BISHOPS AND CLERGY ON VIVISECTION.
[To TAN EDITOR 01I TEM SIIICTATOR.1 STE,—When we find Lord Aberdare, as President of the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, actually voting against those animals (as a member of the R.S.P.C.A., I., in common with many other members, protest against such a vote on the part of our President); when we find the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, and the Bishop of Peterborough voting against the defenceless creatures of that God whose servants they are,— when we find this, surely anti-vivisectionists are entitled to protest ; and. surely we may remark that the ranks of vivisectors and their supporters are, in only too many cases, "forced with those that should be ours." But the clergy will have to speak out on this matter, and despite the poor example set them by the Bishops in the House of Lords, I venture to think that before long the main body of the clergy will be found ready to oppose the present system of legalised and licensed vivisection in this country.
The Nonconformists are setting our clergy an example which it will be well for the latter to follow. •I know of no instance in which Nonconformist ministers have failed to declare against vivisection, yet our Bishops in the House of Lords are found to vote on the side of the strong against the weak, for they are found to vote for both war and vivisection.
But the Bishop of Peterborough positively stood up and de- fended vivisection. He attempted to extend the command "kill and eat" to "torture and kill," or even "torture and keep alive." Of course, he failed. Death, indeed, is vicarious, but not suffering. " It is wicked," writes Professor Newman, "to torture a man for the sake of learning physiological secrets, not because the man has intelligence, but because he has a nervous system susceptible to pain. So also, if any animal, intelligent or unintelligent, have nerves equally sensitive, it is equally unjustifiable to torture it in order to increase our knowledge ; equally wicked, when the agony endured is known to the torturer." (See letter in the Anti-Vivisectionist for May 3rd, 1879.) The Anti-Vivisectionist is published by Messrs. Allen, Ave Maria Lane, and edited by A. P. Childs, Esq., F.R.C.S. Eng., formerly Professor of materia medica, therapeutics, and medical botany, and lecturer on military surgery, at the Royal School of Medicine and Surgery (now incorporatedwith Owens College), Manchester. But to the Bishop of Peterborough must be quoted the state- ments of some of those amongst our clergy who have boldly come forward, not in defence of Vivisection [or the scientific ill-treatment of innocent animals], but in a righteous defence of the helpless creatures of God against man's cruelty and selfishness.
1. The Rev. R. Barrett, late Rector of Stour Provost, writes ; —" We would say to ministers of religion, whatever their rank or denomination, How can you call yourselves messengers of the God of Love P Of what use is your Christian doctrine,. and who shall honour your teaching, if you lag behind. women and laymen in opposing cruelty, and defending the helpless,— if you raise not your voice against vivisection, a sin the most diabolical which yet has stained the earth, the most opposed to the nature of God, and sure to bring down his judgment on those who abet it P" 2. The Rev. W. Senior, Vicar of St. Thomas's, Nottingham; thus spoke at an anti-Vivisection meeting there, in April last : "The majesty of the Creator encircles even all life—brute life, as well as human life—therefore it is that we have now our Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the kindred one which abhors all Vivisection, which dreads and suspects, and even abominates, the scientific boon [if boon there be, which is very doubtful], which comes from the torture of the defenceless, helpless, lower creatures. As human life ascends in value because viewed in the light of its Creator, and is seen to be subject to justice only, so the lower life ascends with the higher, to partake of its benefits, and to be delivered from caprice and wrong."
3. The Rev. Verner M. White, LL.D., at a meeting on July 17th, 1879, said:—" Even if it were capable of clear proof that Vivisection had advanced medical science, it was also clearly capable of proof that we were not justified in exercising cruelty, and obtaining results at such cost. It could not be contended that the Almighty, in constituting man lord of this lower world, ever gave him authority to torture his more hum- ble creatures. Such a theory would be at variance with the life and spirit of our divine Lord and Master, and he was con- fident that if we were imbuel with that spirit, we would not,. for any consideration, be induced to inflict torture upon the lower creatures."
4. The Rev. H. W. Webb-Peploe, at the same meeting, said :— " It could not accord with the principles of the religion of Jesus Christ, that any man should maltreat the creation of God, and we ought to protest against the barbarities of Vivi- section, and try to put a stop to the torturing of animals which God had given us for companions. Their kind treatment is an essential part of the Turkish creed; but it is in a Christian land that we are told that man, being made the noblest of God's creation, is at liberty to maltreat the animal creation for hie own sake. When God gives to man dominion over the works of his hands, it is the grandest act of the great dominion. holder to show that he holds it as God himself does. In vain is it to search the Scriptures for authority to do any act against the creatures of God, and vivisectors have never yet justified themselves for doing that which is abhorrent to the feelings of their fellow-men, and they have no right to do that which makes us feel that man is degraded."
5. The Rev. G. W. Weldon, at the same meeting, remarking that we who oppose Vivisection are said to be "labouring under a delusion," said, "Be it so ; but if it be a dehision to bow in reverence before the great Creator's handiwork, if it be a delu- sion to admire the great works of the Maker of the universe, without striving to uplift the curtain he has placed over a certain part of them ; if it be delusion to show mercy to the dumb creatures that instinctively trust to man ; if it be delu- sion to pause on the brink of an unfathomable abyss, in the patient hope that what we know not now we shall know hereafter, then, the name of God, in delusion let me live, and in delusion let me die ! But it is not a delusion to discredit the crude and hasty theories of vivisectors, to which subsequent experience gives an unqualified refutation, nor is it fanaticism to endorse the -opinion of such men as Sir William Forgusson."
6. The Rev. David Wright, M.A., in a most eloquent sermon, preached in June,1879, said, "Another and a chief executioner in this art claims his victims [dogs], on the ground that they are 'old, and otherwise useless.' He [Dr. Rutherford] finds it 4 necessary,' under the protection of the present Act, to take into his pitiless grasp and vivisect thirty-one dogs, the dog being especially the friend and companion of man. These creatures, fond in their nature, and faithful, have grown at length old and otherwise useless.' A Government Report as to last year's doings under the present Act has just been issued. It presents the case in its softest aspect; but we may read in that mellifluous but misleading report some awful revelations, in the face of which the plea of antesthetics falls entirely to the ground. Justify this thing at all costs, or reject it with abhor- rence, for there is no middle ground. The eventual issue cannot really be doubtful. We believe neither the claims of vivisectors as to results of their art, nor their anticipations for the future. We believe neither the one nor the other, but we yield them. And how does it now stand? Take the spoils of this ravage, and use them. They will not bless you. Better the empty hands,' as the French vivisector owns, than the full hands, as the leas honest British vivisectors pretend. The creatures now are side by side. The weaker in their weakness, the stronger in their strength. The weaker pleading, not for life, but for -death without torture. The stronger rejecting that plea. And so the scalpel cuts its way, and the wail rises. And the judg- ment waits. But surely it must come."—I am, Sir, &c., Eton and Harrow Club, Pall Mall. ARTHUR F. ASTLEY.
[We have ourselves protested against the principles of the Bishop of Peterborough's speech, but we cannot admit that to vote against the total abolition of all practices logically in- cluded in " Viviseetion,"—that is, against all experimental inoculations or vaccinations which are entirely destitute of anything approaching to torture,—i8 to vote against the inter- ests of dumb animals themselves. On the contrary, it is to vote in favour of them. What is needed is a stricter mode of working the recent Act than the present Home Secretary is disposed to enforce.— En. 'Spectator.]
Previous page
