§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill has had a somewhat chequered career in its passing through the House so far. Last year it was carried on its Second Reading without a Division. It came on for consideration on a Friday afternoon about 2.30, and it was agreed to without a Division. It then went to a Grand Committee, where, owing to the very small attendance of Members on several occasions, we could not get a 479 quorum, and at last the Bill was defeated by a small majority of about two or three in a Committee consisting of twenty-two or twenty-three members. I should like to correct an impression which exists in some quarters as to the effect of this Bill. I have heard it stated that the Bill is an Anti-Vivisection Bill—[Hear, hear]—and apparently there is still some hon. Member who has not read the Bill, and who is, therefore, under the impression that this is a measure which stops vivisection. It does nothing of the kind. All it does is to stop the eminent scientists who do perform operations on living animals from using dogs for that purpose. They can use any other animal they like, and I hope to be able to show that the use of the dog is not necessary for the purpose of the researches which these gentlemen have made and are making. I would first, however, like to point out that there are a very considerable number of experiments performed on dogs without anæsthetics. I have here the figures of dogs and cats for 1912. These are the Home Office returns, and they show that 321 dogs and cats were experimented upon without anæsthetics; that 567 were allowed to recover after serious operations; that there were 5,043 cutting operations, and that there were 78,556 inoculations without amæsthetics.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKDoes the hon. Member assert that there were over 5,000 cutting operations without anæsthetics?
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo; I did not say so.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI thought you did say so, and I think it would be well to make it perfectly clear.
§ Sir F. BANBURYCertainly; I said that the number of dogs and cats that were experimented upon without anæesthetics was 321.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWhat about the 5,000?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThose were the total operations.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEWith or without amæsthetics?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe dogs and cats allowed to recover after serious operations were 567, and there were 5,043 cutting operations, I had no intention of creating that impression, and I am sorry if I did so, but I am afraid my hon. Friend was not listening to what I said.
§ Sir H. CRAIKYes, very carefully.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe dogs and cats experimented upon without anæsthetics numbered 321; the dogs and cats allowed to recover after serious operations numbered 567; the total cutting operations numbered 5,043, and the inoculations without anæsthetics—it was the inoculations that I said were without anæsthetics—numbered 78,556. I do not intend to deal at any great length with the findings of the Royal Commission. [Hear, hear.] Hon. Members should not be in too great a hurry. My right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood) who is going to second the Motion was a member of that Commission, and he will give the details. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Commissioners in their report—I hope my hon. Friend will attend and that he will not accuse me of creating misapprehension afterwards—say:—
The representations made to us for the complete exemption of any class of animal from all experiments under the Act hare been strongest in the case of dogs.That is paragraph 118, and in the same paragraph the Commissioners unanimously express their opinion that a differentiation in the use of certain animals for experiments is justifiable. These are their words:—Such differentiation, though admittedly difficult, we attributed, on ethical grounds, to the degree of association with, or affinity or utility to man, and in this connection we referred especially to the case of dogs and the higher apes,Precedents are not wanting even in law for such distinction, and the paragraph refers to the prohibition of the use of dogs for traction in this country and to the existing distinctions under the Vivisection Act of 1876. Then, again, in paragraph 97, the Report says—
§ Lord A. THYNNEWill you continue to read paragraph 118?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have not got anything further. In paragraph 97 of the Report they say:—
Here again there can be little doubt that the general moral sense of civilised mankind would be prepared to make such differentiation.and so on.Then they say:—
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 (anthropoid) and the dog and cat present claims for special consideration, and with these claims we will deal subsequently in the Report.
§ Lord A. THYNNEWould the hon. Member read the last paragraph, 13, of Section 118?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord can read that for himself later. It is not right or proper to interrupt an hon. Member who is putting his case.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere was a certain amount of expert evidence given by medical men and learned professors before the Royal Commission to the effect that dogs were necessary for their experiments. On the other hand, there was also evidence given by other medical men and scientific professors to the effect that dogs were not necessary. I do not intend to deal at any length with that, because my right hon. Friend, who was himself a Commissioner, will be able to deal with it, but I would point out that in their Report there is no finding by the Commissioners as to there being a necessity for experiments to be made on dogs, and I venture to think that is an important point. If the Commissioners had been of opinion that in the interests of science it was necessary to include dogs among the animals to be operated upon, they would have said so in their Report. They have not said so, and therefore I think we can draw the inference that there was no evidence to that effect which they thought was sufficiently strong to authorise them in making a finding in their Report. Then there comes the question as to why dogs are not exempted by the Royal Commission. My right hon. Friend will deal with that, but I believe I am correct in saying that if we had not, unfortunately, lost Mr. Tompkinson, the Member for one of the Divisions of Shropshire, who, as the House will remember, was killed in the House of Commons steeplechases, the finding of the Commission would have been the other way. I trust that hon. Members who are perhaps wavering in their minds as to how they shall vote upon this Bill will remember that fact. I have here certain experiments which have been made upon dogs. Dr. William Macadam, of the Physiological Laboratory, University of Glasgow, communicated to the Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology, of October, 1913, Volume XXIII., No. 2, an article on "Hepatic Insufficiency." Two sets of experiments on dogs were carried out by injecting into them doses of hydrazine sulphate. In all the four experiments wherein the animals did not did mild poisoning was caused. There was more or less sickness and vomiting, while the dog was dull and listless, 482 refusing all food and drink. The object of the experiment was to kill by gradual poisoning. Four dogs lived less than three days, another dog lived till the fourth day, whilst the most successful experiment was one in which the animal survived six days, page 218.
On page 296, it is stated that
as the dogs refused all food in the fatal experiments and never partook of either porridge or milk before the fourth day after hydrazine infection in the sublethal experiments, the starvation' factor has to be considered.I am not a medical man, but for the life of me I cannot see what good that can do to anyone. It may have established certain scientific facts, but it could have done no good to any human being who might afterwards have to be operated on by the doctors. Dr. Douglas Cow read a paper before the Therapeutical Section of the Royal Society of Medicine on 19th November, 1912, on the kidney seirston. He had experimented on dogs to prove that when water is pumped into their veins it is not executed so quickly as when given by the mouth in the normal manner. These experiments do not appear to have had any value at all; they simply ministered to a curiosity which can hardly be deemed scientific. A number of experiments in transplantation of bone and the membranes surrounding it are described in "Surgery Gynæcology and Obstetrics," December, 1913, by Drs. W. L. Brown and C. P. Brown, and on page 681, I read:—19th March, 1913, white and black mongrel, weight 281bs., both femurs bared and strip of periosteum 6/8-inch wide and 1½ inch long raised from each femur, pulled through slit in muscle and again attached to periosteum, right side twisted on pedicle half around, left not twisted, Brought back and attached to periosteum, right side, muscle not sutured: left side sutured with OO plain gut; skin closed with horse hair. Dog was muzzled tightly with wire muzzle, but had the sutures out at the end of thirty-six hours, wounds gaping. Killed rive days later following extensive infection. No postmortem.What on earth was the good of all that? I could go on with these experiments, but I have been very careful to read only a very few. Sir W. Thornley Stoker, M.D., F.R.C.S.I., giving evidence before the Royal Commission, in answer to the question—You spoke of the terror evidenced by dogs and monkeys on being brought into the operating roomgave this reply:—I have seen the terror of the dogs when an endeavour is made to put them under anæsthetics. I have seen it given to them often, but I have never seen it given to a monkey.It shows perfectly well that I am correct in pointing out the fact that man having made a friend of the dog for many thousands of years, has rendered that 483 animal peculiarly sensitive to all forms of pain and terror—much more so than the ordinary animal, who is in a more or less wild state. There is only one other experiment as to which I should like to read a quotation from the "Journal of Physiology," for 31st March, 1914. It is a statement by Dr. Douglas Cow, and reads:—In a previous paper I have recorded the results of certain experiments on the subject (diuretic effect of water and of saline solutions) Repeating Ginsberg's experiments I obtained very similar results, namely, that water given by the mouth produces an increase in diureses, whilst water given subcutaneously or intravenously produces no such effect. Further, I found that a watery extract of the stomach and duodenum of a freshly killed dog when injected subcutaneously into another dog produced an increase of diureses which was exactly comparable to that produced by administering a similar quantity of water by the mouth. In all these experiments the excretion of urine was measured by withdrawing the urine from the bladder every ten minutes and weighing the fluid so withdrawn.… In continuing this work I have employed two methods:—(1) using unanæsthetised dogs, and (2) using cats anæsthetised with urethane. The method (with dogs) was similar to that employed in my earlier experiments, that is using unanæsthetised dogs, and, weighing the ten minute output of urine, the only difference between the experiments described in my earlier paper on this subject and these was that in the former permanent bladder-cannulæ fitted with stop-cocks were used, and in the latter with soft rubber (Jacques) urethral catheter was kept in situ during the experiments which were carried out on female dogs. As a result of the seventy-five observations, I am satisfied that it is possible to obtain quite as reliable readings of the volumetru excretion of urine by means of the catheter as by the more severe method of implanting a permanent metal cannulæ in the bladder. The detail of my procedure is as follows: One soft catheter is introduced into the urethra by means of a glass speculum, the urine is drawn off from the bladder at the commencement of each experiment and during the experiments the urine drawn off is collected every ten minutes and weighed. During the last minute of each ten minute period, the catheter is gently manipulated. I consider this manipulation essential if even results are to be obtained by means of the catheter, otherwise the amount of residual urine in the bladder is apt to vary from one period to another. The only disadvantage of this method appears to be that the animals have to be kept fastened in slings of the experimenters, whereas those with the permanent bladder-cannulæ are free to move about. As the result of sixty-five observations on three dogs in addition to those observations recorded in my earlier paper), I am convinced that success in this method is largely a matter of chance, and depends on the nature of the animal used.What is the use of all these experiments? No doubt they are very learned things, which afford great pleasure to the people carrying them out, but they do very great harm to one of the best friends man has ever had in this world. On page 47 of the same Report, I find much the same thing repeated, but I will not trouble the House with it. I will only say this: One of the arguments advanced in the Committee of last year for using dogs in this way was that used by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple), who suggested 484 that it was necessary to have dogs because they were cheap. There was some little contention on the point afterwards, and if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member wrote a letter to the "Times," to which I replied. I think he saw he had made a mistake when he made that statement. He did not deny that he had used it, but he rather tried to minimise its effect. But these words had been used by other scientists and other doctors, and they were used before the Royal Commission, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) will no doubt give some information to the House on this point. Mr. Swan, M.B., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., before the Royal Commission was asked:—In addition to that, is it not the case that doge are more expensive than other animals, so that the very lowest motive, the motive of pocket alone, would cause them to prefer other animals?His answer was:—You can steal a dog anywhere.Again he was asked:—You do not mean to imply, do yon, that the dog used in physiological laboratories are stolen and not paid for?And he replied:—I have stolen dogs in my early days,Here we have the hon. Gentleman opposite advocating the use of dogs because they are cheap, and we have a learned Gentleman admitting that dogs are stolen und that he himself has stolen them, for the purpose of using them in a laboratory. Here is a case which occurred in December of last year in Edinburgh—I am reading from an Edinburgh newspaper which described what took place: A large Irish terrier disappeared from his home in Edinburgh. The owner says he was allowed to be out in the street, but always returned home at a certain hour of the evening, and when, on the fatal day, he did not appear his master knew that something had happened. They looked about for him, but it was some weeks before he came back. It was only in the first half of January of this year that he returned. The details of the reappearance are given in the "Edinburgh Evening Dispatch," of 24th January, 1914. This is what the paper says:—With drooping head, he trotted in on three legs—a picture of misery and dejection. On making an examination of the right forelimb, which was the one-disabled, his master noticed a scar, several inches long, stretching from the paw to the first joint—evidence of a healed wound; and he also saw that a new collar had been put on the animal's neck. This he inspected as well, and observed written on the inside the words. 'Surgical Department.' This set him thinking. What could it mean? His first thought was that the dog had met with an accident and had been kindly treated at the surgery, but he had his suspicions aroused when his 485 attention was called to an advertisement in an evening paper offering a reward for the recovery of a 'lost Irish terrier dog, slightly lame in the right foreleg,' and bearing, along with initials, the words, 'Surgical Laboratory, New University.' A visit to the university elicited the information that the dog had been operated upon, bones separated in its leg, and a metal plate inserted and fixed with screws. After being confined for about five weeks, the dog escaped—by its jumping ability it cleared the high stall in which it was lodged—and straightway sped home.The paper goes on to say:—It appears that the animal was purchased for a small sum in the belief that it was ownerless, and handsome apology was made for the mistake and for the treatment the dog had received. The assurance was given that the dog would soon be all right again, but more than a week has now elapsed since the terrier returned home, and still it is far from being its old self. It is dull and tired-looking—altogether different looking from the dog that was stolen.It turned out that the dog had been stolen by a dealer and sold to the laboratory. A question was raised as to whether the Secretary for Scotland ought not to have prosecuted the man who stole the dog. He did not do so; I have no doubt he had excellent reasons. I believe this man had already been convicted on a previous occasion and fined £5 for doing something of the same sort. I have not knowingly exaggerated anything in the statement I have put before the House. I have not looked to find sensational statements, but have taken what I consider to be plain and true facts, and put them before the House. For many thousands of years the dog has been the best friend man has had. Eight hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to owe him a great debt of gratitude, because I believe I am correct in saying that if it had not been for his dog the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the First Whip of the party opposite, would not have been alive at this present moment. When his house was burned, the alarm was given by his favourite dog. I am sorry he is not here, but I questioned the hon. Gentleman myself and he assured me it was true. I know that he is favourably disposed to this Bill. There are innumerable instances of dogs having saved the lives of men both from drowning and from fire. As I walked down to the House I saw a blind man being led by his dog. For our own pleasure and amusement we have taken the dog into our life; we have altered his nature and made him a sensitive being, quite different from the ordinary animal. Unless it is absolutely proved that these experiments are useful to man, and I say it has not been proved, is it not only right that I should ask that dogs should be exempted from being put to the torture 486 of these experiments? I trust the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and that when it goes upstairs to a Committee those hon. Members who are in favour of it would kindly attend for a short time. If they had attended last year—I admit it was at the end of the Session and rather difficult to obtain the attendance of Members—the Bill would have passed then. I hope the House will recognise that I am not animated by sentiment. I do not think I have ever been accused in this House of being animated by sentiment but I am animated by the motives of justice and humanity. As men have made the dog what he is, they should treat the dog in a proper manner.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI beg to second the Motion. I am grateful to have this opportunity of seconding the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend. Like him, I am actuated by the sentiments of justice and humanity, but I am not ashamed to say that I am also actuated by sentiment. I see nothing to be ashamed of in that, because sentiment enters very largely into our lives. I have not the smallest wish to accuse my opponents of not being as humane as I am, I have no wish to cast any slur upon a profession which I regard as one of the noblest in the world, but I imagine that they like ourselves, are liable to errors. They are very liable to be led away by the love of their profession, and sometimes to be forgetful of suffering, which they believe to be necessary for the ultimate benefit of mankind. It is interesting to watch the progress that has been made on this question in the House of Commons in the last twenty years. If twenty years ago we had brought forward the Bill which my hon. Friend has now pro posed, we should not even have secured a House to consider it. Opinion has made enormous progress since that time. Hon. Members will remember that in the first Royal Commission science cried out loudly against any rules and regulations being laid down for the protection of animals during these operations. They declared that medical science could never advance without them, and that medical science in England would be left behind that of other countries if they were hampered and limited by the operation of the Bill it was proposed to pass. What have been the real facts? We are just as much advanced in the cause of science as those in the United States of America, in Germany, and in France, where cruelties 487 are practised such as never would be tolerated in England. I do not believe that any professional man in England is the least anxious to attempt them. The law at present undoubtedly does give a good deal of protection to animals generally, and to dogs among the others. Those of us who are supporting this Bill say that the law has this inherent fault, that it allows on various occasions anæsthetics to be dispensed with, and the animal to be operated upon without anæsthetics, or, after its recovery from anæsthetics, to be allowed to continue to live a maimed life. I am perfectly content to leave this matter to the House. It is one of those rare occasions on which both parties will act, and I hope they will be allowed to act, with perfect individual freedom. Both parties are agreed that they are anxious to hear this subject ventilated and argued in the House of Commons. A great deal is made undoubtedly of the Report of the Royal Commission, on which I served and which lasted some four or five years. It is an open secret, because I have stated it in public, that the Commission were very equally divided, and it was only by a majority of one, which I attribute to the death of my old friend, Mr. Tompkinson, that the total exemption of the dog was not carried. During those years we had every possible scientific man before us, and we had a diversity of opinion which on many occasions it was impossible to reconcile. I certainly am now advisedly under the impression that, though there were many learned men and humane men who stated that they could not do without the dog, and that the dog for various reasons was the nearest approach to the human being that they could find to operate on, at the same time there were others who did not, and had not for some years past, used dogs, who were averse to stating that they believed dogs were absolutely necessary for the purposes of scientific discovery.
The Royal Commission, with its Report, was extremely valuable, because we were able to place before the public opinions extremely different, extremely scientific, and extremely valuable; but no man who reads that Report with a fair and equal mind can say that from the evidence given before that Commission it was ever distinctly proved that the dog, and the dog only, was necessary for these so-called scientific investigations. My hon. Friend, with a feeling which does him credit, has 488 argued that the dog should be exempt for this reason, and perhaps this reason only, that the dog is on a different plane from any other animal that exists. Not only has he been made a friend of man by years of civilisation and by years of companionship, but those very years of companionship have caused his nervous system to become so highly sensitised as to make the dog almost human in his nature. The House can well imagine that the dog, when once it is under anæsthetics is senseless. I acknowledge it. But do they think that a dog, when brought into a laboratory, does not always show the most extreme terror and fright? The dog knows perfectly well, as well as any Member here present, that he is going to be under pain and suffering from the moment that he enters that room, and that the chloroform is administered. We are told that the dog, if he was more of a human being would recognise that what was being done to him was being done for the benefit of the human race. I do not think my valued colleagues who are opposing me on this occasion, if they were told their livers were to be tied up or that certain organs were to be excised, and that it would eventually benefit the human race, would at all see the advantage to be gained. I am always sorry to differ from my colleagues on these benches, but I hope I am perfectly able to keep a level mind and temper during the Debate. They will have every opportunity of calling us every name that they like. Can anyone imagine my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) being administered with water we will say, not through his mouth but by another passage and being told that it was for the benefit of the human race, not resisting it and thinking it abhorrent.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe right hon. Gentleman is placing arguments by way of ridicule in our mouths.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI am not saying that anyone made the statement. I am making it myself, and I have a right to make any statement I like. My hon. Friend will have every opportunity, both in private and in public, of advancing his arguments for and against the case that is being laid before the House. I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day. I acknowledge that we are running against some scientific authority, but my firm belief is that in years to come it, will be acknowledged that in exempting these animals from the various operations 489 to which they are now subjected, we have acted without detriment to science, but in accord with humanity. I am not wanting to go on a sentimental line to-day at all, but I ask those hon. Members who have read that interesting "Life of Ouida" to remember the story of her mother's small dog, who, after her death, sat up for hours and hours, day after day, before the empty chair, looking for the mistress that had gone, and asking, as it were, for the voice which was silent for ever. It is impossible to dissociate sentiment on this occasion, but it is at the same time easy and practical to bring forward any amount of reasons why this faithful companion of man should be exempted for ever from what it now goes through, and I confidently second this Motion, believing that the House will accept it.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
We are told that "a converted poacher makes an excellent gamekeeper." I am perfectly certain that a converted game-keeper, when he turns poacher, becomes the worst form of poacher you can get, and when the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who has guarded our interests Friday after Friday, and seen that objectionable legislation does not go through, turns round, and with the aid of sentiment, which he disowns so strongly, himself tries to rush through, in a comparatively small House, a Bill of this far-reaching effect, I feel that on this occasion, and I hope on this occasion only, I part company with him, with regret at the terrible falling off in his previous ways. This Bill prohibits any kind of operation for scientific purposes upon dogs, commonly referred to as vivisection. It prevents not only operations under anæsthetics, but inoculation of every kind. Therefore, it is a broad and very far-reaching Bill, and I enter this caveat at once, because, if you give a Second Reading to it you give a Second Reading to the principle that dogs are to be exempted from vivisection. I know that the Government, in Committee last year, had certain views that possibly some further licence might be required in reference to operations on dogs. They may or may not be right. I speak on behalf of no one but myself, but I imagine probably there is some properly constituted authority which will meet the Government on such a point and deal with the question of licences. But we have not to deal with 490 that here to-day. The Second Reading of this Bill is directed to the fact that dogs should be exempt altogether from vivisection. I hope most strongly that the Government will not give any sort of countenance to that broad proposition. The present power which is given for purpose of scientific research in England is exceedingly limited at present. It is a restricted power. First of all, before anything can be done, a licence has to be obtained, and that licence can only be used upon certain registered premises. The licence which is granted can only be granted to people who are recommended by one of thirteen heads of the Royal College of Surgeons, and so forth—heads of certain learned institutions—and also by a certain professor who has—
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe person who is licensed to operate has to be introduced.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI have not the names of all the heads of the institutions who may recommend persons for a licence, but I have no doubt that many have failed to get a licence—hundreds and hundreds. You have to get the nomination of one of these thirteen, and, in addition, that of a professor of surgery or others in some branch of medical training. In reply to the hon. Member, I may state that many aspiring students and surgeons have been stopped and unable to get on with the work they desired to undertake because they were not able to get their nomination, and in that sense the loss of their work was a loss to science. When you get a nomination and the licence is granted by the Home Office to a particular person, that person, so far as dogs are concerned, cannot operate on any animal unless it is entirely under an anæsthetie during the operation, and is not allowed to recover after the operation is done. That power can be extended by special certificates for special cases, and these are only granted to certain people for the purpose of such cases. Figures have been given by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and I do not need to trouble the House with further statistics. There is a power to the Homo Office when a certificate is given to demand a full report as to what has occurred at a particular operation from the person who is authorised to perform it.
491 I think I have said enough to show that this power of vivisection is exceedingly restricted in England. It is restricted by most careful safeguards practically at every operation. If there is any further safeguard required, by all means let that matter be considered. I have no doubt that the Home Office will deal with it at the proper time, but certainly it is not necessary to pass the Second Reading of this Bill at all to remedy that defect, if it exists. The conditions under which a licence is granted are exceedingly rigid. I notice that my hon. Friend has not given any sort of precedent for the proposal of this Bill. We, in these islands, are proud of ourselves in regard to many things, though it sometimes seems to me to be peculiar that we proceed so much upon precedent. I would remind my hon. Friend that the restrictions which exist in other countries are less rigid than in England. My hon. Friend says that research hitherto has been carried on here under these disabilities. I venture respectfully to say that the disabilities here are greater than the disabilities in France. There you have absolutely no restrictions of this kind at all. Take the United States. You have no restrictions when the matter is being carried out either by one of the universities or by a scientific society.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes my hon. and learned Friend defend the absence of restrictions altogether?
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONMy hon. and learned Friend the Member for York will hear about that very shortly. I am pointing out that the restrictions at the present time are far stronger here than in any other country in the world, and, therefore, I put forward the argument for what it is worth, that, though purely English, I believe even foreigners will attach a certain amount of weight to what is being done here in connection with matters of scientific research. I do not believe that every foreigner is a brute and a cruel person. I instance the cases of Sweden and Holland, where there is absolutely no restriction. As to Germany, I do not exactly know what the law is. I understand there are certain restrictions which are left to scientific societies who have control of the work. Therefore, I wish to make it perfectly plain that you have no sort of precedent in any other civilised country at the present time 492 for this Bill. In fact, you find that we have gone far beyond what any other country has done in the way of restricting scientific research. I wish to say a word about the Royal Commission, of which a good deal has been stated. My right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood), who seconded the Second Reading of the Bill, was a member of the Royal Commission, and he pressed the matter of the exemption of dogs very strongly indeed. Not only was he upon the Commission, but he drew up a Minority Report. In that Minority Report no suggestion is made that dogs should be exempted. It may be said that my right hon. Friend has repented at the eleventh hour, owing to the persuasion of his sentimental Friend the Member for the City of London. I would point out that he had his opportunity of stating his opinion then, and that he did not use it. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London is invariably fair in the way he puts his case, except when led away by sentiment, and I complain in this case that when he was reading he was doing so, not from the Blue Book at all; he was reading from pamphlets which evidently had been supplied to him by societies, and probably they did not give such a full account of what was stated by the Royal Commission as he would have wished them to do. Therefore, I must point out to the House what the Royal Commission said on the matter of dogs.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think my hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the question was not before the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission actually divided on the question as to whether dogs should or should not be exempted, and it was only decided by a majority of one vote that they should not be exempted.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThere was a Minority Report, and the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood) might have said in that Report that he wished dogs to be exempted, but he did not do so. Let me read what the Majority Report says. I am not dealing now with the Minority Report:—
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 will 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.493 That is a pretty clear finding in regard to the matter we are discussing to-day. The Report continues:—We need scarcely say that neither of these provisions nor even the total exemption of dogs from experimentation, would satisfy those who desire the total abolition of all experiments on living animals (e.g. Mr. Graham), but such exemption was urged as being strongly desirable by the three witnesses put forward by the Canine Defence League. It was however, the opinion of many of the scientific witnesses called that the total prohibition of all experiments on dogs would seriously hinder the progress of science (Professor Starling, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir Douglas Powell, Sir Henry Morris, Sir V. Horsley, and others).If that is not a perfectly clear finding, I do not know what the value of evidence is. Then we find the further remarks:—(1) That certain results claimed from time to time to have been proved by experiments upon living animals, and alleged to have been beneficial in preventing or curing disease have, on further investigation and experience, been found to be fallacious or useless.(2) That notwithstanding such failures valuable knowledge has been acquired in regard to physiological processes and the causation of disease, and that useful methods for the prevention, cure and treatment of certain diseases have resulted from experimental investigation upon living animals.(3) That as far as we can judge it is highly improbable that without experiments made on animals mankind would at the present time have been in possession of such knowledge.(4) That so far as disease has been successfully prevented or its mortality reduced, suffering has been diminished in man and in lower animals.(5) That there is ground for believing that similar methods of investigation if pursued in the future will be attended with similar results.Is not that an appeal to common sense as well? Scientific men say that it is necessary that dogs should be used, and they give examples of different discoveries that have been made owing to their use. I may give three examples which have come within my knowledge, and which I do not take directly from this Report. The first is in reference to the removal of a kidney. It is now known to be possible to remove a kidney, and that people can go about and live with one kidney alone. How could that possibly have been discovered without experiments which were performed largely on dogs? Having taken that as a case of a surgical operation which could not have been attempted on human beings without previous experiments on animals, including dogs, I will now take the ease of a most terrible disease, hydrophobia, the ravages of which at one time existed largely in England as well as on the Continent. It was owing to the experiments of Pasteur on animals, including dogs, that the nature of this disease was cleared up. He found out by experiments that the bacteria of this disease could only be got by contagion from a dog, and the result of his experiments on dogs was known at the 494 time when we were suffering from a certain number of cases of hydrophobia which were sent over for treatment in Paris on the off-chance of being cured there. At that time my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) was President of the Local Government Board. I am sorry that he is not here to-day. I know that he is a leading supporter of research defence in this country, and he made an eloquent speech in reference to the export of old horses a fortnight ago. He acted upon the knowledge which was acquired from Pasteur's experiments, and he made very rigid regulations in reference to quarantine, as far as dogs coming into this country were concerned. What an outcry there was from all the societies of anti-vivisectionists from end to end of the land! No language was bad enough to use about my right hon. Friend. Every body who had a lapdog used, I suppose, to hold up a picture of the right hon. Gentle man to the intelligent animal—
Mr. CHANCELLORDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that there was never any muzzling in this country until Pasteur made his discovery?
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI do not suggest that, but what I do suggest is that we should never have stamped hydrophobia out of England if it had not been for that Order, and we would not have had the necessary knowledge unless vivisection had enabled Pasteur to tell us what was necessary to be done. Pasteur told us that it could be done by quarantine. There is one other case as to the use of anæsthetics, to which I may refer. I will not go so far as some people, who say that it is doubtful whether you can anæstheticise a dog. Of course, it can be done perfectly well; but there is no doubt, so far as my experience goes, that anæsthetics have not yet by any means arrived at a perfect state. A lot more research has to be done in that particular direction. I am in the unfortunate position of having been experimentalised upon for anæsthetical purposes, fully with my own consent, and therefore I am anxious to see as much knowledge as possible gained in this direction. Another matter to which I may refer is the use of stovain. This is a mode of anæsthesis by which you put into the spinal cord of a man an anæsthetic which deprives him of any feeling below a certain point. I am personally very strongly against it, but that is neither here nor there. It may or may not be a good method; but is it not essential, before 495 you start using it in hospital, that you should first try it upon animals? Are you entitled to experimentalise on human beings rather than on a dog? That is the short way of putting it. [An HON. MEMBER: "On human beings."] I say unhesitatingly that you have not the slightest right to experimentalise on human beings. I hold no brief here for the medical or surgical profession, though I am very much indebted to them, and, as far as experiments on human beings are concerned, I think that a watchful eye should be kept upon them. But the suggestion that it is legitimate to make experiments on human beings when it is not legitimate in the case of the lower animals, is scouted by every member of the community, and is against common sense.
My hon. Friend here told us that the medical profession gave evidence, some one way and some the other. He quoted the evidence of Dr. Swan, who is the only one of the very few people who came forward for the purpose of saying that experiments on dogs should not be made. He did not go far enough, however. He said that he did not object to experiments on animals, if dogs were excepted, and he would allow operations on anæsthetised dogs, under certain conditions, and if they were satisfied that no other animals would serve equally well. That is one case against the Majority Report. But I want to complain very bitterly of what my hon. Friend said, because if he says it a lot of other people outside, who are less careful and less well informed, will also say it. Literally my hon. Friend said in this House that operations on dogs doubtless caused great pleasure to those who performed them. I say that is a gross libel on the medical profession. I am the last person to get up here to say things which are flattering of the medical or surgical profession, much as they have done for me, but I say that is a gross libel; and that when you come here to deal with this Bill you are bound to attach weight to the medical evidence given in respect of this Bill. Is there the slightest doubt about it? The suggestion, it is true, was rather toned down by the right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. Perhaps he thought that it might be a thing that would be used by people outside, and he toned down the statement by saying that persons might be carried away by their scien- 496 tific enthusiasm, and so forth. Let me deal with the document presented by the Home Office as late as yesterday, and signed by a very large number of medical gentlemen, surgeons, physicians, and other people. That document puts the matter very clearly and distinctly. It says:—
Sir,—We desire to express to yon our strong conviction that the Dogs Protection Kill put down for Second Reading on Friday, 17th inst. would inflict very severe injury not only on medicine and surgery, but also on the study of the diseases of animals. We think we have some right to ask you to oppose this attack on the advancement of medical science and practice especially as the Final Report of the Royal Commission on, Vivisection does not advise the prohibition of experiments on dogs. We are absolutely certain that such experiments are necessary for the complete study of many problems of physiology, pharmacology, and pathology.This is signed by a long list of distinguished men, and the hon. Member for London University knows many of them better than I do. I am content simply to take the first signature, that of Sir Thomas Barlow, which in itself is a complete refutation of the statement made by both hon. Members. Sir Thomas Barlow is probably one of the kindest-hearted men who ever stepped, a man who, if anything, takes rather an old-fashioned view of scientific questions, and he is the last man who would think of torturing dogs or who would be carried away for one moment by scientific enthusiasm. Sir Thomas Barlow was the first to sign that letter, because this Bill would interfere with work which is for the benefit of humanity. Are we really, in face of evidence of that kind, to take away a power which, he says, speaking in perfectly cold blood, is absolutely necessary for the purpose of research? I submit that we are going very far in this Bill. The future is before us, and we have the terrible problem of cancer to face. Everyone knows the ghastly pain, suffering, and mortality caused by that disease. I can personally speak, unfortunately, of a very big area among my friends who have gone down through that awful disease. We do not know the origin of it, we barely know how to alleviate it. Men have gone down in the prime of life through it. We are endowing research at the present moment, and men are engaged in the research work, and who can say that this Bill would not hamper them if it were passed. Are you going to do that? At any moment something might turn up from research into this ghastly disease; we may be within a hair-breadth of finding not only alleviation but cure of it. Are I you going to hamper for all time the hands of those who are engaged in combating 497 this disease by extraordinary restrictions upon experiments which may at any moment afford the chance of putting an end to so much human misery, pain, and loss of life? As regards the future this is a most valuable and important matter. My hon. Friend talks of sentiment. I am prepared to meet him on the ground of sentiment. Let me read him a short passage which, I think, will meet the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. He gave us an account of some experiment made in Liverpool, and as to the effect of the anæsthetic. I remember a story of an old Indian colonel, who, on his return, was asked: "What is a liver?" He replied: "Good God, what I would give for your ignorance." The hon. Baronet said that he did not know what those things were, those liver troubles and so forth, but there are others who have not been so fortunate. Before I deal with that, however, I would like to say that the Report deals very carefully with matters of that kind. It says that they desired further to say that harrowing descriptions and illustrations of operations inflicted on animals, freely circulated by post, advertisement, or otherwise, and in many cases were calculated to mislead the public, and to suggest that the animals in question were not under an anæsthetic and were subject to torture in their opinion was absolutely false. These pictures are still going on.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI strongly disapprove of them.
Mr. CHANCELLORCan the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me of any picture that is issued now without any reference to anæsthetics?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must wait until his turn comes.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI accept the challenge, but I am not going to be tempted into abusing my opponents, for I have got far too good a case to do anything of the kind. I am perfectly prepared, however, to meet that case, and if my case were weaker I should gladly comply by answering the hon. Gentleman. These pictures are shocking to everyone in the country, and I do not believe they are to be seen in any civilised country other than our own. I, for one, look at this matter from the practical point of view. Some of us are not so fortunate as the hon. Baronet. I remember that a few years ago the son of 498 a friend of mine, aged twelve years, underwent a very serious operation, I went to the house to see him, and I saw the preparations which were being made. I shall never forget it as long as I live. The poor fellow could not understand it. We had to stop his father from practically getting out of the window while the operation was going on. It was a very serious operation, from the abdominal point of view. I can see still that overstrung man, and I remember the surgeon, after the operation, giving him tea. At that moment of the operation not only was that boy's life banging in the balance, but I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the father's life was hanging in the balance as well. At that moment, too, there flashed across my mind those debates which I heard in the old days on this subject, and at that moment there flashed across my mind how horribly wicked debates of this kind let alone Bills of this kind are. At such a moment as I have described would not any one have sacrificed a whole colony of lapdogs or any single dog one had ever known to give that man even more manual dexterity in the operation he was carrying out. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] My hon. Friend says "no," but wait until he has a child in a similar position, and then if there is any sentiment on which side would the sentiment come down. Of course we know perfectly well on which side. In a case such as that surely, if sentiment is to be brought into the scale, it should outweigh anything else.
§ Mr. AUBREY HERBERTMy hon. Friend seems to be arguing the whole time as if this Bill prevented vivisection while it is simply to exclude dogs.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI think that is a most unjustifiable interruption. I think I have argued the case perfectly fairly. I only said if I am driven to sentiment, as the right hon. Gentleman invited, then sentiment is equally on my side as well as hard reason and facts. If it is a question of sentiment, then I say unhesitatingly that those societies have not a monopoly of sentiment, societies which pay these-large sums of money and who themselves are not so extraordinarily kind to dogs. See the ordinary unfortunate dog, confined and walked about—he certainly knows what is wrong with his liver. As far as sentiment is concerned, I should certainly say that sentiment is on my side. This is a matter I feel deeply 499 upon and have so felt for many years. I am not appearing here for any society, or any profession, or anything else. I am simply representing my own views, be they wrong or right, and I do earnestly appeal to every single Member of this House who knows anything of society and of the misery that goes on in our sickrooms, and in infirmaries, and in the wards of hospitals—because in this matter rich and poor are in the same position—and to anybody who knows those things and who has sympathy with the sufferers, I do appeal most earnestly not to allow for one moment the cause of scientific research to be in any way hampered by reasons such as have been advanced or through sickly sentimentality, which is really at the back of this movement. I ask hon. Members to do nothing of the sort, but to allow research to go forward, research which is intended to, and will, I feel sure, lead to the best means of reducing in future as in the past human suffering and human disease; and not only human disease and suffering, but animal suffering as well. I beg to move.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSI beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend has dealt so fully with the arguments, and has so passionately appealed to the House, that it is really not necessary for me to detain hon. Members very long in seconding the Amendment. I should like at once to say that both the Mover and the Seconder have introduced the Motion in a very fair spirit. They have not willingly put forward any exaggerated statements. They have considered the question before us strictly within the limits within which we have to discuss it. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion detailed a number of experiments which were being performed on dogs and other animals, the purpose of which, of course, he could not understand, nor could I say, after having heard him, that I was in a better position to understand them. Having read out the different character of those experiments, my hon. Friend went on to say, What on earth was the good of them? I am sorry he is not present, but I am sure he will not mind my saying that I think that question showed an unscientific spirit. Experiments are constantly performed not only in physiological, but in chemical and physical laboratories, without any immediate aim in view. They are not 500 all utilitarian experiments, and yet from those experiments have come some of the greatest inventions which have had a great effect in improving the conditions of civilisation and, at the same time, of benefiting humanity. One never knows when one is performing an experiment exactly what may be the result. Those who have performed experiments which have led to important results were not at once able to say what was the immediate object for which they were performed. It is not a pleasant task, I own, to have to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. One does it unwillingly, but one does it in the higher interests of medical science. There are two sets of arguments which one has to combat. The one is founded on sentiment and the other is founded on false representations. Of the two I must say that the argument of sentiment is the more difficult to answer. At the same time, I admit much that is said about experiments on dogs does not proceed entirely from sentiment; but I would like to lift the discussion to a some what higher plane and to consider ethically what is our duty to animals generally, and whether there is any reason for making an exception to those duties in favour of one particular class of animals. I can sympathise—and I am sure we all sympathise—with the amount of affection which is shown towards dogs. It is easily understood. As has been pointed out, they have been for many centuries domesticated. Other animals have also been domesticated. Dogs are very companionable and are intelligent. I think it was one of my predecessors in the seat which I at present have the honour to occupy—the late Lord Avebury—who said that the standard of intelligence in the ant was superior to that of the dog. That may be so, but it does not follow that ants are as companionable—even a whole colony of them—as a single dog.
But in considering this question from what I may call the practical and scientific standpoint, I must ask those who listen to me to put away sentiment to a certain extent. We have a right to consider dogs as a part only of the animal kingdom, towards which we have certain obligations. It has been said more than once by hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. I do not believe that that is the case in this country. But even if it were, surely that would be no reason for extending so false a principle to 501 the animal kingdom, and altogether separating one class of animals from the rest. If we admit, as the Mover and Seconder of the Second Beading have admitted, and as is incidentally admitted in the Bill itself, that we have a perfect right to perform experiments on animals generally for the advancement of science, very strong reasons must be adduced for exempting any particular set of animals and putting them in a separate and privileged class. For my part, I do not think that the reasons which have been advanced are sufficiently weighty. When we come to consider it, much of the sentiment shown towards dogs rests on the fact of their companionship, and also arises from the fact that by a large number of persons, particularly ladies, they are made domestic pets, and to a certain extent playthings. I must own that I have not much sympathy with the lady to whom reference was made by the Seconder of the Motion, distinguished authoress as she was, and of whom it was said, "Her dogs snore in the lap of luxury, while the mistress is in want." I think that the self-sacrificing sympathy displayed by women of that kind might be more advantageously bestowed upon other and more worthy objects.
I do not for one moment suggest that dogs do not serve a useful purpose, and a more useful purpose than a large number of other animals. They are companions, and they are very usefully employed in the country, on farms, as protectors of property, and in a variety of other ways. But can the same be said of the thousands of dogs that prowl about the streets of London and other towns? Surely not. There is very little to be said for the uses of that large number of animals. For my own part, I cannot help thinking that their habits are often highly improper, not to say distinctly indecent, and they make walking in the streets of London very difficult, unless one constantly fixes one's eyes on the pavement in order to avoid treading on what I may euphemistically call "matter out of place." Let it be distinctly understood that the dogs which are carefully looked after, the dogs which are the real friends of man, never end their days in the physiological laboratory. We should remember that from 20,000 to 30,000 stray dogs in the streets of London alone are painlessly put to death in the lethal chamber of the Battersea Dogs' Home, and it is certainly an open question whether the dogs thus painlessly put to death serve a more useful purpose in the economy of 502 nature, or do more good than those which are equally painlessly put to death in the physiological laboratories, where they may become a means of preventing pain, averting disease, and saving the life of human beings. Having regard to the considerations which I have advanced, it seems to me that the sentiment which is felt by those who support the rejection of the Bill, is quite as strong as that of those who propose its adoption, and when allied to reason, it must induce us to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to refer to some of the false representations that are made on this subject. Some of them are made in ignorance, but I regret to say that some of them are wilful. It was only on Saturday last that I read in the local paper of the district where I live a letter in which a lady urged all Members of Parliament to come here to-day to vote in favour of this Bill. In the course of her letter, after describing some experiments performed on dogs, she said:—
It is common knowledge that anæsthetics are often sparingly used.I do not suppose that she knew for one moment that she was saying what was not true. She was only repeating a statement made by other persons. Yesterday I received a letter—I do not know whether the writer is a constituent of mine or not—in which it was stated:—No conclusion of value to man can be arrived at from the result of experiments on dogs, and apart from this the animals offer no special advantage for experimental purposes. Further, anæsthetics are, whatever the public may be led to believe, very rarely employed.When statements of that kind are put forward, and letters are written to Members of Parliament urging them to vote for this Bill, when at the same time it is an absolute and well-known fact that experiments on dogs have led to most useful results, and anæsthetics are invariably used, one cannot wonder that Members who are uninformed should come here disposed to vote in favour of the Bill. Let me contrast these statements with what has been said by a professor who has probably performed more experiments upon dogs than any other scientific man in this country. In his evidence before the Royal Commission, Professor Starling said:—Though I have been engaged in the experimental pursuit of physiology for the last seventeen years, on no occasion have I ever seen pain inflicted in any experiment on a dog or cat, or, I might add, a rabbit, in a physiological laboratory in this country, and my testimony would be borne out by that of anyone engaged in experimental work in this country.503 If that statement is contrasted with the other statements to which I have referred, I do not think that anyone can entertain any doubt as to where the truth lies. Moreover, in a further passage it is stated:—In none of these experiments could the animal have felt anything at all of the operation.The Mover or Seconder of this Bill stated that, owing to the domestication of dogs, which has gone on for many hundreds of years, they are subject to nervous conditions to a much greater extent than any other animals. He said they suffered a great deal of pain from fear of the operation that was likely to be performed upon them. That is not so. The one fact which has been substantiated by everyone who has performed experiments upon dogs is that they do not suffer in the least beforehand from the knowledge of the operation that is likely to be performed.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I ask my hon. Friend if he has read the evidence of the scientific witness before the Royal Commission to the effect that he knew of his own knowledge that dogs did suffer when they came into the laboratory?
§ Sir P. MAGNUSI believe the scientist to whom my hon. Friend refers had never seen an experiment in the laboratory. At any rate, if he had, it is a question of evidence against evidence. There is no doubt whatever that one can adduce conclusive evidence in support of the arguments and statements I have made—the evidence of scientific men who have made these experiments. I have here a leaflet indicating how these experiments are really performed. Professor Starling says:—
In the year 1902, 155 experiments were performed on clogs in the physiological laboratory at University College. Of these 151 were performed under licence alone. What does this mean? In experiments performed under licence alone the animal must be during the whole of the experiments under the influence of some anæsthetic.He goes on to state:—Under no circumstances can the dog be conscious of any operation that is likely to be performed. Dogs have no terror of an anæsthetic, nor are they frightened, as we are, at the thought of an operation. Of course, if a dog be wild, it objects to being brought into any room or to being handled at all. If a dog that is not wild be brought into the room it is as pleased to come into that room as into any other.He goes on to show the way that the anæsthetic is administered. Statements of that kind should at once do away with the remark made by the hon. Baronet that these dogs, owing to their 504 developed nervous condition, suffer in the same way, or in the same degree, as a human being does before an operation is performed. One might discount some of the arguments against these operations upon animals by referring to the cruelty which obtains when dogs are used for pleasure or for sport. Consider what is practised upon a large number of animals in this way! I do not, however, know that such references would advance in the argument that I am putting forward against the Bill which we are now objecting to. Looking at the matter from a purely sentimental point of view, I would just say one or two words more, for I find it often very difficult from that standpoint to follow the arguments that have been adduced by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. Consider for a moment the case of Polar exploration. None of us have any hesitation in sending a pack of dogs—many of them, at all events—to a certain and painful death on a Polar expedition. We do so for no other reason than for the furtherance of science. Valuable, however, as are the additions to our scientific knowledge which may result from such exploration, are they comparable for one moment in their effect on human life or happiness to those which follow the experiments performed on dogs in the laboratory under the direction of physiological experts? Yet no word has ever been raised against the sacrifice of dogs employed in such discovereies.I cannot help thinking that in these somewhat degenerate days we attach a little too much weight to the infliction of a small amount of pain on animals, or even on ourselves. I am prepared to grant for a moment, with a view to disarming some of the opposition, that dogs in common with other animals may suffer some amount of discomfort, if not pain, when they are the subjects of certain of these experiments. I do not want to exaggerate my side of the case any more than my hon. Friend the Member for the City wishes to exaggerate his. There are some cases in which after an experiment has been performed the dog feels ill and uncomfortable. But I would point out that such experiments do not form 1 per cent. of the total number of experiments that are performed on dogs. I would like to go further and ask whether all this sympathy for a small amount of pain is not somewhat morbid and unnecessary? Are dogs the only animals who suffer pain for I the benefit of mankind? Does not man 505 himself often endure pain for the good of others, and is it not well that he should do so? The First Lord of the Admiralty in the speech he made at Bradford—which I have no doubt he now regrets—stated that there were worse things than bloodshed, even on an extensive scale. I am not prepared to say that that is not true. There are few things about which it cannot be said that some things are worse. If that is so, surely there are worse things than a little physical pain. Mental anguish is worse than physical pain. I venture to think that no single person whom I am addressing would not endure a certain amount of physical pain if he thereby could save from mental anguish anyone that he really loves. When we talk of pain in any sense we must always consider it relatively and not absolutely. We must consider the amount of pain inflicted in connection with the amount of good which follows, or the amount of pain prevented. If we for one moment look upon the experiments upon dogs from this point of view we cannot fail to see that even if some small amount of pain is inflicted, it is not comparable with the enormous amount of pain or illness averted by these experiments. In this connection I would just like to read a short extract which was given in evidence before the Royal Commission by Lord Moulton. I read this in connection with the arguments I am using in regard to pain, looked at from an ethical and moral point of view. He said:
The greater part of pain had better not be. A man suffers and dies, or suffers and gets well, and all the pain he has suffered has benefited nobody. And in the case of animals there is also this: a vast mass of pain is inflicted or permitted, and people tolerate it and say nothing about it, and look upon it as the ordinary thing. …. In my opinion if you look at the medical science of to-day and the medical science of forty years ago and realise that the advance has been caused by physiological research, which is largely carried on under the very Acts which restrict, which regulate, but which distinctly permit painful experiments, and then consider on the one hand how much pain that has caused and how completely it has changed our power of dealing with disease and of alleviating suffering, it is really incomprehensible that anybody who sees the totality of misery in the world should think that the small amount of pain, that has produced that gigantic result is the first that ought to be stopped.That consideration, I venture to think, removes this question from the region both of emotion and sentiment, and brings it back to the region of evidence and fact. And in this case, when we are dealing with facts, we must look to the evidence upon which these facts are based and also to the credibility of the witnesses called upon to give evidence. I realise, as has been pointed out by the Mover and Seconder, that we are not discussing at 506 the present moment the general question of experiments on animals. It is recognised that animals may be slain for the purposes of humanity. We know as a fact that animals are slain in millions for the purposes of food; but the case of experiments on animals for the purposes of curing disease, has a stronger ethical basis than the case of killing of animals for the purposes of food, and for this reason, that science has not yet succeeded in showing how any animal may be slain painlessly for the purposes of food; but in all these experiments, or the great majority of them, the animals are slain quite painlessly. In this sense I cannot help thinking that the vegetarian, from humanitarian considerations, stands upon a very much higher ground and plane than the anti-vivisectionist. But, of course, the only question we have to decide is whether any reason is made out for the exclusion and exemption of dogs, and here I should like to say one word or two as regards the sentimental side of this question. We cannot help feeling that sentiment plays a very important part in deciding large issues. Patriotism itself is a form of sentiment, and this much I will admit, and I am sure the Mover of the Amendment will admit it also, that if it can be conclusively shown that other animals can be substituted for dogs with a view to experiments which are being performed for the cure of disease and the alleviation of pain, then I say in the name of sentiment, I would be willing to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am quite sure that would be easy if we could safely trust the present licensees.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThat brings us directly to the facts of the case. I want to show that there are experiemnts which have led to valuable results in curing a large number of diseases incidental not only to man, but also to dogs, which could not possibly have been performed if other animals had been substituted for dogs. I will leave it to the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Chapple) who will speak in this Debate with more technical knowledge of the subject than I possess to deal with some of these cases. He will be able to show, as anyone who has studied the subject carefully can show, the number of diseases which have been cured by means of experiments upon dogs. These are facts which cannot be disputed. The results of these experiments have been published, and 507 after careful investigation of the subject, it has been shown that in consequence of the similarity of functions between dogs and men, diseases, incidental to man, that previously baffled all medical science, have been cured by means of experiments on dogs. I suppose everyone will admit that medical men and men of science are as humane and full of sentiment and emotion and feeling as other persons. Could anyone conceive it possible for a moment that any physiologist would perform an experiment upon a dog, knowing the amount of sentiment that exists against such experiments on dogs, if he himself could find any other animal to serve the purpose? I challenge anyone who is going to support this Bill to answer that question. What in the world could induce a scientific man to choose a dog for experiment, if he were certain and knew that some other animal would serve his purpose. You could trust scientific men to secure the exclusion and exemption of dogs from all experiments in such circumstances. What other animals would suit? I have no doubt the elephant would do, and that certain monkeys would do, but these animals are not available, and could not be obtained. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pigs would do."] Pigs would not do, and even pigs are not easily obtained, but if any of my hon. Friends can satisfy me that any other animals can be used instead of dogs, and can satisfy medical men and physiologists, then I am certain it is not necessary to bring in this Bill, because dogs would naturally be exempted.
I have endeavoured to show some reason from the medical and moral standpoint, and also from the purely physiological standpoint why this Bill should not be passed. Certainly no case has been made out on the ground of justice, morality, or expedience, and I cannot help thinking that it is unworthy, if I may say so, of the statesmanship and sound common sense invariably exhibited by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) who so frequently stands here to prevent additional prohibitive measures from being passed, to urge the acceptance of this prohibitive Bill. This Bill is opposed by nearly all the distinguished scientific men in this country. No such document as that to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred has ever been presented to a Minister in this country, and I very much 508 regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Office is not able to be present today, because one would like to have heard what his reply would be as to the important document which was circulated to-day. I will not read it again, but I will state that it is signed by three hundred and fifty persons, among them the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, many of the King's Physicians and Surgeons, eminent physicians and surgeons for diseases of men, women, and children, physiologists, pathologists, chairmen of our hospitals, well-known men of science, and physicians and surgeons of general hospitals in Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Dublin. These are the names of the eminent and distinguished scientific men who have appended their names to this paper, and if we are considering evidence as to the credibility of witnesses, I ask those who support this Bill if they can produce anything which bears so much the impress of truth and carries so much weight as the document to which these signatures are attached. For these reasons, I trust that this Bill will not pass its Second Reading. The hon. Baronet who introduced this Bill has pointed out the conditions under which it was withdrawn a year ago. We have in this House a large number of vital and important matters to consider, and I trust that we shall not be asked again to go upstairs and devote several days to the consideration of the details of this Bill when we know it is never likely to be passed, and, even if it were passed, that it would do incalculably more harm to the cause of public health than all the good that can be done by the millions of money which, with the best intentions, we are spending under the Insurance Act on the erection of sanatoria, for the cure of disease, the prevention of pain, and the maintenance and preservation of the health of the people.
Mr. CATHCART WASONThe speech to which we have just listened seems to me to show a considerable amount of confusion, because the hon. Member says, if we can find any other animal than the dog that will do equally well let us have that animal, and do not let us have the dog. Why do you take dogs? Simply because they are cheap, and for no other reason. Simply for that reason you are going to subject this companion of man for so many years that has done so much to set us all a good example in our every day duty to mankind to this cruel treatment. The 509 hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London alluded to the great pleasure that persons who perform these horrible experiments feel in the performance of them. An interpretation was placed on that expression entirely unjustifiable and was only excusable because of the heat displayed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) in the delivery of his lecture. What the hon. Baronet meant was that there was no pleasure to equal in intensity that which one experiences in pursuing a particular operation.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was out of the House when that particular phrase was referred to. I certainly did not mean that the operators had any particular pleasure in operating.
§ Sir H. CRAIKYou used those words.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen I withdraw those words, and I did not intend to use them in that sense. I was describing a certain operation which to my mind had not resulted in any advantage to man in the cure of any ailment of man. It might possibly be an advantage to scientific research, and it was to advance science that it was done. I did not mean that there was a pleasure in a particular operation, but that the operator was carrying out what is commonly known as his business, and, naturally, he was glad to be able to advance his particular branch of science.
Mr. C. WASONI am sure the House will be gratified with the explanation of the hon. Baronet, because, after all, that is the point. There is no pleasure equal to that of doing your own job in the best possible fashion. It does not mean that you take pleasure in the wrong sense, but in the proper sense of the term. I wish to allude to the usefulness of these operations. The hon. Member for Cambridge dealt largely with the question of cancer. We have been cutting and carving at cancer for a great many years, and we are not a bit further on in that respect than ever we were.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSHow do you know?
Mr. C. WASONHow do I know that you are sitting there? Simply by my own life and common observation. What have you done in this respect? You have accomplished nothing by this cutting and carving, whereas by special treatment and inquiry into the causes much may be done. What has been accomplished by the treat- 510 ment of Dr. Köch, who imagined that he had discovered a parasite to cure consumption, which he contended you had only to inject into your veins and you would be cured of the consequences of your own faults and folly? Thousands of people crossed over to Germany in order to get cured. The cures for these diseases, for consumption, syphilis, and cancer the three worst ailments that ravage the community, are all of our own procuring and are all amenable to treatment that we ourselves can administer to them. Let us do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let us have purer air, better surroundings, better food, and a more true insight into the teachings of our Lord and Master in order to save us from all this cutting up of our dogs and our friends. Dr. Köch himself said that in the last resort these experiments had to be made on human beings, and could not be made on animals. Knowing all these facts, I think we are very reasonable in asking that our one particular friend should be exonerated from this cruel torture. Sup posing by any possible chance we did manage to get this Bill through Committee, does any living man in this House or out of it doubt that surgeons and scientists would immediately find some other animal to operate upon instead of a dog? They are not going to let want of money or anything else stand in their way. A question has arisen with reference to a new development of the vivisection associations. They have established under the Insurance Act, and I regret that the hon. Baronet who has just sat down could not keep party politics out of his head, and that he had to have a cut at the Insurance Act, and the First Lord of the Admiralty—
§ Sir P. MAGNUSI did not make any cut at the Insurance Act.
Mr. C. WASONI understood the hon. Baronet to say that money could be much better spent in forwarding vivisection than under the Insurance Act.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSThe hon. Member completely misunderstood me. I never said anything of the kind.
Mr. C. WASONI am very glad to hear it. No living man has a greater admiration and respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the Insurance Act than I have, but I do complain, and I think that the House and the country are justified in complaining, that 511 under the Insurance Act, for the first time, a very large sum of money is devoted to what is called research, and what the public call vivisection. You do not like the name of vivisection.
§ Sir H. CRAIKOn a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order to discuss the Grants under the Insurance Act on a Bill which proposes to exclude dogs from the range of experiments in vivisection?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)That appears to me quite outside the limits of discussion on this Bill.
Mr. C. WASONWith all respect to your ruling, which, of course, I would not criticise for one moment, the point I desired to make was that vivisection is getting a new lease of life by reason of the money which, under the Insurance Act, is, for the first time, devoted to it. Up to the present all the money that has been devoted to vivisection purposes has practically been subscribed by private associations, and the Government has given a very small amount of subsidies to it. Now the Government are coming down and backing up this infamy, for infamy it is, and some excuse should be given why this money should be spent in this way. The inhabitants are bitterly against the proposal to establish a vivisection laboratory at Mount Vernon. The greatest calamity is that of consumption or, as it is called, the White Plague. It is the greatest plague with which he have got to deal. Research, no doubt, can do something, but every doctor and every scientific man knows that consumption can only be treated by the application of common sense in order to stamp it out, and that no cutting or carving we can possibly do will advance us one step further in that direction. I shall certainly try to set an example to the House in the brevity of my speech, and I shall say nothing further except that I cordially support the Second Beading of this Bill.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe House is perhaps never at it best in a discussion of this sort, where it attempts to interfere in subjects of exact science where expert knowledge is required, but I think, of all the specimens that the House could possibly have of the unfitness of some of its Members to deal with the subject, the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down is 512 perhaps the chief. He is not content to deal with this question, but he is prepared at once to set aside from the summit of his own complete and comprehensive scientific knowledge all the advances that science has made, all the possibilities of benefit to humanity that science may bring about, and from that exalted sphere of knowledge and of judgment he is able to condemn them as absolutely useless, and as not yielding those fruits which I presume he, from his larger knowledge and his more full experience, will achieve without the aid of any scientific research. I pass from that speech, which was directed to anything but the Bill now under discussion, and I am quite prepared to admit that in rising to oppose a Bill of this sort one takes upon himself an unpleasant and perhaps an invidious task. I am quite sure that those hon. Members who have promoted this Bill will believe me when I say that I accept their feelings as honest and genuine, but there are feelings stirred by this whole question that go to the very deepest fibres of the nature of every one of us quite as much as of those who advocate the Bill. We have to deal with a large and respectable body of sentiment outside this House.
Let me turn for one moment and refer to the difficulties those who oppose this Bill have to deal with within the House. We have forces most formidable, almost invincible when combined, opposed to us. We have all the knowledge, all the tactical experience, and all the Parliamentary shrewdness which is possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and we have besides that the bonhomme and decorative geniality of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood). These two combined together form an alliance which is almost invincible. They almost got the better of us last year when, by a happy accident and an early adjournment on some unexpected afternoon, the hon. Baronet was able to get the Second Beading of his Bill unobserved. He celebrated that as a triumph and as indicating the complete assent of the House of Commons. We took that Bill upstairs, where we wasted some three or four weeks of Parliamentary time upon it. We vivisected that Bill to the best of our ability, not with pleasure, but with pain to ourselves, to its advocates, and to the unfortunate victim. At the end of that process I had an interview, in which the hon. Baronet took part, with the Speaker in 513 private, and at that interview it was decided that there was nothing possible but a decent burial of the maimed and eviscerated carcass that was left. Are we to go through the same process again?
§ Sir F. BANBURYNot with the same result.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI trust, if it comes to that, the result will be precisely the same. I want to turn to the history of this question. How has opinion developed on the subject? The advance of science, the extreme importance of the movement of science to humanity, the difference in opinion that existed some forty years ago—in 1875—led to the formation of a Commission. That Commission was one of considerable authority. At its head was Lord Cardwell, and among its members were Mr. W. E. Forster, the late Mr. Huxley, and Sir John Karslake. These are not names to be set aside easily. The Commission was unanimous, except for one solitary member, who advised that dogs should be exempt. But his arguments were set aside. They were not very strong. The late Mr. Hutton was the minority member on that Commission. I had the privilege of his acquaintance, but with all respect for the friendship I do not think I could put him quite on a level with the calm judgment of men like Mr. Forster, Sir John Karslake, or Mr. Huxley. An Act was passed—the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. That Act placed experimental investigations and research in England under stricter rules than exist in any other country. That will not be denied. The medical profession have loyally accepted the rules and have obeyed them, and is quite ready to consider any proposal that may be brought forward with the object of ensuring that the rules shall be carefully and loyally observed, both in spirit and in deed.
But if any alteration in that matter is required the proposal must come from the Home Office. The whole authority under the Act of 1876 is vested in the Home Secretary. That is the principle on which the Act is based. It is the principle on which the original Report of the Commission of 1875 was based, and it is a principle which has been endorsed by the more recent Commission on which the right hon. Gentleman sat. Has the Home Secretary thought fit to bring forward any proposal of this sort? I spoke to him only last night. I deeply regret his absence to-day His place, no doubt, is adequately filled by the Under- 514 Secretary. I am quite ready to admit that although he has memories of past loves in connection with the anti-vivisectionists, yet in the Committee he played the game quite fairly, and did not allow his personal opinions unduly to obtrude. All the same I should have liked him to have been here, and to have given us the benefit of his opinion. I told him in the course of the conversation I had with him, that I was quite sure any reasonable proposal to strengthen the Act would be considered. But he informed me that the Act requires no strengthening at all, and that it works perfectly well. In these circumstances is it fair that any private Member should come forward and propose a Bill, not to make the Act more stringent, not to make it work better, not to protect animals by bringing in greater humanity, but merely to create an arbitrary distinction between one class of animal and another which happens to enjoy their interest, and with which they are accustomed to associate?
We are asked to exempt dogs from experiments. Inevitably that opens up the larger question of the morality of dealing with animals for the benefit of humanity. I notice that when my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge was speaking, he asked, "Are you not prepared to sacrifice animal life for the benefit of humanity"? One hon. Member, and only one, I believe, met that by answering "No." He said he would not sacrifice a single animal. I am quite sure he was a representative of freak opinion, and that neither in this House nor outside is there any really large body of sane reasonable opinion prepared to take up that attitude. We are bound to show humanity to animals, and to deal with them with all the mercy we can. It injures ourselves as much as them if we treat them cruelly in any way. But there is also a sacred duty to humanity—there is a sacred duty to do away with the ills of humanity, if by pursuing scientific research we can do it, and the superiority of that duty over any other must make the interest of the lives of animals subordinate to that of humanity. If it were not so we might as well change the whole system upon which society is based, and upon which life has been lived from the very beginning of time. How are we to feed and clothe ourselves, how can we do anything that makes life move easily, unless we consider that we have an inherent right to subordinate the interest, lives, and well-being of animals to the supreme interest of the well-being 515 and advancement of humanity? When we come to this arbitrary separation which is made between this particular animal and others, there is another aspect of the question which makes me inclined to think that there is great inconsistency in sentiment. I admire sentiment and am quite ready to give way to it, but inconsistent sentiment is cant and sham. Yet it is what we find a good deal of here. What about our conduct towards those select specimens of the animal kingdom which are to be kept separate? What about our ordinary treatment of them? I wonder how many men think much of tying up a dog on the chain—morning, noon, and night! Has anyone ever interfered with that or proposed by law to make it illegal?
§ Sir F. BANBURYCertainly!
§ Sir H. CRAIKHas the hon. Baronet made any such proposal?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have interfered with the practice and stopped it whenever I have seen it.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIt might have been better to bring in a Bill. Will the hon. Baronet interfere with that most ridiculous and odious cruelty, which I dare say many of his lady friends are guilty of, of leading dogs about in leashes through the thoroughfares of London, making themselves ridiculous, the thoroughfares impassable, and the dogs miserable?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI lead my own dog when there are motor cars about.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI have no doubt that the life of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is absolutely regulated on the most philosophical principles, but I wish he would put those principles together in one speech, and not be perpetually interfering with my speech in order to enunciate his own perfectibilities. I want to know if this cruelty is confined to scientific people only. Is he prepared to allow the cruelty to which I have referred to go on, and these habits of treating dumb animals with very little consideration for themselves or for our own humanity to continue, while the one subject on which there is to be interference is where science declares it is necessary for the advancement of research and for the good of humanity at large? I wonder if the hon. Member is really prepared to say that in the treatment of dogs there is not such great care 516 as makes it necessary for us to interfere with the action of these scientific people? How many wandering, starving dogs are to be found in the streets of London? Do hon. Members know how many dogs are killed annually in the lethal chamber because the poor wretches are found wandering about the streets in a starved condition? There are 30,000 stray dogs that can find no other end except by being put out of their torture and being killed in the lethal chamber. Will you deny that a few hundreds of them should be used with anæsthetics? That is the one condition imperatively imposed by the Act, and which, by the unscrupulous mendacity of those who are extreme anti-vivisectionists, is always concealed, and which I will assert was at least kept in the background by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and his right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood).
§ Sir F. BANBURYI deny that entirely.
Mr. CHANCELLORDoes the hon. Member suggest that the dog in Edinburgh, which returned six weeks after capture, after having passed through the hospital, had been under anæsthetics during the whole of that period?
§ Sir H. CRAIKIt is absolutely impossible to conduct Debate in this House if every instance that happens to occur to hon. Members is to be the subject of an interruption. I am quite ready to deal with that instance, but it will only make me prolong my speech.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe hon. Member asked me a question with reference to that instance. It was brought forward as a proof of some malevolence and wickedness on the part of scientific people. The dog came back, and apparently it is now a faithful and comfortable companion of its master. What blame is there on the scientific man because they took the dog that was offered to them? What did they know about the dog being stolen? By some strange and perverse implication the fact that the dog was stolen and sold to them is brought up, and a charge is insinuated against these scientific men. Nothing can be more disgraceful than the use which has been made of that incident. The dog was bought at a fair price by these scientific men. It was in no grave way injured, and, by the testimony of its own master, 517 it is now thriving and happy. It is insinuated that these scientific men were part of a conspiracy for stealing dogs in order that they might be used for experimental purposes.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIf the incident was not used in that way, there was no reason why the facts should have been brought forward at all.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt was brought forward because it showed the torture that was inflicted on the dog, and the useless-ness of it.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWe had an admirable specimen of the heights of scientific knowledge in the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason). We had another from the hon. Baronet himself. He read to us, in language that I confess was not intelligible to me as he pronounced it, various experiments that were reported in a medical paper. I do not think he proved by the intelligence by which he read them that he himself was altogether an expert in medical science. I know nothing whatever about it, but he impressed me with a conviction that if I knew little about it, he knew almost less. From his complete range of scientific knowledge he said that these experiments were absolutely useless. Is it useless to understand the action of urine secretions upon human health? The hon. Baronet read these rather disgusting details—to the lay mind they are rather disgusting—in order to prove that from the summit of his own knowledge they were absolutely useless, and, in that unfortunate phrase which he has only imperfectly explained and which will be remembered with great bitterness of feeling, he said that they might, perhaps, cause great pleasure to the people who carried them on. We are now asked to make not an improvement in the general system, not to furnish any greater guarantees for the avoidance of cruelty, but to make an arbitrary distinction of one kind. We are told by the hon. Baronet that the only reason why dogs are selected is their cheapness. That is not true. The only evidence adduced for it was a sentence read by the hon. Baronet from the evidence of a man who was an avowed opponent of the use of dogs, who brought an accusation against his own professional brethren, and who also made a stupid statement about his having stolen dogs himself when he was 518 young. That was brought forward as a proof that the motive of those who are in favour of using dogs is that they are the cheapest.
I wonder how, without the inoculation experiments which have been tried upon dogs, we should have been able to attain to the great knowledge we now have of tropical diseases, which is now removing one of the great difficulties by which thousands of useful lives have been hitherto sacrificed. I wonder how the experiments of Dr. Farrell upon the heart, which were published the other day would have been possible but for dogs—those experiments which, in the words of a medical man, have revolutionised medical knowledge of the heart and of the way in which we can deal with the valves of the heart and with diseases hitherto believed to be incurable. The truth is that because of its nervous and physical structure, its habits of life, and the fact that it is at once vegetable eating and carnivorous, the physiology of dogs is more analogous to that of humanity than that of any other animals, except the superior ape. You have in the dog an animal more numerous than any other animal. Thirty thousand of them have to be killed annually because there is no food for them. The certificate granted for experiments on a dog must bear the fact that the dog is the most suitable animal for such experiments. All those things we are ready to allow. The medical profession has loyally submitted to the most severe and curtailing enactment with regard to their researches that prevails in any country, and they ask, if there is to be a change, that it should be a change in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission—that it should not be based upon an absolute contradiction of that Royal Commission in regard to one point which even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division did not mention in his Minority Report. We ask that the change should be brought forward by the responsible Minister after careful consideration, and we ask that legislation by private Members which would create an arbitrary distinction, prevent enormous future benefit to humanity, put a check upon research in this country and drive it into other countries as the place of refuge, should be refused by this House.
§ Mr. BUTCHERA large portion of the speeches which have been delivered against this Bill are devoted to contro- 519 verting propositions which I, at any rate, am not prepared to dispute. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) and my hon. Friend (Sir P. Magnus) devoted not the least impressive portions of their speeches to proving that scientific research accompanied by vivisection had obtained considerable results in benefiting mankind, and, indeed, that some form of vivisection was necessary for the purpose of conducting research upon fruitful lines. I in no way dispute this proposition. My position is common to probably many hon. Members in this House who are not prepared to adopt the full length by any means of the anti-vivisection attitude, and who think that research, properly conducted, even though vivisection may be implied, has not only proved useful, but may be necessary for the benefit of mankind. But my position is that there is a special case which can be made out for the exemption of dogs from this operation. Let me associate myself, at any rate, with what fell from my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood) when he said that he brought no form of accusation against those devoted and eminent medical and scientific men who practise vivisection for the purpose of research. We look with respect and we look with honour on those men, and if in this particular matter of exempting dogs from vivisection we differ from them, it is not because we suggest that they are more callous or inhuman than the rest of the world, but on this matter we say there is a fair difference of opinion, and we, at any rate, think that the balance of advantage is upon our side.
The first question I should like to put to the House is this: Should there be any differentiation or discrimination at all in the use of animals for the purpose of vivisection? There are many worthy persons, I doubt not, who, carried away by scientific enthusiasm, see no difference whatever between vivisecting one animal and another. They are quite willing to vivisect dogs with the same equanimity, or the same spirit of scientific ardour, as they would be to vivisect frogs or guinea-pigs. I think that is not a sound attitude. It is contrary to the moral sense of civilised mankind, and indeed the Commission considered this point specially, and came to a unanimous decision that discrimination in the choice of animals for vivisection is justifiable and right. In paragraph 97 of their Report, they say:—
As regards the different classes of animals used for experiments and the possibility of making discrimination. 520 between them for such purpose, we are again confronted with a delicate question of relative ethics. Here again, there can be no 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 hand. The differentia in such case would probably be found to consist in the degree of association with, or of affinity or utility to man.Therefore, we are justified in saying there should be some form of differentiation, and I think that is one step towards the proposition I am establishing. The next question is this. Assuming there must be some differentiation, should dogs be given any special consideration above other animals? For my part I unhesitatingly answer "Yes," and I will take the test suggested by the Commissioners themselves—the degree of association with man. For countless generations dogs have been associated with man to a degree that no other animals have. Man has not only trained him to be his associate, to help him in his sports and in his pursuits, but he has brought him up to be his constant companion and his friend, and the dog, I may say, without incurring the taunt of undue sentimentality, has rewarded man by a large degree of unselfish affection. I have heard it said, indeed, by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) that we must be very careful about sentimentalism. I am not a bit afraid of the right kind of sentimentality. I think the right kind of sentiment is at the bottom, not only of many of our highest emotions, but is the spring of many of our best actions, and when I hear my hon. and learned Friend say that this Bill is founded upon a sickly sentimentalism, or when I hear my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) talk about inconsistent sentiment and sham, I do not accuse them of callousness; I only find them guilty of very gross ignorance upon a subject which they ought to learn something about. I have heard others declare that the last thing they would do would be to submit their dog to vivisection, but that they would not feel so much compunction about submitting mine or anyone else's. I pass by that argument, because it is really hard to say whether it is most selfish or foolish.I say that in accordance with the finding of the Commission you should not only have a differentiation as to the animals you select for vivisection, but that the dog has a special claim upon our consideration. If those two propositions are accepted—and I think except by the resolute opponents of sentiment or sentimentalism most 521 people accept them—we come to the direct question raised by this Bill: Are the circumstances such as to justify us in exempting dogs? It has been mentioned by, I think, the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that the Commission came to the conclusion that dogs should not be exempted, but we know from my right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) that that decision was arrived at by the very narrowest majority—a majority of one—and that the considerations which they put into the Report are fairly divided between one side and the other. I agree that if it can be proved conclusively by adequate scientific opinion, that experiments upon dogs were absolutely necessary for the benefit of mankind, or for the advancement of science, then I think the question would stand in a very different aspect. I am not myself prepared to say, if that were conclusively proved in the affirmative, and not merely stated by a few men of science, of great eminence I dare say—I am not at all sure what my attitude would be to this Bill. But what I do say is, that no such evidence has been given, and of the evidence taken by all those Commissions, including the last, the most that can be said upon this subject is that there is a divergence of scientific opinion on the subject. You will get a certain number to say that it is necessary, and a certain number to say that it is not necessary to experiment on dogs, and it is extremely difficult to say which way the balance goes. That divergence of opinion was admitted in the Report itself. The Report, at page 63, says:—
In view of the variety of practice and the divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration, we find some difficulty in deciding upon this important question.Therefore, so far from there being any conclusive proof, I recommend this statement to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, who at bottom is, I believe, a good-hearted man.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThat statement is as to demonstration only.
§ Mr. BUTCHERThe hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. The statement refers to the divergence of opinion in relation to employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration. I agree that if it were merely a matter of demonstration upon which divergence of opinion took place, the case would be different, but here you have an admitted divergence of opinion as to whether the vivisection of 522 dogs is necessary for experimentation. In view of that divergence of opinion, I hold that we are entitled to say until you get unanimity as to dogs being necessary for experimentation, we should exempt them. May I point out to my hon. Friend that it is no answer to this to say that good results have been achieved before by the vivisection of animals, or to say that good results have been achieved already by the vivisection of dogs. There is no proof—and in order to establish their point they would have to prove that these good results could not have been arrived at by experimentation on other animals. There is I admit, evidence on both sides.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSI have here a document signed by 350 of the most scientific men in the country in which they state that they are absolutely certain such experiments are necessary for the complete study of many problems in pathology.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI am not denying that there are a good many eminent men who hold that view, but you could get other eminent men to say the contrary.
§ Sir H. CRAIKNo.
§ Mr. BUTCHERYes, you could; but I am content in this matter to quote the opinion of the Commissioners who said that there is a variety of practice and divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThe Commissioners at page 59 of the Report say:—
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.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIt may be that most of the scientific witnesses who came before the Commission took that view. On the other hand, there are many scientific witnesses who hold the opposite view.
§ Sir H. CRAIKNo.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIf my hon. Friends are right in their contention that all the scientific witnesses worth anything hold that view, why did they not appear before this Commission and say so? My point is that if all the scientific witnesses are unanimous in saying that the dog is the only animal suitable for these experiments, they said nothing of the kind. Many scientific witnesses thought the other way, and, there- 523 fore, I go back to my point, which I maintain is a perfectly good one, that unless you have conclusive proof, and not a mere divergence of opinion, that there are experiments for which the dog is the only animal possible, we are justified in bringing forward this Bill. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) put the boot on the wrong leg. He put the onus of proof upon us, and said, "You must prove that dogs are not necessary for vivisection." I say that we have established a prima facie case for exempting dogs, and unless he can prove that experiments upon the dog are absolutely necessary for the safety of human life and the avoidance of disease, I say we are justified in going forward with this Bill. The truth is that one of the main grounds, if not the only ground, for selecting dogs for these experiments is that they are cheap. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say yes. I am not going to rest my case upon my own opinion alone, which, I agree, is certainly not worth more than that of my hon. Friends, but I will quote Sir William Osler, who, I think my hon. Friends will agree, is a man of some eminence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have got their assent for that. I think they will agree also that Dr. Cushing is a scientific authority of some eminence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have got my hon. Friends to admit that these two gentlemen are practitioners of the highest qualifications. At page 62 the Report says:—
A very prevalent view was expressed by Sir William Osler when, dealing with the use of dogs for the purpose of acquiring manual dexterity, he said:—'I think we have all felt that it would be very much better if we could get animals other than the dog to operate on.'And he quoted with approval the opinion of Dr. dishing to the effect that:—There is naturally a feeling of regret in the minds of many—of none greater than our own—that animals, particularly dogs, should thus be subjected to operations, even though the object be a most desirable one, and accomplished without the infliction of pain, and did expense permit we would gladly have used animals with which there is an association of less acute sentiment on the part of all.'
§ Dr. CHAPPLEWhat other animals?
§ Mr. BUTCHERThere are other animals of a larger type, such as goats, pigs, and so on, to which they were referring. Is not the reason that they do not use these other animals—that which is given there—because expense does not permit? If that is the main reason for using vivisection on dogs, namely, that they are cheap, it is one of the basest, meanest, and most 524 sordid reasons that could possibly be advanced for the perpetration of cruelty. My hon. Friend who spoke last spoke with eloquence of the sacred duty to humanity to conduct research. I agree with him. But let us not do our humanity on the cheap, or perform our sacred duties simply with regard to pence and shillings. I believe that the desire for scientific research is great enough, and that the enthusiasm for research and the wish to support it on the part of men of position and wealth are sufficient, even if these experiments should cost more than they do now through using any other animals than dogs, for such men to come forward and supply the necessary funds. I think, in the first place, that there should be a differentiation in the animals used for vivisection; in the second place, that the dog has a special claim on our consideration; and in the third, that there is no absolute scientific proof that there is any necessity why we should employ the dog rather than any other animals, except that the dog is somewhat cheaper and somewhat more convenient.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThe hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down said that the main reason for the employment of dogs was that they are cheap. That is not so. If that reason be cited, it is only one of many other reasons which are infinitely more important. But, even if we examine this question of cheapness, we find that the difference is not between 5s. and 7s. 6d., but between 5s. and £5. It is not a matter of saving a few shillings; it is a matter of getting animals for experimenting at a price which can be paid, as compared with a price that cannot be paid. It would cost £ 5 to get a suitable monkey. A monkey is the only other animal upon which the experiments that are performed on dogs can be performed, and the contrast is not between dogs and sheep and goats—it is between the price of dogs and the price of monkeys. I have made inquiries, and find that you cannot get a monkey on which these operations can be performed under £ 5. You have to pay 30s. for a little animal which is absolutely useless for the purpose. The bringing forward of this question of cheapness shows the weakness of the arguments on the other side. But when cheapness is mentioned, it is a contrast between a price that can be paid and one that cannot be paid, and, as the price of monkeys is so high, there is nothing left but dogs; pigs and sheep are not available. If experiments are going to be performed in 525 order to discover whether it is safe to do certain operations on the human subject, or whether it is safe to use certain drugs, who are to be the judges of what animals are to be the subjects of these experiments? The man who is going to make the experiment, and not the Member for Orkney and Shetland, who told us all about cancer and its cure. This is not known to the medical profession, but it is known to the Member for Orkney and Shetland. Who is to be the judge? Not the Members of this House, not the medical profession, but the man who is going to do the operation.
Professor Starling is performing operations on certain lines in order to discover the cause of diabetes and its cure. He wants to find out certain things, and he selects the animals which are most appropriate for the particular experiment that he is making. That is absolutely essential if he is to pursue his studies along these lines, not for scientific glorification or for the acquisition of fame by an ambitious man, but for the cure of disease and the relief of pain. Professor Starling, when asked before the Commission what would come of the prohibition of certificate B for experiments on dogs, said that it would stop all the more advanced observations on digestion and experiments as to the nature of diabetes, and other important cases. It is a very grave responsibility for this House of laymen to say that Professor Starling, in his observations and his research into the cure of disease and the relief of suffering, is to be stopped. The Royal Commission did not take that responsibility. It had all the facts before it and it decided that dogs should not be exempted. Why should this House of laymen, who do not know the facts, take such a responsibility? The hon. Baronet this afternoon stated that he did not exaggerate. He did not. He stated his case extremely fairly. He claimed to be humanitarian. Humanitarianism is the basis of all his activity with regard to this matter and with regard to horses. But he does not know the facts. He admitted he could not pronounce the names. His ignorance of the object of the operation was just as profound as his ignorance of how to pronounce the names. He told us that there were sixty-five operations performed on dogs by passing the catheter and other instruments for bladder operations. He quoted correctly those who said that these operations showed that nothing could be 526 gained by them. But by means of these experiments a message went to the world that these operations were not to be performed on human beings. It is an immense thing to discover the absolute futility of these operations as regards the human subject. Negative results are sometimes more valuable than positive results.
The hon. Baronet quoted another expression of opinion about operations upon the gall bladder, and he asked what possible use could they be. These experiments have done away with the old diagnosis of jaundice. People do not suffer from jaundice any more than they suffer from pain, in a medical sense. It is not a disease any more than pain. We have been able to differentiate all the different causes of jaundice, and if we are ever unfortunate enough to suffer from that symptom it would be entirely owing to experiments on dogs that our surgeon would be able to find out what was the cause of the jaundice. We have been able to make experiments on dogs that could not be performed on any other animals with such good results. Through these experiments we have ascertained the diseases of the gall bladder, and how to relieve them by surgery. We have discovered that we are able to take one kidney away altogether, and that the man does quite well. But that was only made possible by reason of experiments on dogs having proved it to be possible. One can make experiments on dogs, but not on human subjects. No surgeon is entitled to put a knife into a man experimentally; he is not entitled to do so until he has proved by experiments and their results on dogs that he can benefit the human subject. We have had some slurs cast to-day upon operations which have been made. I might instance the case of Sir James Simpson, who wanted to experiment upon himself, and he went into a chemist's shop on one occasion and asked for a certain drug. The chemist replied that he did not think it would be safe to experiment upon himself with it as it might prove fatal. He suggested that it should be first tried upon a dog, and on that being done the drug did prove fatal, thus proving that had Sir James Simpson experimented upon himself he would have died. Were they not justified in experimenting upon the dog, and was it not better that the dog should die than Sir James Simpson should die? The hon. Baronet would at once say, "No; the dog is the friend of man, and you have no right 527 to experiment on it; you should have experimented on Sir James Simpson, and not the dog."
The very fact of these experiments on dogs prove that the dog is the only animal available. Those who make the experiments are the judges—who else can judge? Does the hon. Baronet presume to say that he can go to the University College and say to Professor Starling, "The dog you are operating on is not the proper animal?"
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs he not a professor?
§ Dr. CHAPPLEHe is a professor who is teaching medical men to cure disease. I should like to give another quotation to show how necessary dogs are for the purposes of these experiments. Professor Schafer says:—
The necessity of employing dogs has been emphasised by others who have given evidence, and it cannot be too strongly insisted upon. No other animals are available for experiments in important fields of physiology. Among these I would instance experiments upon the heart and circulation, upon the secreting glands and the digestive system, upon the kidneys and the formation of the constituents of urine, upon lymph formation, upon metabolism, and lastly, experiments on the nervous system, in certain of which animals which can be trained must be employed. Dogs are the only animals which are available for many such experiments.Are we going to take away from these men their methods of experimentation, their methods of discovery; are we going to deny to the whole community throughout the country, to the sick and suffering throughout the world, the opportunity of being cured of disease, and relieved of suffering, by interfering with these experiments, solely on the ground that the dog is the "friend of man"? Is the horse the friend of man, or are any other animals the friends of man? Are dogs the only animals which are the friend of man? Why, only the other day I read an account of a dog that so mutilated a man's leg that it had to be amputated. It is said that for a thousand years the dog has been the friend of man, and because of that we are not justified in making these experiments for the benefit of humanity. It is a futile style of argument, and the lay mind seems incompetent to appreciate the facts. All we know about the cure of disease is gained by experimentation—not necessarily vivisectional experimentation, but all kinds of experimentation. Doctors have made experiments upon themselves, and one doctor inoculated himself with the germs of sleeping sickness. I cannot see why such men would not be justified 528 in saying that perhaps it is right that we should try an experiment upon a dog before trying it on ourselves. The hon. Baronet would not allow that. He would say, "No; you must try it on yourselves, because the dog is the friend of man." There are one or two other quotations which I desire to make. Sir Lauder Brunton says:—There is a great deal of feeling, naturally, about dogs. If experiments on dogs were prohibited medical science would suffer. I think it is essential that dogs should be used because other animals are too small. For many of the experiments guinea-pigs, rabbits, and cats are too small.Therefore, if we pass this Bill, you are going to interfere with research along those lines, and which may have the effect of curing pain and disease. You cannot operate on the vein of a mouse, but that can be done in the case of a dog. It has been proved by surgical experiment upon dogs that you can cut one of the largest blood vessels across and yet leave the patient perfectly safe. Formerly, when a big blood vessel was cut the leg always went with it. Thousands of people in the past have lost their limbs because it was not known that a vein cut across could be again united. To-day, thousands of people, especially after a war, are going about with whole limbs, simply because experiments on dogs have shown it to be possible to attach the end of the veins together, and the limb is saved. Experiments on small animals would not have enabled that to be effected. Professor Rose Bradford said:—I think that it is very difficult to carry out experiments on circulation in other animals than the dog. The dog is the animal in which the circulating apparatus has much more resemblance to that of man than in the-case of many other animals. That is one instance. I think. Then, of course, the digestic processes and the nutritive processes generally, to which you have already alluded, is another illustration.Let me ask what this vivisection actually means. The notion is that vivisection is cruel. The hon. Member has talked about cruel torture. The hon. Baronet did not exaggerate nor did the Seconder. Both made extremely moderate speeches, but both were ignorant of the facts. That is not so with people outside. Let me read this to show the kind of stuff which Members of Parliament who read the papers are fed on regularly. A lecturer—he went to my Constituency when the Dogs Bill was on last year, and I suppose he is there now—said this:—He cited some recent cases of cruelty to animals and instanced the case of a woman who had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for cruelty to a cat by baking it alive. Yet if the woman had been a licensed vivisector she could have done this cruelty to-the animal, and instead of being punished she would have been applauded and rewarded.529 That is the kind of stuff that goes on outside, and of gross exaggeration, with which the hon. Baronet is identified, although I am quite sure he does not approve of it. Consider what a change has taken place in surgery as it is practised to-day compared with what it was fifty years ago. In the old works you will see the picture of a man's foot on a block, and you find a surgeon with a chisel and mallet chopping off his big toe. That was the kind of surgery practised fifty or a hundred years ago. A man who had to undergo amputation of the leg was fixed in a chair with strong straps. The surgeon showed his sympathy with the man by the speed with which he performed the operation, and with one swift blow above the thigh he severed the limb, using a saw, and then in a second or two he would have the bigger vessels tied up. The vivisection of those days was on all fours. Dr. Bell performed operations on rabbits in 1811, and upon the spinal cord, which led to the diagnosis of cerebral disease. What is the surgery of to-day? The man who undergoes the operation knows nothing about it. The skull can be trepanned and all the internal viscera taken out and examined and put back, and sections of the bowel may be removed and put back, and all those operations will have caused no pain whatever. Surgery to-day is absolutely painless, and the surgeon does not express his sympathy in speed, but by making use of anæsthetics which experiments on animals taught him to use with safety. There is absolutely nothing cruel or inhumane in the experiment on the dog, which takes place every day. Somebody spoke about torture, but nothing of the kind takes place. The dog is injected with three-quarters of a grain, or five grains, or you may have ten grains of morphia with a hypodermic syringe. In about ten minutes or so he is sound asleep and knows nothing. He is put into a little box and covered up, and a little cotton wool saturated with chloroform is thrown in. He is lifted out of the box perfectly unconscious, and is put upon his back on the operating table; and we have all those horrid pictures that are shown about tying down the legs of those animals in order that they may not move because of the torture. There is something wicked about that. It is a pure invention. They must invent it, and it is a lying invention in order to justify their propaganda, and I know of no equal whatever in any other form of political activity. Why are the legs tied? 530 It is because a dog will not lie on its back, and if you want to put a man on his side you have got to tie his legs. If you put a human subject in an unnatural position you have got to fix him in it by sandbags or straps.All that is done to the dog is what is done to any one of you if you have to undergo an operation in an awkward position. The dog is laid on his back. His legs are not tied in the ordinary sense, but only little weights are hung upon them to keep him in position. You may operate for half an hour or an hour and at the end of that time give the animal, if it is disabled, an extra dose of chloroform and it is dead. What is cruel and inhumane in that? That is the best way. Absolutely the best and most innocent and harmless way to be dispatched is on the vivisection table. No cutting operation in this country is allowed by law without an anæsthetic, and a cut under an anæsthetic is a painless thing. Take, for instance, Professor Starling's operations as to diabetes. He has produced diabetes artificially. It is a painless disease, very common, and in young people almost invariably fatal, the cause of which we do not know, nor the cure. If you could give to-day to the mothers whose children suffer from this disease, and who are dying day by day before their eyes, even hopes of a cure, would they not willingly give all that they possess to carry ort research work by operations on dogs? The sympathy in this case is a spurious, false sympathy for dogs which are not entitled to sympathy. The hon. Baronet is not the friend of the dogs, he is the enemy of the dogs, and if the dogs had the intelligence which Members of this House have they would tell him so. Let us see what is being done for dogs by vivisection. Distemper is one of the most cruel diseases, and the disease of hydrophobia has been abolished in this country by vivisection on dogs, and by nothing else.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe muzzling order.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEI know the hon. Baronet will dispute anything that does not fit his argument, notwithstanding that he never saw one of these operations. What authority has he to say that what I have said is not true.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHydrophobia has been stopped by the muzzling order.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThat is the cheap logia of the man in the street. To say that the 531 muzzling order killed hydrophobia is enough to make Pasteur turn in his grave. It has been abolished because we found out the cause of it, and by experiments on dogs. Nobody can dispute that. A certain organism caused the disease, and that "was discovered and the way to treat it. The death-rate from this cause went down from 16.5 per cent. to 3 per cent. That would justify all the vivisection which has taken place all over the world for all time. That is a fact which must be put in the scale. Look at the results as to dogs. If dogs could give a verdict they would say, "We are in the enjoyment of immunity from suffering because of painless vivisection on some of those who have gone before us." I could give numerous illustrations to justify vivisection on dogs. I will give one example: A hospital had several cases of intestinal obstruction; they had nearly all been operated on, and nearly all died. The surgeons thought perhaps they had not sufficient experience to do the operation dexterously and successfully. They made up their minds that they would experiment painlessly upon dogs. They chloroformed dogs, used an ingenious little apparatus, which had been used before, but had been perfected, for uniting the intestines, and they started experimenting. At once the death-rate went down, and in the first year they got a large increase of recoveries from acute intestinal obstruction. Do you mean to tell me that those men who recovered because of that operation would for one moment weigh in the balance the experiments upon dogs? You have to remember that not only is the operation upon the dog painless, but the after effects are painless also. There are practically no postoperative pains in the sick room or in the experimenting room. The dogs are given 1¾ grains, sometimes more, of morphia before the operation. That keeps them asleep for from twenty-four to thirty-six hours, and all the post-operative pain is relieved. To-day people suffer practically no pain at all, or they need suffer none. I remember an instance where a man had his ankle crushed and mutilated by a large draught horse, 3 miles away from home. When the surgeon was called and saw how the leg was deformed, what did he do? Did he straighten it? Not at all. Did he take the boot off? Not at all. Did he rip the clothes? Not at all. He gave the man a dose of chloroform, and then took off his boot and stripped off the 532 clothes. Four months afterwards, when the man was absolutely recovered, he said that what amazed him most was that ho never suffered one particle of pain from the time the surgeon arrived to the time he walked into his surgery four months later.
The surgeon is the most impatient man with pain. He will not stand it for a moment, but relieves it at once by giving morphia, or cocaine, or chloroform, or by freezing, or something of that kind. All this talk about the callousness of the surgeon and of the experimenters is not true. It may have been true in the old days, fifty or a hundred years ago, but it is not true to-day. There are several points which it is very important to remember. Vivisection in Great Britain is the most humane vivisection in the world. I have seen vivisection elsewhere, and it is certainly not as humane as ours. Our experimenters are the most humane in the world. I have met them in different countries. The laws with regard to vivisection are more restrictive, and they are more respected in this country than in any other part of the world. The operations themselves are painless, and experimenters do not use dogs when they can possibly avoid it. There are experimenters just as fond of dogs as the hon. Baronet himself. There are many experimenters who say that if they can they do without dogs; but there are some who, following their particular line of research, cannot do without them, and if you take away the dog, they cannot go on with their work. Professor Starling is one of these. He cannot go on with his researches into diabetes if you take away the dog.
Then there is the question of cancer. If you pass this Bill to-day you will say that, in all prospective investigations into cancer, whatever promise there is along the line of experimentation upon dogs shall be taken away. That is a serious thing to do. We might to-morrow or next week find that the dog was essential for that purpose. That is, it might be necessary to experiment upon the dog to see whether you could produce cancer, and whether you could take it away. Is this House going to put a veto upon that? Is it going to risk putting a veto upon it? I say that it would be a most cruel and wicked thing to do. When you put the amount of suffering that men, women, and children endure beside the absolutely humane and painless experiments in this country, I am lost in amazement that men 533 like the hon. Baronet opposite, whose knowledge of affairs I often admire, should take this line. Is he going to come along with a Bill like this, and, with false sympathy, spurious sentimentality, and an absolute ignorance of the facts of the question, interfere with a line of research which promises so much? I wish to give one other quotation, and I must apologise to the House for detaining them so long. This is what Professor Cushing recently said:—
From crystals under the microcospose, to yeasts, to the silkworm, to chickens and sheep, to man—and when his studies reached man who was henceforth to be saved from the poisonous bite of his friend and ally the dog, Pasteur was accused of cruelty to animals. And the name of this simple and loving man, acknowledged the greatest of Frenchmen, but whom France alone cannot claim, is met with hisses when mentioned on certain platforms before gatherings of presumably intelligent people.There is one other statement which I think is significant along this line from the same authority:—Herein it seems to me lies the weakest point in the opposition to experimentation on the basis of cruelty, namely, that the animals whose preservation is desirable benefit from these investigations as greatly as man. There is no more notable example of this than in the case of man's companion, the dog. Through the deserved attachment which has grown out of this companionship a sentiment has arisen which would exempt the canine species from experimentation. But had such a law been put on the Statutes, Copeman's discovery of the bacterial cause of distemper and of a successful method of inoculation against this most fatal and distressing canine disease would have been impossible; and the same is true of the fatal malignant jaundice—a parasitic blood disease conveyed by the bite of the dog tick, which is so prevalent in some parts of the world as to make the rearing of dogs impossible, and for which Nuttall has found an effective remedy and means of prevention.These things are known. If you put man out of the question altogether, the amount of good that has been done to the canine species alone makes the people who are opposing this Bill, and not those who are promoting it, the friends of the dog as well as the friend of man.
§ Mr. LYNCHI have listened with great attention to the powerful speech just delivered, in which I missed only one element, and that was a certain philosophic calm that should prevail in the examination of this question. Although I wish to speak in favour of the Bill, I admit not only that vivisection has been useful in the interests of science, but that the very history of physiology from the beginning has been practically the history of vivisection. I will cite only one great instance. The circulation of the blood was not discovered, but demonstrated, by Harvey by means of vivisection. The next great discovery which added a link to our knowledge of the total process of the cir- 534 culation of the blood was brought about by Malpighi, also through vivisection. The hon. Member opposite (Dr. Chapple) mentioned for his own purpose still another link in this great scientific chain; but it was really an argument bearing on the other side. He said that without experiments on dogs it would have been impossible to have made the great discovery of collateral circulation. That was a necessary step in the elucidation of the whole question of the circulation of the blood. That was discovered by John Hunter, not by experiments on dogs, but accidentally by an experiment on a deer. Further, let me say here that I think the whole history of medicine and surgery is parallel with that of vivisection throughout the ages, but in nearly every ease it has not been experiment on the dog which has produced the result. Some other animal has been the agent of the discovery. The great discoveries of Harvey were made mainly with deer. The great discoveries of John Hunter were made mainly with deer from one of the Royal parks. Also the discoveries of Malpighi were made with frogs. There was in the discoveries in this chain a point which linked the question of the circulation of the blood to another and more important field of research, namely, the discovery of the use, or function of the thoracic duct. That is one of the very few instances in the whole history of discovery where a dog has been the subject of experiment. That was made by a French experimenter named Pecquet in the year 1647.
I would like to refer for a moment to the actual circumstances, because this experiment more than any other reveals the spirit of the scientist, also the soul of the vivisector. Pecquet has written a description of his experiments in a little Latin work which I have read in the British Museum. It is written in quaint old Latin which has been translated into English, almost as archaic and quaint. He begins by an invocation to the Deity and by a disparagement of the methods in vogue. Previously to his day experiments were mainly conducted on the dead subject. He proceeds to a description of his experiments. The whole recital I can only compare to the excitement of a romance. The whole reading of this book is extraordinarily stimulating and suggestive. You seem to feel with the writer, who himself feels it, that he is on the verge of some world-shaking discovery. You feel with him as he suspends 535 the lancet for one moment before he plunges it into the duct, and then, to his intense joy, as he sees it spout with lymph, knows that he has made a wondrous discovery. That, of course, was not an experiment conducted without pain. You may say it is a romance of the old time. If that be a reproach against me for my quotation—and I referred to some of these instances in Committee—I would ask hon. Members to remember that the physiological functions have remained the same through all time. I believe the spirit of the scientist remains pretty much the same. I mention that case particularly because it is referred to in one of these pamphlets sent to us for our instruction. I notice one by Professor Starling, in which that professor would have us believe that vivisection is an entirely innocuous proceeding. That shows confusion of thought, perhaps unintentional, but it seems to me to claim that the great results of vivisection have been brought about on the one hand by experiments free from the infliction of pain, while at the same time suggesting that that is so because a very great number of vivisection experiments are carried on without pain. I admit that nearly all the great discoveries of physiology have been due to vivisection. Let me refer to one which was adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. Again I will say of it just as of the example adduced by my hon. Friend opposite about the collateral circulation, of which the evidence was the result of an experiment, not carried out by the use of a dog, but by John Hunter in his experiment on a deer, that it does not follow because these facts are useful that experiments on dogs have determined these very useful facts.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEI was not referring to the correlation of the circulation, but to the fact that you can repair the lesion of an artery and allow the circulation to be carried on lower down—which is quite a different thing!
§ Mr. LYNCHThat depends upon the same circumstance really. The hon. Member referred to a case of the extirpation of the kidney. I think that has been a very useful fact in medical knowledge—a great turning point in the history of medical science. The experiment which determined the matter of the extirpation of the kidney was not made on a dog, but on an animal which should have come much more into 536 vogue for experiments, if experiments were considered as having more weight in proportion, as they were conducted on an animal much nearer to a man than a dog—that is another man. The first experiment on the extirpation of the kidney was made in the celebrated case of the Archer of Meudon, in the reign of Louis XIV., by order of the King and with the consent of the subject. He was condemned to death, and in order to prove a point the surgeon was allowed to experiment. Thus the point also made by the hon. and learned Member is quite useless as an argument in favour of experiments on dogs.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI was reading from; the Report of the Committee which has reference to our knowledge of the kidneys as they stand at the present time as being entirely due to operations on dogs. It is true that that is shown by experiments on animal life in 1670–72, but when Gustave Siemen, of Heidelberg, in 1869, some 200 years afterwards, wanted to relieve a woman in a distressed condition, he was reluctant to remove the kidney without first making an experiment for himself. The mere fact that some such surgery had been done 200 years before was of no practical reference to the case in 1869.
§ Mr. LYNCHI am very glad to have had that interruption, because it shows a certain confusion of mind on the part of those who are opposing this Bill. Because of experiments thought necessary in a certain case, if a case be cited where an experiment long before has been carried out, and the point determined, yet a new one must be thought necessary. I desire to insist upon this very elementary fact, that the physiological process remains the same through all the ages, and once the experiment has been performed on the kidney, for instance, that problem has found its solution once for all The surgeon cited by the hon. and learned Member was simply one of those well-intentioned men not sufficiently seized of the facts, and who did not know how to bring to his own profession a sufficiently illuminated mind. I will tell hon. Members why they did not repeat that operation for 200 years. Science has been interrupted at the various stages of its career by many causes having no relevance whatever to the broad question of science. There was the question of religion. There was the question of politics. To go back to the ancient Greeks, who were seized with the true 537 scientific spirit, they in their day experimented on man. Herophilus experimented on man; so did Erasistratus. Galen experimented on man but he did not dissect the human corpse. So that for generations and centuries the progress of medical science was retarded by that lack; and it is a very curious feature of human sentiment in this regard that whereas for centuries there was an abhorrence of dissection of the human corpse there was also much less repugnance to vivisection of the human being. With regard to other instances cited I challenge the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rawlinson), or my hon. confrère opposite, to give a single case wherein this vast research on cancer there has been a single advance made through operations on dogs.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI said we had made no advance, and that there had been many-false starts, but that at any moment we may find the real truth.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEI should like to say in answer to the challenge of the hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not fair that the bon. Gentleman should be interrupted in his speech.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LYNCHI enjoyed the last Recess of this Parliament, because it gave me an opportunity of devoting myself again to scientific work, work which made me regret to return to this House, where I only remain because from what I consider a sense of duty due to other interests. During that Recess I saw something of the work of a gentleman who, perhaps above all others, has had brilliant results in his researches on cancer, a man who has devoted an active and illuminating mind to the research on cancer, and who is on the eve of illuminating the whole history of cancer—that is Dr Borrel, of the Pasteur Institute, and his great results have been obtained, not by the vivisection of dogs, but by the microscopic examination of the stomachs of horses. And it brought out this curious fact, that in the hundreds of old horses consigned to his care from the bus companies of Paris, a very great proportion of them—I am afraid to say without my notes how great a proportion of these old horses—are affected by cancer, and in one case, after innumerable examinations, he was able to determine cancer in the very initial stage. He has come to this conclusion that cancer is not an exact term but a generic term. 538 Just as there are tuberculous diseases of various kinds, so there are cases of cancer which differ in kind, But at least in one case he has been able to form a judgment as to the etiology of cancer. Then as to the other instances of stovaine, I say that if experiments are carried out in the manner hitherto usual it would still be necessary to experiment on man. I saw an extraordinary case where one of the greatest of French surgeons injected stovaine into a patient, and presently the patient howled for all he was worth, and it taxed the eloquence of the surgeon to persuade the sufferer that all was right and to hide the expressions of discomfort; so if you obtain results from any of the lower animals, it is necessary to experiment on the human being as well. I do not intend to minimise the enormous advantages that have accrued to humanity from the results of vivisection. In the Rockfeller Institute recently two very distinguished experimentalists, Dr. Flexner and Dr. Paul Lewis, have finally succeeded in arriving at a very definite conclusion regarding one of the most painful and terrible of diseases—anterior poliomyelitis—known familiarly as infantile paralysis. These experiments have been carried further by Landsteiner and Levaditi. There, again, the experiments were performed, not on the dog, but the ape. Now I can see to the very full the force of all the arguments used as to the value of vivisection, and I say frankly my sole argument in favour of the Bill and against vivisection is a sentimental one. I make a particular exception of the dog, who, if you like to use the hackneyed phrase, is the friend of man. If we make this great exception, I say frankly it may mean some small detriment to the inarch of science, but it would be very small. I took the trouble to obtain particulars from the Pasteur Institute of the animals there used in the course of a year. I find that they use at least 20,000 guinea-pigs and 15,000 rabbits, and a number of smaller animals, including 10,000 mice, but only 400 dogs, and the experiments were so varied that they used also 400 hens or poultry. And remember this, these 400 dogs were not used for the purposes of vivisection, but were used for practical research on the diseases of dogs, such as hydrophobia, which still prevails in France, but fortunately is prevented in this country through the institution of the muzzle.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIf this Bill became the law in France they could not perform these experiments on dogs.
§ Mr. LYNCHThat is so, but I should like to urge upon the House that when one great physiological fact is absolutely determined there is no great advantage after all in continuing a series of experiments, especially when the continuance of these experiments means cruelty to the lower animals. Having stated my case very frankly, I think I may say that there is a great deal of disingenuousness in those pamphlets and even in the speech of my hon. confrère opposite, in regard to the impression which is left in the minds of others when they suggest that, as there may be no pain in vivisection, as vivisection, or in the inoculation of disease, that disposes of the question in its totality. Supposing by a pin-prick you give an animal or a man some loathsome disease, it may be that that disease may pursue him for ten years, and finally finish his life in excruciating torture, and there is a great deal of that kind of matter covered up in these disingenuous pamphlets. I will give one or two instances. I know one very distinguished scientific man in London who had the task of experimenting on a dog which was starved for six days, and which on the last three days of that six was forced, even by terrible tortures, to perform an abnormal quantity of work, simply to demonstrate this very indisputable fact in medicine, that on the last two days of this experiment the excretion of urea was notably diminished. At what definite moments in the whole series of these six days could you say any definite cruelty entered, but taking the experiment as a whole it was absolutely shocking. Turning again to one or two experiments conducted by one of the greatest Englishmen who ever shone in science, and one of the most humane, Dr. Bell, who demonstrated the difference in the functions of the anterior and exterior roots. By a section of the posterior nerves, he was able to show that, nevertheless, paralysis or virtual paralysis was produced.
That was shown by the animal being unable to support itself on its forelegs, and enduring every species of discomfort in consequence. The actual vivisection in this case was carried out quite painlessly under chloroform. One of these dogs was painted with luminous paint, and was kept in a dark room for a couple of days, in order to see if the 540 paralysis had to any extent become ameliorated. I can picture nothing more horrible than that dog, covered with luminous paint, shining like a meteor in that dark chamber. In this case how could anyone point out the precise moment where the element of pain was introduced? We have had cited to us experiments by that eminent Russian physiologist, Pawlow, and they have been cited as triumphs of vivisection, while in the same pamphlet it is indicated that vivisection is utterly painless. In reading the experiments of Pawlow I am filled with admiration of the genius of the man, and the extraordinary success of his experiments. I will indicate only one, and that is the celebrated case where Pawlow produced what is known as a pancreatic fistula, in which he cut out a part of the duodenum and stitched that to the abdominal wall, and then he observed the process of digestion with the animal so mutilated. But there was great cruelty in that, not in the vivisection, but in the after results.
Following that experiment, Pawlow had the ingenuity to make a section of the gullet of the animal and stitch the upper part to the external opening in the neck, and then he dangled before the eyes of the animal appetising food, and succeeded in getting the animal to swallow-food which of course could not satisfy its hunger, and this was done in order to show that the sight of the food caused a flow of the various juices concerned in the process of digestion. Where was the moment of cruelty in that experiment, and yet can anyone say that there was not the most revolting cruelty practised? I do not wish to urge these points unfairly because I think the experiments of Pawlow threw a luminous beam on the question of digestion, and they have convinced us that these experiments on dogs are not necessary and in no instance is a dog necessary for the purpose of any such experiment, simply because the dog is not the animal most nearly related in its organism to man. The most eminent of all scientists, Claude Bernard, who threw himself into science with an energy and devotion resembling the great examples of the mighty Greeks, conducted his experiments not upon dogs but on pigs. I have taken other great names such as Harvey and Hunter, and I have shown that the great turning points, so to speak, of this science of medicine have not had any great service rendered to them by the use 541 of experiments on dogs but upon other animals. The omnivorous animal is far better for these experiments than the dog except from the point of view of convenience and expense.
I would also point out another fallacy. It is perfectly true that out of 88,000 experiments during the year a great number which are called vivisection should not be called vivisection at all. They are innocuous, and what we might call even anodyne; and I think that in Committee, if the Bill is ever fortunate enough to get into Committee, we might very well consider that point, and give every possible assistance to these men of science, while preserving the dog from excess of cruelty. By far the greater proportion, perhaps 99 per cent., of these so-called experiments of vivisection are really not cases of vivisection. They are innocuous and anodyne and could easily be reserved. I would also enter this little caveat. Those expements are of very little use for elucidating any question in medicine. The unfortunate position is that those experiments which strike deep and go to the bottom of things, and which set research on new paths are by their very nature associated with great pain and discomfort to the animal. The case of diabetes was cited by an hon. Member opposite. Diabetes is so mysterious a disease that you are utterly unable to ascertain its origin. You only know vaguely something of its origin; but, although its onset is painless, would anyone who has ever seen a diabetes patient and has traced the disease to the end say that it is a disease which he would artificially produce in any animal he loved, and shut his mind to the sufferings which follow simply on the ground that its onset is painless? No; to sum up this part of the argument, I would say that I am thoroughly at one with those who have spoken of the great services which have been rendered to science by vivisection. I have used none of the arguments of those who issue these anti-vivisection pamphlets. The instances I have given are entirely from standard works of medicine. While granting that, I would like the advocates of vivisection also to grant me that, although vivisection has rendered great service to medicine, yet it has been at the cost of terrible suffering to this animal which, of all, is most associated with men.
I would further say, with regard to science in this country, that there has been a retardation of science in the last genera- 542 tion. It is very regrettable, but I do not think the cause has been any deficiency in the supply of dogs. One must search very much deeper. If anyone doubts the fact, I would refer him to the list of the Nobel prizemen, where Germany takes the lead absolutely, where France takes the lead relatively to population, and where this country hangs behind in the most deplorable manner, and hardly takes the lead of Italy. The cause has not been in any mere accidental circumstances, such as a deficiency in the supply of dogs for vivisection purposes, but in the fact that in this country there does not prevail, as I have seen it in other countries, a sort of atmosphere of research except in a few great and notable exceptions. Instead of scientific men seeking their glory, as they should, in the accomplishment of a great work of science, they seek their glory and honour in advancement in society, and it is when we recognise this that we strike at the real root of this evil of the retardation of the work of science which we are beginning to experience in this country. I would say that my argument, so far from beng directed against the advances of science, is accompanied by a desire to press science onwards. If there were any deficiency of animals for experimenting in the shape of expense, I would be willing to grant far larger sums than have ever been granted by this House for research. I should like to see an entirely new conception in the minds of educated men throughout the country with regard to the position of science. We must educate more than the mere technique of the scientific man, I believe that scientific work finds its great dynamic force not so much in the mere plea of intelligence, but that it is impelled by a great driving dynamic force, a great moral impulse, behind it.
This is an ethical question, and my sole plea is a sentimental one, it may be, on the ground of ethics. There has been no question which throughout my life has more pursued me than the question of cruelty. But I have not been content to throw aside any course of action simply because it might involve cruelty. I have come to think there may be too much refinement, I will not say of manners, but of manner in the ways of thinking, on the part of society. We may, at a certain stage, reach effeminacy. Looking back on the course of history, one is struck by the fact that 543 the great dominating races—the Romans, the Spaniards and the English—have at times never hesitated on the score even of deep cruelty. What is the ethical basis of our repugnance to cruelty? Does it indicate a certain deterioration in our fibre? I do not think that morality is simply wrapped up in precepts of softness and effeminacy of manner. The great standard and test of all is energy and life, and if these were necessarily associated with cruelty I would not hesitate to uphold cruelty as one of the virtues. But I do not think that cruelty is in that position. Although it is associated with the lives of great nations, yet those great nations have produced as their very flower, men of the type of Caesar and Napoleon, and you will find that these great men were not cruel by instinct or by nature. In regard to cruelty man stands in the presence of an unseen power that looms above us somewhat in the style of the old Greek tragedy: man is pursued by his own nemesis. In the life of almost every man there is some instant when he is struck down by the hand of fate, when he finds himself alone with the mysteries of the universe and when, feeling the pressure of adversity, he makes his mute appeal to the God above him against the cruelty of his fate. Then he meets with the answer, "What you have meted out to others has been meted out to you." It is on these grounds I make my appeal.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)We have had a very interesting discussion. There have been intervals of heat and passion almost inseparable from a Debate of this nature, but I think we are very much indebted to the hon. Member who last spoke for the atmosphere of historic calm which spread itself out through his speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about the present position of affairs and the existing law. In the course of this discussion some charges have been made that there is cruelty, and perhaps unnecessary cruelty, now going on. As far as the Home Office is concerned we desire to say, and to say most emphatically, that we do not think there is any basis or foundation for that charge. Perhaps the House will allow me to state shortly what are the present safeguards under which these experiments are conducted. In the first place, without anæsthetics you cannot have experiments 544 beyond a simple inoculation or superficial venesection. In that there is no cruelty and no unnecessary cruelty.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI understand that the hon. Member is against that. I believe he stands almost alone in the House.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe Bill is against it too.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODOnly in regard to dogs.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI understand that my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) is against any experiment of that kind on any animal. I will leave the question of experiments without anæsthetics. With regard to experiments with anæsthetics, these only take place under three conditions, which are always attached to every licence for any experiment under anæsthetics. First of all, all operative procedures in connection with the experiments detailed in certificate "B," shall be carried out under anaesthetics of sufficient power to prevent the animal from feeling pain. Secondly, the animals experimented on shall be treated with strict antiseptic precautions, or if these fail and pain results, the animals shall be immediately killed under anæsthetics. There is a third condition to which I attach special importance, to which I would draw special attention. It is in three paragraphs, and refers not to the anæsthetic condition, or the antiseptic condition, but to the pain condition. The three paragraphs are: first, if the animal after and by reason of any of the said experiments under the said certificate "B" is found to be suffering pain which is either severe or is likely to endure, and if the main result of the experiment has been attained, the animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed. This condition was only formerly imposed in some cases. It is now imposed in all cases. The second paragraph provides that if an animal, after and by reason of the said experiment, is found to be suffering severe pain which is likely to endure, such animal shall forthwith be painlessly killed, whether the main result of the experiment has been attained or not. That is new and is now universally imposed. The third paragraph provides that if any animal appears to an inspector 545 to be suffering considerable pain, and if the inspector directs such animal to be destroyed, it shall forthwith be painlessly killed.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODThat was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThat is carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lockwood) was a member. This Debate is different from any other Debate that has taken place on the subject-matter of this Bill. In 1912 the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) introduced a Bill on the very same day, curiously enough, that the Report of the Royal Commission was issued. In 1913 a Bill was passed, in a manner best known to the hon. Baronet himself, without Debate or discussion. How it happened I suppose will never be elucidated. It showed that the hon. Baronet is as great an expert in opposing legislation of which he disapproves as he is in expediting legislation to which he is favourable. I mention that to make it perfectly clear that this is the first time this House has discussed the subject-matter of this Bill with the recommendations of the Royal Commission before it. I have heard several extracts read from the Report during the course of this afternoon's Debate. I was here all the time, with the exception of one short interval, and it seems to me that, with the exception of three lines of it, no one has quoted the really operative clause of the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher) quoted the first three lines. They are these:—
In view of the variety of practice and divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentations and demonstrations we find some difficulty in deciding upon this important question.There he left it. Obviously we must go on. That was not very elucidating, because if there had been no difficulty the Royal Commission would not have been appointed.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 special protection given to horses, asses and mules should be extended to dogs, while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether.Now come the operative words:—But if any alteration is made in the existing procedure"—546 The House will note the significance of the word "if"—the majority of us would agree that the special enactments now applicable to horses, asses and mules might be extended to dogs, and also to cats and anthropoid apes.That is really, as far as we can get it, all that the Royal Commission has done upon this interesting point.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODOn the Royal Commission we felt that if any statutory change is necessary it would be impossible to get the recommendations made in that Commission, and it was in our efforts to avoid making a new Statute we rather slurred over that point.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHIt is rather an unfortunate slurring. It shows that you might as well grapple with the question at once, and it would have been far more satisfactory because Royal Commissions are appointed, not to slur, but to instruct.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI did not mean slur. I meant that in our efforts to avoid having to get a Statute we missed it.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHWe all know the difficulty of getting Statutes. If that was the right attitude to take, what is our present position? At present experiments on dogs may be performed as long as the experiments are under anæsthetics without a certificate to the effect that the experiments would be frustrated if a dog was not available; whereas if the experiment is on horses, mules, or asses, such a certificate is necessary, and I supported in the Committee last year the proposal to make an Amendment to the effect that dogs should be put in the same position as horses, asses and mules, so that a special certificate should be required, when the experiments were under anæsthetics, that no other animal would serve for the particular purpose for which the experiment was made. That Amendment was carried, and it led ultimately to the defeat of the Bill. As far as I am concerned, what I favour is not the total prohibition of all experiments upon dogs, but that if it is thought, and we think, that additional safeguards are necessary, the safeguards I have now indicated should be available for the protection of dogs, so that in future, if the suggestion I have made is accepted, no one will be able to have an experiment upon dogs unless it be found that no other animal is available for the purpose. That is a compromise. I do not want to oppose the 547 Second Reading, but I wish to say quite frankly, that I did my best to hold the balance between the two sides in Committee last year, and if the Second Reading be passed in Committee I shall be under the necessary of supporting or moving some Amendment so as not altogether to prohibit vivisection upon dogs, but to give that additional safeguard that belongs to the animals mentioned in Section 5 of the Act of 1876. The hon. Gentleman (Sir P. Magnus), I think, put his case too high when he said he did not believe in different laws for rich and poor, nor in any differentiation of laws for animals. Of course the differentiation is already allowed in Section 5. It is our proposal to remove the dog from one classification to another, and although perhaps it will not satisfy the promoters of the Bill it will give some safeguard.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORMy hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch) in his interesting and admirable speech seemed to me towards the close to utter something like what I shall call a homily on cruelty to animals. When I heard the hon. Gentleman advocating this Bill I wondered whether those who argue against cruelty have their view circumscribed to the case of the dog in relation to vivisection. I think cruelty to human beings is involved in this Bill, and I think that cruelty to dogs is also involved. If animal life is to be so sacred, and if animal suffering is so much to be avoided—and I am in entire sympathy with that tendency; I think it is one of the best tendencies of our time and country—I would ask that the same feeling of sympathy should be extended a little further. I do not know what are the habits of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Bill (Colonel Lockwood) is a fine specimen of a good country squire, and that he has all the amenities of a typical country squire, including, I presume, pheasant grounds. I have read in many books descriptions of the amount of suffering and cruelty that are inflicted on pheasants which make it difficult for me to understand how a lover and protector of animals is able in any way to give countenance to these cruelties and at the same time to support a Bill like this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pheasants are useful for food!"] The hon. Gentleman says it is not wrong to inflict cruelty on animals which are used for food and sport, but that 548 it is wrong to inflict a certain amount of suffering on dogs, although countless human beings are affected by the results of experiments which are made upon them. Let me refer to our treatment of man. I still remember the horror with which I read a letter giving a description of the tortures that for days and weeks an unfortunate wretch had to pass through before he atoned for his crime on the scaffold. If I were to get up and propose the abolition of capital punishment, and to give a description of the sufferings which men have to go through, in the same way as descriptions have been given of the sufferings of dogs under vivisection—which, I believe, are largely imaginary and drawn from those mendacious pamphlets which are published on the subject—if I were to get up and on the strength of the description of the horrors of this unfortunate wretch advocate the abolition of capital punishment the hon. Gentleman would be one of the first in this House to declare that, although capital punishment inflicted suffering on the individual, it was necessary for the benefit of society at large.
Comparisons have been made of dog and man, and it has been said that they are so like each other that we should treat them almost in the same way. No man in this House is fonder of dogs than I am. I have risked my hand many a time by patting a strange dog, and, as a matter of fact, I really find it difficult to pass any dog without bidding it the time of day. I am against the infliction of any suffering on the dog which can be avoided. I have watched him in distemper and in a prematurely inflicted death. Do not let us confuse this question by saying that the side which we take on this Bill is affected by any love or want of love for dogs. That is common ground. If that were the only ground on which this Bill could be discussed there would not be a man in this House against it. How can you make these extraordinary and forced analogies between dog and man? The hon. Member for the University told us that 30,000 dogs were destroyed in the lethal chamber in Battersea. I dare say that there is a large number of human beings in the city suffering far more torture than dogs under the experimenters, and if the lethal chamber were open to them a certain proportion might be very glad of that happy release from their troubles. But who except my bon. Friend the panegyrist of cruelty—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, shall we say the dithyrambic describer, in that ardent pursuit of the 549 Scientific spirit, which he recommended in such eloquent language, would be found to argue that it would be a great deal better for the world if a large number of its population should pass into the lethal chamber? But all these comparisons are foolish and faulty. What is really the point at issue? It is whether we have the right to subject dogs to painless experiments in the interests of human happiness and human progress.
I have heard a great many arguments in favour of the plea that dogs are not necessary for the advancement of medical science, and this is the only plea that can have weight. I am not an authority on the subject, but I can make this broad statement, that practically every great man of science in the world, and especially every great medical man of science in the world, has pledged himself to the opinion that the dog is a necessary animal for carrying on experiments. We hear a lot about the tortures of animals, including dogs, and I have seen some of these mendacious pictures, that a number of well-intentioned people, but people who like most well-intentioned fanatics, do not know the facts, have prepared. But is not there another picture that could be presented? Why, any medical man in this House, and any man who knows anything about disease will know that not many years ago there was a horrible and devastating and most painful and torturing disease, diphtheria, which ravaged home after home in this country. Can any man picture a more hideous torture than that of a home, into whose nursery diphtheria had entered a few years ago? There was the child, around whom all the hopes of the very parents were centred, actually being strangled; and the mother was helpless, the father was helpless and the doctor was helpless. And the child died after hours of torture. And now, when through vivisection, as even my hon. Friend who supports this ridiculous Bill says, that disease has been so diminished that every parent in the country has reason to feel secure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is that denied? [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not vivisection on dogs."] I have not said on dogs, I have said by vivisection. I am not going to state my case unfairly. I lay this down, and I think no man can deny it that these experiments have enormously advanced human happiness and gigantically and incalculably decreased human misery. The case is made that dogs are not necessary. I am not an authority. 550 I have consulted with medical practitioners, and I am told that there are many human maladies as to which the vivisection of the dog affords the clearest and most direct route to the discovery of the source of disease and the means of curing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton, than whom there is no higher authority on diseases connected with the thyroid gland, says that they have been largely traced, and the remedy also has been traced, through vivisection of the dog. Does anybody know what disease of the thyroid gland produces? It produces a disease which reduces young men and young women often to cretinism—a state of practical imbecility. It distorts the face, not merely with pustules, but with all that horrible vacancy which comes from the deterioration of the brain. Will anybody tell me that if an experiment on a dog, under an anæsthetic produced the clue to this disease, and enabled the doctor to remove the incalculable arid hideous suffering of cretinism, the experiment is not justified in the interests of that which is highest of all, the service of man and the improvement of his condition and lot? I will quote this passage—which has already been referred to by an hon. Gentleman above the Gangway—from the Report:—
The use of other animals was also advocated by Dr. Swan and Mr. Corden, but in the opinion of sir J. R. Bradford the use of a pig sheep, or goat in substitution for a dog would, at any rate as regards all the experiments' for which a dog is now generally employed, be quite impracticable; and the general view of most seientific 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.What answer can I give to a statement like that? Hon. Gentleman come here and, oil their own testimony, and in obedience to their own feelings—excellent and admirable feelings—declare that dogs are not necessary, and when they make that declaration in the face of scientific authority, in the face of this document which has been sent to all Members of this House, and signed by all leaders of the medical and surgical profession in this country, I prefer to stand on scientific-authority and upon the Report of the Commission, rather than upon the mere ipsi dixit sentimentalists, who are always blind to the facts and condition's of the case. My hon. Friend was one of those who said that experiments could be made on pigs. The pig has its rights. As a matter of fact, if I may be allowed to say so, I regard the pig somewhat as my countryman, and I am really fond of the animal. And when I recall the old 551 woman's evening anthem calling the pig to its home, my heart yearns towards my native land. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London is going to exclude dogs, which are the friends of man, why not exclude pigs, which are at least the friends of Irishmen? The fact of the matter is that if you begin with this kind of legislation you do not know where you will end. My hon. Friend opposite, who is very enthusiastic on this subject and whose excellent intentions I recognise, I think would put an end to vivisection altogether.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNORWe are now getting at the real purpose of some of the supporters of this Bill. To put down vivisection altogether would put the science of this country behind the science of every civilised country in the world, and you would be committing, in my opinion, a crime against the interests of humanity. Those are the views which I think reasonable men hold upon this question. It is false sentiment on the one side and it is genuine and true sentiment on the other. It is in the interests of humanity and the interests of animals themselves, because, as my hon. Friend opposite pointed out, no body of animals in the world have benefited so much from the vivisection of dogs as the dogs themselves. Hydrophobia has been cured—by the muzzling order say some of the supporters of this Bill, as if that would cure it! Hydrophobia, which inflicted as much injury almost on dogs as on human beings, has been cured by experiments upon dogs, and, therefore, those friends of the dogs, those sentimental friends of the dogs, are as much against the real interests of the dogs as of humanity. I pray the House not to be carried away by false and sloppy and ignorant sentimentality on this question, and not to deal a blow at that which has been of such incalculable benefit to this country already and which has placed its great surgeons in the forefront of the benefactors to mankind, but to safeguard the interests of man and dog by rejecting this Bill.
Mr. CHANCELLORI only rise because of the challenge thrown out by the hon. Gentleman, who asked if I desired to put an end to this practice of experimenting on the lower animals in order to find out matters with regard to the treatment of 552 human suffering. I do, Sir, not only as a humanitarian, but because I believe that that practice involves false science, and I am backed up by the report of Dr. Wilson, who is himself a man of very wide experience and one of the two medical members of the Royal Commission who were not committed in favour of vivisection. In the course of the Report (page 110) he made these remarks, which are, I believe, worthy of the attention of the House:—
Bacteriologists have only confused issues, and in focussing all their research work on the bacillus have misdirected attention from the essential casual factors.In a later part Dr. Wilson says—and this is the real danger arising from our dependence on these experimental processes that have been described at such length:—The distinguished physician, with his unrivalled clinical experience and intimate knowledge of disease, is gradually being ousted from the treatment of cases for which vaccine therapy is deemed essential by the bacteriologist who has little or no experience of disease except what he can induce in animals.His only knowledge is a knowledge of artificially induced disease. That was what happened during eight years in connection with the British Tuberculosis Commission. In another place Dr. Wilson said that he felt strongly that practical preventive medicine was being driven into-dubious paths of investigation carried out in animal laboratories which were essentially liable to error in their interpretation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs (Dr. Chapple) made the kind of speech I expected from him—a speech full of dogmatic assertions and alleged facts, which one would imagine had never been challenged inside the ranks of his own profession. I presume that the hon. Member is prepared to stand by what he has said, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Is he prepared to reassert those opinions upon a platform, where they can be met by a man with similar qualifications to his own, and where they can be subjected to the examination of reason and of fact? In other words, is he prepared to debate the question if I provide a platform for him? It is utterly useless for a layman like myself, who is interested only in a general way, but who, having read a good deal on both sides of the question, has come to the conclusion that the knowledge derived from this experimentation is false knowledge, and not scientific knowledge, and is really leading away from the solution of the questions which the medical profession have to solve 553 —it is useless for me to put my arguments against those of the hon. Member; but if this Bill reaches Committee, I will see that every Member of that Committee is invited to hear the hon. Member explain his views in the presence of an opponent who is medically qualified to meet him. I am not convinced that there is no cruelty even under the new arrangement. Take the case in Edinburgh. Here was the case of a dog taken to a hospital, purchased by the authorities—who must have known that the dog was a stray or stolen beast—experimented upon, and only accidentally discovered six weeks later. Was there no cruelty inflicted upon that dog? Was that six weeks' cruelty without any anæsthetics? Had the experiments been reported? Has the inspector visited the hospital? Does he know anything about it? Why has no step been taken to punish either the thief, who originally stole the dog, or the professor, who purchased it, both of whom were breaking the law? Why has the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland taken no notice of this matter?
§ Lord A. THYNNEWhat has theft got to do with vivisection?
Mr. CHANCELLORThe dog is not protected by the existing law. The Act of 1876 has been a protection less to the animal in many cases than to the vivisector. Before the Commission of 1875 evidence was given by a doctor whose evidence was so callous that Professor Huxley boiled over, and in his "Life" you will see a letter expressing utter disgust for the statements made. Dr. Klein today is an official under the Home Office practising vivisection. Another gentleman—Dr. Pembroy—has given expression to the opinion that animals might well be practised upon without anæsthetics, because, he alleges, the dog passed into a state of coma or unconsciousness. These opinions were so utterly out of harmony that they were denounced by the Commission. It was said by the Commission that on no account should such a man have another licence issued to him. Dr. Pembrey has his licence to-day. When a question was put to the Home Secretary he replied that he had seen this gentleman, and that he was convinced by his conversation with him that his opinions were quite different from those given utterance to by the Commission. I have read the evidence, and what the Commission said about it. It is a perfectly fair statement of the case as made by Dr. Pembrey. 554 This gentleman is to-day undoubtedly practising under a licence. Hon. Members need not be surprised that people who take-an interest in this matter should think there may perhaps be a great deal of cruelty behind that does not come to the public notice; especially so when you remember that in response to an inquiry I made some time ago I was informed that only in one single case has any irregularity in carrying out the law been discovered by the inspector; and that every case of irregularity is one which has been discovered in the reports of the vivisectors themselves—in other words, they have incriminated themselves unintentionally in making out their reports. We have not any faith in the perfect humanity with which these experiments are carried on. Whilst I have no desire to cast a slur upon any of these professional gentlemen, I do desire to remind the House that there is a great deal of disquiet on the part of those who have an interest in this question. We shall be very much relieved to know that the Home Office is far more strict in the performance of its duties in the future than it has been in the past. I support this Bill because I believe it is the first step towards carrying out that at which I aim—the placing of the pursuit of medicine on its proper basis: the study of the human subject and of disease in the human subject, and not the study of disease in the lower animals.
§ Sir JOSEPH LARMORI have no right to interfere on the technical side in this dispute. My vote must be given on the ground of what I consider is the weight of authority in this matter. I have taken note of the document which has been circulated under the signatures of people who I know are representatives of medical and physiological science in this country. They say that if this Bill were to be passed into law the progress of science which deals with the amelioration of human life and suffering will be seriously interfered with. Nothing I have heard in the miscellaneous discussion alters my opinion as to the abundant weight of authority contained in that Report. I admit that there is a great moral question behind the whole question of vivisection, but I am convinced that so long as surgery remains a science and the people are afflicted with disease they will demand surgical interference, and therefore you must have vivisection either on the human subject or the animal.
§ Sir F. BANBURY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
556§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 80.
555| Division No. 79.] | AYES. | [5.0 p.m. |
| Alden, Percy | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Newman, John R. P. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | O'Doherty, Phillp |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | O'Dowd, John |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Hancock, John George | O'Shee, James John |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Barnes, George N. | Hardie, J. Keir | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Radford, G. H. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Reddy, Michael |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hemmerde, Edward George | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George's) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hodge, John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hogge, James Myles | Rowlands, James |
| Butcher, John George | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Sandys, G. J. |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Snowden, Philip |
| Cassel, Felix | Hudson, Walter. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hunt, Rowland | Thomas, J. H. |
| Clough, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jowett, Frederick William | Wardle, George J. |
| Crooks, William | Joyce, Michael | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Delany, William | Kenyon, Barnet | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lynch, A. A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Field, William | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Worthington Evans, L. |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Glanville, Harold James | Marks, Sir George Croydon | |
| Goldstone, Frank | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grant, J. A. | Morrell, Philip | Sir. Frederick Banbury and Col. Lockwood. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nolan, Joseph |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Gladstone, W. G. C | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Gulland, John William | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Boyton, James | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hackett, John | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hayden, John Patrick | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hazleton, Richard | Pringle, William M. H. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Kelly, Edward | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Kilbride, Denis | Sheehy, David |
| Clancy, John Joseph | King, Joseph | Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lardner, James C. R. | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Larmor, Sir J. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Croft, H. P. | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lundon, Thomas | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Cullinan, John | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Dairymple, Viscount | McGhee, Richard | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim,. N.) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Molloy, Michael | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Duffy, William J. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Muldoon, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Murphy, Martin J. | Mr. Rawlinson and Sir Philip Magnus. |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.