§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now go into Committee."—(The Earl of Carnarvon)
§ THE MARQUESS OFLANSDOWNEsaid, he hoped he might be allowed before the House went into Committee, to say a few words which were applicable to the general principle of the Bill rather than to any particular clause of it. He would first remind their Lordships that immediately before the Whitsuntide Recess, the noble Duke the President of the Council stated to their Lordships that he had received a number of important communications on the subject of this Bill, but that he had not been able to arrive at any conclusion with reference to the suggestions contained in those communications, and that consequently the Committee would be postponed till after the holidays. A statement such as that was naturally regarded as one with some significance, and the meaning he attached to it was that the Government were about to make important modifications in the Bill. Three weeks had since elapsed, and he found that the Bill remained in its original shape, and that in the Amendments of which the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Carnarvon) had given Notice no attempt was made to meet adequately the objections urged against the measure. In the meanwhile public opinion had been growing day by day, and he thought he was not misdescribing the case when he said that so far as the great Profession which would be affected by the Bill was concerned, public opinion was very unfavourable to the details of the measure. He did not propose to refer to the various complaints and suggestions made in the general Petitions, but would say that various memorials which had been presented on the subject of the Bill by medical Bodies were unanimous in asking for an alteration of that provision which would restrict vivisection to experiments performed "with a view only to the advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or 106 prolonging human life or alleviating human suffering." It must be remembered that all great discoveries were of gradual growth, and that it was impossible to affirm positively of any one experiment of a tentative kind that it would result in a discovery by which life might be prolonged or suffering diminished. Nor did the Report of the Royal Commission at all justify such a limitation. The Report showed, indeed, that the attitude of the Profession was not one of factious opposition to legislation on vivisection; that the abuses arising from vivisection in the country were very small and very much exaggerated, and that the medical Profession very generally leant towards humanity and forbearance. Bearing that in mind he ventured to suggest that the representations to which he referred were deserving of the very highest and most delicate consideration, not only because the persons who made them were men able to appreciate the effect of such legislation, but also because unless we had the concurrence and confidence of the medical Profession it was too much a matter of certainty than any legislation which Parliament might attempt in the matter would be evaded and ineffectual. They could not do away with vivisection; all they could do was to regulate it, and he concurred in the opinion of Professor Rolleston, that a declaration of the sentiment of the Legislature against the infliction of needless pain on animals would in itself have a very beneficial effect. It was proposed by the Bill to have a system of licences—licences to the person by whom, and licences to the places in which the experiments might be conducted. He thought that licensing persons in this case might be desirable, as it would impose personal responsibility; but when the Bill went further and made the licences extend to places he believed that to be a mistake. Again, there was no occasion to subject distinguished men to the domiciliary visits of Inspectors, and he should be glad to see these officials, whose duties would be very inquisitional and invidious, removed from the Bill. Their interference was uncalled for where a licence to try experiments had been obtained, and as for the unlicensed or contraband experiments they would not come under inspection, but would be dealt with by the police constable and 107 the magistrate. Their appointment further involved the selection of a class of officers very difficult to obtain, for it would be necessary that they should have professional knowledge sufficient to enable them to judge accurately of the value of these researches, and it would not be easy to find persons in whose judgment the public and the Profession would have confidence. It was only by acting in unison with the highest professional authorities that Parliament could hope to effectually regulate the practice of vivisection, and he feared that in his zeal to prevent abuse the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill would alienate the support upon which he ought to rely, and discredit the good cause of humanity in which every Member of the House was interested.
§ Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 1 (Short Title).
THE EARL OFCARNARVONsaid, that at the proper time he intended to propose that the title of the Bill be changed from "An Act to prevent cruel experiments on Animals" to "An Act to amend the law relating to Cruelty to Animals." This change he proposed in deference to the opinion expressed by a deputation of the medical Profession.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (General restriction as to performance of painful experiments. on animals).
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETalled attention to the opening words of the clause. "The following restrictions are imposed by this Act with respect to the performance on any living animal of an experiment," &c. Was a jellyfish a living animal? A great number of experiments were perpetually performed by farmers; and there were continual experiments on small animals and insects for their benefit. What was to be done in these cases? Had they not better define what a "living animal" was? He feared they were about to pass a Bill which would be absurd in its application, and which no one would clearly understand.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought their Lordships would do well not to 108 enter on the work of definition proposed by the noble Duke. The General Medical Council had spent half a day in endeavouring to define "any living animal," and ultimately giving up in despair, recommended that there should be no such definition.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that, in the case their Lordships had to deal with, the use of the word "living" was unnecessary. Vivisection was not performed on dead animals.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought the matter was not so clear as his noble Friend supposed. With some animals the head might be cut off and signs of sensation might still appear.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSEThoped his noble Friend who had presided over the Royal Commission, and other noble Lords who had served upon it, would come to their aid and help them in a definition of "living animal;" and that they would also explain what they meant by "inflicting unnecessary pain upon animals," because it was sometimes necessary to destroy animals wholesale.
§ VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, the Royal Commission had the advantage of hearing the most eminent physiological and medical authorities; and, further, it had the great advantage of having as one of its Members a most eminent physiologist. He trusted that, after that, the House would not feel over-troubled by the difficulties with respect to definitions which presented themselves to his noble Friend. The Commissioners had not felt themselves at all perplexed in their inquiries, and had come to a unanimous conclusion as to what they should recommend. Since the Commission closed its labours, he had received from many of the most distinguished professional men in this country the expressal of the entire approval of the result of those labours; and only on the previous day he had the honour of seeing a letter from the President of the Royal Society, in which similar approval was expressed. They had now to deal with a practical measure, and he trusted that their Lordships would deal with the subject practically, and not be thrown off the scent by the red herring which was now being drawn across the path of the Bill.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETonly hoped the magistrates would be able to do that which it appeared neither the General 109 Medical Council nor the Legislature were able to do—to define that which might or might not be done—otherwise it might go hard with a farmer who destroyed a wasp's nest.
§ LORD WINMARLEIGHpointed out that destroying a wasp's nest was a positive act of destruction, and not an experiment on a living animal; and the destruction of animals wholesale would not be done as an experiment.
LORD RAYLEIGHmoved, as an Amendment in sub-section 1, to leave out from ("advancement") to ("suffering") and insert ("of medical or physiological knowledge.")
§ LORD COLERIDGEMy Lords, I do not desire to stop for a moment the progress of a Bill, in the success of which I feel so deep an interest, by any unnecessary speaking. But I wish in the fewest possible words to tender my thanks to the noble Earl for a measure, humane indeed, yet wise and temperate, and practical in its humanity, and to entreat him, if he will allow me, to stand firm to the main outlines of the Bill, and to resist all attempts to change its essential character. Some of the Amendments which have been suggested would, if carried, make the Bill valueless in my eyes; indeed, I would rather see it lost than see it carried with some of those Amendments. Better a thousand times the present state of things, with the aroused and increasing indignation of a people, sometimes coarse and brutal, no doubt, as some portions of all great multitudes will be, but never deliberately cruel, never turning away from the appeal, even if it be the mute appeal, of suffering and oppressed creatures;—better this, than a recognition by the Legislature of the moral lawfulness of inflicting torture for any but the very highest objects, and in the fewest instances, and a law which would be rather an encouragement to the vivisect or than a protection to his victims. It is of vital consequence that this Bill should be a real effective measure—a real step in the direction in which its advocates mean to go. For a Bill of this kind, and the feeling which generates a Bill of this kind, cannot be produced every year. Whatever passes will be treated by many men as a present settlement of the question. The inert force of that large mass of men who wish to leave things alone, or do 110 not take the trouble to understand or to care about a question, a force the weight of which can hardly be over-rated by any practical man who has to run counter to it; this force will be strengthened by the passing of any Bill whatever, and will greatly aid the opposition of those comparatively few men of ability and intelligence who now actively oppose the regulation even, as well as the abolition, of cutting up animals alive. So much by way of general entreaty to the noble Earl. Next, as to this particular Amendment, I may say that, individually, I have that true respect for the noble Earl, and so much confidence in his intentions and his judgment, that if he thinks it, on the whole, wise to accept it, I shall certainly not trouble the House by dividing against him. But what is the main and great object of the present Bill—its characteristic, its essence? I apprehend, speaking for the moment without the qualifications (which, nevertheless, I do not forget), it is to prevent by law the infliction of torments upon living creatures. Experiments themselves are only to be allowed for certain definite objects. As a rule, in all experiments, insensibility is to exist in the subject during their performance, and as a rule they are to be performed only for the prolongation of human life, or the alleviation of human suffering. This limitation, as I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Rayleigh), it is proposed to relax. Now, for my own part, I must confess, that, the more I think about it, the less I am satisfied that we have the moral right, which is assumed, to torture animals for the benefit of mankind. At least it seems to me more and more certain that the exercise of this right, if it exists, should be restrained within the narrowest practicable limits; and that it should never be done, except in what is, perhaps, a legal phrase, but none the worse for that, whenever it is reasonably necessary. I have heard it indeed denied, and denied on very high authority, that there is any justice to be observed by us towards animals, on the ground that there is nothing correlative on their parts towards us, and that they have been given over absolutely into our dominion. I will not embark your Lordships or myself in a discussion on the metaphysic of morality, but, granting that they have been given 111 to us, or, what comes to the same thing as far as they are concerned, that we have taken them absolutely into our power; and granting that we cannot be unjust towards them, in the strict sense of the word, all this does not absolve us from our moral duties towards them, of which the plainest and simplest of all is, that we should never needlessly torture them. What do we know about them? We do not know their life; we cannot describe their interests; we cannot foretell their destiny. Whether they have reason, or responsibility, we do not know. Some men doubt whether they have feeling in the sense that we have, as they seem to have no reflection and no foresight. Whether they perish altogether, appeared to so great a man as Butler to be at least far from certain. I presume, therefore, to doubt extremely whether we know enough of them to conclude that we have the absolute right of torturing them, even for our own direct benefit. I doubt whether, if it were certain that by putting 1,000 horses to death in slow and hideous torments, we could prolong the life of a man or of men for a few hours or a few days—I doubt much if it would be justifiable so to torture 1,000 horses. I believe, if I spoke my whole mind, I should say, that I do not doubt that it would be clearly and abominably wrong. This rule of what we may do with creatures in our power for our own benefit, we ourselves being the judges, may be very convenient, but is undoubtedly capable of dangerous extension. Dogs and cats were described as carnivorous animals of great value for purposes of research. Well, dogs and cats cannot be heard against the scientific accuracy of the definition. But what as to slaves? More than 2,000 years ago Aristotle called them "living tools." And in the lifetime of the youngest Peer in your Lordships' House, in a great, allied, and Christian country, at least in a great part of it, it was hardly an exaggeration to say they were as completely chattels, and had as few legal rights as chairs or tables. They were held in absolute dominion. Could they have been lawfully (I mean in morality) put to cruel torture for the purpose of prolonging the life or alleviating the suffering of the superior race? Most certainly not. The whole voice of civilized mankind would have returned a fierce and angry nega- 112 tive to any such insulting question. This theory of the rights resulting from absolute dominion must, it seems, have some stern limitation put upon it. But further still. In the lofty and spiritual philosophy of the great Bishop to whom I have already alluded, our bodies are called masses of matter in which we are nearly interested. I suppose that other bodies would have been described by him as masses of matter in which we are not so nearly interested. And, if the prevailing views of the opponents of this Bill be correct, and are to be acted on, there is no limit, except that of power, by which we should be restrained from operating for our own benefit, and for the advancement of science, on the bodies of others—these masses of matter in which we have not so near an interest as our own. If the principles on which these limitations are resisted become widespread and effective, if science is the great object, if advance in knowledge—genuine if you will, and honestly pursued if you please—is to justify all cruelty in ourselves and all suffering in others which advance, or tend to advance, real knowledge, depend on it you will find that not only in reason, but in fact, men and women will not long be respected as subjects for scientific experiments, and, if the end justifies the means, I do not know why they should be. There is a frightful letter in The Examiner of this week, signed by Mr. Maitland, the statements of which, as regards our hospitals, if well founded, would go to show that poor men and women are not now respected by scientific men, but are regarded, like cats and dogs, as animals of great value for purposes of research. I hope and pray that these statements may prove to be exaggerated or unfounded. But, unless you tell scientific men that, as a rule, it is unlawful to inflict tortures for the sake of research, the statements of that letter will soon be neither unfounded nor exaggerated. I need not say, therefore, that the Amendment of the noble Lord, as far as my own judgment goes, is one that I would strenuously oppose. But I repeat that I shall not dispute the judgment at which the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies may finally arrive. I have detained your Lordships too long; but there is another matter which seems to me of consequence to say, and I should be glad to be allowed to say it. I hope and pray that your Lordships will not be 113 either alarmed or misled by the argument which, in Parliament and out of it, has been used against the Bill, drawn from the alleged cruelty of certain field-sports; and from the pain inflicted upon numbers of the males of many agricultural animals by practices familiar to us all. I must frankly say, that some field-sports do appear to be to me detestably cruel; and that, perhaps, in a perfect state of the word we should all learn—
Never to blend our pleasure or our prideWith sorrow of the meanest thing that feels.I do not, however, think that all sport is cruel; and I know well enough that, if it were, what Mr. Windham said 70 years ago is true to day—namely, that cruel sports do not make cruel men. Admit, however, all that is said on this subject, and I cannot see the sense or follow the logic of it. Where is the sense, where is the logic, of saying to a practical man—"You must not try to put down this, not because it is not cruel, but because you are not at the same time trying to put down that, which is cruel too?" My answer is, that I do what I can; and that, if ever the time arrives when the great majority of mankind think the practices I have spoken of as cruel as they think the practices which it is the object of this Bill to prevent, they will then put down those practices without the smallest hesitation. Oh, but says an opponent, this is "fancy" legislation; sometimes the expression is "partial" legislation. As to fancy legislation, I must observe, that calling bad names does not advance the argument a single step; and, as to partial legislation, my answer is, that all legislation is in a sense necessarily partial; you cannot do everything, any more than you can say everything, at once. The one question for a man of sense to answer is this—Is the thing right in itself to do? I cannot conceive any one who has read the Report of the Royal Commission, or the evidence for instance of Dr. Klein, answering that question except in the affirmative. If so, we reply that we mean to do it, and do it now. My Lords, I know how very easily a clever cynic may turn all this into fun. Nothing is easier to do. Nothing in its proper place and at its proper time is more amusing or more delightful than to hear such a man humourously laughing at anything tinged 114 with imagination and enthusiasm. It is true that you may, as it has been said, so speak of earth, that it grows more earthy, so speak of Heaven that it recedes from view. But surely my Lords, keen pain and long-drawn agony, even in the meanest of God's creatures, are not convenient matters for a jest; and I am very sure that in your Lordships' House, whatever conclusions are arrived at, will be the issue of grave and serious argument, and that, as the cause is worthy of your Lordships, so your Lordships will be worthy of the cause.
§ VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that as he had himself given Notice of an Amendment almost identical with that which had been moved by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Rayleigh), he wished to say a few words in its support. He hoped to be able to convince the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill that if he intended to make it a practical and effective measure he must accept some such Amendment as that now before the Committee. In drawing up a measure of this kind it was above all things necessary that it should be plain and intelligible—such that those who had to administer the law would be able to apply, and which need not remain a dead letter on the Statute Book; and he trusted that the noble Earl would act upon the practical principle of doing all the good which he could, even although it might not be all that he wished to do. This was exactly the position in which the Royal Commission found themselves. Their object was to do what they could to do away with the torture of animals in experiments, entirely where it was possible to do so, and to reduce it to the smallest amount in cases where it could not be altogether abolished. In arriving at the conclusion they had done on the subject they had not been governed by medical opinion or by mere scientific opinion. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken (Lord Coleridge) appeared altogether to have omitted from his consideration the recommendation of the Commission that anæsthetics should be employed in all cases where they could possibly be had recourse to. That was the key to the whole question. If in the Royal Commission they had occupied their time in discussing the metaphysics of morality—in examining the relations of man to the lower animals as regarded by Aristotle—or in considering 115 with Bishop Butler the possible existence of the lower animals in a future state—they would have made little progress in the practical duty confided to them by the Crown. That duty was to assist the Legislature in framing enactments which without retarding the progress of discovery for the benefit of man, might put the closest attainable limit upon the suffering inflicted upon the lower animals. The real question for their Lordships would be whether or not the Bill would be improved and rendered more welcome by the adoption of the Amendment, which would render its construction more easy to those who would have to work under it and who would have to carry it into execution. It was most desired by those who were anxious on the side of humanity that the measure should be above all things practicable. It would be very hard for a Court or a magistrate to distinguish between the motives of persons who made these experiments, but very easy to determine whether due recourse had been had to anæsthetics. The Report of the Commissioners showed that great discoveries had been made where the experiments had not been conducted for medical purposes; but should the experiments be restricted on that account? The discoveries of Harvey did not appear to have been arrived at by experiments which would be within the Bill as it stood. His were mere scientific experiments; but would they on that account have prevented the discovery of the circulation of the blood? The Commissioners had before them the great experiments performed by Dr. Ferrier and Dr. Crichton Brown. But for the use of anæsthetics these experiments would have inflicted the most horrible tortures, but by their use they were performed apparently without pain; but no one could say whether, under the wording of this Bill, they were physiological or medical experiments. One of the operators spoke of them in one sense in his evidence and one in the other. But, as he had pointed out, the greatest discoveries of science had not been made under the conditions of this Bill, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would adopt the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that there were three Amendments proposed to this clause, which were substantially the same; and in reference 116 to them he would say at once that the Government would agree to the clause being so far altered as to admit of physiological inquiries being carried on. He admitted that the Bill was a penal measure, and that therefore it was essential to make perfectly clear all processes of law that might be required to carryout its provisions; but the Government would accept no Amendment which they thought would render the essential clauses of the measure one whit less effective than they now were; but after careful and repeated consideration he believed that it was possible to admit physiological inquiries into the same category as medical inquiries. What they had to look to was this—whether the Bill was stringent and effective for its purpose, and if so, whether they might not with comparative safety discard the question of the intention of the party in conducting the experiment. In certain cases it would be extremely difficult to say whether the inquiries were physiological or medical; and if the existing words were left in the clause they might perhaps create doubt and uncertainty. On the whole, he might say that of the three Amendments he preferred that of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell). There were some Amendments which attacked the principle of the Bill, and there were others which concerned the particular interests of professional gentlemen. As to those which went to the vitality of the Bill, nothing would induce the Government to make any alteration; whilst as to the others, the Government would be anxious to meet the views which were put forward.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the position of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) would alter the principle of the Bill, because he said that we had no right to inflict pain upon any animal whatever. The noble and learned Lord referred to horses; but if we had no right to inflict pain upon horses, what was to become of the Cavalry? No one would deny that the firing of horses was a most painful operation. When any of their Lordships got ill they sent for Sir James Paget or Sir William Gull, and paid them to get the benefit of knowledge which had been acquired from experiments upon living animals. Now, it savoured of hypocrisy to pay for this 117 knowledge, and then to legislate to prevent it being acquired. The very men who were now legislating against scientific men were the men who had profited by their science, and he thought that instead of visiting them with censure and reproach, they ought rather to propose to them a vote of thanks.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHagreed that they had no right to inflict unnecessary pain upon animals; but it was very difficult to decide what was unnecessary pain. The destruction of wasps and other animals had been referred to; but, on the other hand, there was the case of the wretched man who was convicted of skinning cats alive, because the skins were more valuable when taken from the live than the dead animal. The extra money got the man a dinner. The solution of all these questions must be left to the practical common sense of an English jury. He preferred the Amendment of the noble Viscount to that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Rayleigh), because the form would limit the experiments, so that whenever a discovery had been fully ascertained it could not be repeated. This would prevent the repetition of it for the mere purposes of instruction of experiments on living animals in reference to physical facts and phenomena which had already been settled. Such practices could not but have a demoralizing effect.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLobserved, that the sub-section restricted nothing and prevented nothing—the element of intention would remain precisely where it was. Its value was that it was a declaration on the part of Parliament as to the intention with which certain experiments ought to be performed, and the only intention which could possibly justify them. He was glad that the noble Lord opposite had accepted the Amendment of his noble Friend the Chairman of the Commission; it should be remembered that there were not only humane but conscientious men engaged occasionally in the work of vivisection, and it would be a serious grievance to them, as a matter of conscience, if the clause were allowed to remain unaltered. He rejoiced greatly that the arguments of his noble Friend had led to the acceptance of the words he proposed, for they placed the clause on a satisfactory basis.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsuggested that the case of veterinary surgeons ought not to be overlooked. These gentlemen were not less interested in the progress of physiological science than those in other branches, and he thought experiments ought to be permitted with a view to the advancement by new discovery of knowledge, which would be useful for prolonging or alleviating animal as well as human life or suffering.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that curative processes as regarded animals ought to be considered and provided for as well as curative processes as regarded human life, and the same words ought therefore to be used in the case of veterinary, as of other, surgeons.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid that the word "physiological" would cover and include experiments on animals having for their object the saving of the lives of animals.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Then it was moved, in line 25, after ("of") to insert ("physiological or medical,") and after ("knowledge") to insert ("or of knowledge.")—(The Viscount Cardwell.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Then the 1st sub-section agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEdrew attention to the 2nd sub-section, which provided that experiments must be performed in a registered place. The effect of the provision would be to limit and obstruct useful and beneficial discoveries. He suggested that the Government should modify the requirements of the Bill in this respect.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYregarded the limitation as an outrage on the learned Professions affected by it. It treated them with great mistrust to say that they should not only be licensed themselves, but that they should perform their experiments in registered places only.
§ VISCOUNT CARDWELLobserved that the highest authorities before the Commissioners recommended inspection, and inspection could not be made unless the places were known and recognized. The medical witnesses before the Commission did not object to this provision.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Bill made no distinction between two very different classes of painful experiments—vivisection proper, which was the subject of all the Petitions which had been presented to the House, and the exhibition, as medical men called it, or administration of drugs to animals for the purpose of ascertaining their effects. Now, where drugs were so administered it might be desirable that the animal should be allowed to pursue its ordinary course of life, and not be shut up in one place: but the restriction to a registered place seemed to refer exclusively to the case of vivisection proper. Some of the greatest men who had ever lived had been cut off by diseases of which nothing was known either as to their causes or as to the agents by which they might be prevented or cured. Their Lordships would be rendering an essential service to humanity by recognizing the title of the profession to ascertain the effect of drugs upon animals, and that without any unnecessary restriction. When drugs were administered, it was not necessarily for the purpose of destroying life; in many cases it was most desirable that the animal should recover, and be restored to its natural life.
§ LORD WINMARLEIGHsaid, the members of the medical Profession who gave evidence before the Commission did not object to inspection. His own opinion was, that there ought to be as much liberty as possible given for the carrying out of such experiments consistently with a due regard for the object of the Bill, and the prevention of its misuse.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom in their memorial to the Government objected in the strongest possible way to this limitation of experiments to registered places.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the point for the consideration of the particular question under discussion had not been reached. In another part of the Bill words might be proposed to the effect that any person holding a licence under the Act, might, in any place, licensed or not, administer drugs to animals for the purpose spoken of by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). But if the restriction in this sub-section were rejected, they really might as well give up the Bill altogether. If they did 120 not know the place in which the act of vivisection was to be done, how could the inspection recommended be made? But they would be doing the worst possible thing for the medical profession if their Lordships struck out the restriction in question. The result would be that the Secretary of State would only have the character and trustworthiness of the person seeking the licence to rely on, and he would be placed in the invidious position of giving to those who were known to be men of honour, and withholding from those of whom nothing was known, whereas under the clause as it stood, the Secretary of State would, besides that of character, have the further protection which would be afforded by the licence of the place. In the interest of the medical Profession, therefore, it was desirable that the place where vivisection was to be performed should be registered.
LORD RAYLEIGHfeared that very valuable medical and surgical work would be lost if the restriction in question were insisted on. He suggested that in certain cases only a second certificate should be given.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked whether anything could be more invidious than that the Secretary of State should be compelled to say "Sir William Gull" or "Sir James Paget, I know you and can trust you to carry out experiments anywhere," and to other gentlemen, "I do not know you, and cannot trust you unless with a limited certificate." The honour and status of the Medical Profession would not be upheld by such a provision.
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHearnestly trusted that the provision would not be given up by which a knowledge of the place in which the experiments were to be performed was secured.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONreminded their Lordships that there was no Amendment before the House. He was aware that a large proportion of the Medical Profession objected to the provision in question. At the same time it was the keystone of the Bill, and if it were given up the measure would virtually be at an end. The noble Earl opposite said that the Medical Profession regarded the restriction as an outrage.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that that was his own opinion; but the 121 opposition to registered places emanated from the Medical Council.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONcould not see how the provision could possibly be so regarded. As had been pointed out, if the Secretary of State had not the security of registered places he should have that of known character, and a great responsibility and most invidious duty would thus be thrown upon him. The Secretary of State had accepted in this matter a great responsibility, and it ought not to be increased, as it would be by the adoption of this Amendment. So long as these places were registered, so long, by means of inspection and the other guarantees provided, we should have an effective control; but the moment these places were unregistered control vanished. No matter how conscientious the Secretary of State might be, it was impossible he could exercise the control which the Bill contemplated, and without which it would be nothing at all. The worst cases of abuse had occurred, not in public institutions, but in private lodgings, and these cases could be met only by maintaining carefully and effectively this particular clause. He should be sorry to see it weakened in the slightest degree.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that if this sub-section were to be omitted, the Bill might as well be abandoned at once. The evidence went to show that the practices in question were carried on in garrets, bedrooms, cellars, and other places difficult of access. With all respect for the Medical Profession, there was another party to this question. Some regard ought to be paid to the strong feelings of many persons who contended that on moral and religious principles vivisection ought to be prohibited absolutely, and who had consented for a time to a Bill of restrictions because they believed the Government would take every security that the Bill should be effectively enforced. If this condition were struck out, the Bill would give no satisfaction to the country.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETurged that the sub-section would interfere with the experimental treatment of diseased or injured animals for their own relief or cure, and that, by retarding or preventing such treatment, it would prolong or increase their sufferings.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it never could be imagined that the subsection would prevent the application of a particular remedy to an animal for its own sake in any place where it might be.
§ Second sub-section agreed to.
§ Then the other sub-sections and provisoes agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Use of urari as an anæsthetic prohibited).
§ LORD HENNIKERmoved an Amendment to leave out the words ("for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be anæsthetic"), and to insert ("be used upon any wounded animal.") He said, the Amendment was due to a certain extent to the physiologists themselves, for the discussions by the Medical Council, the Medical Association, and in The Medical Journal had caused an inquiry into this clause. It was argued that what science left unsettled—namely, the anæsthetic qualities of curare, should not be settled by law. If it were sought to settle such a question by law, he would admit there was something in the objection, but the clause only said curare was not to be considered an anæsthetic "for the purposes of this Act," and so in no way could it be said that it did so. The Medical Council wished to insert the words, "until proved to be so." If these words were put in, who was to be the person to decide the question? He thought the opinion of the Royal Commissioners ought to be sufficient to show the necessity for this clause. They said in their Report—
It has, however, been positively stated by perhaps the highest authority on such a subject, Claude Bernard, to have no effect in producing insensibility to pain.The Amendment which he wished to propose conceded the point, however, but added to the clause. He hoped the noble Earl and the House would accept it, for it would be a popular one out-of-doors. The 4th clause did not absolutely prohibit the use of curare, for it might be used under the clauses allowing experiments to be performed without anæsthetics, and this substance, probably, would, when it came to carrying out the Act, be often used. The Amendment did not absolutely prohibit the use 123 of curare. It would not do so where stillness was required and where no pain was inflicted—as, for instance, the placing of the frog's foot, or the fish's tail under the microscope, nor in some experiments on large vertibrate animals. He could not help saying that if there were a doubt as to curare being an anæsthetic, he thought the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the animals. He could show, however, that curare was anything but an anæsthetic. It was true some physiologists had referred vaguely to its effect, but they could not refer to any authority on the subject. Drs. Klein, Brunton, and Sibson had, for instance, in Questions 3,755, 4,759, and 5,793 referred to Professor Schiff in support of their theory. It was true Schiff had used curare on a frog in the spring; when it was in a half-dormant state, he had been able to give it an extreme dose of curare at such a time, a dose which would have killed any other animal, and it had become an anæsthetic; besides, it must be remembered that a frog respired through its skin, and what might be an anæsthetic in such a case could not be so with other animals. To show exactly what Schiff thought on this subject, he must quote a passage from his last published work—Sopra il metodo seguito negli experimenti sugli Animali Viventi, and he thought his Amendment could have no better support. At page 34, he said—translated into English—In experiments such as we have described we use curare as a means of preventing the disturbance which the movements of the animal might cause us, but we have read with extreme regret that in some modern articles on the subject curare has been recommended as an anæsthetic in experiments upon animals. We have read the description of certain experiments requiring great mutilation of the animal, which were performed under the influence of slight curarization. I can here only entreat my colleagues, as I have already done before, to consider well the above reasoning. Not to allow themselves to be imposed upon by the apparent impassibility, and never to use curare as an anæsthetic except in cases where the wound is slight, and the irritation of a nature to provoke only moderate sensation. In experiments on the blood pressure, curare acts solely as a tranquillizer, which, impeding movement, hides the pain from the observer. And it is nothing but hypocrisy to wish to impose on oneself, and others, the belief that the curarized animal never feels pain.He need not quote any further opinions on this subject. He would have been 124 glad to have quoted a passage from a Paper on Curare, by Claude Bernard, not in the Blue Book of the Royal Commission; but he had already, perhaps, taken up too much of their Lordships' time, and he thought he had made his case for an amendment of the clause good.
§ Amendment moved, lines 4 and 5 ("for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be an anæsthetic") and insert ("be used upon any wounded animal.")—(The Lord Henniker.)
THE EARL OFCARNARVONthought it best to keep the clause in its present form. If there were any experiments in which its use might be beneficial, a separate clause would be the best way of providing for it.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Absolute prohibition of painful experiments on dogs and cats).
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to include in the prohibition, "or horse, or ass, or mule."
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved, in page 3, line 8, to add—
But nothing in this section shall prevent a person holding a license under this Act from administering to a dog or a cat drugs or medicines with a view to ascertain their effect in the cure or treatment of disease, or with a view to the detection of crime.
THE EARL OFAIRLIEobjected to the clause altogether. He thought no one could read the Report of this Commission without seeing that medical science had been advanced by experiments made upon living animals. Only one witness before the Commission supported the prohibition of experiments on cats and dogs—Dr. Hutton—and with regard to what Dr. Hutton laid down—namely, that you were not justified in inflicting pain on lower animals whatever benefit accrued, he (the Earl of Airlie) confessed that—without underrating the sufferings of these poor creatures—he could not put dogs and cats in the scale when there was a chance of saving the lives of men, women, and children. Dr. Taylor told them that the effect of poison on a dog was very similar to that on a human 125 being. Those persons who spoke of the infliction of pain on dogs and cats as demoralizing to the person who inflicted it looked only at the pain and not at the results of the experiment. He should have been glad to have been able to have supported the Amendment of the noble Duke, but in his opinion it was not sufficient to meet the case.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought the Amendment moved by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was somewhat unnecessary. The Bill was not rigidly confined to experiments with the knife, for the whole scope of it included drugs and medicines. He did not, therefore, feel disposed to accept the Amendment as it stood. In legislating on such a subject as that now before them, the Committee must look more to public sentiment than to strict logic. The dog especially had always been regarded as something more than a mere animal—he had been looked upon as the companion and the friend of man, into whose affections he had wormed himself. The cat also was regarded as a household pet. It was a fact that these two animals were most susceptible to pain, and that experiments performed upon them frequently inflicted most exquisite torture. He knew of an eminent physiologist and an eminent doctor, who, at different periods of their lives, had performed vivisectional operations upon the dog or cat, and he would state to their Lordships what were their experiences. In the one instance the impression made upon the operator's mind was such as to haunt him for months afterwards, and he declared that no circumstances would induce him again to perform an experiment of that kind. In the other case, the gentleman who had witnessed a similar operation determined that nothing would tempt him to witness such an experiment again. Physiologists, however, stated that there were certain valuable experiments which could only be performed upon the dog and the cat, and he had felt bound to take that fact into consideration. Under all the circumstances of the case his proposal was that whenever it was absolutely necessary that such an experiment should be made upon dogs and cats, it should be made not only under all the guarantees and provisions of the Bill relating to other animals, but that it should only be made in special cases, for which special 126 reasons should be assigned, and for which the consent of the Home Secretary should be specially required. He proposed to amend the clause by inserting after the word "cat" the following words:—
Except on such certificate being given as in this Act mentioned, and that for reasons specified in such certificate and where the object of the experiment would be necessarily frustrated unless it is made on an animal similar in constitution to a dog or a cat, and no other animal is available for the experiment.He had no objection to include horses, asses, and mules in the same category with dogs and cats. On the whole he thought it would be best to defer this branch of the question for the present; and he would, therefore, bring it forward again on the Report.
§ VISCOUNT CARDWELLexpressed his willingness to accept the proposal of the noble Earl, which he thought would meet the views that had been stated in the discussion.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that if they would pass the clause in its present form he would endeavour to bring up an Amendment on the Report which would meet the views of their Lordships.
§ Then Amendment (The Duke of Argyll) by leave, withdrawn; Amendment (The Earl of Carnarvon) agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Certificates of scientific bodies for exceptions to general regulations.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved to add the President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the President of the Royal Irish Academy, the President of the General Medical Council, Dublin, and the President of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it must be recollected that there was a College of Veterinary Surgeons as well as a Royal Veterinary College, and if the name of the President of one were inserted, he did not see how the latter could be left out. The President of the Royal Veterinary College was the Commander-in-Chief, and 127 it would be rather curious if His Royal Highness should have to give a certificate to Sir James Paget authorizing him to make an experiment. If the noble Earl, however, would allow the matter to stand over it should be considered by his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) before the Report.
§ LORD HENNIKERsupported the Amendment. He was quite convinced of the importance of giving a better training to veterinary surgeons, and it seemed to him that it might do some good and could do no harm to give the powers proposed by this clause to the Presidents of Veterinary Colleges.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the Motion of the Earl of Car Narvon, in page 4, line 22, after "anatomy" the words "medical jurisprudence materia medica" were inserted.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmoved, in page 4, line 27, after "charter," to add "or a duly recognized Medical School."
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 131.)