NAWSA GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE Cobbe, Frances P. TWO LESSONS. A PAPER READ AT A CONFERENCE HELD IN LONDON, MARCH, 1891. The History of the agitation with which the Conference is concerned (against the Contagious Diseases Acts),-and likewise that of another movement wherein I have myself taken part (against Vivisection), have, together, taught me two lessons. I think it may be of some interest, and not perhaps wholly unprofitable, to explain what those lessons have been. First, I have learned that the bias of opinion in the Medical, (and possibly, in some other professions,) is stronger and more rigid than, antecedently to experience, I could have believed. So strong, in fact, is the current on which professional minds are borne that a very few escape being carried entirely off their feet, or are able to swim even a little way against the tide. Nor is the swerving, limited to a direction of the opinions of men in the line of their professional prejudices and interests ; but, further, distorts their perceptions of facts sufficiently to render their reports and statements onesided and untrustworthy. They close their eyes to everything which militates against the professional creed, and exaggerate out of proportion whatsoever may seem to afford it support ; and this (we must in candour believe) almost unconsciously to themselves. Unfortunately, the facts wherewith hygienics and the Healing Art are concerned, are always so fluctuating, and frequently so obscure and liable to various interpretations, that the medical man who chooses to see them in one light and refuses to see them in another, has more margin for misapprehension and more excuses for misstatement than are open to persons engaged in other pursuits. If, for example, a child die shortly after vaccination, the doctor who signs the certificate will always see his way to selecting, among two or three other possible causes of death, one which does not trace it to the vaccine lymph. Or when a woman has expired after being trampled on by her husband in hob-nailed shoes, it will go hard but a doctor can be found to testify that she suffered from heart-disease ; and that her untimely demise was, at worst, "accelerated" by the hob-nailed shoes on her stomach. These things being so, it follows that it is wrong for us as private individuals, to base our judgment respecting any moral question (as was my own case at first regarding your agitation) either on the opinion of a medical expert or even 2 on his statement of the facts on which our judgment may be formed. Difficult as it may be, we are bound before decision to verify by independent testimony any medical dicta on which we propose to regulate our attitude on the matter in question.* Still more emphatically it should follow that the Legislature ought not, without much sifting and verification from outside sources,—to enact any measure based upon the opinions and data furnished by medical experts. The fact that all Parliaments and Chambers are now in the habit of doing this as a matter of course, and that they would scoff at the suggestion to refer to other than medical men for instruction regarding any matter connected with the public health,—is a deplorable circumstance, fraught with peril in the near future. Our trains are driven by colour-blind men. It is noticeable also that the medical mind is not only greatly warped, but uniformly warped, in one, and that a specially unfortunate, direction. Even if not theoretic materialists, medical men almost universally (not unnaturally) give to the interests of the Body a place above that which they have a right to hold, compared to those of the conscience and heart of man. The result is, that medical influence invariably presses down the scale on the side of the (real or supposed) physical advantages of the community— regardless of the disastrous moral consequences which may, very probably, be involved along with them. The case is somewhat analogous to that of the old influence of a priesthood whose judgment was distorted by an exaggerated estimate of the importance of correct belief compared to righteous conduct. This bias, as we all know, still causes very worthy clergymen to misrepresent favourably the characters of those who accept their shibboleths, and unfavourably those who refuse them ; and in former centuries when sacerdotal influence was at its height, they prevailed everywhere on kings and nations to legislate with abominable cruelty against Jews or witches, Catholics or Protestants, as the case might be. This priestly bias has _______________________________________________________________ * I have lately been engaged in preparing a series of 10 leaflets, each headed "MY DOCTOR TELLS ME ;" every one of which contains (as I consider) an absolute refutation of a statement so commonly made by doctors as to have passed into the public mind as an incontrovertible fact, e.g., that "Experiments on Animals are only performed under Anaesthetics ;" that "Curare is not employed ;" that "the most important discoveries in Medicine, in Physiology and Surgery have been made by Vivisection ;" that "Koch cures Consumption ;" that "Pasteur cures Hydrophobia ;" and that "There is very little Vivisection in England ;" &c., &c. The series can be obtained at the Office of the Victoria Street Society. Price 2d. per dozen. 3 well-nigh passed away, and its evil influence is almost forgotten ; but the bias of the new Priesthood of Science gathers force and seems further warped from the truth and justice every day, and moreover threatens us with a baser class of dangers. It was disastrous for a nation to hold autos-da-fè (and Spain groans under the consequences to this day),—even to save, as it was assured, thousands of immortal souls from perdition. It is more degrading for it to consent formally, through its elected legislature, to the cruel usage of defenceless women and the martyrdom of harmless brutes, for the much lower purpose of escaping,—or of finding a remedy—for bodily disease. And lastly, even on its own ground, Medical Opinion at this time is an ill-omened guide. It is no longer on purity, temperance, cleanliness, and industry, that our medical guides insist as the conditions of health. Physical and moral well-being have now scarcely any ostensible connection. It is by squirting into our veins the filthy products of diseases artificially created in miserable animals that we are to be protected from the ills to which flesh is heir. By self-indulgence rather than self-restraint, perhaps by Vice rather than by Virtue, we are to cherish our health. The Second lesson which I have gathered from your movement, and from that against Vivisection, has a larger scope even than the first. It is;—that the benefit of the community must never be sought by means involving injustice or cruelty to a single one of its members ; or even to the brutes. That law, which in these days of Darwinism, over-rides in the majority of minds every other,—the Survival of the Fittest, with its corollary of the sacrifice of the Unfit,—is valid only for unmoral, unintelligent Nature. For us, rational and moral children of God, He has given quite another rule ; the law of Justice to all, of Mercy to the weak. Human society is built up on this higher law. Civilisation itself began simultaneously with its control, and would perish and disappear in primeval barbarism were it ever to be renounced. The common mistake of Christendom has been to imagine that though this law is rightfully dominant over the individual, and that he could not escape from its authority (either for his own benefit or that of any other individual), yet that the Community might give itself dispensation from it ; and that, for the benefit of the Community, injustice and mercilessness might be shown to individuals. It is not so, my friends ! A thousand times I say No ! There is no such thing as a real benefit to a community which is purchasable at the price of injustice to its meanest 4 members. In the deepest sense Le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle. The evil done by any such injustice far more than counterbalances any good; nor is it for man—or for ten millions of men by one great plébiscite, to decide that any conceivable good to the community should be lawfully obtained by an act per se unjust or cruel. The old Roman Law of the Twelve Tables "Salus populi suprema est lex"; holds good only if the "Salus" be interpreted as that higher "well-being" which consists in the righteousness which exalteth a nation. "It is expedient," said the Jewish priest, "that one man should die for the people." But it is only expedient when that man dies a willing martyr. The welfare of mankind has been promoted immeasurably by self-sacrifice; but the sacrifice which is not the free offering of the victim, but the tyrannous immolation of the individual by the community for its own benefit,—is not "expedient." It is the very reverse of expedient. It cannot fail to be fraught with disastrous consequences to the nation which sanctions it, and thus deliberately damps down the moral fires on its own hearth. Though it be magnified to colossal proportions, it is Selfishness still; and it is only baser, the more numerous and strong and rich and clever are those who exercise it, and the more weak and poor and stupid those whom it sacrifices. This lesson, which, though never unknown to me, has been freshly borne in upon my mind with the force of a great moral truth through these movements of ours, is, I believe, more needed in these days than ever since Christianity —which is or ought to be, the worship of GOODNESS— superseded Paganism, which is the worship of POWER. Every day the pretext of the "benefit of the community" is used more and more as if it were a final argument whereby every spoliation of property, every invasion of personal rights,—even the most sacred of such rights, such as that of the wife to nurse her sick husband, the mother to tend her dying child,—may be ruthlessly set aside, and every cruelty licensed by Act of Parliament. Believe me, my friends, and take is as a principle never to be waived or disregarded ;—It is not the good of the community which will be attained by any Legislation which tramples on the rights of the humblest or the meanest. It will, on the contrary, be the curse and ruin of any community to forsake the Divine Law of doing justice and loving mercy, and to retrograde to the Pagan,—nay, rather to the savage principle of crushing the weak and few, for the sake of the strong and the many. FRANCES POWER COBBE. Hengwrt, Dolgelly. Miss Frances Power Cobbe Newbridge, Donabate Cy. Dublin May/78 Dear Mrs Stone, I have just received your kind letter & hasten to give it such reply as is in my power. I have no accurate knowledge of the working of the Municipal Suffrage such as wd enable me to write to the Journal about it but I will refer the question to Miss Becker. Who is the most accurate & well-informed of all our workers & devotes her whole time & energies to the task. As for [her work & serving?] as I desire also the political emancipation of women, I have only a small portion of my time to devote to [electing?] our Central Committee & occasionary speaking or writing on behalf of the cause I always read your Journal which you so kindly send me with interest, - & now & then feel moved to put in a word. After your pleasant invitation [?] perhaps avail myself of your permission to do so - May I suggest that now your very able correspondent Miss Beed has left England, it would be well for you to engage some competent person - such as Miss Becker - or others I could have - to write letters for you giving you the real & true aspect of our affairs on which you were naturaly imperfectly guided by the newspapers? - I am sure she wd undertake the task for a moderate consideration. We are, I certainly believe creeping on towards our goal. Every year the position of women in England rises & their influence on politics becomes more sensible. We are all meanwhile, being educated by this, & many other agitations & movements, for our future larger sphere. Every Committee & School board whereon men & women sit together is a school for which my brouder Office of the Society for Protection of Animals liable to Vivisertion I. VICTORIA STREET. S. W. [*1901*] Hengwrt, Dolgelley, N. Wales. 30 March Private Dear Ladies, I am much pleased to send your excellent Notes appended to Miss Stoughton's letters, in your issue of Mar 16th inst. I should like if you will kindly permit me, to make some reply to her, as she refers to me by name. I think her answer to my challenge (if she sends any to you) will be interesting. You will have received my letter sent you a week ago explaining that it was a (very natural) mistake on your part to attribute to me the authorship of the article in our Abolitionist, entitled “A Terrible Revelation,” which you were so good as to reprint. I should like this corrected as I[find?] by now allies in Washington & Philadelphia have fallen into the same mistake. The article will lead, I hope & believe, to large consequences, though [*Frances Power Cobb*] my old Society the National AVS. now led - (by the more!) Z W Coleridge has tried to use it to draw on all our lady members from any British Union. These trucusseries add horribly to the difficulties & labour of our already difficult & sorrowful work Very sincerely trusting yrs. ever Frances Power Cobb Must Letter from Frances Power Cobb. [To the] Editors [of] [The] Woman's Journal: March 25 1901. Hengwrt, Dolgelly, Wales. [Dear Ladies], I am glad recvd your letter reprinted in your super valued journal the article entitled "A Terrible Revelation," published in the Abolitionist. Feb-15 -1901- [The] That article has my entire approval; but it was not (as you [erroneously stated] suppose,) written by me, but by the Editor of The Abolitionist ; the Revd Tolus Verschoyle, Rector of Hirsh; Somersetshire I am only an occasional contributor to the Journal, which is the organ of the British Union for Abolition of Vivisection - of which Union I have the honour to be President - Vy brief Frances Power Cobbe [Hengwrt Doolyelley,] [*Frances Power Cobbe*] The Mercifulness of Vivisectors Must [To] Editors [of] Womans Journal: [Ludrio] Hengwrt Dolgelly March 29, 1901 Miss Stoughton's letter in your issue of March 16, - to which we [have] append so just a reply,- is interesting in more ways than one. Her experience of the humanity - of the teachers in Barnard College is remarkable - if indeed it was not intended as a joke when (as she believes) the student was "remonstrated with" for "dissecting a worm, without first killing it by the use of the proper reagents." But the question of the [current] humanity of the instruction given generally to learners of the art of Vivisection is a provider 2 our time can by settled by Miss Stoughton's experience in the schools which she teaches; & as it is a matter of [by] far reaching importance in view of the educational effects of the sanction of the practice on future generations, I will venture, with your permission, to challenge her to quote from any manual of any eminent physiologist in England, Germany, Italy or France, one single passage of which the purpose is to inculcate a humane caution or [received extra effort or conteinous] instruction of any sort, to spare the suffering of the victims of vivisection. I have myself undergone the misery of reading a large number of these works in which advice is ??? given as to how to catch, & fasten, & 3 gag & paralyze his victims, how to cut holes in their skulls & squirt in virus of rabies, & how to drive catheters into their hearts; how to pick slowly away the tissues till the nerves run bare across the gaping wound & then how to twang them with electricity; how to bake them alive with their heads in the oven or out of the oven, how to "lard" their feet (or wings in the case of doves) with small nails to make any motion agonizing, how to saw across the backbones of horses, expressly to observe the excitement & pain so created. All this I have read. But never yet have I come upon one solitary caution such as: "This is a very painful experiment & ought not to be repeated needlessly" 4 or: "Care should be taken that the animal undergoing this operation should be completely anestheticized"; or, "The moment this experiment is completed the dog, or cat, shd be killed as the torture is excessive". Nothing, no ! absolutely nothing like this have I ever come across either in Claude Bernard's elaborate instructions on his last great work, his "Physiologic Operatoire", or in Cyon's Standard "Methodit" or in Schutt's various lessons, nor any where it might most be looked for, in the great English "Handbooks on the Physiological Laboratory" for English students by Sir John Burdon Sanderson, Sir Michael Foster, Sir Lauder Brunton, & Emanuel Klein - or in a series of other such ventures. If Miss [?] has been more fortunate I should be kind to hear of it. As regards the feelings wherewith Vivisectors themselves pursue their tasks, I am disposed to credit about 25 per cent with genuine scientific curiosity - 25 with professional ambition, 25 (especially bacteriologists) with regard for the pecuniary profits of serum-making, & 25 with a furtive pleasurable excitement, & "joyful ardour" as Cyon described it, - at the sight of blood & agony - without which he thinks no man can become "an [?] Vivisector". How many of these last have any experience of the hideous aberrations exposed by my friend in her article in "A Terrible Revelation” in the Abolitionist for February? I have no means of guessing! I should hope few. Truly yours Frances Power Cobb [*1901*] Hengwrt, Dolgelly, N. Wales. 19 May Dear Madame Permit me to express my satisfaction of finding the subject of cruel experiments on patients, trusted / writer trust good serve, me your excellent journal. - May I send you in [?] envelope a copy of the first issue of the Abolitionist (the journal of the British Union for Abolition of Vivisection) in which you will find an astounding collection of horrible instances of such experiments, performed by the jury of Vivisectors in Germany. I trust I will find space for further remarks on the subject. Truly yours Frances Power Cobbe Frances Power Cobbe Tanllan Llanellyd Dolgelley N. Waters Dear Madame, The Enclosed Letter by my deeply respected friend Mrs William Greg is so extremely (illegible) that I (illegible) to send it to you (illegible) it may probably be bad to reprint it. The (illegible) Force argued (?) (illegible) women's political (illegible) whose fallacy it explodes, is (illegible) we find in words injurious to our cause in England, being accepted by a more intelligent class of persons than would be likely to be misled by the other arguments of our opponents. Thank you for the great pleasure I derive from reading your Journal which you are so good as to forward to me regularly. Believe me dear Madam with sincere wishes for your success Truly yours Frances Power Cobbe August 24 Frances Power Cobbs 24 Cheyne Walk London. S. W. England 1877-8 Rock House, Exmouth Place, Hastings. My dear Mr. Richardson, A letter received today from a friend says, "I am sure you will be glad to hear how importantly that Vol; of Sir B. W. Richardson which owes its existence to your Fund-- has helped our cause in America, - I have just received what would be in England a Blue Book being the State paper. Report No 116 of the Senate of the U. S.- by W. Gallinger, the Senator who is Chairman of the Committee of the District of Columbia Bill for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (restriction of vivisection)- He has devoted the paper of this Report to an annalysis of Richardson's book. The whole Report is in favour of our friend's Bill, the Arguments and researches of Richardson having been carefully utilized by Senator Gallinger on that side. I think this will make you feel the production of that book has proved a practical & definitely valuable help to our cause." F. P. Cobbe to Mrs. Woolcott Browne June 2nd 1897. Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.