342 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
asserted that inhumanity was here practiced, 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 research — 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” ("Life and Letters of 
Charles Darwin,” vol. 2, p. 382, 18 Appleton, New York, 1897) . 
The letter, with Darwin’s permission, was published in the Times, April 18, 
1881, which was attacked on the following day in a letter in the Times headed, 
‘‘Mr. Darwin and Vivisection” signed by Frances Power Cobbe. 
As for Huxley, it has been claimed that by having signed the report of the 
royal commission, he could be considered to have supported the British act. 
As opposed to this contention, I quote from “Life and Letters of Darwin” (vol. 
2, p. 379) : “It cannot be denied that framers of this bill, yielding to the un- 
reasonable clamor of the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the 
royal commission.” 
ROYAL COMMISSION 
On advice of Disraeli’s government, both the bills of Lord Hennicker and 
Lyon Playfair were withdrawn and a royal commission was appointed. 
London Times, June 28, 1875: “Royal commission composed of Lord Cardwell. 
Lord Wimmarleigh, Mr. Forster, Sir John Karslake, Professor Huxley, and Mr. 
Erichsen and Mr. Hutton * * *. The composition of this commission leaves 
little to be desired. Lords Cardwell and Wimmarleigh and Mr. Forster will com- 
mand the confidence of the public and are not likely to allow their minds to be 
diverted from the real questions which are at issue. Sir John Karslake will 
bring the experience of a trained advocate to the elucidation of facts and the 
sifting of evidence. Mr. Erichsen and Professor Huxley will adequately repre- 
sent the requirements of medical education and of natural science, and the 
presence of Mr. Hutton will insure that none of the statements or arguments 
on which the recent opposition to vivisection has been founded will be left out 
of the account. Perhaps it would have been better if the weight of so very earnest 
a partisan had been counterbalanced by that of a practical physiologist accus- 
tomed to perform experiments of the class referred to ; but there can be no doubt 
that the views which persons of this class entertain will be fully set forth in the 
shape of evidence. * * *” 
The royal commission of 1875 sat for almost 6 months, and asked 6,551 ques- 
tions of 53 witnesses. They heard of the Norwich case, 1874, in which action 
was instituted against a French pharmacologist who had given a demonstration 
using two dogs before the British Medical Association. They heard the “callous” 
testimony of a Mr. Klein, not an Englishman and without a perfect command of 
the English language, who said that anesthetics were used by him to keep dogs 
from howling and to keep them quiet. But they did, not hear a single witness who 
testified of knowledge of any case of cruelty to animals. The report of the 
royal commission was dated January 8, 1876. 
In summary, to quote Lord Sherbrooke in Contemporary Reviews, October 
1876 : 
“The commission entirely acquitted the English physiologists on the charge of 
cruelty. They pronounced a well-merited eulogism on the humanity of the 
medical profession of England. They pointed out that medical students were 
extremely sensitive to the infliction of pain upon animals, and that the feeling 
of the public at large was penetrated by the same sentiment. They then pro- 
ceeded to consider to what restrictions they should subject the humane and 
excellent persons in whose favor they had so decidedly reported. Their proceed- 
ing was very singular. They acquitted the accused, and sentenced them to be 
under the surveillance of the police for life.” 
LORD CARNARVON’S BILL 
London Times, May 23, 1876: “The bill to restrain the practice of vivisection 
was yesterday introduced by Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords.” 
London Times, June 16, 1876: “A large deputation of eminent medical men 
waited on Lord Carnarvon in protest against the bill. The deputation repre- 
sented the British Medical Association body of between 6,000 and 7,000 members.” 
Quoting Lord Carnarvon in reply to the delegation : “The royal commission was 
