244 NATURE [May 7, 1914 
fe) 
understand that this may be so; otherwise he . 
would surely be able to see that the very statistics 
which he gives regarding the number of dogs 
utilised in this country for medical research furnish 
the strongest of arguments against his Bill. Does 
he think that men who are engaged in these re- 
searches prefer to employ dogs, and insist on 
using them, rather than cats or rabbits or guinea- 
pigs—for which Sir Frederick evidently has but 
little sympathy—for no other reason than the sheer 
desire to vivisect them rather than other animals 
which are far cheaper and more easily obtained ? 
Is he not able to understand that dogs are never 
employed and are never likely to be employed for 
experiments unless there is some special necessity 
for using these animals rather than others? At 
any rate he may accept my assurance that it is 
so. And it follows that the greater number of 
dogs he can show to have been used the stronger 
is the argument for the necessity of using them. 
Not that his statistics are of much account, for in 
attempting to strengthen his case for dogs, he 
mixes cats up with them—unless the report of his 
speech is in this respect inaccurate. 
But Sir Frederick Banbury’s inability to assess 
evidence is sufficiently manifested by his argument 
that because the Royal Commission did not speci- 
fically state in its report that it is necessary for 
dogs to be employed it found no evidence 
sufficiently strong to authorise it to make such 
a statement. We know, as a matter of fact, that 
the Commission did discuss the question whether 
the exclusion of dogs might be recommended and 
definitely concluded against the adoption of this | 
course. Is it, perhaps, possible that Sir Frederick 
Banbury—who puts himself forward as a judge 
in this matter—has not himself read the evidence 
which was presented to the Commission on the 
subject? This is the only hypothesis that I can 
suggest to render his position intelligible. But 
this hypothesis cannot be applied to Col. Lock- 
wood, who appears as Sir Frederick’s chief sup- 
porter—since he was a member of the Commission. 
Although he does not dare to say that the evidence 
before the Commission proved that the use of dog's 
is not necessary, he alleges that it did not dis- 
tinctly prove “to anyone with a fair mind” that 
the dog alone is necessary for those “so-called 
scientific experiments ” (sic). And this in spite of 
the fact that it had been proved to demonstration 
before the Commission—what is, of course, well 
known to any person who has any medical know- 
ledge worth speaking of—that most of what we 
know regarding the functions of the body could 
only have been elucidated with the aid of experi- 
ments on dogs. 
Col. Lockwood is, however, good enough to 
inform us by what consideration he is guided. 
He is “not ashamed to say that he is actuated 
by sentiment.” But there is sentiment and senti- 
ment, and we may be permitted to inquire what 
kind of ‘sentiment it is that actuates Col. Lock- 
wood. Sentiment is feeling and Col. Lockwood’s 
feeling is for the lower animals in general, for 
dogs in particular, and probably—if it were to be 
NO; 2323, VOL, 102) 
\ 
| 
! 
still further analysed—most particularly for the 
special dog which, as he tells us, he leads about 
London on a string. His sentiment does not 
extend to humanity. He has no feeling for his 
own species. He prefers that mankind shall 
continue to be ignorant, and shall continue to 
suffer as a result of that ignorance, rather than 
that his feeling for dogs, most of which do not 
in any way suffer, shall be harrowed. 
Sentiment of this sort has no true ring: it is 
false sentiment; and any man—let alone a legis- 
lator—should be ashamed to confess that he is 
actuated by it. 
Further, Col. Lockwood is good enough “not 
to wish to accuse his opponents of not being so 
humane as_ himself.” But Col. Lockwood’s 
humaneness is—like his sentiment—false : it leaves 
humanity out of consideration. He may take it 
from me that his opponents: repudiate this kind 
of humaneness and thank him neither for the com- 
parison nor for his eulogium of their professton. 
Of what value is eulogium coming from such a 
quarter? If he and his 121 fellow-members accept 
the services of medical men, are they not benefit- 
ing by the very experiments they denounce? To 
be consistent they should resolutely decline to call 
in the aid of physician or surgeon and. betake 
themselves to the Christian Scientist or to any 
other quack they may fancy. But it is as hope- 
less to look for consistency from anti-vivisection- 
ists as to expect to gather figs from thistles. As 
for the voters who send such persons to Parlia- 
ment, one may well apply to them Carlyle’s 
estimate of most of his fellow-citizens. But per- 
haps they are, on the whole, not inappropriately 
represented there. E. A. SCHAFER. 
“ce 
THE TREVOR LAWRENCE ORCHID COL- 
LECTION AT THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW. 
HEN the late Sir J. J. Trevor Lawrence, 
Bart., died, an announcement was made 
that his well-known orchid collection at Burford 
had been bequeathed to Lady Lawrence with an 
_ expression of his wish that such of the plants as 
were especially of botanical interest should be 
presented to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
This gift has now been made to the national orchid 
collection there, which has received from Lady 
Lawrence a large selection consisting of 580 
plants, belonging to 89 genera, and representing 
350 species mainly, but by no means exclusively, 
of botanical interest. 
The character of the collection brought together 
by Sir Trevor at Burford during many years was 
a matter of general knowledge. It was singularly 
rich in rare and interesting species, owing to the 
fact that Sir Trevor at all times paid especial 
attention to whatever in the natural family was 
striking or unusual from a morphological point 
of view, apart entirely from any decorative value 
which it might possess. The result of this was 
that. the Burford collection was not only 
thoroughly representative of the usual showy 
species and hybrids and .on this account. to. be 
