§ Sir. F. BANBURY
I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, no operation for the purpose of vivisection should be performed on dogs."
This Motion is not directed against vivisection as a whole, but is confined solely to the question of dogs being taken as instruments for experiments and other purposes connected with vivisection. It will probably be asked on what ground do I suggest that dogs should be exempted from the operation of vivisection. I am inclined to think that in speaking to an assemblage of Englishmen I shall have the sympathy of all of them when I point out that a dog is in a very exceptional position with regard to other animals. For many centuries the dog has been the friend of man. He has lived in the society of man, he has been brought up with man, and the consequence is that his sensibility has been developed to an extent which has never been equalled by any other animal. The sensibility of the dog having been developed makes him a far greater subject for pain, and he feels it much easier. During the centuries he has been taught to look up to man as his protector, and he has rendered untold service to man. I was told only this afternoon, quite casually, by someone who I think if he is here will probably oppose my Motion, that he had been told by some of the great explorers in the north that they could not have got on had it not been for the services rendered them by the dogs. We all know of the services that have been rendered to travellers by the monks of St. Bernard, but none of those services could have been performed if they had not been assisted in the saving of life by their dogs. Only last year I happened to see in the "Times" an extract as to the performance of a dog who saved seven lives in Marylebone. Everybody will agree that anything that appears in the "Times" newspaper is certainly accurate. I hope there are no Irish Members present.
§ Sir. F. BANBURY
I did not see the hon. Member sitting over there. If the hon. Member will sit on the wrong side he will excuse me if I made a remark which I should not have made had the Irish benches been full. The extract from the "Times" is as follows:—A Dog Saves Seven Lives.—At a fire which occurred yesterday at a hairdresser's shop in Marylebone, a terrier was the means of saving the lives of her master and six other persons residing in the same house. The toilet saloon is kept by Mr. R. J. E. Williams, who, in a statement to a Press representative, said that shortly before one o'clock in the morning he was awakened by the dog, which had run into his room from the shop, jumped on his chest, and 'clawed' at his throat and chest. At the same time she was yelping. On awaking he discovered that the house was on fire, and he aroused the other residents, who were able to escape. Mr. Williams still bears on his throat some marks of the dog's 'clawing.'That extract shows that from the dog's point of view he is able, in a sense which no other animal is able, to render service to man. Unless it can be shown beyond doubt that the using of a dog for the experiments of vivisection is absolutely essential to human life, I say it is a very great act of ingratitude on the part of men that they should subject dogs to these experiments. I need not enlarge upon this point. Only a short time ago there was a case of a man who committed suicide in the East End in order to avoid the police. His dog lay on his body, and they could not get the body away until they had killed the dog. That shows the extreme fidelity and devotion of the dog to man. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not at this moment advocating the total abolition of vivisection. I have never myself introduced into this House any measure which would involve the total abolition of Vivisection. The weight of experience of the medical profession seems to be that in certain circumstances vivisection is necessary, and, always providing that the animal was killed after the operation had been performed, I should not oppose vivisection on other animals. For the reasons I have given I think the dog is in a very exceptional position, and I hope this House will come to this conclusion.
A Royal Commission has been sitting for six years upon this subject, and their Report has, in one sense very opportunely and in another sense not very opportunely, been issued to-day. The issue of the Report is very opportune because one can read there the, conclusions at which the Commission has arrived and the evidence 1046 given for and against exempting dogs, because this question was before the Commission. On the other hand, it is not quite so opportune, because it will be open to anyone who is opposed to my Motion to say that before coming to a decision he would rather read the whole of the evidence. I would point out to the House, although I do not in any way wish to cast an aspersion upon a Royal Commission, that the Royal Commission which has sat for six years has had a great number of different matters before it, upon which it has arrived at a conclusion. I am only dealing with one part, and, if I can show that there was considerable divergence upon this matter in the Royal Commission itself then I say it is the proper province of this House to form its own opinion, and to give effect to its judgment without regard to the conclusions at which some of the Commissioners have arrived. Mr. R. H. Hutton, a member of the Royal Commission appointed in 1875,although he signed the general report, appended a reservation to the effect that dogs and cats should be exempted from experiment on the grounds of their special relation to mankind, their higher sensibility, the degrading and criminal trade which is fostered by their supply to physiologists and the absence of proof of their indispensibility to science.On page 15 of the Report the statement is given of certain experiments which were performed upon dogs. A Dr. Crile, in 1895, made an application to the Home Secretary for permission to do certain things. The application was referred by the Home Secretary to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Research.The Home Secretary then granted a licence (without any certificate) to Dr. Crile, who proceeded to perform his sixteen experiments in the laboratory of University College, London. They consisted of the infliction of very grave injuries on dogs such as cutting out both cerebral hemispheres, tearing out the brachial plexus, crushing the foot before the corneal reflex was abolished, pouring boiling water on the intestines, etc. Sir Victor Horsley stated that certain of these grave injuries were purposely designed to reproduce as far as possible the injuries which occurred by accident or in surgical operations. … With regard to these experiments, there was a difference of opinion among the eminent surgeons who appeared before us as to whether or not they were justifiable. Sir Henry Morris stated—Q. (Mr. Tomlinson.) In your opinion, were the results from any point of view at all commensurate with the severity of such operations on the observation of shock or the effect of shock?—A. I hardly feel that I can form a just opinion about that. I did not like many of the experiments that were performed, but I would not like to express a definite opinion.Q. You hardly feel prepared to justify it altogether?—A. No, and I would hardly be prepared to say that they were not desirable to have been made once, but I certainly think that such things ought not to be repeated for the sake of repeating them.Then Professor Starling, who is a very great supporter of vivisection, and one of 1047 the greatest experimenters in that direction, said, questioned by Dr. Wilson:—Q. I am not going to ask you anything about Doctor Crile's experiments, but I may say, as a medical man, admitting everything about anæsthesia, that I read them with horror at the time, and even now I cannot sec the justification for them. I will ask Professor Victor Horsley about that. You of course know them. Do you contend that they are justifiable from your own point of view?—A. They are not experiments which I should have done myself.Q. Then, personally, you would not consider them justifiable?—A. I would not like to say that, because it is not a subject with which I am connected. I think you must ask the man in whose laboratory they were carried out.This is the conclusion of the Committee:—As regards the different class of animals used for experiment, and the possibility of making discrimination between them for such purpose, we are again confronted with the delicate question of relative ethics. Here, again, there can be little doubt that the general moral sense of civilised mankind would be prepared to make such differentiation and would regard with quite a different degree of reprobation the like treatment for such purpose of one of the domesticated animals on the one hand, with that of cold-blooded or indeed verminous or destructive animals on the other. The differentia in such case would probably be found to consist of the degree of association with or affinity or utility to man. We feel that recognition should be accorded to the reality and worthiness of such underlying sentiment which would secure a special reservation for animals coming within the aforesaid limits. Thus we think that the higher apes and the dog and cat present claims for special consideration, and with these claims we deal subsequently in our Report.There have been certain arguments used against the exemption of dogs, and this is one of them:—Considerable evidence is given as to the possibilities of using for experimental purposes some of the larger animals other than dogs, and pigs, calves, goats and sheep were suggested. It was, however, urged that a serious objection to the use of these animals lay in the fact that they could not be kept in the laboratory to which licences are attached and in which the experiment would take place.No weaker argument was ever advanced. The people who bring forward the argument are practically admitting that the dog is an animal that they would rather not use, but you are to use it in preference to a pig, a calf, a goat, or a sheep, because it is not quite so easy or comfortable to keep these particular animals in places near the laboratory. After all, it only comes to this, that it is a slight increase of expense. Half an acre of land with proper pens and sheds would be sufficient to keep pigs, calves, and goats just as well as dogs in a kennel. If these witnesses had no better argument than that, my whole case is justified, and I should feel confident that the House would confirm me in my Motion. I am in no way suggesting that vivisection as a whole should be abolished. Those of us who think that great knowledge has 1048 been derived as a result of vivisection could perfectly well support the Motion, which only says that whereas the dog for many centuries has shown his devotion to man, man at any rate should show that he can return kindness with kindness. No man has ever had a better friend than the dog, and no greater devotion has ever been shown by a husband to a wife, or a wife to a husband, than by a dog to his master. I would appeal to the House, at any rate, to consider with all seriousness the proposal which I have the honour to bring forward to-night.
§ Colonel LOCKWOOD
An old French writer many years ago used these words:—Plus je connais les hommes, plus j'aime les [...]hiens.I thoroughly agree with every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend in proposing the Motion. I wish to associate myself with him, especially in regard to one point, and that is that to-night we appeal to the House not for the total abolition of vivisection, but for the exclusion of dogs from that practice. I could not have supported the Motion if it had been directed entirely against every form of vivisection. I have just emerged from the Royal Commission which has been sitting continuously for several years. The Commission exhausted the scientific and the ethical evidence. We took the evidence of all opposed to the practice of vivisection and of all in favour of it, and every witness who came before us was allowed freely to state his opinions. They were subjected certainly to a very rigorous cross - examination. It is exceedingly difficult to avoid drifting now and then into a discussion which you, Mr. Speaker, would stop at once—namely, a discussion of the whole Report of the Commission. I wish to confine myself entirely to the proposition brought forward by the hon. Baronet. I only had notice quite late that the subject was to be brought forward this evening, and I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues on the Royal Commission. Therefore I am unable to state who agreed with me on this point and who differed, but I am perfectly ready to answer to the House that I was one of those who objected to dogs being used at all for the purposes of vivisection. I cannot help saying how much every lover of truth and every lover of science is indebted to my valued colleague, Sir William Collins. He is no longer, I regret to say, a Member of this House, but during the whole of 1049 the sitting of the Royal Commission, his scientific training, his love of animals, his desire and intention to arrive at the truth, and his enormous capacity for work, helped to make the Royal Commission what I trust the public will think it was—a hardworking and earnest Commission whose desire was to arrive at a fair and just conclusion supported by evidence.
I confess when it came to the question of signing the Report of the Commission it was with the greatest difficulty that many of us were able to sign it. We only signed it because we were able to insert in it such guarded language as we think the House and the public will appreciate, and because we were anxious to endeavour to arrive at a unanimous Report. Therefore we did with certain reservations arrive at what was practically a unanimous Report. On the question of the utilisation of dogs, certainly we felt very deeply, and I am not going the least too far when I state that our feelings were justified by the evidence brought forward. It has often been said that the use of dogs is absolutely necessary to physiologists for their purposes, and it may be said perhaps that the House, if it passes this Resolution to-night, are going too far in advance of scientific opinion. I should like to remind the House how far in advance of scientific opinion and public opinion the first Commission of 1875 was. Those who read and study the evidence given by the scientific witnesses at that time will see how averse they were to any legislation on the question of vivisection at all. They maintained that it would cripple science, and that men of learning anxious to discover the secrets of nature for the benefit of mankind would be hampered and stopped in their endeavours if regulations were passed. The House of Commons, I am glad to think, insisted upon these regulations, and they have been in operation since that time.
The scientific witnesses who came before us nearly all said that they had no fault to find with the regulations, and that they had not disturbed them in their work in the smallest degree. Even the scientific men themselves who practice these experiments were extremely divided upon the subject of the necessity of the use of dogs. One of the witnesses was Dr. Pembry, lecturer on physiology at Guy's Hospital, member of the Army Medical Board, and a physiologist with great experience in experiments on living animals. He was questioned on the subject of experiments on dogs, and his evidence is given in the 1050 appendix to the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission. He said:—I have not used a dog at Guy's for illustration of lectures at all. I used rabbits, rats, and guinea-pigs.The witness further stated that he could teach physiology without experiments on dogs, though there were certain experiments, of course, which could only be done on dogs.Let me take another witness, Dr. Osier. He stated that he was the Regius Professor of Medicine in the University of Oxford and Fellow of the Royal Society, and had been professor in the John Hopkins University in Baltimore for some years. He says, in answer to questions—and this evidence very fairly represents the pre-ponderence of opinion amongst scientific men, even among those who practice vivisection:—There is very naturally a feeling of regret in the minds of many, and in none more than in our own, that animals, particularly dogs, should be thus subjected to operations even though the object be a most desirable one to accomplish without the infliction of pain, and we would gladly have not used animals with which there is an association of most acute sentiment on the part of all.That evidence on the part of these distinguished physiologists goes far to show that though we might be slightly in advance of the scientific opinion, yet among the greater proportion of that profession to which we owe so much, and among whom there are men just as humane as the hon. Baronet or myself, or any other person who objects to experiments on dogs, it will be found that the great preponderance of opinion is in favour of exempting dogs. Even among those who agree there is an absolute necessity there is a difference of opinion, because Professor Langley, at page 85 of our final Report to be found in the report of Dr. Wilson, states that experiments on dogs are still necessary to investigate the sympathetic nerve fibre which are in the lips of dogs and not in the lips of other animals. At the first blush that seems to be against the argument of the hon. Baronet and myself, but a little further examination of the evidence proves that even these scientific witnesses are not at all agreed, because Dr. Langley, who was a recognised authority on physiology, admitted, in reply to Sir William Collins, that there are two rival schools, that he belonged to one, and he did not suppose that he could convince the other people.
Even among those who hold advanced scientific opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs there is far from being 1051 that agreement which is necessary to decide that dogs must be used. Another point we draw attention, to on page 62 of our Report. We say that the exclusion by Order of any particular class of animal might be objected to as illogical on the ground that it is not easy to draw a sharp line of demarcation between exempted and non-exempted classes. We felt that difficulty very strongly, and in every evidence that was given we attempted to enlighten ourselves as to how or why the opinion was held that dogs should not be exempted. We found, after all, that precedents are not wanting even in law for making some such attempt. We found that the general law precludes the employment of dogs for the purposes of traction in this country, where as in several Continental countries they are habitually employed for such purposes. Dogs and cats are also dealt with on licence. They may be the subject of experiment on licence only, but they must not be used for experiments without an anæsthasia, unless a certificate is given, by one or other of the scientific authorities named in the Report, stating that for the reasons specified the experiments will necessarily be frustrated unless performed on a dog or cat. Then in the following page we say—this is the whole Commission—that the representations made to us for the complete exemption of any class of animal from all experiments under the Act have been strongest in the case of dogs. We had, on the other hand, many of the scientific witnesses representing strongly the case for the employment of dogs for certain experiments. Dr. Gotch, also a great physiologist, stated that in the University of Oxford during the last five years in that great school of learning and medicine no dogs had been used. If it had been so vitally necessary to employ dogs for examination I do not think that Dr. Gotch would have been found behindhand.
In the University of London, on the other hand, Professor Starling, said that they had employed 155 dogs in 1902, but in the Medical School of Guy's Hospital Dr. Pembry does not experiment on dogs at all, nor does he use them for the illustration of lectures. He uses rabbits, rats, and guinea pigs. Therefore, the House will not be astonished, in view of this divergence of opinion even among scientific men of advanced opinions and great experience, that we found a great deal of difficulty in deciding this very important 1052 question. Personally speaking, I should have been very pleased indeed if the exemption had been extended altogether to dogs, and I will go further and say that I would have included in the exemption the higher anthropoid apes. I do not think it right to leave quite unnoticed the remarks of the hon. Baronet upon the, to-my mind, appalling experiments that were conducted by Dr. Crile. I am bound to say that every scientific witness who came before us condemned those experiments. I am happy to say that I do believe the heavy anæsthasia was used. I know that the public were horrified—it is not an unfair word to use—at the idea that the light anæsthasia only was used for these dogs. But after carefully searching through the whole question we believe that the animals who were subjected to the appalling experiments were absolutely senseless and without pain. That is perhaps a pious opinion, but after the evidence I heard I am forced to agree to it. I was placed on the Commission, I believe, as one who always voted and spoke against these experiments unless under certain conditions, but I honestly endeavoured during the time I served on that Commission to put aside all my opinions and to go entirely in search of truth, and to listen to every opinion either for or against it that was put before the Commission. I hope that after our painstaking efforts extending over some years, the country will feel they have endeavoured to fulfil a double duty, a duty to science and a duty to the animal. I think that this House will be acting well within its province if it passes the Motion moved by the hon. Baronet to-night, namely, to exempt dogs altogether from these experiments.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
I intervene thus early owing to the exceptional circumstances under which this Debate has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last reminded the House that a Royal Commission had been sitting upon this subject and investigating it with great care for six years. The Report of that Commission appeared for the first time this morning. So far as I am concerned I have had an opportunity of perusing it very cursorily only this afternoon. As might be expected, the hon. Baronet who, as the whole House knows, has taken a great interest in this subject for a number of years, has made a very forcible speech in support of the Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman, who had the advan- 1053 tage of being a Member of the Commission, and of investigating this subject amongst others for six years, has supported the hon. Baronet in an equally forcible speech. If the matter could end there I am fairly confident that the House, on grounds of humanity, and on the various grounds put forward by the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman would be only too glad to comply with the terms of this Motion. But it is quite obvious that the matter cannot end at this point. What must be the position of anybody holding my office who would necessarily be responsible for legislation in order to carry out the views of the House, if he were to form a hasty judgment upon a subject of this kind? I tell the House at once that this Motion brought forward this evening places me in a great difficulty. I am asked to agree to an expression of opinion which would lead to a reversal of what has been done by my predecessors in office for a good many years. I do not know that I should hesitate, if I could be convinced upon all the evidence, considered in the light of such advice as I could obtain from the experts who advise the Home Office, to support the Bill of the hon. Baronet which would have the object of carrying out his policy. But ought I at this stage to commit either myself or the Government to that policy without having had an opportunity of considering, even in the most cursory manner, the evidence which was collected over a period of six years, and the Report which an eminent Royal Commission has given to the world to-day only. The hon. Baronet observed that the issue of the Report is inopportune, as it would enable those opposed to the Motion to shield themselves behind that Report. Speaking for myself, that is not an accurate description of the situation. I can assure the House that I should come to this subject, as I hope to all the subjects which are matters of controversies— it is controversial, even with scientific experts—with an open mind, but I must have a preliminary study of the evidence and form my judgment on the Report. Supposing, on behalf of the Government, I were to accept this Motion, what should I be doing? I should not be even paying the Royal Commission the courtesy of reading what they had to say. Supposing, on the other hand, on behalf of the Government, I were to advise the House to reject the Motion, I should be judging this question which forms part of a 1054 subject which was deliberately remitted to the consideration of the Commission. I cannot be expected to do either of those things, with great submission to the hon. Baronet. I do not think the House, or even the hon. Baronet himself, would ask me to go one step beyond saying that if I am satisfied, as the result of a study of the expert evidence which was heard before the Royal Commission, that his Bill—for I appreciate this Motion leads up to a Bill—ought to be accepted, I should not hesitate to support it.
I really think the hon. Baronet could not ask me to go further than that, but, if he does ask me to go further and to support the Motion, I must tell him frankly that I cannot do so. If the Members of the House go to a Division, I tell him; frankly I cannot vote. I do not think that this matter ought to be prejudged either way—either by a vote in favour of the Motion, or a vote of the House against it. There is one thing which I think ought to be emphasised. The hon. Baronet stated very clearly that this is not a discussion on vivisection itself. I think—whatever conclusion the House may come to on this subject, if it takes a vote-upon it—that it ought not to go out to the world that this is a decision either for or against vivisection. This is really the limited question as to whether dogs should be excepted from vivisection, of course, a very much smaller point. But having said so much, I must plead to the House that I should not feel myself—without the opportunity of examining the evidence, and without the opportunity of coming to a conclusion upon that evidence—justified in recommending the House either to support or to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet. For my part I should be very glad if the hon. Baronet, could agree, in the circumstances, not to press his Motion to-night. If, on the other hand, he thinks it necessary to press his Motion, I can only repeat that I should not feel myself justified in giving a vote either way, because if I voted for the Motion I should be committing myself to. support his Bill, when a subsequent consideration of the evidence might lead to the conclusion that I was not justified in doing so. On the other hand, if I opposed the Resolution, I should be committing the Government to that policy, when further examination of the question might lead to the conclusion that it ought to be accepted. On these grounds, therefore, I do not feel justified in advising the House to give a vote either way.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS
The Home Secretary has taken a very sound line on this matter, and urged, as we have not had time to read this Report, that it is inadvisable to go to a Division to-night, but as the hon. Baronet who moved this Resolution went into the merits of the case, I think it is only right to point out that from this Report, even at the first glance which we have been able so far to give it, there is a considerable amount of evidence, and I think one may say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of dogs being allowed to be the subjects of experiments subject to the present restrictions. The hon. Baronet read several extracts from the Report, but he did not deal with the difficulty that the majority of Commissioners were not in favour of this restriction which he brings forward, and there is not a single word in favour of exempting dogs from vivisection in the Report of the Minority or in the Majority Report.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
Three of the members signed a statement. Certainly the majority point out that there are restrictions at present, and they do not argue that it is necessary to increase them.
§ Sir. F. BANBURY
On page 63 of the Report it is stated:—Some of us regard the provisions of the existing law as sufficient. Some of us would prefer that in the case both of experimentation and demonstration the further protection given to horses, asses and mules, should be extended to dogs, while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
The Majority Report, in summing up their recommendations on page 65, do not mention dogs at all. Dogs are, I understand, only mentioned in the separate statement which is signed by the right hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
Anyhow, the majority do not recommend any alteration in the law about dogs. I am quite sure that the House sympathises with the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and I suppose there is no one in the House who has not had a faithful friend among the dog world, but at the same time I think it can be shown that it would not be in the interests of dogs themselves to pass the Resolution. My reason for saying that is that 1056 various diseases which have caused an immense amount of suffering to dogs have only been tackled by science with the help of experiments on dogs. I would mention amongst those diseases distemper. There is a preventive treatment for distemper which was discovered by Doctor Cope, and which I believe has prevented an enormous amount of suffering among dogs.
§ Colonel LOCKWOOD expressed dissent.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
The scientific opinion is that the preventive treatment is very successful. There is another disease which has caused a great deal of suffering among dogs, and which is known as malignant jaundice. That disease has been studied in its progress under experimental conditions which would not have been possible if all vivisection of dogs, which technically includes treatment which does not involve any surgical operation, were prevented. The observations of this disease and the resultant discovery of the parasite and the cure, would not have been possible.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
I believe that as the result of experimental observations, Professor Nuttall has discovered a, remedy which has made the probability of recovery in those cases very much greater. Of course all medicine must be experimental, and I think the majority of Members will agree that it is better that you should experiment upon dogs, under every favourable safeguard as regards cruelty, instead of experimenting upon human beings in hospitals which is the only alternative.
§ Mr. GUINNESS
There are various diseases which can only be treated on dogs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of human beings?"] Yes. There are certain diseases of digestion which must be treated and observed in carnivorous animals. Obviously you cannot have lions and tigers. Cats are too small for a large number of experiments, and the only animal possible is the dog. The hon. Baronet admitted the weight of medical opinion in this 1057 matter. He said he was not against vivisection as a whole because he recognised that the weight of science was in favour of it. I think he ought, therefore, to attach some importance to the statement on page 3 of this Report, that the General Medical Council and other medical bodies recommended in 1876 that dogs and cats should not be exempted. On page 59 of the Report he will also find that in the opinion of many of the scientific witnesses to totally prohibit all experiments on dogs would seriously hinder the progress of science. The authorities quoted are Professor Starling, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir Douglas Powell, Sir Henry Morris, Sir Victor Horsley, and others. Further down on that page, he will find the following:—The general view of most of the scientific witnesses was that, in construction and organisation the dog was the animal best adapted, and in many cases the only one available for such experiments.I think it is satisfactory to find that dogs and cats cannot be experimented on except under particular restrictions. It is stated on page 59:—Except in the case of operations under anæsthesia without recovery it is necessary for experiments on dogs to obtain a certificate which states among other things that the object of any such experiment would be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an animal similar in constitution and habits to a dog or a cat, and that no other animal is as suitable for any such experiment.That extract shows that very careful means are now taken to prevent any experiments on dogs and cats which are not absolutely essential or which could equally easily be performed on other animals. The hon. Baronet urged that it would be possible to perform these experiments on pigs and sheep. But you cannot keep pigs and sheep in university laboratories. Most of the investigators into these abstruse matters are employed either as medical men or as professors at seats of learning, and it would mean that they would be debarred altogether from experiments if they had to travel out to the country and visit a farm each time they wished to make observations. The pain suffered by dogs owing to vivisection is very liable to be exaggerated. The hon. Baronet said that Professor Starling in the year 1902 performed 155 experiments on dogs in the physiological laboratory of University College.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members not being present,The House was adjourned at Eighteen minutes after Nine o'clock till to-morrow (Wednesday).