§ MR. MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the annual Report of Experi- 1288 ments on Living Animals is published later and later every year; and whether, having regard to the fact that the last Vivisection Report for the year 1895 was published on the 6th August 1896, when Parliamentary intervention that Session was impossible, he will give an assurance that the Report for 1896 will be published in time for discussion on the Estimates?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYI explained, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member last August, why last year's return was issued so exceptionally late. Every effort will be made to issue the return in future at an early date.
§ MR. MACNEILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would, as far as he could, give him an assurance that it would come on in time for discussion on the Estimates?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that there were exceptional reasons last year in consequence of certain returns not coming in from the hon. Member's own country.
§ MR. MACNEILLThere is no vivisection in Ireland.
§ MR. MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures were taken in respect to two men licensed to perform experiments on living animals during the year 1895, under the provisions of the 39 and 40 Vic, c. 76, who are stated in the report of the inspector, G. V. Poore, Esq., M.D., to have been guilty of irregularities as licensed vivisectors; what where the irregularities brought by the inspector in these cases under the notice of the Secretary of State; were any proceedings under the provisions of The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, taken against these persons or either of them; and, were the certificates granted to them by the Home Secretary for the purposes of vivisection revoked?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYThe irregularities consisted, in the one case, in the licensee performing an operasion on a cat, without having the necessary certificate; in the other case, in the licensee performing two experiments necessitating a certificate, which he had omitted to renew. In the first case, the licence was revoked and not regranted until after an interval of three months and a half, and steps were taken to prevent a recurrence of the irregularity. 1289 In the second case, the consideration of the application for a renewal of the licence was deferred for a month. In neither case was it thought desirable to take further proceedings.
§ MR. MACNEILLasked if it would not be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to institute prosecutions against both these men, who had been guilty of diabolical cruelty?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he could not admit the diabolical cruelty; but, according to the best information that he had got upon these two cases, which occurred before he came into office—though in saying that he did not desire to make the least reflection upon his predecessor—there was, he thought, a great difference between them, a difference which was marked by the action of the Home Office. If there appeared any necessity whatever for putting in operation any other processes of the law for cruelty to animals, he could assure the hon. Member he would do so.
§ MR. MACNEILLMay I ask whether, as a matter of fact, both these men have at present licences for vivisection?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder order! The Question has been fully answered.