344 HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH 
The influence that Queen Victoria may have had on the passage of the British 
law is not clear. The Queen did express her views in a personal letter to 
Dr. Joseph Lister (later Lord Lister), who had waited on her as her physician 
in 1871. She wrote Dr. Lister as follows : 
“Balmoral, June 15, 1875. 
“Dear Sir : You are no doubt aware that a royal commission is about to inquire 
into the subject of vivisection, but some time must elapse before any legislation 
is attempted. 
“In the meanwhile it is to be feared that the unnecessary and horrible cruelties 
which have been perpetrated will continue to be inflicted on the lower animals. 
“The Queen has been dreadfully shocked at the details of some of these prac- 
tices, and is most anxious to put a stop to them. 
“But she feels that no amount of legislation will effect this object so com- 
pletely as an expression of opinion on the part of some of the leading men of 
science who have been accused, she is sure unjustly, of encouraging students 
to experiment on dumb creatures (many of them man’s faithful friends and 
to whom we owe so much of our comfort and pleasure) as a part of the regular 
education course. 
“The Queen therefore appeals to you to make some public declaration in con- 
demnation of these horrible practices, and she feels convinced that you will be 
supported by many other eminent physiologists in thus vindicating the medical 
profession and relieving it from the accusation of sanctioning such proceedings. 
“Yours faithfully, 
“Henry F. Ponsonby.” 
Dr. Lister’s long letter in reply closed the following statement : 
“I am therefore clearly of opinion that legislation on this subject is wholly 
uncalled for ; while any attempts of that kind might prove very injurious by 
checking inquiries calculated to promote the best interests of Her Majesty’s 
subjects.” (Lord Lister by Sir Rickman Godlee, Macmillan, London 1918.) 
The Queen’s letter to Lord Lister was written 1 month after the publication 
in the Spectator (see above) of that emotional, irresponsible letter of Lady 
Burdette-Coutts concerning vivisection in Florence. There is no evidence that 
the Queen’s views were publicized, but it is likely that her views w r ere known 
to Members of the House of Lords. The Queen’s views may then have had some 
influence on the recommendation of the royal commission, which indeed were 
made after finding no evidence to justify such recommendations. Her view 
may have had some influence on the surprising sensitivity of Lord Carnarvon to 
“the view held by a numerous mass of people of this country,” as stated by him 
in his interview with members of the medical profession who waited on him in 
opposition to his bill. The House of Lords had been insensitive for many years 
to the demands of the public for suffrage ; at that time a considerable proportion 
of the male population did not enjoy the right to vote. It would appear that the 
public could be granted consideration on the vivisection issues, a matter that 
seemed of minor importance to the House of Lords in the affairs of Her Majesty’s 
Government. 
The law did not satisfy the antivivisectionists. At the hearing of the Second 
Royal Commission appointed in 1906 to examine into the operation of the British 
law, 18 antivivisectionist societies were heard in opposition to the existing law. 
In 1906 a dog bill was passed through a surprise parliamentary maneuver pro- 
hibiting the police from giving or selling stray or unwanted dogs for vivisection. 
This placed a further restriction in the British law and this provision has also 
been applied to cats. The law thus denies scientists a source of stray dogs and 
cats in London, where they are sacrificed at the public pounds, presumably with- 
out anesthetics. While the laboratories which have sufficient funds must pur- 
chase them from dealers often as far distant as 250 miles (personal cor- 
respondence), laboratories without such financial resources must do without 
them. 
In 1921 a dog’s protection bill was introduced which sought to make illegal 
the use of dogs for experimental purposes but was defeated. The same bill was 
reintroduced in 1927, backed by a monster petition organized by several anti- 
vivisection societies, said to contain over a million signatures. Fifty learned 
scientists were heard in opposition to the bill which failed to pass. But the bill 
kept coming back in 1933, 1937, and 1938. And today the antivivisectionists 
are still active. Such harassment is certainly not a favorable plimate for 
research. 
