[The following pages are taken, with a few changes and omissions, from a pamphlet which I published in 1904. I am glad to say that the tone of the Anti-Vivisection Societies is not quite so bad as it was a few years ago; but I think that what I wrote in 1904 is still fairly accurate.]
1. Anti-Vivisection Societies
The early history of the anti-vivisection movement is given in a pamphlet by Dr. Leffingwell, of Brooklyn, entitled "The Rise of the Vivisection Controversy"; and in a pamphlet published by the National Anti-vivisection Society, entitled "Dates of the Principal Events connected with the Anti-vivisection Movement." Dr. Leffingwell calls attention to a fact not generally known—that the movement, in this country, was begun by the medical journals. The Medical Times and Gazette in 1858, the Lancet in 1860, and the British Medical Journal in 1861 condemned in a very outspoken way certain experiments made on the Continent, and raised the question whether these or any experiments on animals could be justified. Later, in 1872, the Medical Times and Gazette declared outright that all experiments, from the time of Magendie onward, had done nothing for humanity that could be compared to the discovery and use of cod-liver oil and bark. In 1874, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took proceedings against those who had made certain experiments at Norwich during a meeting of the British Medical Association. These experiments, and the publication of the Handbook of the Physiological Laboratory, roused public comment; and during 1875 the opposition to all experiments on animals took more definite form. On June 22nd, 1875, the Royal Commission was appointed; on January 8th, 1876, its report was dated; and on August 15th, 1876, the present Act received the Royal assent.
At the time when the Royal Commission was appointed, the only anti-vivisection society was that which Mr. Jesse had just started; and if any one will read Mr. Jesse's cross-examination, by Professor Huxley, before the Royal Commission, he will not attach much importance to that society. The National Anti-vivisection Society was founded in November 1875; the Irish Society, the London Society, and the International Association in 1876; the Church Anti-vivisection League in 1889, the Humanitarian League and the National Canine Defence League[45] in 1891, and the British Union about 1898. These dates show that the oldest of these societies came after the Royal Commission, not before it; the first societies and the Royal Commission were alike the expression of a widespread opinion, thirty years ago, that experiments on animals ought either to be forbidden or to be restricted. This same opinion had been favoured, fifteen years before that, by the representative journals of the medical profession. We have seen something of the work of the medical profession; let us now see something of the work of the societies.
The chief anti-vivisection societies in this country are the National Society, the London Society, the British Union, the Church League, and the Canine Defence League. In February 1898, the National Society declared itself in favour of restriction; it set before itself abolition as its ultimate policy, and restriction as its immediate practical policy. Thus, at the present time, these societies are divided into two parties: one asks for restriction, another asks for nothing short of abolition. This division between them, and the tone of the National Society toward the smaller Societies, waste their energy and their funds, and hinder them from working together. The National Society, in its official journal (January 1902), speaks as follows of this schism, in a leader entitled "The Folly of our Subdivisions":—
"Nobody seems to know how many Anti-vivisection Societies there are. A few hundred Anti-vivisectionists divide themselves up into divisions, subdivisions, coteries, and cliques, without order, without discipline, without cohesion. The Anti-vivisectionists between them all contribute but a few thousands a year, and dribble them around among multitudinous antagonistic associations.... The pitiful absurdity of the disunion fostered by some Anti-vivisectionists was illustrated very forcibly last year by the issue of a prospectus of a Society with a world-embracing title, in which its promoters declared that irreparable injury would be inflicted upon our cause if electoral work were not taken up by them.... The accounts of this stupendous organisation showed that its total expenditure for the year was £13, 19s. 4d., out of which ten shillings was devoted to 'electoral work.' ... A much graver injury is done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of money spent in perfectly unnecessary offices and salaries. We say that one office would amply suffice for all the work, and that one office would not need half-a-dozen paid Secretaries. The existence of many quite needless Societies cannot be justified on any grounds of humanity combined with common sense."
Nothing need be added to these very grave admissions, written by Mr. Coleridge himself. He proposes a very simple remedy for these "quite needless" societies:—
"The National Society, as the chief Anti-vivisection organisation in the world, is always ready to put an end to this grievous waste by receiving into its corporation any of the smaller Societies."
But the leaders of smaller societies have two grounds of complaint against Mr. Coleridge's society: they do not believe in his policy, and they will not submit to his "discipline." They call his society "the weak-kneed brethren," and say that its policy is "miserable, cowardly, and misleading"; and they take it ill that he so often accuses them of inaccuracy. He refers again and again (see the official journal of the National Society) to this mode of discipline:—
December 1901.—"I decline to be made responsible for the 'anti-vivisection party.' There happen to be small anti-vivisection associations whose chief occupation is the dissemination of quite inaccurate pamphlets. I have nothing to do with them, and cannot prevent anything they choose to do."