1864 ROYAL COLLEGE OF - PHYSICIANS OF LONDON.

attention to the evidence of Professor E. H. Starling, who isnot only an eminent scientist, but also, I believe-though Ihave not the pleasure of his personal acquaintance-a mannoted for his extreme sensitiveness as regards the inflictionof pain to animals. Speaking before the Royal Commissionhe said : "Though I have been engaged in the experimentalpursuit of physiology for the last 17 years, on no occasionhave I ever seen pain inflicted in any experiment on a dogor cat, or, I might add, a rabbit, in a physiologicallaboratory in this country, and my testimony would be borneout by that of anyone engaged in experimental work in thiscountry." It would be easy to dilate at greater lengthupon this subject, but I think I have said enough. Broadlyspeaking, I maintain that the small amount of pain andsuffering caused by experiments on living animals is a pricewhich may justifiably be paid for the enormous amount ofpain and suffering which is prevented or relieved. Beforemany months are over I trust Lord Selby’s Commission willhave reported. The composition of that Commission mustof necessity carry great weight with all of us. I cannot, ofcourse, anticipate what the Commissioners will say. What-ever they may report they will give all of us who are inter-ested in this subject an opportunity of revising our opinionsby the light of the very careful inquiry which they haveconducted. They may show that further restrictions arerequired in the interests of humanity or, on the other hand,they may show that some relaxation of restriction is neces.sary in the interests of science. In the meanwhile, I mayconclude by saying that I esteem it a privilege to be thePresident of this society and to be thus closely connectedwith a number of very distinguished and humane men whoin the interests of science and in their persistent endeavoursto relieve the sufferings of humanity have exposed them-selves to a great deal of very unjust obloquy.

Sir THOMAS BARLOW proposed the following motion :—

That the Research Defence Society be and is hereby constituted tomake generally known the facts about experiments on animals in thiscountry and the regulations under which they are conducted; theimmense importance of such experiments to the welfare of mankind;and the great saving of human life and health which is already due tothem.

He said that as a member of the rank and file of the

practising part of the medical profession he was glad of theopportunity of showing absolute sympathy with those whodevoted their lives to research, and he wished to expressappreciation for the invaluable help which the practisingpart of the medical profession derived from their brethrenwho performed experiments from whom they receivedpower and strength in their work. The society had deter-mined to come right down into the open and to put every-thing on the table so as to let the British public know thekind of work done, the care that was being taken, thekinds of experiments being made and their bearing onpractical medicine and surgery. The society did not existfor the promotion of vivisection, it did not put forward anypanacea for all the ills the world was heir to, but it had beenfounded for the purpose of showing to the public the truerelation between experiments on animals and the scientificstudy of disease. The society wished to insist on the publicappreciating the proper place that was taken by experimentalstudy and investigation and its work would be to make

people understand things in their true relations and see

exactly what the beariugs of experimental investigation wereon the whole science of medicine and surgery. The historyof medicine as a healing art contained much that washumbling. Advances had often been due to " happy flukes "and until recent times medicine had been to a great extentempirical, being even now overladen with useless and evendangerous empiricism. Those encumbrances could only beremoved by the scientific study of the natural history of manand of the natural history of disease. He showed how the

gradual acquisition of knowledge had helped forward theprogress of medicine in regard to the study and treatment offevers and he quoted it as an example of the fact that know-ledge comes step by step and the immediate application ofit was not always obvious. Amongst the many benefits whichMr. Joseph Chamberlain conferred when at the ColonialOffice was his work in tackling the great problem of tropicaldisease. It was impossible for anyone who felt the solemnityof the facts he had submitted to the meeting to do anythingthat would hinder the progress of experimental investigationwhich that society had been formed to defend.Lord ROBERT CECIL, who seconded the motion, said

that he desired to ask their opponents what was the funda.mental basis of their opposition to the cause defended

by the society. ’ It would, he thought, be conceded by’almost everyone that for adequate cause it was lawfulto take the life of animals other than man but so faras he could ascertain the contention of their opponentawas that pain must not be inflicted upon animals for thebenefit of human beings. If that was their case, what werethe consequences in which they were landed ? All sportmust be instantly condemned together with the riding anddriving of horses, including even the beating of disobedientdogs. On what possible grounds, too, could the imprison-ment for life of animals in the Zoological Gardens bedefended ? It had been clearly shown that many of the mostvaluable of pain-saving discoveries owed their existence tovivisection, but he argued that the cause of the society didnot rest on that ground. He maintained that if there waseven a reasonable probability that experiments on livinganimals conduced to the saving of human life and thediminution of human pain then they were abundantly justified. Animals were not on the same plane as human beingsand if the treating of animals with kindness involved thetreatment of human beings with unkindness those whoupheld such a method were guilty of a grave dereliction frommorality.The motion was put to the meeting and carried unani-

mously.Mr. WALTER H. LONG, M.P., then proposed the following

motion :-It shall be among the objects of the society to establish branch

societies, and to take such steps as the committee may from time totime think advisable in the interests of science.

He said that in the course of his official life he had workedin two Government departments with which the work of thesociety was connected. He did not regret but was proud ofwhat he had been able to do in those two departments infurthering the great cause of science and in helping the,work of lessening suffering in the lower animals and of pro-longing life and of preventing diseases by methods derivedfrom discoveries which had brought such unspeakable reliefto the human race. He described how rabies had beenstamped out while he was at the head of the Local Govern-ment Board and declared that that Board would never haveembat ked on that enterprise had it not been for theknowledge of the experts employed in experimental investi-gation on whose advice it was able to rely.

Dr. C. J. MARTIN, Director of the Lister Institute, inseconding the motion, which was unanimously agreed to,stated that the progress in the study of cancer was notrealised by the public, and he observed that it was not

generally known that one out of every eight women or 11men who reached the age of 35 years was, according to theRegistrar-General’s Return for 1905 and 1906, fated to diefrom cancer.Mr. H. T. BUTLIN moved a cordial vote of thanks to the

chairman and in the course of his remarks refuted the

allegation that those who were engaged in experimentalresearch became callous in consequence of the experimentswhich they had performed. :

The Hon. SYDNEY HOLLAND, who seconded the vote ofthanks, declared that though they were not all researchers,nevertheless they were all searchers after truth. ’

, -

,

Lord CROMER, in acknowledging the vote of "thanks.referred to the energetic manner in which the society hadbeen organised under the able direction of Mr. StephenPaget.

______________

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANSOF LONDON.

AN extraordinary Comitia was held on June 18hh,rSir R.DOUGLAS POWELL, Bart., K.C.V.O., the President, being inthe chair.The following announcements were made in reference to

the lectures to be delivered before the College :-The Galstonian lectures for 1909 would be delivered by

Dr. A. E. Russell; the Lumleian lectures by Dr. NormanMoore ; the FitzPatrick lectures by Sir T. Clifford Allbutt ;the Oliver-Sharpey lectures by Professor C. Scott Sherrington(L:verpool); and the Croonian lectures for 1910 by Dr.Arthur Gamgee.A discussion then ensued on a matter which was declared

to be secreta collegii. ,

The PRESIDENT dissolved the Comitia.

1865METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL SUNDAY FUND.-MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL SUNDAYFUND.

THE following are some of the principal amounts received at the Mansion House, or notified directly to us as havingbeen collected, on behalf of the Metropolitan HospitalSunday Fund up to Tuesday evening last, when the sum paidin exceeded R10.COO.

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Delusions not Affecting Testamentary Capacity.Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane recently gave judgment in an

action respecting the validity of a will made by Mrs. M.Govett, a lady who died in July, 1907, in her 84th year, thecase being interesting on account of the clearness with whichthe issue was raised and as illastra’iing the distinction

between delusions which affect the validity of a will andthose which do not. The testatrix made a will in 1906 underwhich a nephew was made residuary legatee and which hepropounded. There was no question of her testamentarycapacity before Easter, 1904, and before that date, in 1900,

, she had made another will in favour of other relatives who1put it forward, asking to have the one made in 1906 set aside. They alleged that when the second will was made Mrs.

Govett was suffering from delusions, among which were the. following: that people were constantly robbing her; that0she 0 saw thousands of little birds with long tails clinging to0the trees in her garden; also hundreds of cats; that the] illness of a neighbour had been caused by an octopus looking0in at the window ; that she saw curious figures come frombehind a picture and various other strange animals in the3 garden. There was evidence that at about Easter, 1904, she3 had suffered from a cold and bronchitis, and also had

0had 0 had at that time a slight paralytic stroke, after which she0 was not in the same health as before, becoming gradually0 worse until her death. His lordship in giving judgment said0that 0 that the probate court did not regard a mere delusion which0 did not affect the testamentary dispositions of the person0 suffering from it in the same light as one with regard to an0 individual who might be prejudiced by it in the will. There

8 were many people in the world suffering from delusions0 which were not testamentary delusions and the line to be0 drawn between delusions and beliefs which would not be so-

g called was a very thin one. Some people believed things0 absolutely which others declared to be utter nonsense and it0 was necessary therefore to look carefully at the nature of0 the delusions alleged in any case such as that before him.g In commenting on the alleged delusions of Mrs. Govett he0 mentioned that the eyesight of the testatrix had been0 said to have failed her and stated that he did not con-

0sider the delusions as described before him to be testa-

mentary delusions. He also referred to evidence given0buy six nurses who at various times had attended theo deceased, two of whom had had experience of mental cases,0 and all of whom had given evidence in favour of her0 testamentary capacity. These had laughed at the idea of0 delusions, and had used the expression that the deceased0used 0 used to " fancy " this or that which he regarded as a moren appropriate manner of defining her mental condition than0 the use of the word delusion. He also referred to evidence

g given by the nurses to the effect that the testatrix used to0 know of her own accord when the time came for paying0 them and used to pay them herself, insisting upon a receipt0 when doing so. He pronounced accordingly for the will of0 1906, being of opinion that the allegation that at that time0 the deceased was not of testamentary capacity had not been

0 established. He considered, however, that the question had0been 0 been quite properly raised and allowed the unsuccessful0 parties their costs.

g Evidence as to Ability to Work.0 It was recently held by the Supreme Court of Nebraska0(young 0 (Young v. Beveridge) that the ability of a person to perform0 manual labour is not a matter so exclusively within the0 domain of medical testimony that lay witnesses, who are0 acquainted with the injured workman and who have oppor-0tunities 0 tunities of observi ng his ability, cannot give evidence with0 reference thereto. This ruling is of importance in claims0 under workmen’s compensation legislation. The rule issaid to be that the actual condition of a person’s health must0 be established by skilled medical witnesses, but that the0 apparent physical condition of any person where that fact is0 an issue may be proved by other witnesses who have had

0 occasion to observe such condition.0

_______________

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OFENGLAND.

AN ordinary meeting of the Council was held on June 18th,Mr. HENRY MORRIS, the President, being in the chair.A report was received from the Board of Examiners in

Anatomy and Physiology for the Fellowship stating that atthe recent examination 114 candidates presented themselvesand of these 43 passed.A report was received from the Court of Examiners

respecting candidates found qualified for the Diploma ofFellow ; it stated that of the 63 candidates who presentedthemselves 22 were successful, three of whom bad not yetattained the age of 25 year". It was resolved to issue