3. "The task of the crusader against vivisection is not to reason with the so-called scientist, not to truckle to pedants in the schools, or palter with callous doctrinaires, but to inform and arouse the people; and when John Bull is prodded from his apathy, and startled from his stertorous snore, he will rise and bellow out a veto on the elegant butcheries of pedantic libertines, and rush full tilt with both his horns against their abattoirs of cruelty and passion, pharisaically vaunted as research, until the gates of hell shall not prevail against him."—The Rev. Arthur Mursell (1901).[46]
4. "It has been my experience of anti-vivisection among Romanists, that nothing suited my purpose better than taking it for granted that the worshippers of St. Francis, St. Bernard, &c., must, of course, be on our side."—(1902.)
5. "Given money, and influential patronage, the vivisector now expects a time after his own heart, while professedly engaged in investigating the supposed causes of cancer, or the transmissibility of tuberculosis. He can inflict the most horrible and prolonged tortures on miserable animals, with such a plausible excuse in reserve, that he is endeavouring all the while to find cures for the ailments of high personages and millionaires."—(1902.)
6. "The day of drugging and scientific butchery is drawing to a close. Already the calm, reassuring voice of the new Life Science, loud and clear to the few, is faintly audible to the many. The sharp, crucial knife, with its dangerous quiver so dear to the heart of the surgeon, the poisonous drug, will be things of the past. Wisdom, thy paths are harmony and joy and peace."—(1902.)
Such is the frequent level of the Zoophilist, the official journal of the National Society, edited by Mr. Berdoe, controlled by Mr. Coleridge. Let us now take one more of that society's publications, a pamphlet entitled Medical Opinions on Vivisection. Here, if anywhere, should be the society's stronghold. If it could show a large and important minority of the medical profession opposed to all experiments on animals, its power would be greatly increased. On three occasions, many years ago, the medical profession did express its opinion. At two of the annual meetings of the British Medical Association, and at a meeting of the London International Medical Congress, resolutions were passed affirming the value and the necessity of these experiments. At one of these meetings there was one dissentient vote; at one, two;[47] at one, none. These three meetings were truly representative; they were the great meetings of the clans of the profession, from all parts of the kingdom, for a week of practical work tempered by festivities. What more could any profession do than to go out of its way three times that it might record, in fullest assembly, its belief? And most certainly it would do the same thing again, if it thought that any further declaration were needed.
There are in this country about 40,000 medical men. The National Society's pamphlet quotes 39, or one in 1000. It could quote more; but we must take what it gives us. Of these 39, we may fairly exclude Professor Koch, Sir Frederick Treves, and the late Sir Andrew Clark, who would certainly wish to be thus excluded. Sir Frederick Treves, who is quoted with a sort of explanatory note, has told us in the Times what he thinks of the way in which his name has been used; Sir Andrew Clark is quoted, also with an explanatory note, for an obiter dictum; and Professor Koch for no discoverable reason. That leaves 36. Of these 36, at least 11 (probably more) are dead; one died about 1838, another was born in the eighteenth century, another died more than twenty years ago. Of the remaining 25, one is Dr. Lutaud, one is Mr. Berdoe, one an American doctor, not famous over here, one a veterinary surgeon, one (I think) opposed to vaccination, and three inclined to homœopathy; one has mistranslated Harvey to the advantage of the National Society's cause, one has written Hints to Mothers, and one has written How to Keep Well. Of these 25 gentlemen, one belongs to a homœopathic hospital, two to provincial hospitals, and one to a hydropathic institute and a children's sanatorium; the rest of them hold no hospital or school appointment of any sort or kind. I may be wrong over one or two of these names; but, so far as I can see, I have given an exact account of the value of these Medical Opinions on Vivisection. And, if we take the dates of these opinions, we find one in 1830, one in 1858, and seven in 1870-1880. Anyhow, what is the value of an opinion that all experiments on animals are arrant and horrible Sepoyism wearing the mask of Art and Science?
Let us leave the National Society, and turn to the Canine Defence League, and examine that part of its literature which is concerned with experiments on animals. Take the following sentences from pamphlets 179 and 204:—
"Among the general public the majority are under the impression that these so-called physiological experiments are conducted under the influence of anæsthetics, and that the subjects are rendered insensible to pain; this, however, is not the case, and I am informed that a large proportion—considerably more than half—of the licenses dispense with anæsthetics entirely. The phenomena of pain are absolutely essential to any practical issue."
"All diseases have a mental or spiritual origin. Upon this subject a large treatise might be written. I have carefully thought this matter over, and can come to no other conclusion. Can we imagine any wild bird confined to its nest with rheumatism, or neuralgia, or consumption, or asthma, or any other affection whatever? I believe them all to be entirely free from disease; that is, all which have retained their freedom, and thus have not come under the baneful influence of man. Take, again, the fishes, and ask whether any fisherman ever caught a fish found to be diseased. This subject is an interesting, though a somewhat melancholy one."