[page] 17

MR. DARWIN ON VIVISECTION.

THE following letter addressed by the Hon. Bernard Coleridge to the Earl of Shaftesbury, as President of the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection, has been forwarded to us by the Committee of the Society for publication:—

MY LORD, Mr. Darwin, in a letter, dated April 14, 1881, to Professor Holmgren, of Upsala, on the subject of vivisection, which appeared in the Times of April 18, 1881, speaking of vivisectors, says that "in the future everyone will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind." He compares a Bill on the subject, which he says he took an active part in trying to get passed, with the "Cruelty to Animals Act" of 1876, greatly preferring, from his point of view, the Bill to the Act. The Bill, he says, "would have removed all just cause of complaint, and, at the same time, have left physiologists free to pursue their researches-a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed."

If this Bill be, as Miss Cobbe states in a letter to the Times dated April 18, 1881, the Bill which was brought in by Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Spencer Walpole, and Mr. Evelyn Ashley in 1875, it might be well to compare the two together, to see why Mr. Darwin quarrels with the Act, yet gave the Bill his support. It is strange, but true, that a careful comparison of the Bill with the Act will find the former, in many respects, more stringent in its terms than the latter.

It would at first sight seem not to be so, for the Bill allows anyone, for the purpose of new scientific discovery, to perform vivisection under anæsthetics, provided that the animal is killed before it recovers consciousness, while the Act forbids vivisection under any circumstances, except to those who hold a license from the Home Secretary. Again, by the Act all experiments by vivisection for the purpose of public instruction must be conducted in a registered place, which may be visited by inspectors, and the Home Secretary may, at his option, insist on any licensed person making his experiments in a registered place.

The Bill contains no such conditions.

But the infliction of pain, and not the painless taking of life, is what legislation is required to limit, and how does the Bill compare with the Act in that respect?

By both the Bill and the Act a license is required before an operator can vivisect without the use of anæsthetics.

But in the Bill the applicant for a license has, by the form of his application, to undertake to make the experiment for the purpose of new scientific discovery, and for no other purpose—to declare that insensibility cannot be produced without frustrating the object of the experiment—to put the animal to no unnecessary pain—and to kill the animal, if it be seriously injured, immediately on the termination of the experiment. No such undertaking is required by the Act.

The Bill forbids vivisection without anæsthetics, except the experiment be made "for the purpose of new scientific discovery and for no other purpose."

The Act adds "for the purpose of testing former discoveries."

By the Bill, a duty is cast upon the operator without anæsthetics of keeping a register of all experiments so conducted for the inspection of the Home Secretary.

By the Act, the initiative of ordering such a record to be kept is cast upon the Home Secretary, who may do so, but need not.

The Bill presumably applies to invertebrate animals, the Act does not.

By the Act, no prosecution can be instituted against. a licensed operator, except with the assent in writing of the Home Secretary.

The Bill contains no such proviso.

The Act for the first offence punishes only with fine.

The Bill allows the graver punishment of imprisonment.

Mr. Darwin then, if he adheres to his letter, ought to support new efforts to graft the more stringent provisions of the Bill on to the Act. But I fear that when he finds that by this process he is restraining vivisection within narrower limits he will draw back. Can his love and knowledge of nature lead him no higher than to talk to Professor Holmgren of those who retard the progress of cutting animals up alive as "committing a crime against mankind?" Is the man who puts dumb animals to torture, or the man who strives to prevent the moral degradation of his race the truer "benefactor of mankind?

I have the honour to be, my Lord, Faithfully yours, BERNARD Coleridge.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G., Temple, April 26, 1881.

 

The following letter from a member of the Royal Commission appeared in the Times of 30th April:—

Sir,— As one of the Commissioners who conducted the inquiry into the subject of vivisection in 1876, allow me to say that I cannot agree at all with Mr. Romanes, in his letter to your impression of today, when he expresses his regret that the agitation against vivisection has

"carried off so much valuable enthusiasm in the pursuit of a harmless will-o'-the-wisp, when so many and such evil abuses are burning in our midst,"— the "harmless will-o'-the-wisp" being the premeditated

[page] 18

infliction of suffering, often exquisite, on our fellow-creatures by men of high standing, while the "burning abuses" are due to the carelessness and callousness of vulgar men. For though of course the cruelty of carelessness and callousness in rude persons is vastly greater in amount than the cruelty of set purpose inflicted for the scientific end, yet the latter when justified and even exalted by men of high standing, is far more prolific of moral danger to the character of society at large. Of course I am well aware that Mr. Romanes and the friends of physiological investigation generally would deny, that cruelty is a proper term for any experiment, however painfully made, on what they consider a good scientific case, and with the least practicable infliction of pain that renders it effectual. But if the Royal Commission affected nothing more than to put plainly before us this admission by very eminent men that we may and ought to inflict the worst torture on any of our fellow-creatures under the work of man, for the sake of reasonable probability of extending the scientific knowledge of men, it effected, I think, a very good result by bringing us face to face with a moral question of the utmost moment.

When it is said, as Mr. Darwin has said, that the investigation of vivisection by the Royal Commission "proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false," I must express my entire dissent. Of course some accusations so made were false, while others, in my opinion, were true, but the Royal Commission, in its report, explicitly declined to pass any opinion on the subject, limiting itself to the task of recommending precautions against a practice which, as the Commissioners said, "by its very nature is liable to great abuse." No doubt different members of the Commission held the most opposite opinions on the evidence brought before them. For my own part, I thought, and think, that long courses of experiments were deliberately made and approved by very eminent British physiologists which could have been justified by no scientific results however valuable, least of all, by the results actually alleged, and I would refer especially to Dr. Rutherford's very severe experiments on dogs under curari, as described by himself to the Commission, pp. 152-4. No doubt these experiments have added somewhat to our knowledge of the effect of certain drugs on the secretion of bile, and would have added much more if they had been performed under the same terrible conditions upon human beings, but I am quite sure that, for me at least, it would be as great a sin to gain knowledge at such a cost as it would be to gain other moral, or immoral, experience of the world, such as men so often gain, by doing what they repent having done for the rest of their lives.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, RICHARD H. HUTTON.

Englefield Green, Staines.

 

"TO THE EDITOR OF " THE TIMES.'

"Down, Beckenham April, 14, 1881.

"Dear Sir,—In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it was asserted that inhumanity was here practised and useless suffering caused to animals; and I was led to think that it might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed, such as would have removed all just cause of complaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to pursue their researches a Bill very different from the Act which has since been passed. It is right to add that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false. From all that I have heard, how. ever, I fear that in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings of animals, and if this be the case I should be glad to hear of legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Anyone who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a century ago must admit that it has made immense progress, and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate.

"What improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed to physiological research is a question which can be properly discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners who have studied the history of their subjects; but, as far as I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man, but by the lower animals. Look, for instance, at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and others on living animals. In the future every one will be astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one who advances the noble science of physiology.

"Dear Sir, yours faithfully, "CHARLES DARWIN. "To Professor Holmgren."

 

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.'

"Sir,—May I, as President of the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, request you to insert in your paper a letter from Miss Cobbe, our able Hon. Secretary, in answer to one from Professor Darwin, which appeared this morning?

"I am, myself, among those who, in the language of the learned Professor, are deeply ungrateful to these benefactors of mankind.' It is, on the contrary, an honour and a joy to be deeply grateful to such distinguished men as the late Sir Charles Bell, and others still living, who have confessed their experiments to have been unnecessary, cruel, and without results.

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "SHAFTESBURY.

"Grosvenor Square, April 18."

 

"TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TIMES.'

Sir,—Mr. Darwin in a letter which you publish to-day, has fallen into some errors, which, in the case of a man of his celebrated accuracy, are not a little remarkable. Apparently, Blue Books are less in this great philosopher's line of study than pigeons or carnivorous plants. Mr. Darwin says that he took an active part in trying to get a Bill passed such as would have removed all just cause of complaint (on the subject of Vivisection), and, at the same time, have left physiologists free to pursue their researches, a Bill very different from that which has since been passed.' This Bill, which Mr. Darwin promoted, was brought into the House of Commons by Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Spencer Walpole, and Mr. Evelyn Ashley, and ordered to be printed May 12, 1875. If Mr. Darwin will be at the trouble to compare this Bill (which is printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection) with the existing Act of 1876, and point out in what respect the former is very different' from the latter, he will confer a favour on many of your readers, who find both the principles and details of the two measures almost identical."

Secondly, Mr. Darwin repeats the assertion, which has been boldly made again and again by the advocates of vivisection (as it would seem with sublime confidence in the inability of the general public to consult Parliamentary papers), that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against English physiologists were false.' Now, Sir, the report of the same Royal Commission (page 17), which lies before me as I write, contains the following carefully drawn and well weighed phrases:— It is manifest that the practice (of vivisection) is from its very nature liable to great abuse…. It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists…. That very severe experiments are constantly performed cannot be doubted…. Besides the cases in which inhumanity exists, we are satisfied that there are others in which carelessness and indifference prevail to an extent sufficient to form a ground for legislative interference.' These phrases, which, as referring to reasons for 'legislative interference,' can necessarily concern English physio-

[page] 19

logists alone, and not foreigners, afford, I venture to think, a direct contradiction to Mr. Darwin's assertion. Instead of the investigations before the Commission proving, as he says they did, 'that the accusations against English physiologists were false,' they proved to the conviction even of Mr. Huxley and Mr. Erichsen, that in the main they were true. Considering that the report goes on to say Evidence of this nature is not easily obtained,' this result was a remarkable vindication of the principle of magna est veritas, and that such a man as Mr. Darwin should write to Sweden to misinform his correspondent, and through him, all Europe, respecting the registered result of a great public inquiry, appears to me exceedingly to be regretted. As to Mr. Darwin's concluding observations respecting the benefits derived already from vivisection, I am, of course, not competent to argue with so great an authority. It sometimes would appear, however, that men of science mistake the discovery of the cause of a disease and the means of its transmission for the very different discovery of an available remedy. Professor Virchow's experiments in conveying trichinosis to rabbits were announced with a flourish of trumpets five years ago. Surely we ought not to have heard of the recent outbreak of that dreadful malady had those experiments been so immensely beneficial as Mr. Darwin would have us believe. We seem to be always condemned to listen to a repetition of the story of the old Egyptian magicians who succeeded in reproducing the plagues, but failed to cure them. But lastly, Sir, I beg to ask whether the principles of the evolution philosophy require us to believe that the advancement of the noble science of physiology' is so supreme an object of human effort that the corresponding retreat and disappearance of the sentiments of compassion and sympathy must be accounted as of no consequence in the balance? Ought we to rejoice if a human being has spent a lifetime in the work (or as some of us deem it, in the heinous sin) of the deliberate torture of God's harmless creatures, if, at the end of all he can boast that he has added a detail or two to the store of physiological facts? A living Italian professor of this 'noble science' concludes his report on his own systematic tormenting of scores of animals ('larding' them with nails and other devices) by the remark that he has pursued his investigations con molto amore e pazienza (Del Dolore,' page 25). If only one human soul had descended to such a moral abyss as this confession reveals, I should, for my part, consider that the pursuit which had led him thither, instead of being of incalculable benefit to humanity,' had done our race more injury than physical science were her proudest boasts verified could ever repay. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world of knowledge and lose his own heart and his own conscience?

"I am, Sir, yours truly, "FRANCES POWER COBBE, Hon. Secretary Society Protection of Animals from Vivisection.

"I, Victoria Street, S.W., April 18."

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.'

"Sir,—With reference to Mr. Darwin's letter in The Times of yesterday, I would ask your permission to quote the following brief, but impressive, extract from Darwin's Descent of Man' :- "Every one has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection who licked the hand of the operator: this man, unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life.' 44 "I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. W. MOFFETT. "Queen's College, Galway, April 19." "TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.' "Sir,-I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in The Times of the 19th inst., but as she asserts that I have misinformed' my correspondent in Sweden in saying that the investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false,' I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences from the report of the Commission. not "(1.) The sentence- It is not to be doubted that inhumanity may be found in persons of very high position as physiologists,' which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the report, and which, in her opinion, can necessarily concern English physiologists alone and foreigners,' is immediately followed by the words, We have seen that it was so in Majendie.' Majendie was a French physiologist who became notorious some half-century ago for his cruel experiments on living animals. 6 " - "(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the general sentiment of humanity' prevailing in this country, say (p. 10) :- "This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures; though differences of degree in regard to its practical application will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as it has been laid before us.' "Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10):- ·- "The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency of the scientific world in this country is at variance with humanity, says he believes it to be very different, indeed, from that of foreign physiologists; and while giving it as the opinion of the Society that experiments are performed which are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists have used anæsthetics where they think they can do so with safety to the experiment.'

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"CHARLES DARWIN.

"April 21."

"MR. DARWIN ON VIVISECTION. "TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.'

"Sir, Mr. Darwin adduces the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission includes a reference to Majendie, as if it were thereby proved that foreign physiologists were the only or chief objects of the condemnation of the Commission. My contention in the letter which you did me the honour to publish on the 19th inst., was that the Commissioners must have the English physiologists primarily in view in all their remarks, which otherwise were totally irrelevant to their purpose-namely, that of reporting on the necessity of legislative interference with English physiologists. Doubtless the interchange of extreme politeness which took place between the Commissioners and the eminent men' on whose doings they sat as judges prevented them from citing by name the evidence which had been brought before them respecting vivisectors at home, caused them to refer, rather illogically, to that grand scapegoat of the physiologists, Majendie. nd "The outcome of the whole elaborate inquiry-viz., that the Commission ended by reporting distinctly in favour of the enactment of a law by which experiments should be placed under the control of the Home Secretary' (p. xx.)—is assuredly evidence sufficient that the Royal Commissioners did not acquit English physiologists of the charges against them. Would Mr. Darwin have us believe that they desired to see experiments in England placed under the control of the English Home Secretary, because Majendie had performed cruel experiments in France? "With regard to the assurances of he secretary of the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty-of which so much capital has ever since been made by the advocates of vivisection-that he believes the humanity of English vivisectors to be very different indeed from that of foreign physiologists, it would be satisfactory to know on how intimate an acquaintance with the proceedings of either one or the other he founded his opinion, and whether it extended beyond two or three forewarned visits to certain laboratories, at the request of his own committee. A gentleman who had certainly much larger opportunities for forming a sound judgment of the matter, Dr. Klein, the assistant of the most eminent physiologist in England, Dr. Burdon Sanderson, gave a different verdict. Having honestly stated that he (a foreigner) had no regard at all' to the sufferings of animals (Minutes, 3539), and mentioned that there is no such thing abroad as the outcry which had been made concerning vivisection by certain English journals (3549), he was asked, 'But you believe that, generally speaking, there is a very different feeling in England?' Dr. Klein's answer was concise, and, I think, with all deference to Mr. Darwin, conclusive- Not among the physiologists, I do not think there is.' (Minutes, 3553). "The obvious truth, to which it is vain to close our eyes, is that vivisection always has been and must be the same thing all the world over; and that it is impossible for a man to devote his life to such a practice without experiencing a growing ardour of scientific curiosity, and a corresponding recklessness and callousness respecting the suffering which the gratification of that curiosity may involve.

"I am, Sir, truly yours,

"FRANCES POWER COBBE, Hon. Secretary, Society Protection of Animals from Vivisection. "I, Victoria Street, S.W., April 22." HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA we reioice to learn has accepted the patronage of the Società Protettrice degli Animali at Florence, and has presented £50 to its funds. This Society, as many of the readers of the Zoophilist will know, owes its long sustained activity and immense usefulness primarily to the unceasing labours of the Hon. Secretary, Countess (Gertrude) Baldelli-the sister of Dr. Arthur de Noë Walker. From its foundation, in January, 1873, the Florentine Society has maintained uncompromising hostility to vivisection, and it is understood to have been owing to its influence that Prof. Schiff found it desirable to retreat to Geneva in 1877. Her Majesty is also Patroness of the Turinese Society, whose President, Dr. Oriboli, has recently published a very vigorous protest-" Grida della Civilta contro le Vivisezione."

[page] 20

WHEN evidence was being offered before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes, it will be remembered that long lists of discoveries alleged to have been made by means of vivisection, were submitted to the Commission as positive proof of the great services that vivisection had rendered to mankind. Since then many of the examples adduced have been shown over and over again to be simply misstatements, whose effects were heightened by exaggeration, while other examples still remain unanswered and probably unenquired into. Judging from the examples quoted, it would appear that a general ransacking of medical literature had taken place, and whenever a discovery and a vivisectional experiment were found described in the same work, it was at once assumed that the discovery had followed the vivisection. Even had this been the case, it would not necessarily have followed that post hoc was always propter hoc. But as a matter of fact, the premises were as inaccurate as the conclusion. When any connection at all could be established between them, it was most commonly the experiment which had followed the discovery, not the discovery the experiment. It is now our purpose to direct attention especially to the examples which have hitherto been overlooked and unanswered, and to that end we shall commence by inquiring what share vivisection had in revealing to us the causes and character of those diseases of the heart, whose elucidation has been so loudly ascribed to Dr. Hope's vivisectional experiments. 66 "the heart when you apply the stethescope over that region. Certain experiments were made by the late "Dr. Hope, in which he investigated the causes of the "sound of the heart, and he showed that by interfering "with certain of the valves experimentally murmurs "were produced; indeed, he initiated artificially in a "manner conditions which we know frequently occur in "disease." Again, at 3,916, "(3) The causes of the "cardiac sounds have been determined entirely by "vivisectional experiments.' Although this question seems altogether to have dropped out of sight without having been answered, it was considered, at the time of the enquiry, one of primary importance. Professors Mac Kendrick and Turner both made much of it. The British Medical Journal trumpeted forth its virtue under the heading of, "What has Vivisection Done for Humanity?" Even in private drawing-rooms mild anti-vivisectionists were continually being button-holed by obtrusive and ignorant would-be physiologists, and challenged to gainsay the benefits which mankind had received from the experiments in question. We ourselves have had to undergo that ordeal, and being quite unconscious at the time even of the previous existence of the said Dr. Hope, we were forced to plead ignorance of the subject. The positive manner, however, in which the challenge was given had the natural effect of causing us to look through the pages of that gentleman's work "On Diseases of the Heart," and we there found a very different state of matters from what had been represented to us. There were certainly innumerable cases of brutal vivisection to be found there, but the vivisections came not before but after the discoveries. One might have been tempted to think that only a very shallow intellect could have become impressed with the idea that under such circumstances the vivisections had any share in making the discoveries. Yet that was how they were represented to the Royal Commissioners by the gentlemen we have named. Dr. But let us give the very words themselves. MacKendrick (Question 3,879) states:-"There is one "interesting experiment, for example, which at once "gave the physician an intelligent comprehension of "the cause of cardiac murmurs sometimes heard over 66 Again, Professor Turner remarks (3,027):--" The "experiments of Drs. Hope and Williams are of "importance in determining the cause of the sounds of "the heart and in enabling the practical physician to diagnose certain of the diseases of that important organ.' There is no ambiguity in the foregoing sentences; the wording as well as the intention is to show that the recognition of the diseases of the heart was due to experiments, and that vivisection was Dr. Hope's modus operandi in investigation. But the facts, as stated by Dr. Hope himself, are exactly the opposite, and are published in the third edition of his work, page 28. He says there :-" Conscious of the gap that was presented in the treatment "of diseases of the heart, I have devoted more attention "to this than to any other department of the subject, "availing myself, in particular, of the wide and favour- 66 99 66 "" able sphere for observation afforded by a long "residence as house physician and surgeon in the "Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, where, living literally, "I may say, as well as figuratively, at the bedside of "the patient, I had an opportunity of closely watching every habitude and phase of the disease, every "operation and effect of remedies." The bedside of the patient and not the side of the torture trough was where Dr. Hope made his investigation. But if any doubt remains unexplained by the foregoing, he makes it clear further on at page 76, where we find the following:-" Mitral Valves.-(1.) Systolic murmur, "that is from regurgitation. It was the existence of "this murmur in Christian Anderson (a patient in the infirmary), " who had no disease of the semilunar "valves, that led me to the detection of regurgitation "in general, in June, 1825." Here, then, from Dr. Hope's own account we learn the date, the cause, and character of the lesion,-with the name of the patient -(not an unfortunate dog) which opened out to Dr. Hope his great discoveries. What happens subsequently is clear enough. With the knowledge acquired from long clinical studies in the hospital Hope comes up to London, but let him announce his discoveries as he may, no one will accept them unless he is prepared to demonstrate in some way their causation on living animals. This is always a stumbling block for any young observer, who must use the shibboleth proved by experiments on animals to make his theories acceptable to the heads of the profession. His discoveries were specially connected with diseased conditions and abnormal sounds which are not generally found in the animals usually experimented upon, and so experiments are devised that will imitate as nearly as possible the diseased conditions. The consequence that doubt and differences show themselves amongst the doctors who witness the vivisectional experiments. There is all the difference imaginable between registering carefully the character of the sounds of the diseased heart in a patient where one may listen and come again a hundred times over, afterwards comparing them post mortem with the lesions is S

[page] 21

which have led to such abnormal sounds, and the chance lesions, coupled with convulsive sounds and actions of the heart, in the poor tortured dog or ass. Moreover, Dr. Hope himself shows that he puts little faith in the result of such experiments (at page 61). The notorious vivisector Majendie had taken exception to some of the views held by Hope, and "had "adopted a kind of alternate theory of the heart's "movements. If, said he, the heart of a living animal "is denuded, we easily see the auricles and ventricles "contract and dilate alternately." To this Hope replies: "It is easy to see how M. Majendie has "been misled, namely, by operating upon living "animals" (the italics are Hope's), "for I have always "found that when animals retained or regained the slightest degree of sensibility, the action of the heart "was so violent, convulsive, and rapid as to present "the appearance of alternate action described by "Majendie." 66 It is scarcely credible that the man who penned the foregoing lines should be put forward as a believer in the Vivisection which has done so much for Humanity. His arguments are precisely those used in general by anti- vivisectors like ourselves, and his provivisecting admirers must surely find some difficulty in reconciling his statements with their own pretentious assumptions on his account. One word more. Whether from motives of humanity, or from convenience, Hope and his fellow vivisectors made large use of a substance called "Woorara," for the purpose, he says, of stupifying the animals. If he had lived at the present day and learned that his supposed stupifying agent left sensation intact or even intensified it; that while it paralysed motion and prevented the outward symptoms of the pain the animal suffered, the convulsive action of the heart is accepted as the test of the intensity of the pain. suffered by the creatures-we believe he would be the first to condemn the results so much interfered with by the supposed stupifying agent woorara, and would still claim the result of honest, innocent, clinical and pathological observation, as the only channel which led him up to his valuable discoveries. PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the "Zoophilist." Sir, The Lancet, of March 19th, has an article entitled "The Plain Truth about Vivisection," which irresistibly reminds us of Aristophanes's Comedy of the Frogs. Our classical readers will remember that it represents Bacchus as desiring to imitate Hercules and make a journey to Tartarus. He reflected that as the hero got on so well in his expedition it might be advisable for him to imitate the garb of the god, and accordingly he assumes the lion's skin and shoulders the club. He cut, however, but a sorry figure in this fancy dress and there constantly peeped out from the disguise, the veritable Bacchus. This is just what happens in the article in the Lancet. For a whole page we think we are in the presence of the brave Hercules the defender of the weak against the strong. Though with the pardonable timidity of Red Riding Hood we can scarcely withhold an occasional exclamation indicative of only a partial and imperfect sense of repose. Still, this is a very reassuring sentence, "The sympathies of every heart must be stirred against wanton cruelty of every kind." Just so, for rabbits baked in their own juice, for instance," our sympathies have gone out with those who tried to stay the hand of the heedless or too persistent investigator." (Mark the pious flavour.) This is excellent. We almost thought of asking the proprietor of the Lancet for a subscription in aid of our work. When one's sympathies "go out" and one strives "to stay the hand of the heedless," the transition to opening our purse is one of the sequelae, as the doctors say, we naturally look out for. We feel we are in the presence of Hercules till we turn the page, and then we are at once in that condition of disappointment we so often experience in reading our own correspondence. The writer is entirely with us till we turn the leaf and then dashes our rising hopes in a single line. We read on for two or three paragraphs, and then the lion's skin drops from the would-be hero's shoulders and the dissembler stands confessed. He frames his own indictment in one line that should be remembered by every friend of animals as embodying the most we have ever urged against their tormentors. "The fact that the living animal feels is an untoward contingency." (The italics are ours.) Was there ever a more heartless, cynical, aye, diabolical sentence penned? The nameless agonies of refined torture applied to parts that nature has made every effort to protect and hide away, these are "contingencies" untoward but still mere contingencies! But the Aristophanic parallel is not yet exhausted. We remember that as it suited his purpose Bacchus alternated the hero's character with his own. This is just what the writer in the Lancet does. Mark the hypocrisy of the following, when he has re-assumed the humanitarian mask :-"It was well to impose restrictions on the practice of operating on living animals for the purpose of scientific investigation." It was well-yes, but the medical papers, the Lancet included, made a fierce outcry when the profane hand of the laity was first laid upon the sacred ark of scientific investigation. We had no encouragement in our uphill work in defence of animals from those who now cry "it was well." It has ever been thus with reformers. The Heresy of to-day will be the dogma of to-morrow. The heartless time-serving multitude who cry to-day "it was well" were yesterday shouting "Crucify Him, Crucify Him." Yours, &c., E. B. THE activity of the great German League against Scientific Animal Torture," in the matter of the distribution of papers, is very noteworthy. Up to the close of 1880, it had distributed in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 125,544 pamphlets and leaflets. During the last month 500,000 copies of the new "Tlagblatt" have been raining over Germany at the cost of £250. Help for this excellent work should be sent to the President (Herr Ernst v. Weber, Knight of the Royal Order of Saxony, &c., 8, Amalienstrasse, Dresden), from whom we derive these figures. It cannot be too often repeated that letting in the light into the dark places is our sole method of effectually suppressing vivisection. ་་ FROM THE "SPECTATOR," APRIL 23, 1881. "Mr. Charles Darwin, the great naturalist, has written a letter to Professor Holmgren, of Upsala, on the subject of vivisection, published in the Times of Monday last. In that letter, which defends vivisection wherever the interests of physiological science appear to demand it-and let us remark parenthetically, that they would profit by it far more certainly if it were practised upon man, than they ever can while it is limited to creatures of whose interior condition we can judge so very imperfectly as we can of that of dumb animals -Mr. Darwin makes one statement which is entirelv erroneous. He

[page] 22

says that 'the investigation of the matter [vivisection] by a Royal Commission proved that the accusations made against our English physiologists were false.' The Royal Commission did not report this. They came to no such conclusion, and though that may be Mr. Darwin's own inference from what they did say, it is only his inference, and not theirs. In our opinion, it was proved that very great cruelty had been practised, with hardly any appreciable result, by more than one British physiologist. When Mr. Darwin adds that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against makind,' he expresses a mere personal opinion, of which we can only say that it would be more to the purpose if he had added that torture inflicted in the cause of science cannot be either cruel or criminal, whether inflicted on human beings or their poor relations.' In our belief, you may buy knowledge at the cost of sin, and often do so in scientific investigations, no less than in the conduct of life." ་ THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ROYAL COMMISSION. It was the intention of the Committee of the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals liable to Vivisection to prepare for the use of members and others, a digest of the entire evidence presented to the Royal Commission. This evidence, however, is so voluminous (extending to upwards of 6000 questions and answers), and the able Report of the Commission has, on the whole, so fairly summarized it, that the Committee have relinquished the larger design, and have requested their Honorary Secretaries to prepare extracts, tending to substantiate the essential justice of the position taken by the Society. The advocates of vivisection may, it is thought, be left to give, through the powerful journals at their disposal, any publicity they desire to such portions of the evidence as they may consider favourable to their views and practice. Dr. ACLAND observes: "The number of persons in this and other countries who are becoming biologists without being medical 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 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 the mere acquisition of knowledge is not a thing having some dangerous and mischievous tendencies in it. Now it has become a profession to discover; and I have often met persons who think that a man engaged in original research for the sake of adding to knowledge is therefore a far superior being to a practising physician, who is simply trying to do good with his knowledge. So many persons have got to deal with these wonderful and beautiful organisms just as they deal with physical bodies that have no feeling and no consciousness". . . . thus. 66 the multiplicity of these investigations has in a great measure arisen (944). I have every reason for believing that it is often done abroad with what I should call an unscientific carelessness, which would be so hurtful to the moral sense of England that it would not be endured" (941). • the reverse, I should think, within the last few years. There are eddies in a river which is flowing from east to west, but it is flowing all the same (1339). With regard to all absorbing studies, that 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 well as this) into selfishness and unscrupulous neglect of duty (1287). Mr. Skey wrote in his work, A man who has the reputation of a splendid operator is ever a just object of suspicion.' . . . Now a person who is operating on the lower animals, who have no friends to remonstrate for them, is very much more likely to give way to such a temptation than a person operating upon human beings who would have friends (1287). If you take up that book of Schiff's you will find that almost every lecture has some animal sacrificed for it (1343). Dr. Foster told me he had never shown the experiment in the Handbook on Recurrent Sensibility and never seen it himself" (1346). (Asked, "But surely it is put here in a Handbook in a mode which would encourage the trying of that experiment?") Obviously. I am speaking in vindication of the character of a friend of mine, but not at all in vindication of the book" (1347). (Asked, "Then I understand that your opinion about the Handbook is, that it is a dangerous book to society, and that it has warranted to some extent the feeling of anxiety in the public which its publication has created?") "I am sorry to have to say that I do think that is so " (1351). 66 Mr. G. H. LEWES-himself a most enthusiastic vivisector,-says: "One man discovers a fact or publishes an experiment, and instantly all over Europe certain people set to work to repeat it. They will repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it" (6330). Sir W. FERGUSSON, Bart: " The impression on my mind is, that these experiments are done frequently in a most reckless manner (1035), and (if known to the public) would bring the reputation of certain scientific men far below what it should be (1036). I have reason to imagine that sufferings incidental to such operations are protracted in a very shocking manner. I will give you an illustration of an animal being crucified for several days, perhaps introduced several times into a lecture-room for the class to see how the experiment was going on (1037). I believe it (the above) to be done in this country" (1038). (Asked his grounds for opinion that a great deal of reckless practice of vivisection is going on at the present time) : "I hear young men who are pupils, or have recently been pupils, speaking o what they have seen in the theatres, lecture-rooms, and laboratories of those who profess to teach physiology" (1112). Dr. HAUGHTON: "I believe that a large proportion of the experiments now performed upon animals in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are unnecessary, and clumsy repetitions of well-known results. Young physiologists 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 physiological practice going on (1874). 27 . Prof. ROLLESTON: (Asked whether his remarks concerning the growth of moral feeling applied to the last few years?) "It is rather Prof. HUMPHRY: "Experiments have to be repeated and confirmed many times before a fact is really established " (635). Thinks that "the number of experiments must increase very rapidly if the progress of science is to be kept up " (740). Dr. RUTHERFORD: "I should say about half the experiments I have done" (are on animals not under anæsthetics) (2843). Thinks there is "considerable increase in physiological experimentation (2848). Dr. GAMGEE, Owen's College: "I think that vivisection has been practised almost too little (5383). My lectures to junior students are attended this session by 40 students, those to second-year students by 42 (5384). I may say we are making great efforts in Owen's College to encourage qualified persons to engage in physiological research; and for that purpose we have provided a laboratory, and we have a physiological scholarship" (5385). Dr. CRICHTON BROWN describes: Forty-six animals sacrificed in trying if chloral were antagonistic to pycrotoxine. "Cases of poisoning by pycrotoxine are of very rare occurrence" (3164, 3168). Twenty-nine animals used in Ferrier's series (3178). Mr. SCHAFER Says: "A very large number of animals" are used at Ludwig's laboratory. "Hundreds (a-year), if you take animals of all kinds; of rabbits and dogs, I suppose, more than a hundred (3853), without counting the frog" (3855). Sir G. BURROWs thinks: "There have been great abuses in the performance of experiments on living animals (157), and those abuses ought to be restrained" (158). Dr. SWAYNE TAYLOR: "A very eminent (French) toxicologist was in the habit of experimenting on dogs on a very large scale indeed; and after giving the poisons-nearly every poison in the list that we know of he cut into the neck to tie their gullets to prevent the animal vomiting, and of course that must have caused great pain and suffering; and it defeated the object which the toxicologist ought to have in view, because it placed the animal in an unnatural condition.... For that reason, in my work on Toxicology, I have not been able to make any use of the hundreds of these experiments which this French physician performed (1171). In Palmer's case, the destruction of sixty animals was really quite unnecessary. It was merely an attempt to overwhelm the evidence for the prosecution by the number of experiments (1197). Putting a frog into water at 40° cent. 100° Fahr., like putting warm-blooded creature into 212°, a cruel experiment. I cannot see what purpose it would answer (1258, 1259). Experiment (p. 101 of Handbook) on mesentery of a frog, a very painful experiment, and I do not see what good purpose it would answer" (1271). 33 66 Dr. WALKER: "Inflammation by chemical and traumatic agents was set up in the joints and in the transparent cornea of the eye by These passing a thread through it and establishing a seton. experiments caused great pain and the lambs and dogs on which they were performed were unable to rest day or night; and if some ease enabled them occasionally to rest, the experimenter used to exasperate the wounds afresh, and thus make rest impossible (1727). One case of gastric fistula having been established, the posterior half of a living frog was inserted into the aperture leading to the stomach of the dog, while the anterior half, head and legs, protuded externally, and were fastened there until half of the frog was nearly digested away. As the gastric juice gradually ate away the skin, the nerves and the muscles, the frog made desperate efforts to escape by moving its anterior extremities very rapidly." (See Claude Bernard, Physiologie, Vol. II., p. 409, 1856.) "He had done the experiment before, and was certain of the results obtained; the repetition before his class was wanton and cruel " (4888). Dr. Walker further described the following experiments:

[page] 23

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 intermediate portion, and injecting a noxious fluid into it; starving rabbits till they would eat dead frogs; forcing boiling water into a dogs stomach; boiling frogs alive; starving pigeons till they dropped from their perches, and then cutting off their anterior or posterior extremities to show that this caused death when the organism was exhausted from want of food. (See Medical Times and Gazette, Aug. 18th, 1860, p. 151.) Showed sketch of an experiment from Claude Bernard (Système Nerveux, Oct. 1st, 1858, p. 188), to prove the effect of exhaustion on the nervous system. The exhaustion was brought about by exposing the two largest nerves, nailing the feet of the frog to a board, and depriving it of food. The various stages of exhaustion were tested by an occasional discharge of the electric current on one of the exposed nerves (4888). Dr. Walker says that he has attempted to get into physiological laboratories in England to see what was going on, but found it impossible, and an acquaintance of his was refused admittance. "I could bring forward many cases in which ten, twenty or thirty animals have been subjected to the same experiments and have given in each case the same result, and I consider that a cruel abuse of power (1729). I have seen frogs kept in close jars for months till ulcers formed, and the animals were exhibited by the professor as showing the evil effects of close confinement (1730). The sketch represents a frog prepared in this way. The two sciatic nerves are laid bare for about half an inch. The animal is then placed in a small trough containing oil or glycerine, and kept in situ by nailing its feet. In this state the animals live as long as nature can endure such torture, while the experimenter may apply the galvanic current to the nerves, or otherwise stimulate them, whenever he feels disposed to do so (1729). The purpose was to preserve the nerves from drying up and withering" (1730). Mr. W. B. SCOTT, M.D.: Saw at Edinburgh, in the physiological laboratory attached to the University, frogs under curari ripped open, the mesentery placed under a microscope; cannot have been in pain for less than two hours (5192). Refers to a passage (p. 162) of the Handbook, in which a most painful experiment on the tongue of an animal may last for forty-eight hours (5194). Dr. LAUDER BRUNTON: They (his experiments on cats) are still going on (Dec. 1875) (5729) at his own laboratory at St. Bartholomew's (5730). Are killed at the end of four or five hours (5727). "When I said just now that I used ninety cats I should have said that was in one series, but I am now at the third series. The number ninety is not the whole that is included in the investigation. I have used a much larger number (5747). For the snake poison experiments I should think I have used about 150 of different kinds-rabbits, guinea-pigs, frogs, dogs, and fowls" (5747, 5748). Asked whether the use of chloroform would have vitiated Dr. Rutherford's experiments on drugs or the liver?"No" (5760). Dr. HOGGAN: "This which I hold in my hand is an account which came into my hand only on Saturday from the British Medical Journal. My mere opinion upon these experiments is that they were very cruel, very painful, and as far as I can see they were useless, and not to be depended upon as far as application to man was concerned. Animals, namely dogs, were kept fasting in the first place, for eighteen or nineteen hours, a thing that would never be attempted upon the human being upon which cholagogues were being admin. istered. Curari was given, a substance the effect of which on the liver has not yet been examined thoroughly, but we know this, that in almost all glands it increases the secretion very much, and would throw matters into an abnormal condition. The animal has been kept under curari when there was no anesthetic, no narcotic given: no narcotic, indeed, could be given, for there it would interfere, as a separate drug, with the experiment. Therefore, those animals, from the time that they were placed under curari, were kept under curari eight, seven, six, and five hours, suffering pain in consequence of an operation being performed which opened their abdomen, an operation made to find out the bile duct, and separate it from the other structures which lie with it in the gastro-hepatic omentum. A glass canula is then tied in the bile duct, and the bile drops by means of a tube. All that human beings know is the pain there is when gall stones are passing down the bile duct, and that is known to give excessive torture. Merely a little bit of fat passing down gives us intense pain, and we can form an opinion that to take out the duct, to disturb all these parts, and manipulate it, as has been done, would cause more intense pain. And in that condition the animals were kept conscious and fully sensitive (I have any amount of evidence to prove this if there is any doubt about it), while the experiments were being tried upon them. I say that the conditions were abnormal to such a degree that they could never be applied to men; and that the pain was excessive; and that the experiments were uncalled for, and cruel in the extreme; and I put in a paper by Dr. Rutherford himself, in the British Medical Journal of October 23rd as evidence of that point. This view of Dr. Rutherford's only forms another of the numerous opposing views on the same question; agreeing on one point only with the committee who sat in the same university, and the professor who was in the same chair before him a few years ago (and under whom I received my tuition), namely, that mercury had no effect on dogs. Nearly the whole medical profession agree that it has a great effect on human beings. So that the only point on which these people agree, after all their cruel experiments, is, that what is applicable to the dog is not applicable to man (3464).* Dr. RUTHERFORD (examined concerning above experiment) : ("In your judgment 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 (2966). Last year for purposes of research, I think I used about forty dogs" (2963). Dr. JOHN ANTHONY: "Very frequently men who are in the habit of making these experiments, at all events the French, are very careless of what becomes of an animal when it has served its purpose. The brain is exposed, portions of it are cut, or pinched, or torn, and then the animal, having served its purpose, is thrown on the floor to creep into a corner and die" (2448). Dr. Hoggan having produced the French copy of Paul Bert's observations on a curarized dog in the Archives de Physiologie, Vol. II., p. 650, 1869, added the following remarks:-" In this experiment a dog was first rendered helpless and incapable of any movement, even of breathing, which function was performed by a machine blowing through a hole in its windpipe. All this time, however, its intelligence, its sensitiveness, and its will remained intact; a condition accompanied by the most atrocious sufferings that the imagination of man can conceive' (vide Claude Bernard in Revue des Ďeux Mondes, 1st September, 1864, pp. 173, 182, 183, &c.) In this condition the side of the face, the side of the neck, the side of the fore- leg, the interior of the belly and the hip, were dissected out in order to lay bare respectively the sciatic, the splanchnics, the median, the pneumo-gastric and sympathetic, and the infra-orbital nerves. These were excited by electricity for ten consecutive hours, during which time the animal must have suffered unutterable torment, unrelieved even by a cry. The crowning discovery made, to which the experimenter calls special attention, being, that at times, when thus tortured, it urinated! The inquisitors then left for their homes, leaving the tortured victim alone with the clanking engine working upon it, till death came in the silence of the night, and set the sufferer free" (4111). • Mr. JESSE: "I will now quote from the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, Vol. LXIII. Art. 1, 'An Experimental Inquiry into the Pathology and Treatment of Asphyxia,' by John E. Erichsen (6453): Experiment 9. Three mongrel terriers, A, B. C, were properly secured (6456). . . One of the jugular veins of the centre dog was then exposed, and a ligature was passed under it, so that it might be punctured so as to avoid the occurrence of plethora and apoplexy when the carotid arteries of the two lateral dogs were connected with the corresponding vessels of the central one. . . The central dog began to struggle. . . The lateral dogs were both alive, but evidently enfeebled by loss of blood'" (6458). Mr. Erichsen (Commissioner): "Those experiments were made by me, in conjunction partly with Dr. Sharpey, from a grant. We were appointed in the year 1842 by the British Association for the Advancement of Science to inquire into the subject of asphyxia. A grant of money was given by that Association for that purpose" (6459). • "" * Perhaps the greatest blunder committed in these experiments was a fundamental one, which destroyed any vestige of reliance upon them. The design was to learn about the therapeutic action of certain chologogues, while the method employed only showed their topical action. In this way most of the acids in the Pharmacopoeia would have shown better results as chologogues, although it would be absurd to administer them as such to man.-G. H. "ZOOPHOLIST" SPECIAL FUND.-A circular has been issued by the various Anti-Vivisection Societies, with a view of raising funds for diffusing much-needed information on the question of Vivi. section, by the gratuitous circulation of large numbers of the Zoophilist:- General Subscription to Fund........ ....Copies monthly to be sent to subscriber....at 6d... Do. (Stamped) at 6 d.. Do. to be distributed from the Office (do.) at 6 d..... Do. The Circular requests subscriptions under one or more of the following heads :- £ s. d. £ Subscriptions to the above fund can be sent to the Secretaries of the various Societies, or direct to the Office of the Zoophilist, 15, Great Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.c

[page] 24

24 [MAY 2, 1881. THE ZOOPHILIST. VICTORIA STREET SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS FROM VIVISECTION. President.-THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, K.G. Vice-Presidents. The Most Noble the Marquis of The Right Rev. the Bishop of AILESBURY. OXFORD. The Right Hon. JAMES STANSFELD, M.P. The Right Rev. the Bishop of BATH and WELLS. His Highness LUCIEN BONAPARTE. The Most Noble the Marquis of BUTE. ALFRED TENNYSON, Esq., (Poet Laureate). Sir WILLIAM THOMSON, LL.D., F.S.A. ROBERT BROWNING, Esq. The Lord Chief Justice of The Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, ENGLAND. D.D., Dean of Llandaff, Master of the Temple. The Earl of DARNLEY. The Very Rev. the Dean of WESTMINSTER. His Eminence Cardinal MANNING. The Lord MOUNT-TEMPLE. The Right Hon. A. J. MUNDELLA, M.P. Prince LOUIS Viscount SIDMOUTH. Hon. EVELYN ASHLEY, M.P. Mrs. ADLAM (International Society). EDWARD BERDOE, Esq., L.R.C.P. The Countess of CAMPErdown. Hon. EMMELINE CANNING. Rev. W. H. CHANNING. Miss FRANCES POWER Cobbe. Hon. MILDRED COLERIDGE. Miss COWIE. Executive Committee. J. F. B. FIRTH, Esq., M.P. W. GIMSON GIMSON, Esq., M.D. Miss GORDON (of Woodlands). Miss LLOYD (of Hengwrt). Paris- The Right Rev. the Bishop of WINCHESTEr. Lieut.-General COLIN MACKENZIE, C.B. Miss MARSTON (Hon. Sec. London Anti-Vivisection Society). Miss MONRO. Colonel MORRISON (Royal Body Guard). Mrs. FRANK MORRISON. The Lady MoUNT-TEMPLE. F. E. PIRKIS, Esq., R.N., F.R.G.S. The Countess of PORTSMOUTH. Sir J. E. Eardley WILMOT, Bt., M.P. Hon. Treasurer.-Hon. EVELYN Ashley, M.P. Hon. Secretary.-Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE. Secretary.-CHARLES ADAMS, Esq. Honorary Corresponding Members. Scotland-JAMES GRAHAME, Esq., 12, S. Vincent Place, Glasgow, N.B Ireland-CHARLES COBBE, Esq., D.L., J.P., Newbridge, Donabate. Bristol-Miss H. MARRIOTT, Woodburn House, Cotham. Bath-Miss ARMITAGE, 5, Brunswick Place. Birmingham-Miss JULIA GODDARD, Little Aston, Sutton Coldfield. Blackburn-C. H. S. BRAYBROOKE, Esq., Preston New Road. Cheltenham-Miss M. COLBY, Napier House, Pittville. Dorsetshire-Rev. AUGUSTINE CHUDLEIGH, West Parley Rectory, Wimborne. Gloucestershire-Lady JENKINSON, Eastwood Park, Falfield. Hull-T. F. HEWITT, Esq., Hon. Sec. S.P.C.A., Chevalier Légion d'Honneur. Kent-Miss HAMPSON, Detling, Maidstone. Oxford-Hon. GILBERT COLERIDGE, Trinity College. Southampton-Mrs. BASIL WILBERFORCE, The Deanery. Torquay-W. S. ROCKSTRO, Esq., Babbacombe. Wiltshire-Miss TREVELYAN, Ashwicke Hall, Chippenham. Yorkshire-Rev. F. O. MORRIS, Nunburnholme Rectory, Hayton. Miss BISHOP, 114, Rue de Boëtie, Champs Elysées. Mrs. MOLESWORTH. Her Excellency Lady PAGET, British Embassy. Her Excellency the Comtesse DE WIMPFFEN, Austrian Embassy. Gen. H. H. MAXWELL, Villa Guastalla, Via Palestro. Florence-Countess BALDELLI, Via Silvio Pellico. Leghorn-Dr. GRYSANOWSKI, 15, Via dell'Ambrogiana. (Dr. RIBOLI, 49, Via della Rocca. Turin- Contessa BIANDRATE MORELLI, 24, Via del Rono. Genoa-Signor ROBERTO MASSONE, Via Cornice, g. Trieste Mrs. ISABEL BURTON, British Consulate. Naples Principessa MELE-BARESE, Casa Mele, Via Solitaria. Palermo-IL DUCA LANCIA DI BROLO, President S.P.A. Brussels- (Le Marquis de DAMSEAUX, Vice-President S.P.A. Son Altesse la Duchesse D'ARenberg. Rome- (Mons. P. ROMYN. Mons. VAN MANEN-THESINGH. The Hague.- Baron ERNST von Weber, No. 8, Amalienstrasse, Dresden-Major FREIHERR VON KOCHTIZKY. Leipsig-HERR Joh Ambr. BarTH, Johannesgasse, 34. Bremen HERR KUHTMANN, Head-Quarters of Great German National League, P.A. Hesse-Pastor KNODT, Rothenberg bei Hirschhorn, Oberhessen. Frankfort-Baronne LOUISE DE ROTHSCHILD. Baden-HERR W. VON VOIGTS-RHETZ, Oberkirch. Thuringia-FRAU REGIERUNGSRATHIN UND KAMMERHERRIN VON BLUMRÖDER, and daughters, Ibenhain, Waltershausen. Brunswick-HERR CHRISTOFF SCHULTZ. -- Hanover- (HERR VON PILGRIM, Landdrost zu Hildesheim. HERR ALFREd von Seefeld. Altona-Dr OTTOCAR ALT. Hamburg-HERR ZIMMERMANN, 9, Veine Berlinerthor. HERR WEILSHAUSER, Oppeln. Silesia- Countess VON FURSTENTEIN, Ullersdorf, Niesky. Basle-HERR BREZ, President, S.P.A. Schleswig-HERR WILLIBALD WULFF. Berne-HERR von Steiger, Junkerngasse, 174. Lausanne-M. SCHOLL, Campagne, Villzmont. Denmark-Mdme. LEMBCKE, President, S.P.A., No. 2, Thorvald- sensvej, Copenhagen. Norway-J. W. OLSEN, Secretary S.P.A. Sweden-A. L. NORDWALL, Strengnas. Boston- Russia-Prince OGINSKI, President S.P.A., Rethowo. St. Petersburg-Mons. GOLICKÉ, Newsky, No. 106. Warsaw-M. Blumenfeld, S.P.A., Rue Vladimir, 10. Cadiz-Señor ROMUALDO A. ESPINO. NATHAN APPLETON, Esq., S.P.A., 10, Commonwealth Avenue. ABRAHAM FIRTH, Esq. Philadelphia-Mrs. RICHARD P. WHITE, 2312, De Lancy Place. Cincinnati-JOHN SIMPKINSON, Esq., WM. MACALPIN, Esq., 122, Vine Street. Maine-Mrs. THOMAS QUINBY, Stroudwater, Portland. Rhode Island-Mrs. HAMMOND, 29, Angell Street, Providence. Quebec-A. ROBERTSON, Esq., Secretary S.P.A. Montreal-FRED. MACKENZIE, Esq., Secretary and Treasurer Canadian S.P.A. Sydney-G. WEBB, Esq., S.P.A. November 1st, 1880. A separate list of Physicians and Surgeons, Honorary Members of the Society, or friendly to the movement, may be obtained at the office. Subscriptions to be made payable to CHARLES ADAMS, Esq., Secretary. Cheques crossed Messrs. HERRIES, Farquhar, and Co.-P.O. Orders payable at Westminster Palace Hotel. OFFICES OF THE SOCIETY, 1, VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER, LONDON, S.W. Printed and Published for the Proprietors by PEWTRESS & Co., 15, Great Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. MAY 2, 1881.