HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 337 
terminate any experiment by killing an animal thought by the inspector to be 
suffering pain. 
An extensive publicity campaign has been waged in support of these bills 
in Congress by Mrs. Christine Stevens, president of the Animal Welfare Institute 
of New York, with the assistance of Maj. C. W. Hume, retired, Signal Corps of 
England, one of the founders of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 
which has received financial aid from the Animal Welfare Institute. 
The Animal Welfare Institute in supporting these bills has circulated claims 
that the British law after which these bills are patterned was passed as the 
result of a need for that law, expressed in a resolution of the British Association 
for the Advancement of Science in 1871, in response to a petition to the Govern- 
ment by Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, and others ; and in an earlier bill 
prepared at the direction of Darwin and Huxley, which was introduced in the 
House of Commons by Lyon Playfair in 1875. 
It will be shown that the resolution of the British association was a simple 
set of voluntary rules similar to those adopted by professional societies in this 
country and followed in American institutions ; that no petition by Darwin and 
Huxley was ever presented to the Government ; that the bill prepared by Darwin 
and Huxley was far different from the law that was passed ; and that there 
was no evidence of need in Great Britain for the kind of law that was passed. 
It will be shown in more detail that those claims are without merit, and have 
served only to becloud the real issue. 
The real issue was the troublesome antivivisectionist movement. It began 
in the early 1860’s as attacks in the London journals upon research workers 
on the Continent and continued over the years until 1874-75 when British 
physiologists became the objects of the attacks which increased greatly in 
number. This movement in fact marked the birth of organized fund-raising 
antivivisection societies which spread to this country in 1883. 
The passage of the British law was the result of an antiviviseetionists’ cam- 
paign, the like of which has not been seen in this country or elsewhere. The 
key figures in this campaign were R. H. Hutton, joint editor of the National 
Review, and the Economist and the Spectator, who was an outspoken, militant 
antivivisectionist, who reached the masses through his journals; and Miss 
Frances Power Cobbe, who posed as being more moderate, seeking only restric- 
tions rather than suppression of animal experimentation. Miss Cobbe cultivated 
the upper class. By meeting the right people, she succeeded in gaining the 
interest of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose 
membership included British nobility. This society has never before been inter- 
ested in vivisection. The publicity (see later) resulting from the mere fact 
that she was given an audience by this society, gave stature to the antivivi- 
seetionists and intensified their activities. Their role in the campaign will be 
discussed in more detail presently. 
EARLY ANTIVIVISECTIONIST ACTIVITY 
Agitation of antiviviseetionists against scientists on the Continent preceded 
the British movement by several years due to the fact that the growth of re- 
search activity on the Continent preceded that in England. Distorted accounts 
of research experiments on the Continent were recorded in the London press. 
To cite an example, Moritz Schiff (1823-96) relinquished a professorship at 
Bern to accept a chair in physiology at Florence in 1873 and left Florence in 
1876 to teach in Genoa (Castiglioni). Professor Schiff had scarcely settled 
in his new chair at Florence when he encountered an antivivisectionist campaign 
which continued unabated until his departure in 1876. His experience at 
Florence is particularly pertinent for two reasons. Participating in his perse- 
cution were English residents of Florence and Frances Power Cobbe, whose role 
in the passage of the British legislation will receive further comment. I quote 
from Miss Cobbe’s account of the Schiff affair recorded in the transactions of 
her own society founded in 1875. 
Transactions of the Victoria Street Society, dated 1880 : 
“November 1863 : Professor Schiff’s cruelty discussed at the afternoon recep- 
tion at Villa on Bellosquardo, 700 signatures headed by Mrs. Somerville’s and 
those of nearly all of the old noblesse of Florence and English residents.” 
“December 1863 : Memorial presented — treated with contempt by Schiff in 
Nazione.” 
“December 29: Challenge by Schiff in Nazione to Daily News correspondent 
at Florence to come forward and prove facts mentioned in letter.” 
