"I

HAVE said, and I believe, that with few exceptions we shall find that in the long run people will treat us as we treat them, and this brings me to speak of those dumb, patient creatures who teach us a lesson, and set us an example of returning good for evil. I have for many years pleaded on the Fourth Sunday after Trinity for mercy for our dumb friends, and this year the R.S.P.C.A. made an appeal to all the clergy of the Anglican Church to bring the subject of the prevention of cruelty to animals before their hearers. To-day we read of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain together, and, also, we have the beautiful assurance of our Lord that the Almighty Father of All is kind, merciful, and forgiving.

It seems inexplicable that the followers of Christ have been so slow in recognizing the rights of dumb animals, when their Leader, by precept and example, distinctly enforced them. Do we not see this when He would not have the ass's foal separated from its mother, and by telling His hearers that even the life of a poor despised sparrow does not cease without its Maker knowing and marking it. So many beautiful appeals by sermons and articles have in the last few years been made, that it is almost impossible to find any new argument in favour of kindness to the dumb creation, but this must not prevent our reiterating the old ones. The one that I would ask you to think of to-day is the surpassing spirit of forgiveness found in nearly all dumb animals. The horse that is brutally beaten, and overdriven, perhaps with gaping wounds and sores, as soon as its journey is over, seems to forgive its tormentor, and is grateful for a kind word, or a stroke of the hand. Were it a human being, when free, its first thought would be for revenge, and the tormentor would be killed.

Again, the inhuman brute who kicks or beats his dog because it has not human reason, and fails to quite understand his master's orders, and makes some slight mistake, is rewarded for this barbarous cruelty, by a lick of the hand from the poor injured creature. Where do we find such forgiveness as this from our fellow-men? Why, nowhere. Christ knew what human nature really is, when He said, With the same measure ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again.' We have no reason to expect otherwise. It is well and right that cruel unfeeling people should not be allowed to go unpunished after wreaking vengeance on defenceless dumb creatures, or their weaker brethren. Life would be unbearable for many, were it not that a feeling of future punishment holds brutal men a little in check. There seem to be some people absolutely void of any feeling

for suffering creatures-speaking or dumb. Only is it possible to punish such by inflicting pain of body upon them. I do not see that they can be reached in any other way. To return to the subject of forgiveness, I do not think I ever heard of a more touchingly sublime act of forgiveness than I heard a day or two ago. A poor dog, which had been for days mangled and tortured, writhing under the fiendish vivisector's knife, was seen with an unutterable look of misery in its wistful eyes to lick the hand of its cruel tormentor. Compare, too, the love of offspring shown by dumb animals' to that of many women for their children Last week I read an account of a poor vixen which was caught in a gin. The dog fox brought the cubs to her to be suckled. An inhuman keeper found them, and killed them all but one that a lady begged for, and brought up as a pet. This poor thing was, when full grown, caught in a gin, and not being recognized as a tame fox, was at once murdered. I say, compare this with what I read in the same newspaper. A woman stated in another column that there are at least fifty-two thousand children born in this country every year whose parents' one object is to get rid of them, by fair means or foul. Is not this an awful and humiliating statement to make-and I fear with great truth-in a Christian country, boasting herself to be the most civilized under the sun. Think of such parental feeling as this, and then think of the love shown by the foxes for their offspring. It would appear that what we consider humane is a quality possessed by the brutes. Man who should be humane is brutal."

Canon Barnett on Animals.

The Rev. Canon Barnett (Bristol), Warden of Toynbee Hall, Whitechapel,preached the annual sermon of the Church Society for the Promotion of Kindness to Animals, on Sunday evening, June 27th, at St. Paul's Church, Knightsbridge, London, W. He said Christianity exalted reverence to the place of pity, because the Christian reverenced the likeness of Christ in the lowest, and, therefore, treated the lowest as his neighbour. The Christian was always discerning this likeness to Christ in unexpected quarters. He saw in animals meekness, obedience, courage, individuality, and he, therefore, treated animals, not with the pity which was given to those whom one despised, but with the courtesy which was shown towards those whom one respected. Reverence afforded the only firm basis for proper treatment. When animals were reverenced the law would protect them, custom would consider their feelings, and children would be taught to regard them as beings that were too good to be petted, or pampered, or hunted for man's pleasure.

A

Use

the Alleged

S the vivisectors are now claiming morphia to be a true and sufficient anæsthetic, and using it as such in their experiments on living animals-we have recently had some controversy on the subject. The following correspondence will be read with interest :— Copy of letter addressed to medical men whose letters are quoted below.

20, VICTORIA STREET, LONDON, S.W.

17th May, 1897. DEAR SIR,-I am having a controversy with some pro-vivisectionist doctors as to the efficacy of morphia as an anæsthetic. The point is, is morphia a sufficient substitute for chloroform or ether in the case of a severe experiment such as that quoted in pp. 1 and 2 of the pamphlet herewith enclosed?

In your opinion would a hospital surgeon recognize morphia as sufficient in the case of an operation of similar severity on a human patient? I ask this because the contention of our adversaries is that in experiments on living animals the same care and attention to mitigate their sufferings are adopted as in the case of human patients.

Your answer for my information and guidance will be greatly esteemed by,-Yours most faithfully, SIDNEY G. TRIST.

P.S.-Webster and the Encyclopedia Britannica say that" to anesthetise is to render insensible by chloroform, sulphuric ether," etc. "an anaesthetic is capable of rendering insensible by being inhaled."

S. G. T.

This was the experiment referred to, quoted from pp. 1 and 2 of "Specimens of British Vivisection," price Id., published by the Victoria Street and International Anti-Vivisection Society, 20, Victoria Street, London, S.W. :

Messrs. Bayliss and Hill record in the Journal of Physiology (Vol. XVIII., p. 337, et seq.), their "Method of Research," on the circulation in the skulls of dogs. They say :

"Throughout the experiments morphia was the anaesthetic used. The method of procedure of the experiments was as follows:-'A cannula [metallic tube] was placed in the central end of the carotid artery [which conveys the blood flowing from the heart to the head]. A second long cannula was passed down the external jugular vein and on the same side, into the right auricle. The torcular Herophili [the confluence of the sinuses of the skull] was trephined and a third cannula, this time of brass, was screwed into the hole thus made [in the dog's skull].'

"We carried on the research in the following way (i.) We divided the vago-sympathetic nerves and stimulated the central end in both the curarised and the uncurarised animal. (ii.) We divided the spinal cord in the upper dorsal region at a level of the second to the sixth dorsal nerves, and we stimulated, either the central end of the cord, or the vaso-motor centre in the bulb. (iii.) We planned a new method of stimulating the cervical sympathetic nerve. In the experiments carrying out this last method, the animals were placed under morphia and then lightly curarised and artificial respiration supplied.

"The thorax [chest] was then opened in the middle line, and weighted hooks were used to keep the walls of the cavity [of the chest] well apart. The heart was protected from exposure by a pad of

332, OXFORD ROAD, MANCHESTER, May 18th, 1897. DEAR SIR,-Your question admits of a very plain answer. Morphia is not an anesthetic, and would never be described as one by surgeons. The notion of performing an operation of the nature described in the extract you sent me, on a human patient, with morphia in the place of choroform or ether, is utterly preposterous, and the description of morphia by the experimental physiologists as an anaesthetic, when detailing atrociously severe experiments, is simply fraudulent and dishonest.-Yours faithfully,

can.

F. S. ARNOLD, M.B. (Oxon).

Dr. Beale,

175, CLAPHAM ROAD, S.W. May 18th 1897. MY DEAR TRIST,-I have much pleasure in forwarding as much of the information you require as I Anesthesia is a term meaning loss of sensation, and we generally distinguish between general and local anesthesia. General, when the whole person is rendered unconscious; local, when a small area, generally near the surface, is affected for a small local operation. Now in its wider, and I might say real meaning, such substances as chloroform and ether are necessary, and in this sense morphia would never be spoken of as an anaesthetic, i.e. long before such a complete state of anesthesia was acquired, the life would at the least be greatly jeopardized. Moreover, we know that patients in the grip of morphia can be roused by smacking, pinching, and walking (not so in chloroform). Morphia relieves pain; it has some influence on the nervous system, and gives a sense of comfort. For this reason, in combination with cocain, etc., it is used for local operations of an insignificant nature. I have never known it used by itself for this purpose, and am positive that for a Major operation where general anesthesia is required, nobody would be such a fool as to use morphia on the human subject. It must be remembered, moreover, that all these things have special influence on special animals.-Vours very sincerely, ARTHUR A. BEALE, M.B., C.M.

Dr. Berdoe,

TYNEMOUTH HOUSE, VICTORIA PARK GATE,

LONDON, E. June 16th, 1897.

DEAR MR. TRIST,-The " Encyclopædic Dictionary defines "anæsthetics' as a class of medicines which, when inhaled in the form of vapour, destroy consciousness for a time, and with it the sense of pain. . . . The best known are chloroform, ether, and protoxide of nitrogen (nitrous oxide)." Etymologically anæsthesia means, of course, incapacity of feeling. But morphia, except in poisonous doses, does not confer this incapacity. Claude Bernard says of a dog under the influence of this drug, and subject to an operation, "He feels the pain, but has lost the idea of self-defence." I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that no hospital surgeon would recognize morphia as sufficient in the case of an operation of similar severity to those which you quote from the Journal of Physiology.-Yours faithfully,

EDWARD BERDOE, L.R.C.P. (Ed.), M.R.C.S. (Eng.).

Dr. Bowie,

17, KENSINGTON GARDENS SQUARE, BAYSWATER, W. May 20th, 1897.

DEAR SIR,-In reply to your letter of the 17th, I have to state that no surgeon would perform upon a living human being the operation described on page I of your "Specimens of British Vivisection," as under no conceivable circumstances could such a purely experimental operation be justified. As the patient

would die it would be criminal.

In my opinion, no hospital surgeon would dare perform an operation on a living body, involving so much disturbance and pain, under morphine. The most that can be said for morphine under such circumstances is that it diminishes the sensibility of the animal to suffering, but it is not an anesthetic in the sense that chloroform and ether are.-Believe me, yours most faithfully,

ALEX. BOWIE, M.D., C.M., etc.

DEAR SIR,-In reply to your note of yesterday's date I may say that morphia cannot be employed as an anesthetic, for to cause insensibility to operations it would have to be administered in a dose that would materially interfere with the functions of important organs and be dangerous to life.

No surgeon would think of administering opium or morphia to cause insensibility to operations. Were he to do so he would be universally condemned by his colleagues.

No doubt in pre-chloroform days the vegetable narcotics were sometimes tried for the purpose of lessening the pain of operations, but they are universally abandoned for that purpose in favour of chloroform, ether, and the like.-Yours faithfully, R. E. DUDGEON, M.D.

SIDNEY G. TRIST, ESQ.

Dr. Haughton, SPRING GROVE HOUSE, UPPER NORWOOD, S.E. 18th May, 1897.

DEAR MR. TRIST,-With reference to the question of anæsthetics and the improper manner in which some vivisectionists now use the term I may mention that when Dr. Newton Parker was called upon the platform at the Debate at the South Place Institute, a little over a week ago, he endeavoured to justify such use of the word. In reply I challenged him to name any medical text book in which morphia was described as an anaesthetic, to which he made no reply. The fact is that every attempt which has hitherto been made to substitute narcotics like morphia for apparent destroyers of sensation like chloroform, ether, and nitrous oxide, has only brought the medical attendant into trouble nor is it possible for him to introduce such a notion into his private practice. Need I say that the patient from whom he receives his fee would be the last person in the world to appreciate such a transparent fraud as the pretence of relieving his sufferings when under a painful operation, when in fact every cut is felt, and accompanied by a corresponding expression of pain. may take it as fully established that no animal whatever can be anesthetized by morphia, however much they may differ in their reaction against some poisonous drugs, and that any man who describes an operation performed under either morphia or curare as without pain to the animal used is not only deceiving the public but is deluding himself into the bargain. This is the horn of the dilemma which must be chosen if he does not desire to be described as

You

a walking imposture. ED. HAUGHTON, M.A., B.A.

Surgeon-General Thornton, 49, ST. CHARLES SQUARE, NORTH KENSINGTON, W. 18th May, 1897.

DEAR MR. TRIST,-In reply to your letter of yesterday, I write to say that I do not consider morphia to be an anesthetic at all, and I am quite sure no hospital surgeon would think of using it in the case of an operation on a human patient. If any one should give a different opinion upon this point it must be either through ignorance or from a wish to deceive and mislead.-Believe me, yours truly,

J. H. THORNTON, M.B., B.A., C.B. (Deputy-Surgeon-General, I.M.S., Retired.)

Dr. Stephen Townesend, CONSTITUTIONAL CLUB, LONDON.

May 30th, 1897.

as

DEAR SIR,-In your letter of May 27th, you say that Webster defines an "anesthetic capable of rendering insensible" but in "Nuttall" I find the definition to be "an agent that deadens sensibility." The degree of "deadening" producable by the agent to make it rank as an "anaesthetic" is not stated. Accepting this vague definition, "Morphia no doubt is a partial anaesthetic-so also, in a less degree, is Alcohol, so also is Hyoscyamus, and Paraldehyde, and Croton-Chloral, and Sulphonal, and many other drugs used in daily practice. But no "Materia Medica" would describe these drugs as anesthetics, but as hypnotics and narcotics.

To end what is merely a verbal quibble, let us close our encyclopædias and dictionaries, and walk into the Operating Theatre. Let us ask one of our vivisection friends to get upon that narrow high table with the clean comfortable-looking white sheet over it, and the tray full of spotless, shining instruments at its side. Let us strap him down very firmly (afterwards to prevent that annoying muscular spasm and so that he can make no disturbing sound, we intend to give him curare and to open his

trachea); let us tell him that we are compelled to dissect out his carotid artery, to trephine his skull, to open his chest and to grope about for his pneumogastric and sympathetic nerves, and finally that as an "anæsthetic" we intend to give him a morphia injection and then watch the expression of his face. It would not be easily forgotten. It would throw some light upon his true opinion of morphia as "an anesthetic."

Reference to any preparation of opium as a general anæsthetic and in the same sense as chloroform, ether, etc., are anæsthetics, would be ridiculed in the operating Theatre, and to label such preparations" anæsthetics in the Vivisection Chamber is merely to throw dust in the eyes of the public. I wonder that such a quibble and misrepresentation does not appear to the mind of the average vivisectionist-as worse than cruel-positively ungentlemanly.-Faithfully yours.

STEPHEN TOWNESEND, F.R.C.S. P.S.-It would be interesting to know what dose of morphia was given and in what way it was anticipated that the result of these experiments would alleviate human suffering. SIDNEY G. TRIST, ESQ.

Dr. Wall,

14, THORNTON AVENUE, STREATHAM, S.W.,

May 18th, 1897. MY DEAR SIR,-In my opinion morphia is not an efficient substitute for chloroform, or ether, in those terribly severe experiments carried out by Messrs. Bayliss and fill. No hospital surgeon would dare to operate on a human being who was simply narcotized by morphia, even though the operation were twenty times less severe than the experiments under discussion. The assertion that animals are treated with the same care as human

THE

beings, in order to mitigate their sufferings, will not bear investigation. If the assertion were true, how is it that the old pain-killers, as opium, have entirely given place to chloroform and ether.

Here is the answer.

The dose of morphia must be a poisonous one in order that no response be elicited to such stimulation as was applied in Messrs. Bayliss and Hill's experiments. By response," I mean a return to consciousness. When a human patient has taken a poisonous dose of opium or morphia, the chief treatment consists in arousing him to consciousness by such a sharp stimulant as flagellation. In the animal, the cutting down to the external jugular vein, the carotid artery, and trephining the skull, would act as much more effectual stimuli in bringing him back to a sense of atrocious suffering.

The effects of morphia are much more marked in man than in the lower animals. I have known twenty grains of the drug fail to kill a large retriever. As it is the object of the experimenter to keep the animal alive, he would not give a poisonous dose; hence it is fair to assume that the cutting procedure would result in restoring consciousness and produce struggling.

The importation of curare into the experiment bears out my reasoning. If the animal remained profoundly narcotized, curare would be useless. An attempt is made to explain that insufficiency of curarization results in auto-breathing and a rise of cerebral venous pressure. But with an air-tight cavity, as the chest, cut open, the violent action of the heart due to unwonted atmospheric pressure must so derange the whole circulation, that such a grave assertion seems like playing upon one's credulity.— Faithfully yours,

ABIATHAR WALL, L.R.C.P. Ed., M.R.C.S. S. G. TRIST, Esq.

HE Daily Chronicle (June 28th) contained the following paragraph:

"In some parts of the country the efforts to worthily celebrate the Jubilee took the form of a revival of Old English Sports.' It is to be hoped, however, that the example set by the villagers of a hamlet near Aylesbury, the county town of Buckinghamshire, was not extensively followed, for we are informed in a local paper that one of the most amusing items of the day was a 'hen hunt.' The competitors had their hands tied behind their backs, the hen was turned loose, and whoever secured it with his teeth retained the prize. The hen must have intensely enjoyed the Jubilee."

Commenting on this, a correspondent wrote to the same paper (June 29th) :—

"Apropos of your note as to the revival amongst the Old English Village Sports' during Jubilee week of the cruel pastime of hen-hunting, may I point out that this and kindred cruelties are not a revival at all, but a continual feature of village sports? The cruelty of this form of so-called sport is worse in connection with aquatic sports. If a village has a pond or river in its neighbourhood its festivities are seldom complete without a duck and pig hunt. Two or three competitors generally get hold of the unhappy animal at once, and in the struggle for possession of it almost tear it limb from limb, its shrieking and splashing about in the water, as I have myself seen, providing the onlookers with material for loud laughter. I pray that your protest may have its effect

in persuading village sports' commi tees to leave these wretched items out of their program in future."

What are the vicars of parishes and other professedly religious and enlightened people about, who persist in countenancing these brutal and disgusting scenes? It is not in villages alone that they are enacted. In a populous suburb of Bristol in the presence of clergymen, of so-called ladies and gentlemen, and of children by the thousand, a greased pig was turned out to be chased as a part of the Jubilee amusements. The poor frightened creature was caught by a virago who threw herself bodily down upon it, amid the laughter of the spectators. I wonder what effect the next preaching or teaching of mercy, refinement and gentleness had upon those children from the spiritual pastors and masters, parents and tutors who tacitly encouraged such an object lesson as this? Long ago bull-baiting and cock-fighting were stamped out from this land as degrading, demoralizing and unfit for a civilized age. We are not bettering ourselves by substituting hen-hunting and pig-chasing. But what is to be expected of the people, when princes and peers amuse themselves by hunting tame deer, under cover of the Queen's name, while their expenses are paid out of the public purse?

IT

N defiance of the law, an outrage on humanity, and to the peril of the national health, the practice of torturing calves by slow bleeding still prevails in this country. It is done in secret places, under circumstances of greater or less cruelty, and the defence set up by butchers is that “the public will have white veal."

The following case was recently heard at Long Ashton Petty Sessions, and was reported in the Bristol Times and Mirror (issue Saturday, June 12th). Before hearing the case the Magistrate expressed astonishment that such a charge should be brought before him, remarking to the Inspector S.P.C.A. that "it was very commonly done."

CRUELTY TO CALVES.

Mr.

"Fredk. Marsh was summoned for cruelty to two calves, at Totterdown, on the 10th of June, and Fredk. Parsons was summoned for causing the calves to be so ill-treated and tortured. Mr. Robinson (Wansbrough, Dickinson, Robinson and Taylor) prosecuted, and Mr. J. H. King was for the defendants. Robinson stated that Parsons was a master butcher, at Wells Road, Totterdown, and had a stable in School Road, Totterdown, which he used for the purpose of killing calves. The defendant Marsh was in the employ of Parsons. On the evening of the 10th June Inspector Windmill of the S.P.C.A. went to School Road where Parsons had his stable and heard a calf moaning inside. He went to Parsons' shop and saw Marsh and told him he had received complaints with reference to some calves that were being ill-treated in Mr. Parsons' stable. Marsh at first said he would get the key of the stable, but afterwards said his master was not at home and the calves could not be seen. Mr. Windmill waited from six o'clock till nine o'clock when he saw Marsh go out and he followed him. The stable door was unlocked and Mr. Windmill saw two calves in a very weak condition. They were cut at the neck for the purpose of bleeding. One of the calves was tied with a piece of small cord to prevent it making a noise, but so tightly that the calf had considerable difficulty in breathing and was frothing at the mouth. Inspector Windmill and Mr. Rumboll, veterinary surgeon, having given evidence, Mr. King addressed the bench. He stated that his client had not bled the animals simply for the purpose of torturing them, but in order that the veal might be of a white colour, and in the belief that it was a common practice. As regarded the tying up of the mouth of the calf that was done in order to prevent it bleating, as the noise attracted the attention of the school children who threw stones at the door. The bench after hearing the case fined Parsons 10s. and costs in respect of each calf and Marsh was fined 5s. and costs."

The reader's opinion cannot fail to be that this punishment was miserably inadequate, and

wholly disproportioned to the crime. The unhappy little calves not yet weaned, were taken from their mothers, one of them on the Wednesday afternoon, the other early next day, and shut up in a dark stable, and kept there starving while the whole neighbourhood was disturbed by their piteous bleatings. This lasted for 16 hours in one case, and for nearly 30 in the other. During the whole of Thursday the attention of passers-by, especially of children, was attracted by the low moans of a dying creature,-what a lesson for the young!

It was not until past nine on that night that the doors of this dismal den were opened, in the presence of two constables, and the unfortunate little calves put out of their misery.

What agonies of thirst, of terror, of woe beyond words had they undergone that somebody might feast on that fevered, tortured flesh, from which the blood dripped slowly away till it was "white!" Both were bleeding for about sixteen hours, while they were chained to the wall, their tender mouths parched, fainting with pain and exhaustion. With barbarity beyond belief, their inhuman owner had tied a thin bit of string round the nostrils of one calf, to hush its cries during the night, and this was drawn so tight that it was almost, if not quite cutting the skin;-but of this refinement of ruffianism the magistrate took no notice.

The veterinary surgeon present spoke strongly as to the cruelty of slow bleeding and its needlessness,-he testified also to the unwholesomeness of white veal. In this he has been supported by others.

Professor Pritchard, Royal Veterinary College, called to give evidence in a similar case at Liverpool, denounced the practice as "gross cruelty," and said that instead of improving the meat it deprived the flesh of nutriment and greatly deteriorated its quality. Mr. Gilbert Heyes, Veterinary Surgeon of Liverpool, corroborated this evidence, as also did Dr. Robert Hamilton, Surgeon to the Royal Hospital. And at a similar case at Norwich, where upwards of thirty calves had been bled, the Magistrate said, "It ought to be known that veal is much more wholesome and nutritious when not bled in this way. We would rather pay a higher price for un-bled veal than for this insipid white veal."

In several towns the butchers have agreed among themselves, signing a promise to discontinue slow bleeding. The upshot of the whole is that THE PUBLIC are responsible for this barbarity, a horror unfit for a civilized age.

BUTCHERS DO NOT WISH TO BLEED CALVES; VETERINARY SURGEONS AND DOCTORS CON

DEMN THE PRACTICE AS CRUEL AND INSANITARY: THE LAW FORBIDS IT UNDER A PENALTY OF FINE OR IMPRISONMENT.

JUSTICE AND MERCY ΤΟ OUR FELLOW.

CREATURES PUT A VETO ON THE PRACTICE.

If people must eat veal at all-(the flesh of the calf is a peculiarly wasteful, indigestible,