§ 58. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in a circular recently issued by his Department inviting applications for two additional inspectorships under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, it is stipulated that all applicants should be registered medical practitioners; and, if so, why, in making 848 appointments requiring expert veterinary knowledge, preference is given to doctors over qualified veterinary surgeons?
§ Mr. McKENNAIn accordance with the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission on Vivisection, I invited applications from registered medical practitioners, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on the 12th February, supplementing the terms of the circular.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWill not the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the veterinary surgeon is better qualified by education to properly gauge the effect of vivisection on living animals than members of the medical profession?
§ Mr. McKENNAIn view of the evidence given before the Royal Commission, I doubt whether I should be justified in making the admission the hon. Gentleman asks.
§ Mr. LYNCHMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether medical practitioners have a much more severe and searching course than is the case with veterinary surgeons?
§ Mr. McKENNAI doubt the wisdom of arguing the question at this stage.