whom this memorial has 
 been signed, thirty-one, at least, have either actually practised 
 vivisection or have publicly advocated the practice, and 
 demanded the repeal of the present law ; nineteen of them 
 have held licenses, of whom seventeen have had the additional 
 certificate dispensing with the necessity for keeping the 
 animals unconscious of their sufferings. 
 
 The natures and opinions of these gentlemen may be seen 
 from the following facts. One of them has recently performed 
 a series of experiments which consisted in cutting open the 
 abdomens of living animals, laying bare the kidneys, dissect- 
 ing out, cutting, and tying the ends of all the most sensitive 
 nerves, and stimulating them with electricity, to try what effect 
 that would have on the circulation of the kidney. Another 
 has exposed portions of the brains of cats and other animals, 
 and applied electricity to them till the animals uttered " long- 
 continued cries as if of rage and pain." A third has kept the 
 ear of one living animal in the stomach of another for four 
 hours and a half, until the action of the gastric juice had com- 
 pletely eaten away a portion of it. A fourth has killed animals 
 by the application of external heat until their temperature 
 was seventeen degrees above blood heat, which cannot be said 
 to differ much from baking them alive. A fifth has written : 
 " The rocks are broken and put in the crucible, the water is 
 
 submitted to analysis, the plant is dissected In animal 
 
 life the same method must be adopted to unlock the secrets 
 of nature. The question of the animal being sensitive cannot alter 
 the mode of investigation." A sixth has openly announced that 
 he has no regard for the sufferings of the animals, and that he 
 does not think there is any difference on this point among the 
 physiologists of England. 
 
 From such specimens, which but for want of space might 
 be multiplied, it would be evident what kind of laboratory is 
 likely to be established, had not those of Berlin, Leipzig, and 
 Paris, been specially named, and had not mention been made 
 of the investigations for the prevention of hydrophobia — 
 investigations which for heartless cruelty can hardly be sur- 
 passed, since in the words of their author the dreadful disease, 
 " the very thought of which strikes one with fear," has been 
 communicated to so many animals that " they have passed 
 beyond the possibility of numbering them." 
 
 We fear it is only too probable that the College will be 
 disposed to grant the petition of this influentially signed 
 memorial, but still hope that so strong a public protest may 
 
 S 
 
be made that they will pause before they bring the disgrace 
 on themselves and on our country, which has ever been the 
 first to defend the innocent and help the helpless, of introducing 
 into our midst the elaborate appliances and wholesale horrors 
 of the foreign laboratory, which even the advocates of vivi- 
 section have hitherto agreed in condemning. 
 
 E. B. U 
 
 — From Church Bells, January 28, 1887. - j^J) ; {<y&- 
 
 [Since the above was published the British Medical Journal 
 (Feb. 19) has announced two further endowments of Vivi- 
 section, viz., the " Foundation of a Research Laboratory by 
 the College of Physicians of Edinburgh " (p. 414), and the 
 sanction by the Senate of the University of Cambridge, of the 
 " preparation of plans for a Physiological Laboratory, the 
 whole cost of which is estimated at £'10,000 " (p. 402)] . 
 
 >v 
 
 L 
 
 Published by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection 
 of Animals from Vivisection, united with the International 
 Association for the Total Suppression of Vivisection, 
 1, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W. 11.87. 
 
EECOED. 
 
 Lord Shaftesbury never joined the Victoria Street Society ; 
 it was the Society which joined Lord Shaftesbury. There 
 was a day in November, 1875, when, having telegraphed his 
 readiness to support the project of Dr. Hoggan and Miss 
 Cobbe, he, in fact, founded the Society. It was around him, 
 and attracted in great part by his name, that the whole body 
 eventually gathered. A brief record may here be given of his 
 subsequent services to the Anti-Vivisection Cause. 
 
 It was at the third meeting of the Executive Committee, 
 on the 18th February, 1876, in Dr. Hoggan's house in Gran- 
 ville Place, that Lord Shaftesbury for the first time occupied 
 the Chair. He again took it (vacating it on the entry 
 of the Archbishop of York) on the 1st March, when the 
 " Statement''' of the Society was formally adopted. Shortly 
 afterwards he consented to be elected President ; and thence- 
 forth practically directed all the public action of the Society, 
 and such of its interior concerns as the Hon. Sec. thought it 
 desirable to submit to him for counsel. 
 
 On the 20th March, 1876, he headed a great Deputation 
 to the Home Office to press on Mr. (now Sir Richard) Cross 
 the introduction into Parliament of a Bill in accordance with 
 the. recommendations of the Royal Commission. Among the 
 members of this deputation were Colonel (now Sir Evelyn) 
 Wood, Cardinal Manning, the Earl of Minto, Sir Frederick 
 Elliot, Right Hon. A. J. Mundella, Mr. Froude, Mr. 
 Leslie Stephen, and Lord Mount-Temple. The prayer of 
 the Memorial of this deputation having been acceded to by 
 the Home Secretary, Lord Shaftesbury again presided at 
 a meeting of the Committee, and framed suggestions which, 
 on being presented to Sir Richard Cross, were embodied 
 under his direction in Lord Carnarvon's Bill. In support of 
 this Bill in the House of Lords, on the 22nd May, 1876, 
 
Lord Shaftesbury made his first great speech for our Cause. 
 It was a long address, occupying a pamphlet of 22 pages, and 
 in it he displayed an exhaustive study of the then recently 
 issued Minutes of Evidence of the Royal Commission, and 
 also of the arguments employed by the advocates of vivisection. 
 He told the Government that "the feeling of the country was 
 in favour of total abolition ; but that he was prepared to 
 accept the Bill which only imposed restriction." Lord 
 Shaftesbury proceeded to give in brief but very telling 
 language descriptions of the hideous experiments of Brachet 
 and others, and quoted largely from the Blue-book. It was 
 in this great speech that Lord Shaftesbury introduced the 
 phrase of Chamber Sport, which illustrates so well the anti- 
 thesis between the vivisections of the physiological laboratory 
 and the injuries inflicted on animals in the open fields by 
 the hunter and fowler. 
 
 On the 1st of June, 1876, Lord Shaftesbury presided at 
 the first Annual Meeting of the Society, at which Lord 
 Bute, Lord Glasgow, and Cardinal Manning took part. 
 Confident hopes were, at that time, entertained that Lord 
 Carnarvon's Bill would be passed by the House of Commons 
 in the shape in which it had come from the House of Lords 
 — a shape which would have almost secured the objects of the 
 Society. By that Bill, as it then stood, experiments on 
 dogs, cats, horses, asses, and mules were absolutely forbidden ; 
 no certificates would have permitted them to anybody ; 
 and all experiments on other animals were required to be 
 performed under complete anaesthesia ; — conditions which 
 would have practically put an end to Vivisection as a Method 
 of Research. Unhappily, as our readers know, a great 
 Medical Deputation, got up b)' certain wire-pullers of the pro- 
 fession, invaded the Home Office on the 10th of July, and 
 placed such pressure on Mr. Cross as to cause him to 
 eviscerate the Bill (then in his hands for presentation to the 
 House of Commons) and leave it the mangled and illogical 
 measure which, on the 15 th of August, became by royal 
 signature, the Vivisection Act, 39 & 40 Vict., c. 77. In 
 replying, a few days later, to a letter written to him by the 
 
 i 
 
Hon. Sec. in deep dejection and disappointment, Lord 
 Shaftesbury explained why he had consented to allow this 
 mangled Bill to pass rather than let it fall to the ground. 
 After mentioning that he had had an interview with Mr. Cross 
 about the changes in the Bill which he deplored, he went 
 on to say, "But the question then was simply ' the Bill as 
 propounded, or no Bill,' for Mr. Cross stoutly maintained 
 that without the alterations suggested, he had no hope of 
 carrying anything at all. I reverted, therefore, to my first 
 opinion, stated at the very commencement of my co-operation 
 with your- Committee, that it was of great importance, nay 
 indispensable, to obtain a Bill, however imperfect, which 
 should condemn the practice, put a limit on the exercise of 
 it, and give us a foundation on which to build amendments 
 hereafter as time and opportunity should be offered to us." 
 (August 16th, 1876.) 
 
 From that period the policy of the Society, as settled by 
 a resolution of the Committee, November 22nd, was to watch 
 the enforcement of the Act and keep in view its extension 
 to the total prohibition of vivisection. On this ground Lord 
 Shaftesbury warmly approved next spring the support of 
 Mr. Holt's (Total Abolition) Bill and the exhibition by the 
 Society of the well-known illustrated posters over the 
 hoardings of London. He presided at the Second Annual 
 Meeting on April 27th, 1877, at which the Bishop of 
 Winchester and Lord Mount-Temple took part — the latter 
 having shown from the first, and next to Lord Shaftesbury, 
 the deepest interest in the work of the Society. The third 
 assembly of the Society Lord Shaftesbury received in his 
 own house in Grosvenor Square on the 23rd February, 1878. 
 In the August following the Society formally adopted the 
 principle of total abolition, and Lord Shaftesbury wrote to 
 the Hon. Sec. on her announcement of the fact as follows : — 
 (Sept. 3rd, 1878), " Your letter is very cheering. We were 
 right to make the experiment. We were right to test the 
 men and the law, Mr. Cross and his administration of it. 
 Both have failed us, and we are bound in duty, I think, to 
 /leap over all limitations, and go in for the total abolition of 
 
G 
 
 this vile and cruel form of idolatry, for idolatry it is, and 
 like all idolatry, brutal, degrading, and deceptive." . . . 
 
 •*^__X)n the 15th July Lord Truro having presented his Bill in 
 the House of Lords, Lord Shaftesbury made, in supporting 
 it, the second speech printed in the following pages. No 
 more affecting sight could well be witnessed than that of 
 the aged philanthropist who for sixty years had pleaded for 
 
 justice for all classes of human sufferers, standing up once 
 more among his peers to ask for mercy to brutes ; his voice 
 faltering as he described their tortures. "Writing of the 
 debate on the 16th July he said : — " Defeated, you see, by 6 
 to 1. . . . All the papers seem full of contempt and hatred. 
 . . . Carnarvon voted against us. I had almost hoped that 
 he and some others would have stayed away. But we have 
 done our best, at least I did mine, and that ' best ' being but 
 small, was only instrumental in obtaining 16 votes." And 
 again on July 18th he added, " Some good will come out of 
 the discussion. I have unmistakeable evidence that many 
 were deeply impressed. But obedience to political leaders is 
 a higher law with most politicians than obedience to 
 truth." 
 
 The Annual Meeting for 1880 was held at the house 
 (8, Cromwell Houses) of those generous friends of the 
 Society, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Morrison ; and the President 
 again took the chair. A few days later he presented to Mr. 
 Gladstone the important Memorial, signed by 100 repre- 
 sentative men — Peers, Judges, General Officers, and Heads of 
 Colleges, &e. — to which Mr. Gladstone of course replied, 
 expressing his (unfortunately still inactive) sympathy. The 
 Meeting of 1881, at the house of Lord Coleridge ; that of 
 1882 at his own house ; that of 1883 at 1, Grosvenor Place; 
 of 1884 at Prince's Hall ; and of 1885, at the Westminster 
 Palace Hotel, were, every one of them, presided over by 
 Lord Shaftesbury ; who also took the Chair at two Meetings 
 of the East London and North London Branches of the 
 Society. Beside all these more public assemblies, Lord 
 Shaftesbury took the utmost pains to attend the meetings 
 of the Executive Committee, appointing with great care the 
 
days and hours left to him by his other innumerable engage- 
 ments, and never once failing to keep his promise. His 
 signature appears on the Minute-Book of the Committee no 
 less than 49 times. It may be added that in none of the 
 council rooms of the charitable bodies, great and small, where 
 he worked, did Lord Shaftesbury show himself more full of 
 consideration for everyone co-operating with him, more genial 
 and friendly, and more completely devoid of the morgue, 
 of which the Times has accused him, than in the Com- 
 mittee Room of A^ictoria Street. Punctual to the moment, 
 he always entered with the kindest of greetings for each 
 member present, and rarely failed to linger for general con- 
 versation when the business of the day was done — an 
 extraordinary amount of business having been usually got 
 through in an hour or two under his guidance. Nor did he 
 only give his invaluable counsels on such occasions. He often 
 called at the office on other days beside those of the Com- 
 mittee, and was at all times ready to receive and advise the 
 Secretaries, either in personal interviews at his house, or by 
 letter. The late Hon. Sec. now possesses 260 such letters 
 to her in his own handwriting, filled, for the most part, with 
 wise advice and the kindest sympathy and encouragement. 
 
 But in truth, the actual work done by Lord Shaftesbury 
 for the Anti-Vivisection Cause, great as it was, constituted 
 only a small part of the support he gave it by lending it the 
 authority of his great character, and infusing into it his lofty 
 and religious spirit. A General may never fi± e a shot or strike a 
 blow in a battle, but the victory may nevertheless be entirely 
 due to his presence among the troops. It is not too much to say 
 that it has been the spirit of this righteous man — who "feared 
 Grod, and feared nothing else," — this man with a single eye 
 to justice, and no side views to self-indulgence or self-interest, 
 which has infused itself into, and more or less thoroughly 
 inspired, the whole party of Anti-vivisectionists. While the 
 apologists of scientific cruelty have been outbidding one 
 another in their appeals to human cowardice, and in their 
 efforts to coax their countrymen to condone their hateful 
 
8 
 
 cruelties by dangling before them glittering promises, tbe 
 members of Lord Shaftesbury's Society have one and all 
 struck a bigber note — feebly no doubt, but never falsely, — 
 " Wbat if it be possible to relieve our maladies by methods 
 involving cruelty and sin ? Not there fore will cruelty and 
 sin be less abominable." While the physiologists told us 
 that the lower animals are our brothers in blood, and akin 
 to us in sensibility to pain, and in the same breath 
 called on us to consent to their barbarous torture — Lord 
 Shaftesbury never failed to remind us that the brutes are 
 the creatures of our Father in Heaven ; and this thought 
 has quickened every effort of ours to save them, and has 
 daily bent the knees of mors than ten thousand men and 
 women in prayer for G-od's assistance in our work. 
 
 He is gone. We shall never see him, nor yet his like, again. 
 When the whole Society rose at the annual meeting last July, 
 to do him honour as he left the room, sad forebodings must 
 have been in many hearts that he had occupied his seat for 
 the last time, and spoken his last words ; that his venerable 
 yet stately figure, his voice, enfeebled by age, but resonant 
 still with courage and feeling, would be seen and heard 
 amongst those who so loved and honoured him, no more. 
 But though the end has come even sooner than was feared, 
 there is comfort in the thought that the long, sad twilight of 
 senility never fell on that vigorous brain, and that he was 
 spared both bodily pain and the infirmities of failing senses. 
 For him to have survived his powers of usefulness would have 
 been a terrible misfortune. A year before his death, having 
 spoken to the writer of these pages concerning the suffering 
 of women and girls, he said, " When I feel age creeping on me 
 and know I must soon die, — I hope it is not wrong to say 
 it, — but I cannot bear to leave the world with all the misery 
 in it.'" Thus he, who if any man might do so, looked forward 
 with confidence to entering at death " into the joy of his 
 Lord," yet wished to live, because he could do somewhat to 
 relieve the misery of man and woman and child and brute. 
 Other men have desired to remain in the world because of 
 the pleasures it offers them ; and others again have wished to 
 
9 
 
 quit a scene so full of anguish and injustice. But Lord 
 Shaftesbury wished to live, because of the misery of the 
 world ! 
 
 This was the man who was our Leader. _ In his spirit we 
 must continue to work, each as our powers permit. He will, 
 we believe, remember the objects of his earthly sympathy 
 where he is ; and perhaps to such spirits as his it may be 
 granted still to help the wretchedness which they pitied 
 here in otber, higher ways than the methods of our poor 
 world. But at least it is our part to struggle on in his 
 footsteps ; to take care tbat his labours in our cause shall not 
 fail ; to hoId.aIoft the sa me noble standard of prin ciple which 
 he carried before us, and to strive to the goal of his longings 
 and our own — the final triumph of "3lercy over false T^clence 
 and selfish cruelty. 
 
 F. P. C. 
 
 October, 1885. 
 
THE LATE L0BD SHAFTESBUEY'S 
 VIEWS ON VIVISECTION. 
 
 As a Memorial of the late lamented President 
 of the Victoria Street Society, and as a record 
 of the strength of his opinions on the Vivisection 
 question and the vigour with which he ex- 
 pressed them on two great occasions, we here 
 reprint his Speeches in the House of Lords. 
 
 The first is the substance of a speech delivered 
 in the House of Lords, Monday, 22nd May, 
 1876, in support of Lord Carnarvon's Bill. 
 
 The Earl of Shaftesbury said the Bill did not 
 go as far as could be wished, but, nevertheless, lie 
 desired to thank the Government for bringing it in. 
 The excitement throughout the country was very 
 great, as was shown by the Petitions that had been 
 addressed to Parliament ; and they would have been 
 more numerous and forcible if the people had not 
 believed that the Government would legislate on the 
 Report of the Commission. To show the strength 
 of the feeling which he believed predominated in the 
 country, he would quote the language of one Petition, 
 which was as follows : — 
 
 " That your Petitioners, feeling that cruel experi- 
 ments are on no grounds justifiable, hereby humbly 
 entreat your Honourable House to legislate for the 
 total abolition and utter suppression of what is 
 termed 'vivisection,' or the cutting-up of living 
 
12 
 
 creatures, or otherwise torturing them, or putting 
 them to death by torture, under any scientific 
 pretext whatsoever. Perpetrators of these atrocities 
 allege that they physically benefit mankind, though 
 competent authorities deny the assertion. But, 
 even if it were so, no physical gain can possibly 
 equal the injury caused by the moral degradation of 
 the feelings which such barbarous experiments must 
 naturally induce." 
 
 The supporters of the Government measure would, 
 he feared, be misrepresented, or, at least, misunder- 
 stood, for it could not be denied that the feeling of 
 the country was in favour of total abolition ; but, 
 knowing the difficulties which surrounded the 
 question, he was prepared to accept the Bill, which 
 only imposed restrictions ; and he did it upon this 
 ground — that while he believed restriction might be 
 effective he feared that abolition would be a dead 
 letter. Now, if it had been difficult to obtain 
 evidence before the Royal Commission for information, 
 how much more difficult would it be to obtain 
 evidence for a prosecution when all the men of science 
 were opposed to the measure. All sorts of arguments 
 were urged against interference, but he had heard 
 none so groundless as those of the noble Duke. 
 Field-sports might be justifiable or unjustifiable, 
 though he had nothing to do with such sports. 
 The argument was not applicable to him. He 
 never hunted a fox in his life ; many years ago he 
 hunted a hare, and he then determined from that 
 time never to do so again. But he would not go 
 into the question of field-sports at all. They were 
 beside the question. One evil, supposing this to be 
 an evil, did not palliate another. Was it not 
 permitted to abate suffering, though it could not be 
 extinguished altogether ? Common sense drew a 
 
13 
 
 distinction between them and prolonged deliberate 
 mutilation, the submitting of animals to torture 
 from hour to hour and month to month. The 
 argument derive.d from field-sports was, if good at 
 all, good only against those who hunted, and it was 
 no argument whatever to the mass of the people of 
 these lands, who never hunted, and who yet were 
 the Petitioners that demanded these prohibitions. 
 But, if the amusements of the fine folk of England 
 were to be quoted as reasons why there should be 
 no restriction on vivisection, let those amusements 
 be contrasted with the amusements of the vivisectors, 
 with that continuous excitement of morbid curiosity 
 which found its employment and recreation in 
 ingenious and prolonged suffering. M. Brachet, an 
 eminent French physician under Charles X. and 
 Louis Philippe, who obtained the physiological 
 prize from the Institute, narrated the following 
 experiment : — ■ 
 
 " I inspired a dog," — he begged noble Lords to 
 observe the rich language of science, — " I inspired 
 a dog with the greatest aversion for me by plaguing 
 and inflicting some pain or other upon it as often 
 as I saw it." Here was a precious pursuit of 
 knowledge ! " When this feeling was carried to its 
 height, sothat the animal became furious as soon as 
 it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes ; I could then 
 appear before it without its manifesting any aversion." 
 What a dis cover y ! "I spoke, and immediately its 
 barkings and furious movements proved the passion 
 which animated it. I destroyed the drum of its 
 ears, and disorganised the internal ear as much as 
 I could." T his was the lang uage of absolu te relish . 
 " When an intense inflammation which was excited 
 had rendered it deaf, I filled up its ears with wax. 
 It could no longer hear at all. Then I went to 
 
14 
 
 its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without 
 its falling into a rage ; it seemed even sensible to my 
 caresses." Wh at a heart the man must have had ! 
 It was thought necessary to repeat this experiment, 
 in order that there might be no uncertainty in the 
 result." "And what," observes Dr. Elliotson, who 
 criticised the case, " w as all thi s to prove? Simply 
 that if one brute has an aversion to another it does 
 not feel or show that aversion when it has no means 
 of knowing that the ot her bru te is present. If he 
 had stood near the dog on the other side of a wall, 
 he might have equally proved what common sense 
 required not to be proved. I bl ush for hu man 
 nature in detailing this experiment." Dr. Elliotson 
 wrote well. Why did not ev ery man blush who 
 heard of it ? And here let the amusements of the 
 French physiologist be compared with that of a day's 
 fox-hunting ! 
 
 It might be said this was a foreign practice ; but 
 what was the testimony of Sir AVilliam Fergusson, 
 that great and eminent surgeon? He said, "The 
 impression on my mind is that these experiments 
 are done in the most r eckless an d shocldngm annex >lL 
 He added, "I will give you an illustration of an 
 animal being crucified for several days, the poor 
 animal being brought in day after day for several 
 days merely that the spectators might see the 
 progress of its suffering." What was this but sheer 
 amusement? Could science have gained by a cold- 
 blooded, systematic cruelty such as this, one hair's 
 breadth of knowledge for the use of mankind ? — This 
 perhaps was gained ; a proof was gained of whatmen 
 can bring themselves to do when science is degraded 
 to a wretched monomania. Sir William was asked if 
 he believed that much of this was going on, and his 
 answer was, " I believe a great deal of reckless 
 
15 
 
 mutilation is going on among students even in 
 private] houses." Well, all sorts of objections had 
 been urged, heavy and light. Seal-skins, it was 
 stated, were obtained by reckless means. Now, first, 
 an effort had been made by law to appoint proper 
 seasons for the seal-fishing— and, secondly, this argu- 
 ment was effective only against those who wore that 
 kind of fur, and not against the millions who, 
 dressing in cotton and woollens, demanded that 
 animals should be protected. He himself (Lord 
 Shaftesbury) in a controversy he had with a distin- 
 guished man — an eminent surgeon — when he was 
 urging on him the necessity of moderation and care 
 in physiological experimentation, received for reply, 
 that he must look at home and ask himself if he did 
 not indulge in pate de foie gras [pie of goose-livers 
 artificially enlarged] . AATiy, he, and the masses who 
 sympathised with him, had never tasted pate de foie 
 gras in their lives, and probably never should taste 
 it. All he could say was, pate de foie gras brought 
 its own punishment with it — being as indigestible as 
 it was wicked. 
 
 Xow, this evil of vivisection was extended over the 
 whole of Europe, and was beginning to be very rife 
 in this country. 
 
 Dr. Haughton, on this point, fully confirmed the 
 testimony of Sir "William Fergus son, and stated — 
 
 ' I believe that a large proportion of the experi- 
 ments now performed upon animals in England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland are unnecessary, and clunisy 
 repetitions of well-known results. Young physiolo- 
 gists in England learn German and read experiments 
 in German journals, and repeat them in this country. 
 There is a good deal of that second-rate sort of physio- 
 logical practice going on ; " all of which their Lordships 
 might believe was as useless as it was atrocious. 
 
16 
 
 Now, if vivisection had been exhibited to their 
 Lordships for the first time, all would have shrunk 
 from it with abhorrence ; but now, suddenly, they 
 were confronted with a long-established system ; and 
 they had to deal with the arguments and facts of 
 learned men of very various dispositions. Vivisec- 
 tion was urged as a grand necessity for the pro- 
 longation of human life and the alleviation of human 
 suffering. Doubtless, there were many and great 
 names in favour of the practice, but there were also 
 great names who questioned the necessity, and 
 hesitated to believe that any real good had resulted 
 atall in proportion to the thousands of hecatombs of 
 animals that had been slaughtered and tortured in 
 this terrible pursuit of science. 
 
 Sir William Feegusson observed that — 
 " Mr. Syme lived to express an abhorr ence of such 
 operations, — at all events, if they were not useful. 
 His ultimate authority was strongly on the other side 
 (against them), as was expressed in a special report 
 of his own. No man, perhaps," said Sir William, 
 " has ever had more experience of the human subject 
 than Mr. Syme, and I myself have a strong opinion 
 that such an expression, coming from Mr. Syme, was 
 a mature and valuable opinion." When asked 
 whether his own opinion in mature life was much 
 less favourable to these experiments than when he 
 was young, "Yes," he replied, " because I had not 
 the same grasp of the subject at that time. I was 
 more, perhaps, influenced by what o ther peop le had 
 done, and by the wisiuto c ome up to wh at the y 
 had done, in such matters ; but the more mature 
 judgment of recent years has led me to say to myself 
 now that I would not perform some of the operations 
 at this present time that I performed myself in earlier 
 days." This was of weight. 
 
17 
 
 Professor Kolleston stated — 
 
 " Haller fell in his later age into a permanent 
 anguish of conscience, which is shown in his epistles, 
 
 proaching himself most bitterly for his vivisections 
 (stated by Krug). I think I may say this (but I 
 shall not give the name), that it is within my own 
 personal experience that a person who has a con- 
 siderable name before the world, and has performed 
 a large number of vivisections in his time, has 
 expressed himself to me as exceedingly sorry that 
 he ever did them — did them, I should say, to the 
 extent to which he did." 
 
 To these might be added the names of Dr. Child, 
 Dr. Crisp, and others. But further. In the life of 
 that accomplished man, Sir Charles Bell, was to be 
 found this passage : — 
 
 " In his study of the system of circulation, as in 
 that of the nerves, Charles Bell^was necessarily 
 compelled to make more than one experiment in 
 comparative anatomy ; but he abstained as much as 
 possible from torturing animals, which he con- 
 sidered, in most cases, a useless act of cruelty, less 
 certain in result than was commonly supposed, and 
 less profitable than an attentive study of patho- 
 logical phenomena, because vivisection [not only 
 alters the substance of the mutilated organs, but 
 disturbs, more or less profoundly, the natural 
 condition of life, and excites, through pain, irre- 
 gular motions differing from those expected or 
 previously observed, &c." Why, this passage was 
 almost an answer to the whole inquiry ; not only 
 did he avoid torture, so far as he could, but he con- 
 sidered the study of pathology superior to the 
 practice of vivisection. — But here was, no doubt, the 
 difference in the minds of the experimentalists ; 
 pathology was long, and vivisection was short ; study 
 
18 
 
 a bore, but action an amusement. " Sir Charles 
 admitted that his own opinion was not the opinion of 
 some of the best and most virtuous men he had ever 
 known, but that for his own part he could never 
 convince himself either by the experiments he 
 witnessed or by any of those related to him." 
 
 What a testimony from such a man ! 
 
 But he wished particularly to call their Lordships 
 attention to a letter written by Sir Charles Bell 
 himself : — 
 
 " I should be writing," he said, " a third paper on 
 the nerves, but I cannot proceed without making 
 some experiments, which are so unpleasant to 
 make that I defer them. You may think me 
 silly " — would their Lordships mark these words? — 
 
 r" but I cannot perfectly con vince myself that I am 
 authorized in nature or religion to do these cruelties : " 
 would they pause here for a minute. Sir Charles 
 proceeded, and "for what? " he said. "For anything 
 else than a little egotism or se lf-aggrandiseme nt ? and 
 yet, what are my experiments in comparison with 
 those which are daily done, and are done daily for 
 nothing? " Their Lordships might be assured that 
 the people of England rested their hatred — no 
 lighter term can be used of this terrible system — on 
 the grounds suggested by Sir Charles Bell. It was 
 with many of them not simply a matter of feeling, 
 it was one of religion. He (Lord S.) did not believe 
 that it could be eradicated ; he hardly believed that 
 it could be partially subdued. A violent unqualified 
 opposition to their wishes might bring on such 
 expressions of sentiment as would end in the most 
 coercive measures, and the formation of a public 
 opinion, hostile alike to science and to scientific 
 men personally, in the matter of vivisection. 
 
 But this Bill did not demand the solution of the 
 
10 
 
 difficulty whether vivisection were really necessary 
 or not ; it went only to the extent to which the 
 men of science would go in limitation of an acknow- 
 ledged evil, Now his noble friend had stated facts. 
 He would add one or two. It was impossible to 
 describe the feelings they excited. The narrator in 
 this instance was M. Bouillaud, a man of high 
 scientific name, and one of the most conspicuous 
 physicians in the Medical School of Paris. The 
 account of the eleventh experiment began thus : — 
 
 " I made an opening on each side of the forehead 
 of a young dog, and forced a red hot iron into each 
 of the anterior lobes of the brain "—would their 
 Lordships observe the light jaunty way in which he 
 relates his chamber sport? "Immediately after- 
 wards, the animal, after howling violently, lay down 
 as if to sleep. On urging it, it walked or even ran 
 for a considerable space ; it did not know how to 
 avoid obstacles placed in its way, and on encountering 
 them groaned, or even howled violently. Deprived 
 of the knowledge of external objects, it no longer 
 made any movements either to avoid or approach 
 them." As if common sense would not have taught 
 this to any one. " But it still could perform such 
 motions as are called instinctive. It withdrew its 
 feet when they were pinched, and shook itself when 
 water was poured upon it. It turned incessantly in 
 the cage as if to get out, and became impatient of 
 the restraint thus imposed." 
 
 After noting many revolting details, he said : — 
 " It slept occasionally for a short time, and on 
 awakening began its mournful cries. We tried to 
 keep it quiet by beating it, but it only cried more 
 loudly. It did not understand the lesson ; it was 
 incorrigible." W hat s tuff ! to say n othing of h is 
 feelings ; was the man in his senses ? 
 
20 
 
 Some days elapsed and the journal continued : — 
 
 " Its fore-legs are now half paralysed in walking, 
 or rather in dragging itself along ; it rests upon the 
 back of its foot, bent upon the leg. No change has 
 taken place in respect to his intellectual power ; as 
 its irrepressible cries disturbed the neighbourhood I 
 was obliged to kill it." Here the atrocious prolonga- 
 tion of torture should be noted. 
 
 This gentleman was insatiable ; he presented 
 another rich experiment, rich in showing what men 
 can do and what animals must submit to. Another 
 young dog, so went the narrative, that had been 
 exposed to similar suffering from having had " the 
 cranium and cerebral hemispheres sawed trans- 
 versely," escaped from its torturer by a comparatively 
 easy death. " To prevent its plaintive cries dis- 
 turbing my neighbours," — what humane considera- 
 tion ! ''I enveloped it in a thick sack. On 
 examining some time afterwards, I found that it had 
 died from suffocation." Another dog was selected, 
 " possessing the reputation of being lively, docile, 
 and intelligent." The anterior part of its brain was 
 transfixed on the 28th of June, and day after day, 
 for several weeks, it was tortured in every possible 
 way, and the effects recorded. After detailing the 
 results, he says, on the 7th of July : — 
 
 "When menanced it crouches, as if to implore 
 mercy" — could anything, except a de mi -fie nd, have 
 .felt or written m that way? — "but it does not in 
 consequence obey. It, on the contrary, utters cries 
 which nothing can repress, similar to those of an 
 uneducated dog, whose intellect is undeveloped." 
 What did their Lordships think the dog would have 
 replied to the developed intellect of his torturer, 
 couldJiehave spoken ? The very dumbn ess of the 
 animals shoula be a powerful appeal on their behalf. 
 
21 
 
 " I watched attentively," he went on, " for the 
 remainder of this and for the first fifteen days of 
 the succeeding month." The ferocious prolongation 
 of suffering should again be observed. 
 
 But to sum up, in the words of Dr. Walker, let 
 them listen to a choice category of experimental 
 recreations. 
 
 "Forcing substances into the stomach of a dog 
 after exposing the gullet, and tying it to prevent 
 vomiting ; opening the abdomen, tying a portion of 
 the small intestine in two places, opening the inter- 
 mediate portion, and injecting a noxious fluid into 
 it ; starving rabbits till they would eat dead frogs ; 
 forcing boiling water into a dog's stomach ; boiling 
 frogs ; starving pigeons till they dropped from their 
 perches, and then cutting of their anterior or pos- 
 terior extremities to show that this caused death 
 when the organism was exhausted from want of 
 food." Did man, from all this, walk in greater 
 honour and greater security ? and was it not now 
 clear to their Lordships that they ought to do some- 
 thing to put a check upon such wild, wanton, and 
 su perfluous cr ueltie s ? Now let them hear Dr. 
 Acland, a very eminent physician — what did he say '? 
 
 "The number of persons in this and other 
 countries who are becoming biologists wi thou t being 
 m edical men is very much increasing. Modern 
 civilization seems to be set upon acquiring biological 
 knowledge, and one of the consequences of this is, 
 that, whereas medical men are constantly engaged 
 in the study of anatomy and physiology for a humane 
 purpose (that is, for the purpose of doing immediate 
 good to mankind), there are a number of persons now 
 who are engaged in the pursuit of these subjects for 
 the purpose of acquiring abstract knowledge. That 
 is quite a different thing. I am not at all sure that 
 
22 
 
 the mere acquisition of knowledge is not a thing 
 having some dangerous and mischievous tendencies 
 in it. . . ." That very striking and most true 
 observation deserved serious attention. " Now it 
 has become a profession," he continued, " to dis- 
 cover, and to discover at any cost." 
 
 Mr. G. H. Lewes said : — 
 
 "One man discovers a fact or publishes an ex- 
 periment, and instantly, all over Europe, certain 
 people set to work to repeat it. They will repeat it, 
 and repeat it, and repeat it." Mr. Lewes was right. 
 Unless checked, they will repeat any amount of 
 cruelty without the slightest addition of knowledge. 
 
 Dr. Hatjghton said : — 
 
 " I would shrink with horror from accustoming 
 large classes of young men to the sight of animals 
 nder vivisection. I believe that many of them 
 would become cruel and hardened, and would go 
 away and repeat those experiments recklessly. 
 Science would gain nothing, and the world would 
 have let loose upon it a set of young devils." Was 
 not, he asked their Lordships, the great rush of 
 them already begun ? 
 
 Dr. Anthony, another high testimony, "-krfew 
 himself of instances of young men, from mere 
 cu riosi ty, carrying on these experiments. Could 
 mention them, but would scarcely like to do so. 
 No anaesthetics are used to diminish the pain of the 
 creatures. Of course not, it would be tqojnuch 
 trouble. Eespecting demonstrations by professors 
 to students, Dr. Anthony says : — " I believe the 
 more you keep the scenic element away the better. 
 The reason is the existence of a inorjtudjcirriosity. 
 There is a morbid curiosity which is known to medical V 
 
 (men well with reference to operations of all kinds." ] 
 That was just what had been asserted all alongy/ 
 
23 
 
 " There are a certain number of persons who are 
 very fond of coming to see the different operations at 
 the hospitals. I look upon that, and particularly 
 upon the desire of seeing these experiments on 
 animals as something very, very morbid indeed." 
 
 Could anything, he asked their Lordships, be more 
 illustrative than the written statement put in by 
 Mr. James B. Mills?— 
 
 " Observing from the daily papers that Mr. Ernest 
 art alleges that students do not perform experi- 
 ments on living , animals as an exercise in the 
 rosecution of their studies, I beg to forward to you 
 a summary of my experience in that respect during 
 my college career at Edinburgh. I am a veterinary 
 surgeon, and I feel it my duty to aid your Society in 
 repressing unnecessary experimentation ; surveying 
 the past as I do, with much regret, so far as I have 
 participated in the practices which I am now com- 
 pelled to condemn. At Edinburgh the veterinary 
 students and the medical students frequently 
 associate for pleasure and for study. The experi- 
 ments were certainly never designed to discover any 
 new fact, or elucidate any obscure phenomena, but 
 simply to demonstrate the most ordinary facts of 
 physiology. Our victims were sometimes dogs, but 
 more frequently cats. Many of the latter were 
 caught by means of a poisoned bait, the animals 
 being secured whilst suffering from the agonies 
 caused by the poison, when antidotes were applied 
 for their restoration. They were then imprisoned 
 in a cupboard at the students' lodgings, and kept 
 there until a meeting could be arranged. Sometimes 
 the students secured their victims by what is known 
 as a cat-hunt, that is, a raid on cats by students 
 armed with sticks late at night. I am not prepared 
 to say that the object of the students was to commit 
 
24 
 
 cruelty, or that there was any morbid desire to 
 witness pain, but I say emphatically that there 
 was no other motive than idle curiosity and heedless, 
 reckless love of experimentation. What, for instance, 
 could justify the following experiment, performed for 
 the purpose of witnessing the action of a cat's heart? 
 The operator first of all made an incision through 
 the skin of the animal's chest, extending from the 
 neck to the belly. The skin was then laid back by 
 hooks, in order to enable the operator to cut through 
 the cartilage of the breast-bone, and to draw his 
 knife across the ribs for the purpose of nicking them. 
 This process is necessary to enable him to snap the 
 ribs and lay the fractured parts back, which also are 
 secured with hooks. It is needless to say that such 
 operation is a most cruel one ; but it is only one of 
 several others performed at Edinburgh. Now, the 
 action of the heart is well-known, and is one of the 
 first things taught to students of physiology, and 
 can be taught as well without experimentation as 
 with. In a few cases the animals were narcotised, 
 when no suffering was caused either in the process 
 of poisoning or in the after experimentations." The 
 repetition, then, their Lordships would see, was for 
 diversion, not for knowledge. " The securing an 
 animal for an operation like the above requires 
 experience and care, and it is fearful to witness the 
 struggles of the animal while this is being done. I 
 desire to exonerate the professors from any partici- 
 pation in the experiments performed by students, 
 which were conducted at the private lodgings of 
 students, when none but students were present." 
 
 On cross-examination, Mr. Mills confirmed these 
 statements. He said : — 
 
 " The experiments " (made chiefly on cats and dogs) 
 " had no other motive than idle curiosity and reckless 
 
25 
 
 love of experimentation." All the students (a class 
 of seventy or eighty) assisted more or less at these 
 useless experiments. They were sometimes done in 
 public in the yard of the college. " The habit of 
 doing such things is sure to go on unless a stop is 
 put to it." He referred to a special case which 
 occurred last winter session. A horse was bought 
 for the purpose of dissection. This animal was 
 subjected during a whole week to various operations, 
 such as tenotomy and neurotomy, &c. The opera- 
 tions were " very painful." No anaesthetics of any 
 kind were given. The experiments were made " all 
 over the animal." Edinburgh, it was clear, would 
 soon be a match for Paris in competitive examinations 
 on animal torture. " A dog, too, which was first 
 half-poisoned and then restored by an antidote, 
 received ' brutal usage.' The brains were knocked 
 out by a hammer." 
 
 The story of the horse was subsequently confirmed 
 by Principal Williams. 
 
 Dr. Scott, also, maybe heard on the easy indifference 
 of these lovers of scientific truth. 
 
 After describing how he ceased to attend the 
 physiological lectures in Edinburgh on account of 
 the cruelty he witnessed, he says that "it did not 
 provoke the slightes t symp toms of abhorrence 
 among those who witnessed^ it." He " never knew 
 an operation cause the least abhorrence to a medica l 
 student." Vivisection, he believes, goes on among 
 sfuaents in their own rooms. 
 
 But few things had alarmed him more than some- 
 thing he saw lately in the Text-book of the Science 
 and Art Department of the Committee of Council on 
 Education, a book entitled " Lessons in Elementary 
 Physiology," by Thomas. Hu xley, LL.D., F.E.S. 
 Had he not seen it he could hardly have believed it 
 
26 
 
 possible, strange and numerous as were the novel 
 things that sprang up every day. 
 
 In the preface to the first edition Professor Huxley 
 says :— 
 
 " The following ' Lessons in Elementary Physi- 
 ology ' are primarily intended to serve the purpose 
 of a text-book for teachers and learners in boys' and 
 / girls' schools." 
 
 In the next place it is strongly insisted " that such 
 experiments as those subjoined shall not merely be 
 studied in the manual, but actually repeated, either 
 by the ' boysjind girls ' themselves7""or"eTse by the 
 teacher in their presence, as plainly appears from 
 the preface to the second edition. There it was 
 said, ' the knowledge ' which is ' attainable by mere 
 reading, though infinitely better than ignorance,' 
 yet loses ' almost its whole worth as an intellectual 
 discipline ' to those who seek it only in books. 
 Where then could it be sought but in the living 
 animal? " And the last phrase showed it by assert- 
 ing the necessity of the knowledge " arising from 
 direct contact with fact." 
 
 But that there might be no doubt, he asked their 
 Lordships' attention to the passage in the ninth 
 edition, page 52 : — " If in a rabbit," the Professor 
 stated, " the sympathetic nerve which sends branches 
 to the vessels of the head is cut, the ear of the 
 rabbit .... at once blushes .... To 
 produce pallor and cold in the rabbit's ear, it is 
 only necessary to irritate the cut end of the sym- 
 pathetic." It was manifest that the incision to 
 make the ear of the rabbit blush must be on the 
 living, and not on the dead animal.* 
 
 * Note. — Professor Huxley has since written to The Times to 
 disclaim all intention of advising vivisection by teachers and 
 learners. 
 
And wasthat they#iy, he asked, to bring up 
 children ? Was t hat t he progress we had made in 
 "The nineteenth century ? From ignorance, perhaps, 
 the tendency of children w^s tg hp. r.me.l. and 
 who did" not know the ne cessity of d aily r ebuke to 
 check that propensity ? But under this unprece- 
 dehle"cTscITenie"of intellectual training they were to 
 be accustomed, from their earliest years, not only to 
 witness, but to inflict, agonies of p ain on the poor 
 helpless creatures they shou ld be taught to love and 
 protect. Sir Astley Cooper must have been brought 
 up after this fashion. In his Life by his nephew, 
 Bransby Cooper, we read the following story : — 
 
 " During this time, Astley, who was always eager 
 to add to our anatomical and physiological know- 
 ledge, made a variety of experiments on living 
 animals. I recollect one day walking out with him, 
 when a dog followed us and accompanied us home," 
 mark this — "the dog is taught by nature to confide in 
 man, " little foreseeing the fate that awaited him. 
 He was confined for a few days, till we had ascer- 
 tained that no owner would come to claim him, and 
 then brought up to be the subject of various opera- 
 tions. The first of these was the tying one of the 
 femoral arteries. When poor," mark the pity ! 
 " poor Chance, for so we appropriately named the 
 dog, was sufficiently recovered from this" — mark 
 the br utalit y of that tender care, to c ure him for 
 further suffering ! " one of the humeral arteries was 
 subjected to a similar process. After the lapse of a 
 few weeks the ill-fated animal was killed, the vessels 
 injected, and preparations were made from each of the 
 limbs. It appears," the biographer continued, 
 "that the dogs sacrificed in my uncle's scientific 
 researches were not unfrequently procured in this 
 manner." That was, as the biographer had stated 
 
28 
 
 elsewhere, by agents, who obtained the animals by 
 every form of illicit art. " Nothing but the objects 
 which led to these delinquencies," added the his- 
 torian, " could offer an excuse for such pro- 
 ceedings." And so they had there, as elsewhere, 
 the full indulgence of the precept, that the end 
 justifies the means. 
 
 But he (Lord S.) must go further. He did not 
 know whether their Lordships would hesitate to 
 join him in believing that in such an ardent adora- 
 tion of science, worshipped and pursued under the 
 high pretext of the universal alleviation of human 
 suffering, pursued for discoveries that were to raise 
 man's intellect by perpetual progress in this kind of 
 knowledge, with an increasing relish for it, the step 
 was very_narrow between the vivisection of the 
 animal and the vivisection of the human being. It 
 had been so in old times ; it might "Be so again. Dr. 
 Macaulay, in his valuable work, " Plea for Mercy to 
 Animals," said that the system prevailed in the days 
 of Celsus, in a time of refinement, and what is termed 
 high civilization — -Celsus wrote with horror of the 
 cruelties perpetrated on living men and living 
 women. But the world was returning, he (Lord S.) 
 said, to many of the opinions of those earlier days ; 
 and why not, then, to their practices'? This was 
 no mere conjecture. It was to be recollected that 
 Cheselden, one of the most distinguished surgeons 
 of the last century, wishing to investigate a surgical 
 question, had proposed to try the experiment on a 
 criminal condemned to death, but the opposition 
 which was manifested on this occasion prevented 
 his desire being carried into effect. That was good; 
 but people became familiar very soon with strange 
 things often proposed ; and science at that time had 
 not then, as now, been deified. But something was 
 
29 
 
 dawning even in modern minds. The testimony of 
 Dr. Rutherford gave cause for disquietude. "In 
 your judgment," he was asked, "are operations of 
 that description upon the dog to be taken as evidence 
 of what the effect would be on a human being?" 
 " Certainly not ; but merely as suggesting what the 
 action would be, that is all. The experiment must 
 also be tried upon men before a conclusion can be 
 drawn." Exactly so ; and if in the fanatical autho- 
 rity of science, and the equally fanatical obedience 
 to it, some conclusions were declared to be absolutely 
 necessary, criminals, as heretofore, might be utilized 
 for the purpose — for, though scientific men were no 
 worse, they were no better, than other men, most of 
 whom succumbed to temptation and opportunity. 
 
 Professor Rolleston seemed to entertain a similar 
 apprehension. " With regard," he said, " to all 
 absorbing studies, it is the besetting sin of them and 
 of original research, that they lift a man so entirely 
 above the ordinary sphere of daily duty that it 
 betrays him (in other lines of original research as 
 Nvvell as this) into selfishness and unscrupulous 
 neglect of duty," and he added the testimony of an 
 eminent professor. Mr. Skey, said he, wTote in his 
 work, " A man who has the reputation of a splendid 
 operator is ever a just object of suspicion." No 
 doubt, for opportunity to such men was almost 
 irresistible. 
 
 But these operations appeared to blunt the under- 
 standing in many as much as they hardened the 
 heart. Some learned men had actually declared 
 that animals were like puppets — they kicked, cried, 
 and made a noise, but had no feeling whatever. 
 Such was the attempted de spotis m of science over 
 co mmon sense . Others urged that animals were not 
 to be pitied, because they had no foreknowledge of 
 
30 
 
 what was going to happen. But, if that was so, it 
 was the best and most fearful argument he had ever 
 heard, and one conducing to the issues just men- 
 tioned, for the vivisection of babies and idiots, for 
 they would have no foreknowledge of the torture 
 that awaited them. But the strongest part of the 
 whole evidence to show the degradation of moral 
 feeling was that of Dr. Klein, who was employed 
 officially by the medical officer to the Privy Council. 
 These were some of the questions put to him, and 
 his answers to them : — 
 
 " When you say that you only use anaesthetics for 
 'convenience sake, do you mean that you have no 
 regard at all to the sufferings of the animals?" 
 " No regard at all." " Then for your own purposes 
 you disregard entirely the question of the suffering 
 of the animal in performing a painful experiment ? " 
 " I do." "But, in regard to your proceedings as an 
 investigator, you are prepared to acknowledge that 
 you hold as entirely indifferent the sufferings of the 
 animal which is subjected to your investigation?" 
 "Yes." What could surpass or even equal such ^ 
 philosophy as that ? J 
 
 And finally, a gentleman, whom he woulcH^iot 
 name, bore testimony to the "kindness" of Dr. 
 Burdon-Sanderson and Dr. Klein. When interro- 
 gated "Whether he did not think that the habit of 
 regarding animals as a mere battery of vital forces 
 on which particular results are to be studied, 
 necessarily to a certain extent produces the effect 
 of diminishing the sympathy with their sufferings?" 
 he said, "I think not. I do not know anywhere 
 a kinder person than Dr. Burdon-Sanderson." 
 "Or than Dr. Klein, for instance?" asked the 
 Commission. " I have no reason," said this gentle- 
 man, "to think otherwise of him." ' That opinion, 
 
31 
 
 from such a person as the gentleman he would not 
 name, co mpleted his (Lord S.) conviction of the evil 
 effects of those practices on a kmT'and generous 
 naEure! But to conclude, the subject was inex- 
 haustible ; it was impossible for him to compress 
 within a small compass all the arguments that might 
 be urged, and all the facts that might be adduced ; 
 but he was not pleading for total abolition, he was 
 pleading only for mitigation of the system, and 
 surely there was no wisdom in declaring that one 
 evil shall continue to exist because another could 
 not be put down. Up to this point scientific men 
 were with the advocates of restriction. England 
 had prohibited bull-baiting, cock-fighting, prize- 
 fighting, all of which had, in their day, no end of 
 logic and sentiment in their favour ; and why should 
 she not hold her place among all the nations of the 
 earth, and be the first to reduce, within the closest 
 possible limits, the sufferings inflicted by man on the 
 whole animal creation ? 
 
 The second speech, the substance of which 
 we reprint, was delivered in support of Lord 
 Truro's Bill, in the House of Lords, 15th July, 
 1879 :— 
 
 The Earl of Shaftesbury requested leave for a 
 few words on this sad question. He said that, 
 notwithstanding what had been urged in answer to 
 the noble lord, that noble lord had done right in 
 presenting a Bill for the total abolition of the 
 practice of vivisection. Licences had been freely 
 granted for painful experiments ; for dispensing 
 with anaesthetics, and with the obligation to kill 
 
32 
 
 the suffering animals after the experiment had been 
 performed. Now, if this was done under the 
 superintendence of a Secretary of State who had 
 brought in the Bill, and who had ever declared 
 himself, and truly, he believed, to be anxious for 
 every possible abatement of the evil, what were 
 they to expect from any one who might succeed 
 him, and whose opinions, tinctured by the idolatry 
 of the day, were that everything was to be sacrificed 
 to the Image of science ? No one, he believed, had 
 laboured harder than himself to carry the present 
 experimental Act. He had hoped much amelioration 
 from it, but he found none ; and more especially was 
 he convinced of its inutility when he saw licences 
 and certificates granted to Dr. Kutherford, whose 
 abundant and cruel experiments were set out in the 
 report of the Royal Commission, and who himself 
 had declared that his experiments, to be conclusive, 
 must be tried on the living man. That professor, 
 moreover, did not stand very high in the medical 
 world. His attention had been directed to the 
 Hunterian oration by Dr. Moxon in 1877, in which 
 the professor's doings were elaborately ridiculed, 
 which remarks were endorsed and supported by many 
 medical authorities. But the Act, he maintained, 
 was not only useless, it was delusive and misleading. 
 Many persons were lulled into a belief that by its 
 provisions protection was afforded. So it was, no 
 doubt ; but it was protection to the vivisectors, and 
 not to the animals. The noble Earl (Beauchamp) 
 had enlarged on the security of anaesthetics. He 
 (Lord S.) might ask on that point some preliminary 
 questions. Were the anaesthetics administered at all? 
 Were they carefully and accurately administered? 
 What were they ? Were they effective ?>uVV'as it 
 chloral ? If so, a very weak application. Was it 
 
 >]k* 
 
33 
 
 curare ? If so, and he said it on the authority of 
 the great vivisector, Claude Bernard, that it caused 
 more suffering than it attempted to prevent. Was 
 it morphia? Why that only utterly subdued the 
 victim, without deadening the pain. There was 
 much delusion in all these assurances ; there was 
 little confidence to be placed in them. 
 /- But no fact had more influenced his judgment \ 
 \j than the announcement of a public memorial to the/ 
 V s -- well-known operator on animal life, M. Claude 
 Bernard. This memorial was supported by many ' 
 of the most scientific men in England, who testified 
 their admiration of his zeal and skill in this depart- \ 
 ment of science. He asked permission to give one 
 specimen, out of many instances, perhaps hundreds, 
 of the deeds of that singular man. The extract 
 was taken from Claude Bernard's " Liquides^jJe" 
 l'Organisme," p. 40 : — 
 
 " We cut out the kidneys from a bull-dog [a pretty 
 statement to begin with] . Next day, twenty-four 
 hours after the operation, the dog, without being- 
 enfeebled, appeared dejected, respiration was impeded, 
 and sighing. He had vomited during the night. 
 He refused all food and avoided movement, appeared 
 to suffer, and at times cried out. In order that his 
 cries should not disturb the neighbours we applied a 
 muzzle pretty tightly. [What a spirit of consideration 
 for the peace of the locality ! ] When during the 
 day we returned we found the dog lying dead, his 
 muzzle bathed in a fetid fluid, which he had vomited. 
 The muzzle had hindered the expulsion of the 
 
 
 vomiting and caused the animal to be suffocated by^ / / 
 
 it." Such was the man that the phil osophe r^ ^ j 
 delighted to honou r ! 
 
 And t hat wa s the work of science ! — of that which 
 its worshippers called science — and among the 
 
34 
 
 promoters of the memorial might be found some 
 who had testified, in the strongest manner, against 
 the infliction of needless pain, and the practice of 
 mere speculative vivisection. What then could be 
 a fuller proof of a cruel and morbid curiosity, and 
 what hope remained tHaTinvestigators and operators, 
 delighting in such things, would respect the principle, 
 and be restrained within the limitations of the Act { 
 
 Now further he observed that since the passing of 
 the Act, as well as before, many learned lectures had 
 been delivered and many learned treatises published 
 denying altogether the value of vivisection ; nay more, 
 maintaining that the results were fallacious and 
 more likely to lead to error than to truth. The 
 contradictions of vivisectionists were surprising. 
 They agreed in nothing but that the animals should 
 be cut up. Now, the three following questions had 
 been propounded and admirably handled in a recent 
 work by Dr. Gimson : — 
 
 " 1. Have vivisections and painful experiments 
 been of any scientific value ? 2. Have they led to 
 the discovery of scientific facts of permanent impor- 
 tance '? 3. Are there not fallacies underlying such a 
 method of interrogating Nature, which of necessity 
 vitiate the results?" 
 
 Many sound and really scientific men were pre- 
 pared to say " No " to the first two questions, and 
 " Yes " to the third ; and most justly too. For was 
 it not manifest that safe and accurate conclusions 
 could not be drawn from examinations of an animal 
 reduced to such an abnormal state ? Were it placed 
 under an anaesthetic, would not all its internal 
 functions — he did not pretend to use professional 
 language — be altered or suspended thereby, so as 
 utterly to nullify all close and reliable deductions as 
 to what might be the case in its natural and ordinary 
 
35 
 
 state? Was it under the operation of the knife, pure 
 and simple — would not the pain, the terror of the 
 wretched victim, render the conclusions still more fal- 
 lacious f The vivisectors, many of them, felt the force 
 of the argument. To evade it, they asserted (and never- 
 theless had the audacity to call themselves masters in 
 science) that the poor animal whined and winced, 
 and gave every indication of suffering, but that it 
 was hard, dull, insensible. Others, claiming some 
 portion of humanity, rejoiced that the animals had 
 no forethought at least of the tortures that awaited 
 them ; an argument, which if of any value at all, 
 might, in their zealous regard for the comfort of the 
 human race, be brought to bear on the vivisection of 
 idiots and babies. 
 
 But scientific men of this stamp should be listened' 
 to when deploring their own ill success. What said 
 the famous Claude Bernard? Why, after thirty 
 years of operations on living animals he confessed : 
 " Our hands, without doubt, are empty to-day, but 
 our mouths full, it may be, of legitimate promisejL 
 for the future ; " and he said no more, but yet that 
 was the sole result of countless experiments of the 
 mo^tj^ufiLciescription. And what said Mr. Ruther^ 
 ford ? He, Lord Shaftesbury, must again refer to 
 him. " His experiments," he allowed, " were only 
 suggestive of inferences, which, to become conclusive," 
 would require the experiments to be tried on man." 
 Exactly so ; but what then has been gained by this 
 almost unprecedented torture of animals ? Why, 
 the important admission that continueo^experiments 
 are useless , and that man himself must be subjected 
 to torture before that professor could arrive at a con- 
 clusion. And yet to this professor had the power 
 been renewed of the free and fruitless use of the 
 knife ! The vivisection of man was no new thought ; 
 
36 
 
 the proposition had once been made by the great 
 professor Cheselden, and was rejected solely because 
 public opinion was not then ripe for such a step in 
 scientific pursuit. 
 
 He was happy to state that resistance was spread- 
 ing rapidly, and extending through all parts of 
 Europe and in America. Associations had been 
 formed in France, in Italy, in Germany, and in 
 Russia, for the total suppression of vivisection. 
 Persons of all ranks and degrees, professors and 
 learned men, were at the head of those associations, 
 and much good had already been effected at Alfort 
 and at Florence by their combined exertions. 
 
 It was impossible, he said, in discussingthis question, 
 to avoid the repetition of old arguments and the pro- 
 duction of similar instances. The opponents of the 
 system urged, and urged truly, the brutalizing effects 
 on the minds of the vivisectors, and on the minds of 
 those who approved them. He would quote, in brief, 
 but one instance, but it was a striking one, and he 
 implored their lordships to listen to it — it was 
 extracted from an address delivered at Dresden by 
 Baron Ernest von Weber, who took it from the 
 J work of Professor Goltz, of the Physiological 
 Institution at Strasburg : — "A very clever, lively 
 
 \V y° un g female dog, which had learnt to shake hands 
 *^with both fore-paws had the left side of the brain 
 washed out through two holes on the 1st of 
 December, 1875. LHe begged them to mark the 
 coolness and evident pleasure with which he thus 
 treated his pet companion.] This caused lameness 
 - in the right paw. On being asked for the left, the 
 dog immediately lays it in my hand. I now demand 
 
 <_ the right, but the creature only looks at me 
 sorrowfully, for it cannot move it. [Did their 
 lordships observe how he relished his barbaroj 
 
37 
 
 experiments?] On my continuing to press for it, the 
 dog crosses the left paw over and offers it to me on the 
 right side, as if to make amends for not being able 
 to give the right. [Without that fact, recorded on 
 such authority, would it have been thought possible 
 that an educated man should have been insensible 
 to such an appeal? But he was so, and, revelling in 
 his science, he prolonged his amusement.] On the 
 13th of January a second portion of the brain was 
 destroyed. [But that was not enough.] On the 
 15th of February a third, and on the 6th of March 
 a fourth, this last operation causing death." Thus, 
 to grat ify the peculiar taste of the in human wr etch, 
 that poor little animal was kept under torture and 
 examination, as foolish as it was ferocio us, from the 
 1st of December tolirle 6th of March, a period of 
 more than three months ! 
 
 Now, in what way, he asked, was true_ science 
 advanced by such curious and refined cruelty '? In 
 what way was man benefited or knowledge blessed 
 by such discoveries'? And yet these were the 
 cer tain and necessary consequences oF l egalised 
 vivisection. ScienTrntTnien, he said, and, indeed, 
 others, who ought to know better, were pleased 
 to talk of the "lower animals." In what sense 
 was the epithet " lower " to be applied to that 
 affectionate little thing ? Had their lordships 
 observed its un abated attac hment to its c old-bloo ded 
 master ? Had they not been struck by itsjspirit of 
 forgiveness under treatment so cruel ? Had they 
 not seen an exhibition of qualities that would have 
 become a thinking being ? And that was the use 
 they made oF the creatures committed to their 
 charge ! that the account they would re nder of their 
 stewardship ! All he could say was — and he said it 
 truly and conscientiously — that in every respect he 
 
38 
 
 would infinitely rather be the dog than be the 
 professor. (Hear, hear.) But whether the law was 
 efficient or inefficient, whether vivisection was 
 conducive to science or the reverse, there was one 
 great preliminary consideration : On what authority 
 of Scripture, or any other form of revelation, he 
 / asked most solemnly, did they rest their right 
 / to subject God's creatures to such unspeakable 
 sufferings ? The thought had troubled the mind 
 J of many vivisectors ; it had deeply touched the 
 heart of Sir Charles Bell. That they might take 
 the life of animals for food, or to remove danger or 
 annoyance, he fully admitted ; but he utterly denied 
 that they were permitted to indulge their curiosity 
 or even advance their knowledge by the infliction of 
 exquisite torture on the sentient creation. They 
 were told in haughty and dogmatic style that the 
 secrets of nature could bo learnt in no other way. 
 Learned in no other way ! Could it be believed that 
 the Almighty had issued such a decree ? The animals 
 were His creatures as much as we were His creatures ; 
 and " His tender mercies," so the Bible told us, 
 " were over all His works." He, along with many, 
 repudiated such an atrocious and shallow doctrine ; 
 and under that conviction he would ever do his best 
 to put down a system that w T as as needless as it was 
 cruel. 
 
 ,y^&C^" 
 
 
 j 
 
 'a 
 
itiavia ^txttt ^atittv 
 
 FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS FROM VIVISECTION, 
 
 UNITED WITH THE 
 
 IttJUrttaiinttal Jlssnr tat ian 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 TOTAL SUPPRESSION OF VIVISECTION. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENTS. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice of England. 
 
 His Eminence Cardinal Manning. 
 
 S.A.R. The Princess Eugenie of Sweden. 
 
 Prince Lucien Bonaparte. 
 
 The Duchess of Sutherland. 
 
 The Marquis of Bute. 
 
 The Marquis of Ailesbury. 
 
 The Marquis of Hertford. 
 
 The Marquis of Worcester. 
 
 The Earl of Darnley. 
 
 The Earl of Leven and Melville. 
 
 Viscount Sidmouth. 
 
 The Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 The Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxford. 
 
 The Bishop of Liverpool. 
 
 Lord Cardross. 
 
 Lord Mount-Temple. 
 
 Lord Tennyson. 
 
 Mr. Justice Lopes. 
 
 Rt. Hon. A. J. Mundella, M.P. 
 
 Rt. Hon. James Stansfeld, M.P. 
 
 The Archbishop of Tuam. 
 
 The Dean of Llandaff. 
 
 General Sir Percy Douglas, Bt. 
 
 Sir A. Malet, Bart. 
 
 Sir Gerald Codrington, Bart. 
 
 William Adlam, Esq., F.S.A. 
 
 Robert Browning, Esq. 
 
 CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 The Lady Abinger. 
 
 Mrs. Adlam. 
 
 Mrs. Arthur Arnold. 
 
 Hon. Evelyn Ashley, M.P. 
 
 The Lady Edith Ashley. 
 
 Ernest Bell, Esq., M.A. 
 
 Edward Berdoe, Esq., L.R.C.P. 
 
 Alexr. Bowie, Esq., M.D. 
 
 Miss Olive Bryant. 
 
 The Countess of Camperdown. 
 
 John H. Clarke, Esq., M.D. 
 Miss Frances Power Cobbe. 
 Hon. Stephen Coleridge. 
 J. F. B. Firth, Esq., M.P. 
 Mrs. Luther Holden. 
 Lady Kemball. 
 Miss Lloyd. 
 
 Lieut. -Gen. Sir P. McDougall, 
 Miss Marston. [K.C.M.G. 
 
 Rev. J. Matthews. 
 
Central Executive Committee — (continued). 
 
 Clara, Lady Rayleigh. 
 Miss Ellen E. Rees. 
 Robert T. Reid, Esq., Q.C., M.P. 
 The Countess of Seafield. 
 Rev. J. Verschoyle. 
 Sir J. E. Eardley Wilmot, Bt.,M.P. 
 Hon. Treasurer.- — Hon. Bernard Coleridge. 
 Secretary.— BENJ N - BRYAN. 
 
 Mrs. Frank Morrison. 
 
 The Lady Mount-Temple. 
 
 Her Excellency Lady Paget. 
 
 Mrs. James Pender. 
 
 F. E. Pirkis, Esq., R.N., F.R.G.S. 
 
 The Countess of Portsmouth. 
 
 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND BRANCHES. 
 
 North London: Hon. Sec, Miss Ellen Elcum Rees, 27, Carlingford Road, Hampstead ; 
 Hon. Treas., Ernest Bell, Esq., M.A. Mile End, London : Hon. Sec, F. H. 
 Parsons, Esq., 54, White Horse Lane. Scottish Society : Hon. Sees., Miss M. A. 
 Duncan and Capt. Waterston, 37, Lutton Place, Edinburgh. Naples : Hon. Sec, 
 Princess Mele Barese, Casa Mele. Richmond : Hon. Sec, Mrs. Willdridge, 3, 
 Townshend Villas. Torquay: Hon. Sec, Miss Martyn, Harleston. Bristol: Hon. 
 Sec, Miss Bradley, Stoke Green, Stoke Bishop. Manchester: Hon. Sec, Miss M. 
 Jackson ; Sec, Miss C. Fothergill, 6, Exchange Buildings, St. Mary's Gate. Bourne- 
 mouth : Hon. Sec, Miss J. Luard, Winterslow Cottage. North Devon : Hon. Sec, 
 Mrs. Hanbury Barnes, SS. Philip and James Vicarage, Ilfracombe. Oxford: Hon. 
 Sees., F. E. Weatherly, Esq., Seven Springs, and Rev. Walter H. Partridge, 
 Holywell Vicarage. East Kent: Hon. Sec, Miss Fagg, Ripple Rectory, near Deal. 
 Derby: Hon. Sec, W. H. Morley, Esq., Malcolm Street. Clevedon: Hon. Sees., W. 
 E. Stevenson, Esq., St. Andrewes ; E. J. Wareham, Esq. Margate: Hon. Sec, Ruiter 
 Sholl, Esq., Bedford Cottage, Sweyn Road. Malvern : Hon. Sec, John Gawtherne, 
 Esq. (M.A., Oxon.), Mill Bank House. 
 
 HONORAR 
 
 The Lord Abercromby. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Nathan Adler (Chief Rabbi). 
 
 The Lord Alington. 
 
 William Shepherd Allen, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Professor Sheldon Amos. 
 
 Countess Baldelli. 
 
 Col. Julius Barras. 
 
 Sir T. Barrett-Lennard, Bt. 
 
 Jacob Bright, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Dowager Countess of Buchan. 
 
 Canon Cholmondeley. 
 
 William L. Christie, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. 
 
 The Lord Colville of Culross. 
 
 M. le Docteur Combet. 
 
 Mrs. A. Craven. 
 
 Rev. W. A. St. John Dearsly. 
 
 Henry Downes, Esq., M.D. 
 
 Sir George Duckett, Bt. 
 
 M. Oscar Falateuf. 
 
 Lord Maurice Fitzgerald. 
 
 Dr. Paul Forster. 
 
 Mrs. Honyman Gillespie. 
 
 The Duchesse de Gramont. 
 
 Mrs. William Grey. 
 
 The Earl of Haddington. 
 
 Eugene Lee Hamilton, Esq. 
 
 Lieut.-Gen. Sir E. B. Hamley, K.C.B., R.A. 
 
 Rt. Hon. Vice-Ad. Sir J. D. Hay, Bt., M.P. 
 
 Sir Henry Hoare, Bt. 
 
 Mrs. Cashel Hoey. 
 
 Richard Holt Hutton, Esq. 
 
 M. Alphonse Karr. 
 
 R. Barlow-Kennett, Esq. 
 
 Divisions-Pfarrer Knoche. 
 
 E. A. Leatham, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Sir Charles Legard, Bt. 
 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 Mdme. Lembcke. 
 
 Hon. and Rev. Canon Leigh. 
 
 Rev. Canon Liddon. 
 
 W. S. Lilly, Esq. 
 
 The Lord de LTsle and Dudley. 
 
 Major-Gen. Macdonnel. 
 
 John MacGregor, Esq., " Rob Roy." 
 
 Col. Morrison (Royal Body Guard). 
 
 Duncan McLaren, Esq. 
 
 Sir Montague McMurdo, K.C.B. 
 
 Hon. Mrs. Dean Morgan. 
 
 John Morley, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Comtesse de Noailles. 
 
 M. A. L. Nordwall. 
 
 Frederick Pennington, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Mrs. F. E. Pirkis. 
 
 M. le Baron Platel. 
 
 Elliott Preston, Esq. 
 
 The Rev. Canon Puckle. 
 
 George W. E. Russell, Esq., M.P. 
 
 The Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Southwell. 
 
 The Ven. the Archdeacon of Southwark. 
 
 Sir A. K. C. Stepney, Bt. 
 
 Mr. Serjeant Spinks. 
 
 Miss Anna Swanwick. 
 
 Lawson Tait, Esq., F.R.C.S. 
 
 Sir Henry Taylor, K.C.M.G. 
 
 Dr. Bell Taylor. 
 
 P. A. Taylor, Esq. 
 
 Lord Tollemache, of Helmingham. 
 
 M. Paul Viguier. 
 
 J. Webster, Esq., LL.D., M.P. 
 
 Baron Ernst von Weber. 
 
 Venerable Archdeacon Whately. 
 
 Mrs. Richard P. White. 
 
 Sir H. Drummond Wolff, K.C.M.G., M.P. 
 
LIST OF HONORARY CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. 
 
 THE UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 Bath — Miss Haigh, 103, Sydney Place. 
 
 Beds. — Rev. H. Cobbe, Maulden Rectory. 
 
 Birmingham — Miss Julia Goddard, Little Aston, near Sutton 
 
 Coldfield. 
 
 Bradford — Major Gibney, Winstey House. 
 
 Bridgwater — Miss S. E. Clark, Lower Leigh, Street. 
 
 Brighton — Miss R. G. Graves, 10, Osborne Street West. 
 
 u,.; s t i f Miss H. Marriott, Woodburn House, Cotham Park. 
 
 i^ Miss Bradley, Stoke Green, Stoke Bishop. 
 
 m.„n„„i ( Miss M. Colby, Napier House. 
 
 Cheltenham — -, „ T T ' v TT ,, , 
 
 ( Rev. James Lindsay, Halbeath. 
 
 Colchester * ^ ls " J OSSELYN > The Hills, Stratford S. Mary. 
 
 ( Miss Maitland Saville, East Hill. 
 
 n„,, ,,,,7,; < Miss Gamble, ") d lit 
 
 Devonshire — ] ,. „ ' \ Boscobel, Torquay. 
 
 ( Mrs. Phillott, \ ' H J 
 
 Dorsetshire — Rev. A. Chudleigh, West Parley Rectory. 
 
 Dover — Mark Thornhill, Esq., 23, Waterloo Crescent. 
 
 Eastbourne — C. H. S. Braybrooke, Esq., Lillington Lodge. 
 
 Essex— C. M. Ingleby, Esq., LL.D., Valentines, Ilford. 
 
 Exmouth — Mrs. Ann Stephenson, Penhome. 
 
 Gloucestershire — J. G. Sturge, Esq., Thornbury. 
 
 Gravesend— Canon Goddard, Southfleet Rectory. 
 
 Grimsby— Mrs. Haigh, Grainsby Hall. 
 
 Hampshire — Miss Julia Dawkins, Oldfield Lawn, Emsworth. 
 
 Harrogate — Mrs. Stevenson, Franklin Parade. 
 
 Hull — T. F. Hewitt, Esq. (Legion d'Honneur). 
 
 Ipswich — Mrs. Luther Holden, Pinetoft. 
 
 Ireland ^ Chas. Cobbe, Esq., D.L., Donabate. 
 
 \ Capt. Caldwell, New Grange Lodge, Bray, Co. Wicklow . 
 
 Isle of Wight— Miss S. S. Monro, Cliff Den, Bonchurch. 
 
 Kent — Miss Hampson, Detling. 
 
 Leicestershire — Major Bethune, Burton Overy. 
 
 Londonderry — Hon. E. Canning, Garvagh. 
 
 Lowestoft — J. Downing Farrer, Esq., Marina. 
 
 Malvern — Miss Tabor. 
 
 Market Drayton — Robert Hill, Esq. 
 
 N. Wales — The Very Rev. the Dean, Bangor. 
 
 Oxford — G. O. Bellewes, Esq., Balliol College. 
 
 Scotland — James Grahame, Esq., 12, Vincent Place, Glasgow. 
 
 Shipley (near Leeds) — Miss Alice T. Glyde, Moorhead. 
 
 Shrewsbury — Mrs. Wightman, St. Alkmund's Rectory. 
 
 Somersetshire — Mrs. Nicholetts, Norton House, Ilminster. 
 
 Southampton — Mrs. Basil Wilberforce, The Deanery. 
 
 Stockton-on-Tees — Jesse Quail, Esq. 
 
 Sussex — Rev. Canon Baynes, Trinity Vicarage, Folkestone. 
 
 Torquay — Miss Martyn, Harleston. 
 
 Warwick — Miss Kitchen, 3, Priory Road. 
 
 Weston-super-Mare — O. S. Round, Esq., 2, Atlantic Villas. 
 
 Wexford — Mrs. William Moody, Rathaspeck House. 
 
 Wiltshire — Miss Trevelyan, Ashwicke Hall. 
 
 Wolverhampton — Rev. J. W. Morison, The Vicarage, Heath Town. 
 
 Worthing — Miss Jerningham, 46, Marine Parade. 
 
 Yorkshire — Rev. F. O. Morris, Nunburnholme. 
 
 FOREIGN AND COLONIAL. 
 
 Altona — Dr. Ottocar Alt. 
 
 Baden — Herr W. von Voigts-Rhetz, Oberkirch. 
 
 Basle — Herr Brez. 
 
 Belgium — Dr. Hubert BoeNS, Charleroi. 
 
 Berne — Herr von Steiger, Junkerngasse, 174. 
 
Boston, U.S. — N. Appleton, Esq., S.P.A. 
 
 Bremen — Herr Ki\HTMANN,Head Quarters of Gt.GermanLeague,P.A. 
 
 c ,. f Professor Paulus Cassel. 
 B-erlin — i t, .-, „ t-, . . 
 
 ( Herr Christof Schultz, Brunswick. 
 
 Brussels — S. A. la Duchesse d'Arenberg. 
 
 Cadiz — Senor Romualdo d'Espino. 
 
 Cincinnati — J. Simpkinson, Esq., 122, Vine Street. 
 
 Denmark — Mdme. Lembcke, Aldershuile, Lyngby, near Copenhagen. 
 
 r. , f Baron Ernst von Weber, 8, Amalienstrasse. 
 
 Dresden — ■< ., . -,-, „ ' 
 
 ( Major Freiherr von Kochtizky. 
 
 Florence — Contessa Baldelli, 4, Via Silvio Pellico. 
 
 Geneva — M. Lagier, Bonjean, pres Bienne. 
 
 Genoa — S. Massone, 32, Via Maddalena. 
 
 Hamburg — Herr Zimmermann, Breckelbaums Park, 25. 
 
 Hanover — Herr Alfred von Seefeld. 
 
 Hesse — Pastor Knodt, Rothenberg, Post Hirschorn, Odenwald. 
 
 Leghorn — Dr. Grysanowski, 8, Ambrogiana. 
 
 Lyons — Mdme. Perenin, ii, Rue des Celestins. 
 
 Maine — Mrs. Thomas Quinby, Stroudwater, Portland. 
 
 Melbourne — Mrs. Baillie, Ognez, Toorak. 
 
 Michigan — Mrs. Mattie C. Mitchell. 
 
 Minden — Herr v. Pilgrim, Regierungs-President. 
 
 Montreal — Fred. MacKenzie, Esq. 
 
 Naples — Principessa Mele-Barese, Casa Mele, via Solitaria. 
 
 New Jersey — Christopher Roberts, Esq., 202, New Street, Newark. 
 
 Neiv York — Henry Bergh, Esq. 
 
 Norway — Herr Johan Olsen, Bergen. 
 
 Paris — P. Serle, Esq., 22, Rue Matignon. 
 
 Pan — Miss Jerard, Maison Chiron, 12, Rue Nouvelle Halle. 
 
 Perpignan — M. Sirven. 
 
 Philadelphia — Mrs. Richard P. White, 2312, Delancy Place. 
 
 Quebec — A. Robertson, Esq., Secretary S.P.A. 
 
 Rhode Island — Mrs. Hammond, 29, Angell Street, Providence. 
 
 Riga — Mdme. von Schilling. 
 
 Rome — Mrs. C. W. Plowden. 
 
 Russia — Prince Oginski, Rethowo. 
 
 San Remo — Mdme. Van Eys. 
 
 Sclileswig — Herr Willibald Wulff. 
 
 „.. . { Herr WeilshSuser, Oppeln. 
 
 1 esia 1 Countess von Furstenstein, Ullersdorf. 
 St. Petersburg — Mons. Golicke, Newsky. 
 Szveden — A. L. Nordwall, Strengnas. 
 
 Tasmania — John Gellibrand, Esq., 67, Macquarrie St., Hobart Town. 
 The Hague— M. P. Romyn. 
 
 Toronto — J. E. Wells, Esq., 123, Rose Avenue. 
 Trieste — Mrs. Burton, British Consulate. 
 T .. i Dr. Riboli, 49, Via della Rocca. 
 
 urin ^ Contessa Biandrate Morelli, 24, Via Cavour. 
 Tyrol — Countess v. Thun-Hohenstein, Schloss Brughier. 
 Vienna — Her Excellency Lady Pag;-:t. 
 Warsaw — M. Blumenfeld, Rue Wladimir, 10. 
 
 The object of the Society is the Total Abclition of the practice of 
 Vivisection as defined in the Report cf the Royal Commission. 
 
 MORAL AND MATERIAL SUPPORT EARNESTLY INVITED. 
 
 Member's Annual Subscription, 10s. Life Membership, £5. 
 
 Subscription to The Zoophilist, the Organ of the Society, 3s. 6d. 
 per annum, Post Free. 
 
 Cheques (crossed " Herries, Farquhar & Co.") and P.O.O.'s 
 should be made payable to the undersigned, 
 
 1, Victoria Street, BENJN. BRYAN, Secretary. 
 
 London, S.W. 
 
 PtuTr.ESS & Co., Printers, 2S, Little Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. 
 
FOBM OF BEQUEST. 
 
 To those benevolent individuals who may be inclined to 
 become benefactors b}* Will to this Society, the following form 
 is respectfully suggested : — 
 
 I giro and bequeath the sum of 
 to be paid oiit of such part of my personal estate as can be 
 lawfully applied for tJiat purpose unto the Treasurer for the 
 time being of a Society called or known by the name of The 
 Victoria Street and International Society for the 
 Protection oe Animals from Vivisection ; to be at the 
 disposal of the Committee for the time being of the said. Society. 
 
 CAUTION. 
 
 The gift of Land, or Money, or Stock, by Will with directions to be 
 laid out in the purchase of any Lands, &c, for the benefit of any 
 charitable use is void by the statute of Mortmain; but money or 
 Stock may be given by Will, if not so directed to be laid out ; and if 
 it is not to be produced by the sale of Land. It is of great 
 importance to describe very accurately the Title of this Society, 
 namely — '' The Victoria Street and International Society for 
 the Protection of Animals from Vivisection," otherwise the 
 benevolent intentions of the Donor may be frustrated. By virtue of 
 the Act of 1 Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills or Codicils must be in 
 Writing signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the 
 presence of the Testator and of each other.