* M^ 
 
 m i i » Mi^ 
 
 EXPERIMENTS 
 
 ON 
 
 LIVING ANIMALS 
 
 USELESS AND CRUEL. 
 
 (A Medical View of the Vivisection Question.) 
 
 
 AN 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 BY 
 
 
 Dr. 
 
 W. R. 
 
 HADWEN, 
 
 J.P., 
 
 M.D., L.R.C.F 
 
 ., M.R.C.8., L.S.A., 
 
 Etc. 
 
 
 
 J, 
 
 
 DELIVERED AT 
 
 NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, 
 THURSDAY, MARCH 5th, 1914. 
 
 PRICE TWOPENCE. 
 
 
 Published by 
 
 THE BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF 
 
 VIVISECTION, 
 
 32 Charing Ckoss, London, S.W. 
 
 ,0iv*y \ -*j0\n * a^ m+ 
 
pa \r\fU let 
 
 The British Union 
 for the Abolition of Vivisection. 
 
 (The British Anti« Vivisection Society.) 
 
 Foundress : FKANCES POWER COBBE. 
 
 President and Hon. Secretary : 
 
 WALTER R. HADWEN, J. P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., etc. 
 
 Are You a Member of the British Union ? 
 
 If you are, will you do all you can to help us in 
 our great work ? 
 
 If you are not, will you become a Member? 
 
 The Subscription of Membership is from 10/- per annum upwards. 
 For an Associate 3/- per annum. Life Member, £5. 
 
 PLEASE ADDRESS TO THE — 
 
 Secretary— Miss B. E. KIDD, 
 
 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W., 
 
 from whom any literature upon the subject may be obtained. 
 
 "THE ABOLITIONIST." 
 
 Monthly Organ of the British Union. 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 High-class Articles on the Moral, Scientific, and Historical 
 Aspects of the Anti-Vivisection Question ; 
 Replies to the Research Defence Society ; 
 
 Racy Criticism of New Vivisectional " Cures" ; 
 Chronicle of the Month's Work, &c. 
 
 Should be read by all Humanitarians. 
 
 Specimen Copy sent post free to any address. 
 
 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION ( t0 P S e de ) 3/- per annum. 
 
i 
 
 Experiments on Living Animals: 
 Useless and Cruel. 
 
 ADDRESS BY DR. W. R, HADWEN. 
 Delivered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday, March 5th, 1914. 
 
 H PUBLIC meeting, promoted by the Newcastle-on-Tyne 
 Branch of the British Union for the Abolition of 
 Vivisection, was held in the Grand Assembly Rooms, Barras 
 Bridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Thursday, March 5th, 1914, when 
 an address was delivered by Dr. W. R. Hadwen, J.P., on 
 " Experiments on Living Animals : Useless and Cruel." Mr. 
 Frank F. Worthington presided, and there was a large attendance. 
 
 Dr. Hadwen said: Mr. Chairman and friends, — The question 
 before us is : Is Vivisection right or is it wrong ? I do not think 
 we can for one single moment talk of any half-way house in dealing 
 with it, but we have definitely to face a clear and plain issue 
 — is vivisection right or is it wrong ? 
 
 Now, there is no question about it that this brings before us 
 a great moral issue. If, for the sake of argument, we take for 
 granted that vivisection is cruel, then undoubtedly, since every- 
 thing that is cruel is wrong, the practice of vivisection must be 
 wrong. If, also, we take for granted that good has been derived 
 from vivisection and that good results will be achieved from the 
 practice in the future, it is equally immoral, because we have no 
 right whatever to do evil that good may come. (Hear, hear). 
 And hence, which ever way one looks at it, even taking for 
 granted the position the vivisector takes up, vivisection, in our 
 opinion, is a practice which cannot be condoned. 
 
 Now, for some years past, in fact within the last century, 
 there has been a very 'great development of the humanitarian 
 sentiment. It is within that century that we have got rid of 
 
(2) 
 
 slavery, upon the ground that the black man had equal rights 
 with the white man. During the same period we have got rid of 
 the traffic in young children, which has been abolished by means 
 of the Factories Acts, on the ground that young children had 
 rights as well as adults. During the same period we got rid of 
 the abuses and cruelties that were carried on in the army and 
 navy, such as keel-hauling in the latter and flogging in the former, 
 because it was laid down that our fighting men had equal rights 
 with .civilians, and that we had no right whatever to resort, in 
 dealing with them, to a species of barbarism that would not be 
 tolerated in the civilian population. During the same period we 
 have got rid of certain cruel sports, such as bull-baiting and cock- 
 fighting, because they were considered degrading to the moral 
 fibre of the times, and now we are approaching the question of 
 vivisection, and we are seeking to get that abolished on the ground 
 that these helpless, defenceless, speechless animals have their 
 rights, and that we are pleading on behalf of those who cannot 
 plead for themselves. 
 
 Inconsistency of the Law. 
 
 Now, their is another ground why we consider vivisection 
 wrong, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the true legal 
 spirit of this country. For instance, upon the Statute Book there 
 is what is called Martin's Act. Under that Act some hundreds of 
 persons are prosecuted every year throughout this country for 
 cruelty to animals. If a coster-monger drives a lame pony, or one 
 with a galled back, or in an emaciated or distressed condition, he 
 is promptly summoned by the R.S.P.C.A., or one of its branches, 
 or by the police, for perpetrating cruelty, and is brought before 
 the Bench. 
 
 It is no use whatever for that man to plead that a sick wife 
 and several children were dependent upon him, and that, therefore, 
 he was compelled to resort to this measure of cruelty in order to 
 gain a livelihood. The Bench would immediately tell him that 
 that was no excuse. He had been guilty of cruelty, and whatever 
 benefits might result from that cruelty they were bound to convict. 
 
 Now all we claim is this, that the scientists shall be placed on 
 the same level as the coster-monger, and we desire to see that the 
 
(3) 
 
 scientists are accorded no right to do behind the laboratory door 
 
 what the coster-monger is not allowed to do in the open street. 
 
 But we are told that this is a medical question, and that, 
 
 therefore, the man in the street has nothing whatever to do with 
 
 it, and that he has no right to discuss it, and that this question 
 
 should be left to medical men to settle. Now, what I maintain is 
 
 this : the very moment you take a medical or scientific dogma, 
 
 and incorporate that medical or scientific dogma in an Act of 
 
 Parliament, you take it at once outside the range of medical law 
 
 and you make that question a public, social and political one. 
 
 This being so, the man in the street has as much right to deal 
 
 with that social and political problem as any philosopher in the 
 
 land. Consequently we say that this question, having become a 
 
 great political question, and one which lay Members of Parliament 
 
 are called upon to discuss, and upon which they are expected to 
 
 vote in accordance with the wishes of their constitutents, it 
 
 behoves the man in the street to look into it, that he may view it 
 
 intelligently. 
 
 A Question of History. 
 
 But I shall probably be told that the man in the street cannot 
 understand it, that the vivisection question is one which only 
 medical men can understand, and that the ordinary man in the 
 street cannot possibly grasp it. Here, as a medical man, I differ 
 entirely. It is not a question of understanding the intricacies of 
 any physiological or pathological question: that is not the point. 
 The question is this : Has there been any definite knowledge, have 
 there been any great beneficial results achieved by vivisection, or 
 not ? The moment you ask that question you at once raise an 
 issue which is not that of medical intricacies ; you take it outside 
 the range of physiological or pathological deductions, and make 
 it a pure question of history, and as a question of history I say 
 that the man in the street can understand it as well as any medical 
 man in the country. Take and investigate the subject. Go and 
 look back and see if such-and-such a so-called discovery from 
 vivisection has been achieved by vivisection, by experimentation 
 on living animals. This is a pure question of historical enquiry, 
 and in that respect the man in the street is quite as capable of 
 understanding the subject as any medical man in the land. 
 
(4) 
 
 But more than that, I maintain that the ordinary man in the 
 street knows quite as much of this subject as the ordinary medical 
 man, simply because the great bulk of both classes know 
 nothing whatever about it. If you take the medical man and 
 cross-examine him upon it I think he will confess, in the majority 
 of cases, that he does not know anything about the subject. You 
 cannot understand it unless you make the subject one of in- 
 dependent study. Unless you investigate from an entirely 
 independent standpoint, unless you are educated upon it, you 
 cannot understand it. The investigation of this matter forms no 
 part of a medical curriculum. The individual is not trained in 
 any of the minutae of this business. It is a great mistake to 
 suppose that medical men generally are authorities upon the 
 subject of experimentation upon living animals. We are not out 
 to fight the medical men of this land — the 30,000 medical men 
 upon the Medical Register, who know nothing about it — we are 
 out to fight 400 or 500 vivisectors who are licensed by the British 
 Government, and who perform their 80,000 to 90,000 experiments 
 annually upon these poor, defenceless creatures. These are the 
 men we are out to fight. The medical profession knows nothing 
 about it, and practically, in this respect, the medical man is no 
 better off than the ordinary man in the street. 
 
 Medical Opinion. 
 
 This is the reason why we seek to educate the public upon 
 this matter, because it has become a political question — and it is 
 going to be a great one — and, as this political question will have to 
 be solved and settled in the House of Commons, we are going to the 
 country to stir the heart of the people, that they may tell their 
 representatives in the House of Commons how they expect them 
 to vote upon it. 
 
 Now, you may ask, " What credentials have you to appeal to 
 us ? What gives you any authority to speak on this subject, more 
 than any other ordinary medical man"? Simply this: I have 
 studied both sides of the question, and the majority of my medical 
 colleagues have only accepted one side. I was brought up to 
 believe in vivisection ; I accepted at my college and university all 
 the assertions that were made in regard to vivisection, namely, 
 
(5) 
 
 that great discoveries had been made by this practice, and that it 
 was the only means by which such discoveries could be achieved 
 in the future, and I took all this for granted, and I accepted it as 
 a matter of course. For some years after I was in active practice 
 I still believed in it, still backed up the assertions which I had so 
 readily accepted, until I was at last led to investigate the matter 
 for myself from an independent standpoint, and as the result of 
 that investigation I came to the conclusion that no knowledge 
 whatever had been gained by experiments upon animals but what 
 could have been gained, and had been gained, by other means of 
 a harmless character ; and further, I came to the conclusion that 
 nothing whatever had been gained from experimentation upon 
 living animals that had been of the slightest benefit in the 
 amelioration or the cure of any human ailment or disease. 
 
 Now, that is a very strong expression to make use of, and you 
 may say that it is a very stringent expression to use in the face of 
 the generally accepted opinion of the time. It is not a matter of 
 whether I am in a minority amongst medical men or in the 
 majority; that is not the point. We have not to deal with 
 majorities or minorities, but, as I said at the outset of my address, 
 we have to ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or wrong? The 
 unanimity, or otherwise, of the medical profession makes no 
 difference to the right or wrong of a question, because the medical 
 profession has been unanimously wrong so many times that really 
 one has almost come to the conclusion that it never has been 
 unanimous except when it has been unanimously wrong. 
 (Laughter). Through the whole line of history minorities have, 
 as a rule, been in the right. But do not let us argue from that 
 standpoint, but let me press upon you again and again, that we 
 must ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or is Vivisection wrong ? 
 
 You may say, " what led you to the conclusion at which you 
 have arrived ? Well, strange to say, it was the vivisectors them- 
 selves who converted me to anti-vivisection. I found that the 
 contradictions among the vivisectors were so great that there was 
 no vivisector who brought forward one single statement but what 
 another vivisector was always ready to come forward and contra- 
 dict it by performing precisely the same experiment as his 
 predecessor. 
 
(6) 
 "Wandering- in the Dark." 
 
 I discovered that there was no finality about it, and what was 
 more, the vivisectors have so thoroughly realised that fact for 
 themselves that they began to ask, and they are urging now more 
 and more, that criminals should be handed over to them for 
 experimentation, because they find the experimentation upon the 
 lower animals is of such an unsatisfactory character. Dr. Preston 
 King, who has this year been elected Mayor of the ancient city of 
 Bath, wrote in the " Lancet " on September 30th, 1905 : — 
 
 " Consider for a moment what this would mean. At 
 present we are wandering in the dark, seeking vainly for 
 the light that these experiments alone can give. For 
 instance, is bovine tuberculosis communicable to man? 
 This question could for ever be set at rest by a few direct 
 experiments. Or take cancer. Is this catching from 
 man to man, and what is its cause ? During recent years 
 the use of anti-toxins has broken the ground in a field of 
 treatment before undreamed of. At present we can only 
 experiment with these on animals, and the results we obtain 
 must be accepted cautiously, for they are liable to the 
 errors of all reasonings from analogy." 
 That is how he looks upon the futility of animal experiment- 
 ation and the necessity for criminals to be handed over to the 
 vivisectors, so that they might perform their diabolical work upon 
 them. He explained that he would give them a choice between 
 that and hanging. 
 
 So much, then, for the reasons for the attitude which we 
 take. I do not expect everybody to rise to the ethical standard. 
 Unfortunately, we must be, I am afraid, such cowards, and 
 the cowardly element rises so pre-emiently in the breast of human 
 kind, that we are all more or less prone to take advantage of 
 others for our own benefit. Hence, when you come to talk about 
 the immorality of torturing creatures in a lower scale of animal 
 life than ourselves, in order that we might benefit from it, you 
 will find again and again the answer rises to the lips of those to 
 whom you are talking. "But if, by means of a little pain inflicted 
 upon these creatures — a dog, a cat, a rabbit or a guinea pig, you 
 can find benefits which would be of immense value to the human 
 
(7) 
 
 race, why should it not be done?" Consequently, we are obliged 
 to lower our standard from that of the high morality, to which 
 every noble nature in the universe should rise, and show human 
 nature that the practice is not merely an immoral one, but an 
 unscientific and a useless one. 
 
 Three Scientific Objections. 
 
 I look upon it as unscientific upon three grounds. First of 
 all, the differences, anatomically and physiologically, between the 
 lower animals and man, are so great that you cannot argue 
 scientifically from an animal to a man. In the second place, you 
 never experiment upon a lower animal except when that animal 
 is in an abnormal condition. Supposing it be under the influence 
 of an anaesthetic, then the influence of that anaesthetic upon the 
 secretions and juices of the body will be such that it will throw 
 out of gear the possibility of arriving at anything like a 
 scientific conclusion. 
 
 If, upon the other hand, the animal is not in an anasstheticised 
 state, then the fright and the pain of the poor creature will render 
 the condition abnormal, and as you can never expect to get a 
 normal result from an abnormal state, it is clear that upon that 
 issue the practice must be an unscientific one. 
 
 Then, in the third place, you can never judge of any results 
 in animal experimentation except by objective signs; that is, you 
 can only judge by what you see, and as no two persons ever see 
 the same object in precisely the same way, we may here get a 
 reason for the numerous contradictions which take place amongst 
 the vivisectors. You cannot find out that most important item 
 in investigation, the subjective symptoms, simply because the 
 animal cannot talk. You are shut up to objective signs, and 
 therefore are bound to get misleading results. The whole shores 
 of vivisection are strewn with the wrecks of exploded fallacies. 
 You simply get the unscientific issue which you might expect 
 from an unscientific process. Thus these three grounds are quite 
 sufficient to show that vivisection is unscientific. 
 
 But now for the first point, namely, that you cannot reason 
 from animals to man. In order to illustrate that, and press my 
 point, let us take a glimpse into the region of surgery. Now, w) 
 
(8) 
 
 are told that surgery has made immense advances in late years. 
 I admit it. 
 
 What Caused Surgery to Advance ? 
 
 There have been enormous advances in surgical art. These 
 advances have been almost entirely limited to surgery in the 
 abdominal region. That is where practically all the great 
 discoveries or advances in surgical art have been made. There is 
 scarcely an organ, there is scarcely a growth of any kind in any 
 organ of the abdominal region, but can be successfully removed 
 by the surgeon. 
 
 What is the ground for all this advance? Immediately the 
 pro-vivisector says "experiments on animals!" All our advances 
 in surgery, we are told, depend upon experiments upon animals. 
 
 There are three things that have brought about this 
 magnificent result. The first was the discovery of anaesthetics. 
 By the discovery of anaesthetics the surgeon was able to take his 
 time about his work ; he was able to do it throughly ; he was not 
 worried to death and tortured in his mind by the thought of 
 the agony he was inflicting on the patient on the operating table. 
 Anaesthetics were the first foundation of successful advance in 
 surgery. Anaesthetics had nothing to do with experiments on 
 animals, for anaesthetics — ether, chloroform, and so on — were 
 discovered by the discoverers' experiments upon themselves. 
 
 And here let me say that this is a character of vivisection to 
 which I have no objection, for as long as the vivisectors will be 
 content to experiment upon one another I shall let them go on 
 with it until further orders. But I say don't be so cowardly, 
 whilst you talk of your wonderful self-sacrifice and all the rest of 
 it, as to be afraid to prove it. Don't be torturing these poor things 
 that cannot help themselves. 
 
 The first foundation was anaesthetics, and the second was the 
 adoption of aseptic methods in surgery — that is, absolute cleanli- 
 ness. It has nothing to do with experiments on animals; nothing 
 whatever. It was simply the outcome of common sense. We 
 know in days gone by it was considered the proper thing for a 
 surgeon always to keep one dirty coat, that he had perhaps used 
 for twenty years, hanging behind the operating theatre door, in 
 
(9) 
 
 which to perform his operation, and dirt was considered to be of 
 no importance whatever; dirty surgery was the order of the day. 
 Semmelweis, who never performed an experiment upon an animal 
 in his life, was the first to introduce clean surgery into the 
 operating theatre, and bv means of that he was able to reduce in 
 the maternity wards in Vienna the death rate, which had 
 been 12 per cent, in one year (1847-48), to I per cent. 
 This had nothing to do with experiments on animals. Three 
 English surgeons, Lawson Tait, Granville Bantock, and Sir 
 William Savory, followed the same lines, and persisted in doing so 
 at a time when Listerism, or what is called a?itisepsis, was the 
 fashion over the whole world. They were ridiculed and black- 
 balled by the profession, but their successes could not be denied. 
 At last Lord Lester gave up the dangerous antiseptic spray, and 
 what is now the practice in our best hospitals is simply asepsis, or 
 strict surgical cleanliness such as was practised by these men. 
 The germs in the air can be disregarded altogether, and if you 
 concentrate your attention on killing them, you are much more 
 likely to kill your patient. 
 
 Now, the third thing in connection with successful abdominal 
 surgery, was the discovery of the right kind of ligature and 
 suture, that is, the sort of thread that might be used to tie or sew 
 together the organs that were to be left behind in the abdominal 
 cavity, so that there might not be irritation or inflammation set 
 up, resulting in septic poisoning, or that the patient might not die 
 through the ligature becoming rapidly absorbed, and the blocd 
 vessels giving way. This discovery of the right kind of ligature 
 is practically the whole question in abdominal surgery. Did we 
 learn how to ligature or suture correctly by experiments on the 
 lower animals ? 
 
 Animal Experiments Misleading. 
 
 Now, there is one man who stands out to-day above all others, 
 I suppose, as the leading authority upon abdominal surgery. I 
 refer to Sir Frederick Treves. Sir Frederick Treves, in his 
 speech delivered at Birmingham, in October, 1898, and published 
 in the " Lancet " on November 5th, 1898, said as follows: — 
 
 "Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry 
 
( io) 
 
 operations upon the intestines of dogs, and such are the 
 
 differences between the human and the canine bowel that 
 
 when I came to operate on man I found that I was much 
 
 hampered by my new experience; that I had every thing to 
 
 unlearn, and that my experience had done little but to unfit 
 
 me to deal with the human intestine." 
 
 That man is a believer in vivisection; he is an authority upon 
 
 surgery. He is an authority upon that character of surgery which 
 
 has yielded the great glory for the art in modern times; and, in 
 
 the quotation I have made, he has thrown overboard experiments 
 
 on animals. And I say, in the question of ligature and suture, we 
 
 owe nothing to vivisection whatever. 
 
 Professor Lawson Tait, whose name you can conjure with in 
 every city on the continent of Europe, was perhaps the most 
 brilliant and successful abdominal surgeon of his time, and what 
 did he tell us ? That as long as ever he operated upon the basis 
 of experimentation on animals he did nothing but lose his patients, 
 but directly he gave that up he began to save them. And another 
 thing he said in a letter I have, "Vivisection has done nothing for 
 surgery but lead to horrible bungling." 
 
 Take another important operation — that of the removal of 
 stone from the kidney: and here I will quote another authority 
 who believes in vivisection — no less an authority than Sir Henry 
 Morris, who held the position of President of the Royal College 
 of Surgeons, when he told the Royal Commission recently under 
 cross-examination : — 
 
 " The operation that I did in the first place, and which 
 
 I was the first to do, was done quite irrespective of any 
 
 experiments on animals; that is the cutting out of the stone 
 
 from the kidney. This was from knowledge acquired by 
 
 experience from operations on the liver and other organs in 
 
 the human subject." 
 
 You may turn where you like, and you will realise and see 
 
 the truth of my contention that the great claim of the vivisector 
 
 is not fulfilled in surgery, and that the greatest authorities in 
 
 abdominal surgery themselves confess that experiments on 
 
 animals have nothing to do with their success. I will take the 
 
 greatest vivisector of the day, and put him into the witness box, 
 
( II ) 
 
 and we will hear what he has to say on the subject, namely 
 Professor Starling. When he was cross-examined recently, 
 before the Royal Commission, he said: — 
 
 "The last experiment must always be on man." 
 If, then, the last experiment must always be on man, does it 
 not stand to reason that the first scientific experiment must 
 also be on man? and if the first scientific experiment must be on 
 man, then it is perfectly clear that all preceding experiments 
 upon the lower animals must have been unsatisfactory and 
 inconclusive. 
 
 Brain Surgery. 
 
 But now I will take another subject in connection with 
 surgery — that is brain surgery, for, of course, there is very little 
 surgery to be done in the thoracic region. The alleged triumphs 
 of surgery belong chiefly to the brain and abdomen. 
 
 We hear a good deal about brain surgery. We are told 
 thousands of lives have been saved because of the discovery of the 
 localisation of the brain centres, and that this discovery was due 
 entirely to experiments upon the brains of monkeys. Most of our 
 opponents deal in big figures, and very strong language. 
 Unfortunately for them, we get very few statistics published about 
 brain surgery : whilst the abdominal surgeons are prepared to 
 record their victories and triumphs, the brain surgeons are very 
 careful not to do so. We have challenged Sir Victor Horsley 
 again and again, but he declines to bring forward statistics. We 
 know how true it is in many of the brain surgical cases of to-day 
 that " the operation is successful, but the patient dies." 
 
 Now, with regard to the localisation of the brain centres. Is 
 it true we have gained that knowledge from experiments on 
 monkeys' brains ? 
 
 Charcot, a great French authority, and perhaps the greatest 
 authority upon the brain that ever lived, declared there was 
 nothing we could learn from an animal's brain except the 
 topography of the animal's brain. 
 
 We all know that if there is one thing more than another in 
 which the human differs from the sub-human it is in the character 
 of the brain, and here again is a point in which you may rely upon 
 
( 12) 
 
 it, we cannot possibly argue from animals to man. About three 
 years ago Dr. Samuel West, as President of the Medical Society 
 in London, gave an address on this very subject, and he then 
 announced to his audience that all our knowledge of the brain 
 centres depends upon the work of Dr. Hughlings Jackson, and he 
 never performed an experiment on an animal in his life. How 
 did he arrive at his conclusions ? They were scientific results, and 
 he obtained them from the human subject. He watched his 
 patients by the bedside; he saw the symptoms and physical signs 
 that were developed as a result of some lesion in the brain, and 
 then he carefully examined those brains afterwards in the dead- 
 house, and proved that in those cases, one after another, certain 
 symptoms always bore relation to certain brain lesions, and thus, 
 before he died, he was able to show scientifically cause and effect, 
 and map out the brain into the various centres, showing what 
 centres would be affected when cerlain results of irritation or 
 pressure took place in the human body. That was scientific. 
 That was judging upon the human species. 
 
 And here let me point to one centre, the centre of speech. 
 Just above the ear, upon the posterior lobe of what is called 
 the third left frontal convolution, there is a strange little centre 
 that governs speech. We know that centre. I had a case only a 
 short time ago, which I was able to diagnose immediately as a 
 case of paralysis of speech, caused by a little haemorrhage upon 
 that particular centre of the brain. Now tell me, how can you 
 possibly discover the speech centre in a human brain by 
 experiments upon an animal that cannot talk ? And if you 
 can discover a delicate centre such as that without experiments 
 on living animals, there should be no difficulty whatever in 
 discovering the other coarser centres, without resort to barbarism 
 of that description. So much then for surgery, whether abdominal 
 or of the brain. 
 
 Circulation of the Blood. 
 
 Let me touch on the question of physiology. We are told 
 knowledge is everything ; that practical value is not of so much 
 importance provided we get knowledge, because knowledge may 
 lead to wonderful results, and that we are dependent for our 
 
( 13) 
 
 knowledge in physiology — the intricate processes concerned in the 
 specialized work of the various organs of the body — we are depen- 
 dent, they say, upon experiments on animals. You ask for a case 
 in point, and immediately we are told — the circulation of the blood. 
 But Harvey himself declared that he did not discover the circulation 
 of the blood by means of experiments on animals. Any person, 
 by cutting one of his own arteries, as you constantly do 
 accidentally, with a piece of glass, or by some accident, discovers 
 at once that an artery contains red blood, the veins containing 
 purple blood. When a person dies and the heart stops, the 
 arteries become empty and the veins become full. The heart first 
 pumped that blood into the arteries ; it flows from the left side of 
 the heart to the arteries, and then through the veins up towards the 
 heart again upon the right side. The veins, differing from the 
 arteries, have peculiar valves in them, which only allow the blood 
 to pass in one direction. That was a discovery that could only be 
 discovered in the post-mortem room, as a matter of anatomical 
 knowledge. 
 
 Now Harvey argued, as he himself declared, that, seeing that 
 these delicate valves in the veins must be there for a purpose, 
 that purpose was evidently to secure that the blood went towards 
 the right side of the heart, and was not allowed to go back again 
 through those beautiful little cup-shaped valves. It was clear that 
 the blood must flow in a circle, since it was pumped from the left 
 side of the heart into vessels which presented no impediment to 
 its full force and then passed on through the valves of the veins 
 to the right side. The one thing that puzzled Harvey was, how 
 did the blood get from the arteries to the veins ? That he never 
 discovered. Harvey never did discover completely, to demon- 
 stration, the circulation of the blood. 
 
 All that Harvey did was to argue in a logical way that there 
 must be a circulation, owing to the anatomical arrangement of the 
 valves, and the distinctive difference between arteries and veins. 
 Harvey did perform experiments on animals — he tried to prove his 
 case by means of them, but it was not by these experiments that 
 he made the discovery. Anybody can prove it by the simple 
 device of a syringe and a little coloured fluid pumped into the 
 vessels of a dead body. Thirty years after Harvey's deductions. 
 
( 14) 
 
 Malpighi invented the microscope, and with the microscope came 
 to light those beautiful little capillary (hair-like) blood vessels, 
 which connected the arteries with the veins, and then it was that 
 Harvey's logical deduction was proved up to the hilt. Circulation 
 was demonstrated beyond all controversy, not by experiments on 
 animals, but simply through the agency of the microscope. 
 
 Foolish Experiments. 
 
 Then we are asked, " How are we to know the process of 
 digestion except by experiments on animals ? You cannot experi- 
 ment on human beings for that purpose!" But, tell me! You 
 get the gastric juice of a dog — a dog that can digest a bone — how 
 are you going to argue from a dog's stomach to a human stomach 
 in order to discover the relative nature of the digestive processes? 
 It is too ridiculous for comment. 
 
 Then numerous experiments are being conducted in regard to 
 diabetes, chiefly on the pancreas of dogs. But directly you touch 
 a delicate organ like the pancreas or sweetbread, you disorganise 
 the whole thing and render the condition abnormal. How can 
 you arrive at any correct physiological result ? And no one is 
 any 'forrader' on the question of diabetes than they were fifty 
 years ago. 
 
 So with the gall bladder. Gall stones are actually put inside 
 the gall bladder of a dog. The dog is opened and sewn up, and 
 the animal is left suffering for days, until decomposition sets in, 
 and the poor thing dies in a raging fever. And yet nothing has 
 been gained by this cruelty. You have the case of Dr. Rose 
 Bradford's experiments upon thirty-nine fox terriers, in which one 
 kidney was taken out and a portion of another kidney excised. 
 The animal was taken back three or four times to the operating 
 table, and portion after portion of kidney was taken away, in 
 order to see how long the animal could live with as little kidney 
 as possible. He records himself — and here, mark you, we are 
 charged with exaggeration and misstatements, whereas for proof 
 we have to depend for our evidence upon what the vivisectors 
 themselves write— in this case Dr. Rose Bradford records how 
 these animals suffered, how they had vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, 
 ulcerations, and all the rest of it, for days and weeks and months, 
 
(15) 
 
 whilst the hard eyes of the operator watched these poor little 
 intelligent creatures in their suffering. When asked at the Royal 
 Commission what had been gained by it, Dr. Rose Bradford said 
 that he had discovered that dogs never suffered from any disease 
 which was akin to human Bright's disease. 
 
 I might also mention the wonderful discovery of the double 
 action of the spinal nerves. Sir Charles Bell acknowledged that 
 experiments upon animals had done nothing but lead astray, and 
 that his knowledge of the double action of the spinal nerves was 
 gained from anatomical knowledge, and had nothing whatever to 
 do with experiments upon animals. Physiology, the whole way 
 through, owes nothing to vivisection. 
 
 Fashions in Medicine. 
 
 I will turn from that to the question of medicine. Now, 
 medicine we cannot call a science. It never will be. Medicine 
 runs in fashions, and there is as much fashion in medicine as 
 there is in ladies' hats, and medical fashions change with equal 
 rapidity. Constitutions differ most enormously. What you 
 might give in one case would certainly not do in another. Each 
 individual patient must be an individual study to each individual 
 medical man, for you cannot reason positively from one human 
 being to another, let alone from an animal to a human being. 
 You never know even that a dose of castor oil is going to take 
 precisely the same effect upon one person as another, and so with 
 everything else. 
 
 Modern medicine has been running in the range of what is 
 called the serum and vaccine therapy. 
 
 This new fashion depends upon the theory that there is a 
 specific germ as the origin for every specific disease. It was the 
 invention of a French chemist, by the name of Pasteur, who, late 
 in life, some seven or eight years after he had been struck down 
 with partial brain paralysis, took for the first time in his life to 
 the study of medicine, and whether he did not understand 
 properly, or could not, I do not know, but he turned topsy-turvy 
 the discovery that had been made by a celebrated savant, Antoine 
 Bechamp, who had shown that certain organisms found in the 
 atmosphere were fermentative bodies, and further, that the same 
 
(16) 
 
 kind of organisms existed in the human body, and that under the 
 action of disease, these strange little bodies became converted into 
 bacteria of various shapes. Pasteur turned this topsy-turvy, 
 and instead of accepting Bechamp's theory, that these micro- 
 organisms were the result of disease, he came to the conclusion 
 they were the cause. He jumbled up bodies of fermentation with 
 bodies of disease, and launched upon the world the germ theory 
 of disease, and the whole medical profession, owing to Pasteur's 
 standing as a chemist of renown, accepted this theory wholesale, 
 and have been running mad on it ever since. 
 
 The Germ Theory of Disease. 
 
 Professor Koch, of Berlin, when this theory first came out, 
 said, if true, it would have to conform to certain definite rules, 
 namely, if a germ were the causation of a disease it must always 
 be found in connection with that disease. Secondly, it should 
 never be found apart from that disease. Thirdly, it ought to be 
 cultivated outside the body, upon a separate medium; and lastly, 
 when inoculated into the lower animal it ought to produce a 
 disease similar to that which obtained in the human subject. 
 Now, how does that pan out ? The Editor of the " Lancet," the 
 authority that practically the whole medical professional men bow 
 to, stated on March 20th, 1909, in a leading article, as follows : — 
 " It is not at all rare to fail to find the causal organism 
 in an individual case of the disease, and the explanation 
 usually given is that the search has not been as yet suffi- 
 ciently thorough. Again, many organisms which are 
 considered to be causal, are frequently to be found in healthy 
 persons. The organisms of enteric fever, of cholera, and of 
 diphtheria may be cited as examples of this, and to explain 
 these facts we have to invoke the idea of healthy 'carriers' 
 of disease. When a causal organism is injected into an 
 animal, often it happens that it gives rise to a disease 
 bearing no clinical resemblance to the original malady. 
 Thus we cannot rely upon Koch's postulates as a decisive 
 test of a causal organism." 
 Now, seeing that Pasteur himself accepted that dictum of 
 Koch, practically the whole foundation of the system is gone, and 
 
(17) 
 
 if the foundation is gone, the whole fabric of serum and vaccine 
 that has been built upon it must go too. 
 
 Diphtheria Anti-toxin. 
 
 Now let us take the case of diphtheria, which is a disease 
 that is supposed to be due to the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus. This 
 bacillus I will guarantee to find in practically every mouth in this 
 audience to-night, and according to this new method of diagnosing 
 diphtheria, I should be perfectly justified, if I found it in your 
 throats, in certifying the medical officer of health to-morrow 
 morning, that you were suffering from diphtheria, and getting a 
 half-crown fee in each case for doing so. 
 
 We are told that anti-toxin, which is obtained from experi- 
 ments made on animals, has reduced the death-rate of diphtheria 
 from something like 30 or 40 per cent, down to 10 per cent. That 
 is according to the Metropolitan Asylums Board returns. The 
 peculiar thing is this, that it is true the reduction did commence 
 directly after anti-toxin was introduced, but when that reduction 
 began — it is passing strange, but the number of cases increased. 
 Where there were scores of diphtheria cases before anti-toxin was 
 introduced, they ran to thousands afterwards. Why? Because 
 the old diphtheria was diphtheria. It was the genuine article, but 
 the new diphtheria was not in any sense diphtheria, but in 
 numerous instances was just a sore throat with a germ in it. But 
 this sore throat was said to be due to this germ, and so it came 
 about that an ordinary sore throat which our grandmothers would 
 have cured by putting a stocking around the neck, and blowing 
 down the throat flour of sulphur, and giving a good dose of 
 brimstone and treacle, now became ' diphtheria.' Thus, by 
 throwing in a heap of cases, you reduce your mortality, because 
 you throw into the count an enormous number of common sore 
 throats. Whilst the deathrate in these cases treated with anti- 
 toxin were reduced from 30 per cent to 10 per cent, however, the 
 cases treated without anti-toxin were reduced from 13 to 3 per 
 cent. As a matter of fact the whole of these statistics are not 
 worth the paper they are written on, because the statistical basis 
 is absolutely fallacious. The only way in which you can possibly 
 judge diphtheria is by diphtheritic deaths. Let the Registrar 
 
( 18) 
 
 General speak. For fifteen years after anti-toxin was introduced 
 compared with the fifteen years before, the diphtheria death-rate 
 increased no less than 25 per cent. These are genuine diphtheria 
 deaths that you cannot mistake. Any improvement in diphtheria 
 has had no more to do with anti-toxin than it has with the man in 
 the moon. 
 
 The diphtheria death-rate began to increase as soon as ever 
 the new Education Act came in. By cramming the whole of the 
 insanitary board schools with children by the score, by the 
 hundred, so that they were packed in any place, where they could 
 not be properly accommodated, like herrings in a box, the air 
 became impure and diphtheria spread proportionately. Now, 
 with enlarged board schools, airy premises, with so many cubic 
 feet for each child, and so much play ground space, now being 
 erected all over the country, diphtheria begins to go down. The 
 basis of these so-called zymotic diseases is insanitary conditions, 
 and by pumping in these filthy serums, poison is added to poison 
 in the human body. They are going the wrong way to work 
 altogether. They should seek to remove the cause that produces 
 the disease. 
 
 Plague and Consumption. 
 
 Take the question of plague. Years ago plague was very 
 rare in India, but since they have started sera and vaccines, they 
 have really been giving the people plague, and the plague has 
 become endemic. More than a million natives are being swept 
 off the scene by plague every year, and yet here are the festering 
 refuse heaps and insanitary conditions — horrid conditions which 
 the rats had to help the Indian Government to get rid of, and then 
 the rats are blamed for having produced the natural results of 
 insanitation. Instead of sending sanitary engineers to put the 
 matter right they are sending these filthy tubes of serum, this 
 dung hill medicine, as Sir Benjamin Ward called it, which only 
 made the natives weaker than before. 
 
 We are told, too, that tuberculosis has declined, and that 
 that depends upon the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. Why ! 
 tuberculosis had gone down 50 per cent, before the germ was 
 discovered. The disease has been going down ever since, in 
 
( 19) 
 
 proportion as the sanitary conditions of the country have 
 improved, as back to back houses have been removed, streets 
 made wider, good water brought into the neighbourhood, and 
 proper sewage conditions carried out. And here is a striking fact, 
 and I want you to think it over. I went carefully through the last 
 return of the Registrar General the other day, and I find that in 
 practically every case where these inoculations have been used 
 for the cure of disease, the death-rate has gone up. In all these 
 diseases — scarlet fever, measles, and all zymotic diseases — which 
 are dependent entirely upon sanitary conditions for their 
 prevention, the death-rate has gone down. 
 
 This is one way in which we could get rid of the trouble. 
 People are occupied, medical men are occupied, too much with 
 curing disease instead of being occupied in preventing it. Instead 
 of medical men running after these fashions of the times, if they 
 would help John Burns to pass his Bill for the better housing of 
 the working classes, we should then arrive at something like a 
 scientific solution of the great problems of disease in this country. 
 
 The Testing: of Drug's. 
 
 Now I come to another subject, and that is the question of 
 drugs. I hear people say, " How are you going to test your 
 drugs thoroughly ? Surely you would not start by testing drugs 
 upon human beings ; you would test them on animals ? " You 
 cannot argue from animals to man, and never was this so true as 
 in the case of drugs. Supposing you were to let some rabbits out 
 into a field of belladonna, and you found those rabbits ate up that 
 belladonna and grew fat on it, and then, judging from that, you 
 might say to your wife the next morning," I say, Mary, the rabbits 
 have flourished on that belladonna; I think we should give it to 
 the children, and see if it will fatten them up too." This would 
 be followed by a coroner's inquest, which shows you that you 
 cannot argue from animals to men. Goats can eat hemlock with 
 impunity, but it is fatal to the human species. Then take the 
 little hedgehog, a most interesting little creature. We talk very 
 often about such animals in a supercilious way, but we do not 
 understand them. The more you come to know these creatures, 
 the more you will be surprised at the intelligence they possess. 
 
(20) 
 
 We do not know the extent of it. Take the little hedgehog. 
 Supposing you were to try and experiment on that, you will be 
 surprised when I tell you that a hedgehog can swallow as much 
 opium as a Chinaman can smoke in a fortnight, and it can wash 
 it down with as much prussic acid as would kill a whole regiment 
 of soldiers, and still be as lively as ever. How are you, then, 
 going to judge from animals to men ? The short-tailed monkey 
 would be killed with the smallest quantity of strychnine, and the 
 long-tailed monkey could take as much as you like. Then take 
 the cat. Citric acid, the active principle in lemons, will kill a cat 
 immediately, and if we were to judge the effect of citric acid upon 
 the familiar cat, we should never have known the enjoyment of a 
 glass of lemon juice in the summer. Many other instances could 
 be cited; until you have tried a drug on man you cannot tell 
 whether the effect will be similar or quite different. It is 
 impossible to argue from animals to men ; it is clearly out of the 
 question altogether. 
 
 Is Vivisection Cruel ? 
 
 Well, now, having dealt with the unscientific character of 
 vivisection, having shown it to be misleading and immoral in 
 character, I want to ask the question, is it cruel? 
 
 I can quite understand somebody saying: supposing it is mis- 
 leading — well, after all, we do kill these creatures, and we kill 
 them for food. (I myself have been a vegetarian for 35 years.) 
 The argument will be used in that way, and therefore if there is 
 no cruelty about it, what does it matter? Is there cruelty 
 connected with this practice ? That is the point we have got to 
 argue. Let us go to the vivisectors, and let them give an answer. 
 Here is what Professor Thane said before the Royal Commission, 
 that the removal of a portion of the second kidney, or the taking 
 away of the thyroid gland, " makes the animal very ill," and he 
 refers to other operations which are " followed by severe illness." 
 Then again he says, in regard to Certificate B., that where 
 the animals are operated upon, and then allowed to recover 
 afterwards, they do suffer severely whilst under observation in 
 the experiment. Then with regard to Certificate A. That is the 
 one used mainly for inoculation. In some cases the injection is 
 
(21) 
 
 followed, said the Inspector, by " great pain and suffering." He 
 mentions the injection of tetanus toxin and the injection of 
 plague also. And Professor Starling, the vivisector, gives it as his 
 opinion that " in a pathological laboratory a certain amount of 
 suffering may be an essential part of the experiment." 
 
 Professor Pembrey, who went before the Royal Commission, 
 said, "I think painful experiments are necessary; I myself have 
 performed them. I mean, painful experiments as against experi- 
 ments under anaesthetics. A common sense view should be taken 
 of this question, and pain must be admitted. I admit that I have 
 done painful experiments, and I am not ashamed of it. Pain is 
 part of the scheme of nature!" He added that, given enough, the 
 animal would be relieved by the pain producing fainting. This 
 was spoken boldly before the Royal Commission. Will you tell 
 me, after that, vivisection is not cruel ? 
 
 Where Anaesthetics are Useless. 
 
 But now you will say, " What about anaesthetics ? Does not 
 the Act order anaesthetics ? Are not anaesthetics used ? " Let us 
 look at this question. There are three kinds of experiments — 
 first there are cutting operations, which are performed under 
 anaesthetics. The licence enforces that. Where an anaesthetic is 
 given the animal is killed before it recovers. According to the 
 last return, 2,584 of these operations were performed in the 
 previous year (1912). And then there are the experiments where 
 an animal is cut, perhaps some organ or other is removed, and the 
 animal is allowed to recover, and linger for a certain time 
 afterwards. Even after that animal has suffered pain, the operator 
 need not kill it, because he is under no obligation to kill it until 
 the object of the experiment has been obtained. There were 2,240 
 of these. There remains the third class of experiments — inocula- 
 tion. These are inoculations for every kind of disease, of various 
 drugs and poisons, and so on. There were no less than 78,550 of 
 these experiments last year — the very worst kind of vivisection, in 
 which no anaesthetic was used. And many of these cases, the 
 Inspector admits, were productive of pain, and must be. Take for 
 instance Dr. Klein's experiments on cats' eyes; they were actually 
 published some years ago in the Local Government Board's Blue 
 
(22) 
 
 Book. Dr. Klein illustrates himself what was the effect of the 
 inoculation upon the cats' eyes. They were swollen up to an 
 enormous size, and the whole eye ultimately presented the 
 appearance of a crater-like ulcer. What do you think of that 
 vivisection? You know what it means to get anything in your 
 eye, and here we have the agony of the cat, whose irritated eyes 
 were held open for days and weeks. That is " painless " inocula- 
 tion. The Research Defence Society will tell you in support of it, 
 that this is nothing — it is the prick of a pin. But it is the 
 development that we have to look at. 
 
 How Anaesthetics are Administered. 
 
 Then take the cutting of the organs of animals, like those 
 experiments on the kidneys of fox-terriers, which I have men- 
 tioned. I quite admit that practically every animal is put under 
 an anaesthetic for the cutting operation, but before ever that 
 anaesthetic is administered, I suppose in every case without 
 exception, an injection of morphia is given. Morphia has simply 
 the effect of stupefying the animal to a certain extent. It destroys 
 its power of resistance, but it does not destroy its sense of pain, 
 unless a lethal dose is given. When the animal is therefore 
 stupefied by the morphia, the anaesthetic is given. They dare not 
 give it too much anaesthetic ; if they did they would lose their 
 animal, especially a dog, which is very susceptible indeed. It is 
 only by the greatest care that you can keep a dog alive under full 
 anaesthesia, especially when chloroform is used, which is of the 
 most deadly nature to the canine race. When the anaesthetic is 
 given you dare not give too much to the animal. It already lies 
 like a log on the table under the influence of the narcotic, and you 
 cannot tell how much that animal may be suffering. 
 
 When we perform a major operation, we appoint one man to 
 look after the anaesthetic and nothing else. Is that the case with 
 the animals ? Very often the whole thing is mechanically 
 regulated by the laboratory boy, from the next room. The 
 vivisectors told the Royal Commission that the anaesthetic was 
 adminstered in proportion to the body-weight of the animal. 
 Can they tell by the body-weight how much is needed ? Let me put 
 it in this way. No man looks solely after the anaesthetisation 
 
(23) 
 
 of that animal. The experimenter may (look at itoccasionally, 
 but that is nothing. The animal has hacMts power of resistance 
 destroyed by the morphia or a little drop of curare, which 
 paralyses the whole muscular system, and leaves the senses as 
 vivid as before. The animal lies in that state. Now, I ask you, 
 is there one solitary surgeon in the world, with a reputation to 
 lose, who would dare to operate upon a human being — to perform 
 a major operation — under circumstances of that description ? 
 Would he dare to pass in a whiff of anaesthetic according to the 
 weight of the patient upon the operating table, without having a 
 man to watch every breath and to watch the conjunctiva, and to 
 notice every little turn and twist that may take place in the move- 
 ments of the patient before him ? No ! And therefore I want to 
 know, if no surgeon would dare to perform a major operation upon 
 a human being under such circumstances, what right has anyone 
 to perform such an operation upon a poor helpless dog, simply 
 because it cannot defend itself? 
 
 The Home Secretary's Admission. 
 
 Once again I will put the vivisector into the witness box, and 
 clinch the matter in a way which cannot be gainsaid. They used 
 to divide these operations into two classes — those which were 
 painful, and those which were painless. A few years ago they 
 stopped that, and a member of Parliament asked the Home 
 Secretary why it was that these experiments were no longer 
 divided into painful and painless ? The answer was that in many 
 cases the operator himself could not tell whether the animal 
 was 'suffering or not. They had to give it up entirely, and no 
 longer make the division of painful and painless experiments. 
 With an answer such as that, repeated by Professor Thane before 
 the Royal Commission, we can only come to the conclusion that 
 if the operator himself could not tell whether the animal was 
 suffering or not when placed on the torture trough, it lay there 
 under a ghastly risk. I think I have shown clearly that vivisection 
 is immoral, unscientific and misleading ; that it is cruel and that 
 it is useless, and under these circumstances I want to know what 
 we can possibly do with such a practice, except to demand of the 
 House of Commons that it shall be totally abolished ? 
 
(24) 
 
 Bui, bear with me just another moment or two. A person 
 will say what are you going to do ? If you are going to do away 
 with experiments On animals what will take its place ? That is a 
 foolish sort of argument. Because they got rid of a certain evil, 
 which has been proved to be useless and unscientific, why should 
 something else be needed to take its place ? The thing is 
 wrong, and you do not want anything to take its place. But how 
 are you to learn to get advancement in the treatment of human 
 ailments and disease ? What is the right way ? 
 
 The True Way to Learn. 
 
 Well, I will not shirk the position. There is only one way by 
 which you can learn how to treat human disease, and that is by 
 experimentation upon human beings. "Ah!" you say, "you are 
 as bad as the vivisectors." My friends, no. There is no need for 
 us to experiment upon human beings. Nature herself is experi- 
 menting every hour, every day, every week, and every month of 
 the year. Nature experiments in accidents and disease of every 
 kind. These experiments are passing before the eyes of the 
 doctor all the way through, and if he will keep his eyes open, if he 
 will take notice of the symptoms and physical signs, and if he will 
 compare these symptoms and signs by the bedside with post- 
 mortem room results and thoroughly judge of cause and effect, he 
 will be able in all these cases of nature's experiments to put to the 
 test the best methods that he can possibly devise for their allevia- 
 tion and cure, and that without unscientific, cruel, misleading and 
 immoral processes such as those which I have denounced 
 to-night. 
 
 For instance, we hear a great deal about goitre, an enlarge- 
 ment of the thyroid gland. What has been discovered by 
 experiments on monkeys ? Why, long years ago the origin of 
 goitre was found out in Berne, in Switzerland, by experimentation 
 upon eighteen patients who had enlarged thyroid glands. They 
 had them removed for the purpose of treating the patients, and 
 then it was found that the absence of the thyroid gland produced 
 a condition known as myxoedema, or cretinism. Why did they 
 want to start the wholesale excision of the thyroid glands in 
 monkeys to prove the same thing? We have continuously the 
 
(25) 
 
 experimentation upon animals in order to prove opinions which 
 are already thoroughly and absolutely established. 
 
 I think now we have seen from every point of view how 
 absolutely baseless is the claim for vivisection, and I will not 
 occupy your time further, because I am hoping that there may be 
 some questions that will be asked, and that they will, perhaps, 
 illustrate some further points which I have not been able to touch 
 upon to-night. But before sitting down, I should like to ask the 
 question, how this practice is to be dealt with, and by what 
 means ? 
 
 The Restriction Bill. 
 
 There is already a Bill before the House of Commons for the 
 total abolition of this practice. What we say is this, that if this 
 practice is so absolutely bad, immoral, unscientific, misleading, 
 cruel and useless, then there is no ground whatever for keeping 
 such a measure as the Vivisection Act upon the Statute Book. 
 To truckle or to compromise with the evil we consider a treachery 
 to the poor creatures who have got to suffer. There is another 
 Bill before the House of Commons. This is a restriction Bill, 
 presented by another Society, which is called an Anti- Vivisection 
 Society ; but it would perpetuate vivisection, only with restrictions. 
 The promoter of that Bill says in effect, "Here in my Bill is 
 provision for inspectorships, and it propounds to Parliament that 
 every animal, during a cutting operation, shall be placed under an 
 anaesthetic, and that the inspectors shall be present to see that 
 the anaesthetic is properly administered." Now, the Government 
 Inspector has always shown himself favourable to vivisection, 
 and every annual Government report points to the same thing. 
 One of the most recently appointed inspectors was a member of 
 the Research Defence Society until he received the appointment, 
 when he resigned. 
 
 The Government, like all Governments, is always ready for a 
 compromise, and in compliance with this wish they have added 
 two extra whole time inspectors, and have appointed a superin- 
 tendent whole time inspector as well. Now you see the effect that 
 the pursuance of this restrictive policy has had. It has simply 
 created an additional vested interest in vivisection itself, and they 
 
(26) 
 
 make now vivisection practically the bread and butter of these 
 paid officials, and this makes it more difficult for us than ever to 
 get rid of it. This is called a half measure — they say they are 
 giving us half a loaf; we reply that it is giving us a stone for 
 bread, because it is perpetuating the evil practice, and it is 
 professing to perpetuate it by suggesting that there is something 
 in the practice which is good. Are there any benefits whatever 
 which the public have derived from it ? I say there are none, and 
 that you are exploiting these poor creatures for your own cowardly 
 designs. There is another objection to this proposed restriction. 
 How are you going to deal with the pain and suffering that follow 
 inoculations ? It is useless to say that the animals are to be killed 
 when they begin to show signs of suffering. The suffering is a 
 part of the study. And even if you could enforce such a rule, 
 how could all the animals be watched continually for signs of 
 pain ? Animals usually endure in silence, and there are the long 
 nights of suffering, when the vivisectors are absent. Inspectors 
 are clearly useless for this. 
 
 The "Higher Animals' Bill." 
 
 There is yet another Bill, and this seeks to take the higher 
 animals out — it is to take out dogs, cats, monkeys and so on. But 
 here again I say : What are you doing ? I agree with Jeremy 
 Bentham.it is not a question whether animals can reason much or 
 little, or whether they can understand more or less, but whether 
 they can feel? I do not see why all the rest of the animals should 
 suffer because a certain few privileged ones are taken out, and why 
 vicarious sacrifice should be resorted to in that way. By taking 
 out these few animals you are practically justifying the vivisection 
 of the lower animals, which you think are not quite so intelligent 
 as those you are seeking to protect. 
 
 I say that what we want to do is not to occupy the public 
 mind with the differences in the animals, but to show the evil of 
 vivisection itself, and when we have shown that, and proved that 
 the practice of vivisection is bad and wicked, then vivisection 
 itself will be swept away, and the whole animal creation will 
 be free. The " Higher Animals' Bill " practically condones the 
 practice. 
 
(27) 
 
 You see we have our work before us, and there are great 
 difficulties in the way. The whole medical profession stands up 
 the one for the other, and the way they do that makes a great dead 
 wall which seems almost impregnable. But so long as we have 
 God and right upon our side, we are bound to succeed. There 
 never was a movement yet, however great the forces that were 
 against it, which aimed at abolishing an evil, but sooner or later 
 that evil was shattered to pieces. They told Wilberforce, when he 
 proposed the abolition of the slave trade, that the slave trade was 
 bound up with the prestige of the English people, that the slaves 
 did not suffer, that they were little more than beasts, and even 
 Bishops in their pulpits advocated the continuance of the slave 
 trade. Wilberforce said, " I care nothing for that. The one idea 
 with me is that these men are flesh and blood like ourselves, and 
 that they have rights as well as we have." And he went to the 
 country, and touched the great throbbing heart of the British 
 people, until thirty millions of money was paid down, and, thank 
 God, slavery, so far as English authority is concerned, was ended. 
 
 The Lesson of all Reforms. 
 
 And even Shaftesbury, who was one of a little band of 
 reformers, carried his point in the same way. They were taking 
 children from the workhouses and orphanages, and bringing them 
 up here to the North of England, to work in the factories from 
 early morning until late at night. " It is blood money," said 
 Shaftesbury. Even the eloquence of John Bright and of Gladstone 
 was used to maintain the infamous traffic, but Shaftesbury said, 
 " I care nothing for that. It is a foul and wicked practice, and it 
 will have to go." And he never rested until the Factory Act was 
 passed, and that abominable system swept away. The odds 
 against him were greater, far greater, and the vested interests far, 
 far deeper, than those which we have to face. 
 
 Even Howard, after he had tramped from prison to prison, to 
 expose the dreadful conditions that existed in his time, was told 
 that they must go on. Women, for instance — witches, as they 
 were called, who were lying festering in their own filth for months 
 together — were put into Lancaster Gaol becauseiothers had a right 
 to put them there, and, it was said, " they deserved it," and even 
 
(28) 
 
 there again the Bishops maintained that the system must be kept 
 going, as evil must be rigorously punished. Poor Howard died 
 without seeing his object gained, but the death of Howard brought 
 to mind the words he had said in his life time, and an agitation 
 was commenced, as a result of which the prisons were over- 
 hauled, and the foul system was ended. 
 
 It was exactly the same in our lunatic asylums, where great 
 reforms were brought about, and we have little idea of the 
 enormous opposition that the reformers had to fight against. 
 But they went forward, for they knew that they were right, and 
 that they had God upon their side, and they were not going to 
 bend down at the behest of men of means and influence, who spoke 
 against them. 
 
 What has been done before can be done again. We are here 
 to ask you to stand by us and to help us, and to be determined 
 that nothing shall be done until this foul blot upon the Christian 
 standard of this country has for ever been wiped away. Remember 
 this, my friends :— 
 
 The hills have been steep for man's mounting, 
 
 The woods have been dense for his axe, 
 The stars have been thick for his counting, 
 The sands have been wide for his tracks. 
 The sea has been deep for his diving, 
 
 The poles have been wide for his sway, 
 But bravely he's proved by his striving 
 That where there's a will there's a way. 
 
 F. J. BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23207 
 
The British Union 
 for the Abolition of Vivisection. 
 
 (The British Anti-Vivisection Society.) 
 
 Foundress. FRANCES POWER COBBE. 
 
 President and Hon. Sec : Hon. Treasurer : 
 
 WALTER R. HADWEN, J.P., M.D., etc. The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. 
 
 Secretary: Miss B. E. KIDD. 
 
 Offices: 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W. 
 
 From the Autobiography of Miss F. P. COBBE, 
 
 "To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to the 
 Anti-Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it as set 
 forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to those specially 
 who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to carry on the war 
 against scientific cruelty, I now earnestly say as my final counsel : 
 
 44 Support the British Union." 
 
 In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in support 
 of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to state clearly in their 
 Wills, 4, The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection," and to 
 make them payable to the Treasurer for the time being. 
 
 Form of Bequest. 
 
 I bequeath unto the Society called THE BRITISH UNION 
 
 FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION, the sum of 
 
 free of Legacy Duty, and I direct that the same shall be paid to 
 the Treasurer forthe time being of such last- mentioned Society. 
 
 By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in 
 writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of the 
 Testator and of each other. 
 
 A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member. 
 An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member. 
 Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully 
 accepted. 
 
 An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union. 
 
SELECTED ANTI-VIVISECTION 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 Pamphlets by Dr. HADWEN, J. P. 
 
 c . , Per 
 
 Single. 10Q 
 
 Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English 
 
 Laboratories = Id. 1/- 
 
 A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 2d. 2/- 
 
 The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria - 2d 1/6 
 
 The Cult of the Vivisector = = - £d. 4d. 
 
 Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk - = = 1d. 1/- 
 
 Was Jenner a Charlatan ? - = = 1d. 1/- 
 Debate between Dr. Hadwenand Mr. Stephen 
 
 Paget at Shrewsbury. - - - 2d 1/6 
 
 Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. Eastham \(\. \/~ 
 Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen and 
 
 Sir Victor Horsley = - - - Id. 1/- 
 Views of Men and Women of Note on the 
 
 Vivisection Question - 2d. 2/- 
 (Illustrated -with Portraits). 
 
 The Case against Vaccination - - - 1d. 1/- 
 
 The Controversy in "The Standard" - 3d. 2/6 
 A Vivisection Controversy — Mr. Stephen 
 
 Paget'sclaims.and Dr. Madwen's answers 2d. 2/- 
 
 Antisepsis or Apsepsis - - - - 1d. 9d. 
 
 Jennerism and Pasteurism - - - Id. 9d 
 
 By Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE. 
 
 The Early History of the Anti-Vivisection Movement. 
 Light in Dark Places 
 
 3d. 
 Id. 
 
 By BEATRICE E. KIDD. 
 
 Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. Id., 9d. doz. 
 Do you Know? (Illustrated). \d,6d.perdoz. 
 The Policy of Abolition. Id , //- per doz. 
 What about Anaesthetics? \d., 6d. per doz. 
 
 By Miss A. F. WHITELEY. 
 
 Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/6 doz. 
 
 F. J . BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23204 
 
 •ffl IHIN*) W» w* 
 
 US MUI. UtNThH Lfl 
 
 HISTORICAL COfel-BCTIOf!