The case against anti-vivisection / by Stephen Paget.

  • Paget, Stephen, 1855-1926
Date:
1904
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The case against anti-vivisection / by Stephen Paget. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    90/120 (page 78)
    educate everybody, its poor opinion of the average lay member, and of the spirit of the age. And, of course, these societies follow the successful candidates on their subsequent careers. “ In Parlia- ment,” says the London Society, “ the Society’s work is carried on as occasion permits. Members of Parliament are written to or are personally seen at the House of Commons. Questions are drafted for them to submit to the Home Secretary, and one or more officers of the Society are in constant attendance at the House of Commons when the question of vivi- section is likely to be raised.” And the National Society says, “ In order to stimulate attention (to Mr. Coleridge’s Bill) our lecturer has been assiduous in his attendance in the lobby of the House during the present session, and by personal interviews has been able to arouse a good deal of interest in it on both sides of the House.” This was in 1902; and, before the end of the year, Mr. Wood was able to say at Oxford that 140 members of Parliament were pledged to support the Bill. It is evident that “ Our Cause in Parliament ” is urged with diligence, and is not left to stand or fall according to the unsolicited conscience of the average lay member. Interviewed by this society and that society, prompted and pledged and stimulated, advised this way and that way, any member might say with Mercutio, A plague o’ both your houses. Take, for example, this system of drafting questions to be put to the Home Secretary. It may or may not take off the edge of sincerity; any- how, the question should be drafted with great care. On February 26th, 1900, a question was asked as to certain observations which were alleged to have been made on living animals, but in fact had been made on their organs removed after death. The National Society said of this mistake :— “ We wish our readers to know that the question was not prompted by any communication from our Society, and we think it unfortunate that members of Parliament should be asked to put questions in the