Report of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes : with minutes and evidence and appendix / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty.

Great Britain. Royal Commission on Vivisection (1875)

Date:: 1876

Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes : with minutes and evidence and appendix / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

113/1052 (page 83)

$1592, Can yoti tell us what day it was ?—I should think it is six months ago. 159.3. But will you furnish the Commission with the exact date ?—Yes, if I have notes of it. 1594. And you can assist us in discovering whether any London newspaper contained any report of what actually took place ?—Yes. I could give you also a copy, I think, of a report of a similar lecture which he delivered in the north of England, when the same laughter happened. I would like to add that I should be very sorry myself to say that there was any design to make mockery of any suffering of the animals, because, so far as I could see, there was some evidence to lead one to believe that the animal was incapable of suffering at the time when the contortions he described took place; but what did strike me, and struck a good many other people, was that as there were several young people there, and several young ladies too, it was a long way out of good taste to be making use of such remarks. 1595. {Mr. Forster.) But am I to understand that these contortions that you are referring to were con- tortions of the animal under the influence of auass- thetics ?—Yes, I think it was after the removal of the brain when it was alleged that the animal would be incapable of suffering in some cases. 1596. (Chairman.) But what it is important for us to understand is this, whether this is brought before us as evidence of great and unfeeling cruelty on the part of the lecturer, or merely, as what you seem now to have put it, a departure from good taste ?—As a departure from good taste, and as sensational. 1597. Do I understand you on the part of the society to withdraw that altogether in the sense of being an allegation of great and deliberate cruelty ?— That was not meant for a moment. I attended those two lectures endeavouring during the whole time to discover evidence of suffering, and, with the exception of one small remark, which might be understood in two ways, it was impossible to discover whether there was any suffering on the part of the animals at all in the descriptions given. 1598. I consider this an important document put before us by the society, and I should like very much that we should thoroughly understand what we are to consider them as putting before us. Are we to con- sider that it is to be examined by us as an allegation made against this particular professor of doing that which 1 understand you to say professors generally do not do, namely, exhibiting great habitual indifference to the sufferings of animals ?—No ; but mei'ely as a case of levity, likely to produce a bad effect. 1599. (Mr. Forster.) What do you mean ; levity at the contortions of the animal, or levity at the contor- tions of the animal caused by pain ?—Simply levity on the subject generally ; the lecture was made what is called popular. 1600. (Chairinan.) But the important thing you will observe is, that we should know whether it is an allegation against a particular professor of great in- difference to the suffering of the animals ?—I think not. 1601. Then for what particular purpose is it made so important a feature in a document of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ?—Because it struck the members of the committee, as it did my- self, that there was scarcely that decorum which you would expect, and that one ought really to see, in a man who was describing the condition of animals which had been mutilated by himself. There was not -a word of commisei-ation or regret that the experiments were necessary, but there was amusement offered for the audience. ] 602. But I understand you now to express belief that the animals had not suffered, but that they had been under chloroform the whole time ?—He did not say; we could not gather at all whether they had been under chloroform; but I am inclined to think, from the nature of the experiments, it was absolutely necessary that they should be. 1603. Do you mean us, as far as you can guide us. to understand that these animals had been subjected Mr. J. Colam, to great suffering, or that, whatever had been done to them had been done under complete anaesthesia ?—I ^<'*- ^^^^5. would rather be inclined to think that the animals did not suffer, judging from the description given of the experiments, and from what I have read myself in the various books which I have been obliged to read. The allusion to the experiments of Dr. Ferrier in the paper which I have read, where there is an intimation that sometimes there is suffering, is to cases where he states that the animals have remained under the operation for several days. 1604. (Mr. Forster.) I understood you to say that you thought the reason why there was no suffering was because the brain had been removed ?—Yes, after the operation had been completed the effect of the narcotic would cease in most cases before the experiment had been concluded. 1605. Do you think that it was that there was no suffering because chloroform, or some ana;sthetic, had been administered, or because the brain had been removed ?—Of course we did not see the experiment, we only heard a description of it, and I should think that chloroform must have been used during the opera- tion. I am inclined to think it would kill the animal to perform the operation without chloroform, the effect of which would last until perhaps after the brain has been removed partly or wholly; therefore in the first part of the experiment there would be no feeling owing to the presence of a narcotic, and in the second part of the experiment owing to the removal of the brain. 1606. {Mr. Button.) May I ask you to explain your statement that the lecturer joked about the stu- pidity of the monkey. Those movements were in- voluntary, were they not ?—Of course they would be, because he showed that the animal had no volition at all. 1607. And thereTore it was meant as a sort of joke upon the apparent expressions of the monkey ?—Yes, and the loss of intelligence of the animal also. 1608. {Chairman.) Have you any record at the society, any newspapers filed, that contain a record of this lecture ?—I do not think that a report of the lecture appeared in any London newspaper. Probably newspaper reporters do not attend at the London Institution on such occasions; and therefore there would be no report of it. Two barristers were with me, one Mr. Robert Sawyer, and the other Mr. Thomas Allen, and another member of the com- mittee, Mr. Thomson; and one of those three gentle- men left the room in consequence of the pain with which he saw the laughter of the young people. 1609. {Mr. Forster.) I thought you stated that there were reporters there ? — I did not see any reporters there. 1610. But you stated something about reports of the lectures appearing in the newspapers ?—That was in the north of England. 1611. {Mr. Erichsen.) Did not this lecture consist of a description of the movements induced in an animal by stimulating certain portions of the surface of the brain by electricity ?—Yes, in some cases. 1612. And consequently the brain could not have been removed ?—I cannot pretend to be very accurate in these matters, except with regard to the impression produced on one's mind by what we heard. I think the skull was only opened in some cases, and in others the brain was also partly removed ; but I would rather not answer any questions in detail about that, as the experiments were not made before us, but only described. 1613. The contortions of the animal in that case were simply the natural movements of the animal brought into operation by the stimulation of certain portions of the brain ?—Undoubtedly, in some cases. 1614. {Mr. Forster.) You mentioned another case, that of a living lobster being cut up before a ladies' school; could you give us any more particulars about that case?—It was a Jlady who was the teacher, who had commenced a course of physiological lectures at 2$