Lords Sitting of 12 July 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) * (158).
Committee—Innkeepers * (136–160).
Committee—Report— Foreign Jurisdiction * (147).

VIVISECTION—THE ROYAL COMMIS- SION.—PETITIONS.
LORD TRURO, having presented a number of Petitions for the suppression of the practice of vivisection, said, they did not emanate from explorers in the boundless fields of science and nature, nor were they the expression of an opinion upon the part of a small section—able and extremely eminent, no doubt—of the Medical Profession in these countries, or of a body of physiologists, in favour of vivisection. These Petitions—and a great many more in the same strain had reached him—had been sent forward by thousands upon thousands of Englishmen and English women who did not think it advisable that the practice of vivisection should continue to receive the sanction of the Legislature. Upon a recent occasion, when he felt it his duty to trouble their Lordships with some references to this subject, he made some remarks upon the constitution of the Commission appointed to examine into this question, and report upon the most expedient mode of dealing with it. The noble Viscount whom he saw below him (Viscount Cardwell) was absent upon that occasion, and he should now repeat substantially some of the remarks which he then made. The Royal Commission, upon whose Report the present law upon this subject was founded, was not constituted as it should have been, and this was owing to the fact that two or three gentlemen were put upon it who were strong partizans of vivisection. The other Members of that body, including the noble Viscount were induced, from the natural tendency of their minds and habits, to view every question from a merely logical rather than from an expedient point of
1322
view. He certainly did not think the Members of the Commission less humane than other men; but he thought that Gentlemen under the influences which swayed them would be somewhat prejudiced in their judgments upon this matter. Humanitarians viewed this as a question of expediency, and he thought their Lordships would agree with them in that view. Now, it could scarcely be denied, by anyone who had attended to the proceedings of the Commissioners that upon all occasions they manifested a desire to prop up the evidence which tended to support the views which dominated their minds. The question was not merely as to the mode in which vivisection should be regulated, but it went farther, and raised the inquiry whether it should be regulated at all or not? He did not propose to trouble their Lordships with any of the extremely painful details which were contained in the Report; but he might say that it disclosed three divisions of opinion. A certain number of witnesses said that they objected both to licences and supervision—in fact, to every form of inspection—both as regarded themselves personally, and those whose opinions they represented. A second section accepted supervision, adding that they would rather be without it. Another section represented a third shade of opinion, and said—"We are convinced, from our experience, that it is not only desirable but essential that these experiments should take place under supervision." So far as he recollected, these divisions indicated the character of the evidence. Many of the gentlemen who were examined were undoubtedly men of extended experience, whose judgments were entitled to great weight. In considering the weight to be attached to the conclusion at which the Commission arrived, they were bound to take into account, not only the bearing of the evidence, but the well-known opinions of its Members. Now, what was the conclusion, and what were the grounds for the conclusion, arrived at? In the first place, they decided that it would be impossible to stop vivisection, and that it would not be desirable to attempt to prohibit it—that it would be unreasonable to do so. There might be differences of opinion as to what was reasonable and what was unreasonable; but when they found, in the evidence, that

1323
one of the ablest and most experienced witnesses stated distinctly that there were not, so far as he knew, more than 22 important experiments—though there were a number of rather a minor character—among those which science recorded, which were performed through the agency of vivisection, there was surely reason why the Legislature should be asked to re-consider the decision at which it had arrived. It was a fact of great moment that, after all these years of cruelty and torture to the animal kingdom, not more than 22 important discoveries had been made; and in view of it he must differ from the Commission, and say that it was not reasonable that a practice fraught with so many evils should continue for the sake of an advantage so small. He might address himself to their Lordships' own experience, and ask them, during their own lifetime, when vivisection had been practised to no inconsiderable extent, how many new principles had been laid down—how many methods of cure, how many useful sedatives had been discovered for disorders of the nerves and the various pains? Rising from toothache, neuralgic and rheumatic affections, to the more fatal maladies, he might ask their Lordships what great discovery in either medicine or surgery had been made in their lifetime? He was at a loss to know what the answer to that question would be. He was, therefore, also at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be considered unreasonable to do away with a practice such as vivisection, which resulted in such trifling advantage, and which was inevitably demoralizing to those who exercised it. It was said that if its abolition were agreed to, then the youth of this country, who desired to study medicine or surgery, would be driven to the hospitals of the Continent. It was not only with a feeling of disapproval, but with disgust, that one read the accounts in foreign journals of the practice of vivisection as carried on in some of the French and other Universities; and should they consider it an evil of great magnitude to drive from this country young men who considered that a proper mode of making discoveries in science? Was it not a fact that all the great discoveries in science that had been made for years past were due to patient study and laborious investigation, of a character very different from
1324
that pursued by means of vivisection? When he heard it stated that vivisection should not be disallowed or controlled, he took leave to differ very widely from the opinion of the Royal Commissioners.
A noble LORD: But the practice is very much controlled.
LORD TRUROsaid, he agreed with the Commission as to the grounds upon which the practice should be restricted.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, without going the length of saying the noble Lord was out of Order in making this statement, ventured to remind him that it would be the more usual practice for him to give Notice of his intention to bring this question again before the House.
LORD TRUROsaid, he was never deficient in the respect due to their Lordships' House; and after the expression of opinion which had just fallen from the noble Earl he should not persist in developing his views. However, he had taken pains to make inquiries as to whether he should be permitted to make observations on the subject of the Petitions when presenting them, and the reply was he should not be out of Order in doing so.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLwas sure the House would not desire him to reply in detail to the statement they had just heard. Whether the subject should be discussed with or without Notice, he thought their Lordships would agree with him that the proper opportunity to discuss it was when the Bill was before them—the Bill founded on the Report of the Commission which the noble Lord questioned. That Bill had been passed by their Lordships with great approval. It had also received the assent of the House of Commons. All he could say was that he thought the measure eminently conducive to humanity, and one of the greatest benefits which their Lordships had been able to confer upon the cause of humanity. He had only another word to add, and that was, that he was much surprised to hear his noble Friend say that the Members of the Commission were prejudiced against humane considerations. Nothing was ever more untrue. He was sure his Colleagues, like himself, would be able to testify to that. His noble Friend had referred to one or two individuals who were eminently scientific, and stated that they were put

1325
upon the Commission because they were partizans of vivisection.
LORD TRURO: I did not say they were put on for that reason; I said they were partizans.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLwas sure the noble Lord would never have made that observation if he had watched the conduct of the Commission, or observed the spirit manifested by them. All he could say was that the Members of the Commission were not responsible for the appointment; but having served on it, and having witnessed the bearing of all concerned with it, and especially those scientific Members of it to whom the noble Lord had thus referred, he was bound to declare that he never knew a set of men more humane, more impressed with the desire to promote the best interests of humanity, and none who could have taken greater pains to carry out such a purpose could have been selected. He regretted that the remarks now made had not been made when the Bill was passing into law, when the Report of the Commission and the reasons for it were before the House.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—MUZZLE- LOADING AND BREECH-LOADING RIFLED GUNS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD WAVENEY, who had given Notice to move for Returns having reference to muzzle-loading and breech-loading guns, said, he desired to state the reasons which induced him to move for these Returns. In the first place, it was understood by some persons that a series of experiments made by the Government were directed to the purpose of carrying out a very considerable change in our system of heavy ordnance. Now, this was a very serious matter. Some 16 years ago the system of rifling and breech-loading was first introduced into the ordnance system of these countries. Many experiments were made, and the advantages of the system were urged with great cleverness and ingenuity. The matter attracted the attention of scientific men on both sides, and the result was the adoption of the muzzle-loading and rifle system for our ordnance. They had probably no reason to suppose that muzzle-loading was the best kind of ordnance that could be
  1326
  formed; but they were aware of many reasons which should induce them to pause before superseding it. What the reasons might have been that induced other nations to adopt breech-loading ordnance he would not now say; but of this he was perfectly aware—that the first attempt to use the system on a large scale had not been successful, great though the expense was which the change involved. He was speaking within the facts when he said that the Franco-German War had afforded an experience which had entirely modified the opinions entertained with regard to the breech-loading system. He believed of late the Government had modified their opinions also, finding the great risk and danger of the system, which seemed to increase in proportion as the size of the ordnance had been increasing. It was indisputable that the disrupting power of a heavy charge increased in a much greater ratio than the resisting power of the ordnance in which it was employed. That was the result of many experiments; and he thought it was abundantly proved that the breech-loading system was defective and on the wane. But whatever deficiencies might be experienced in the gun now in use in our Service, any attempt to introduce a new system should be adopted with very great caution—he would go almost the length of saying with great suspicion. The casualties whereby breech-loading guns were disabled were out of all proportion greater in number and seriousness than those which occurred in the case of muzzle-loading guns; the accidents to the latter, indeed, came within a very limited extent. He had, therefore, moved for a Return giving details of the number of breech-loading guns not only withdrawn from the Service in consequence of the adoption of the muzzle-loading system, but in consequence of casualties which had arisen in their use. Now, the point as between these rival systems was one of great importance to ourselves, largely because of the limited number of breech-loaders which were in use in the regular Service; and in case of a sudden emergency we should have to depend, to a great extent, upon Volunteers, assisted by the Militia, than whose officers, indeed, none could, speaking generally, be better instructed in the handling of their arms. But, still,

  1327
  inasmuch as breech-loading ordnance was of a very fine and delicate character, and required the most perfect care to elicit its power, and as the muzzle-loader was by comparison so remarkably safe and simple, it was of very great importance, even upon the lowest ground—that of getting the most use out of the arm—that they should not hastily make any change in the direction of breech-loading in our Service. As an illustration, he might mention that in the firing of a 40 lb rifled breech-loader a very small mistake, which might easily happen in any case, very nearly caused a serious accident, and the gun was disabled for nearly 24 hours before it could be got into position again. There was another point in regard to the matter upon which he ventured to lay great stress. He had spoken of breech-loaders being an enemy to safety, and so they were; because, giving the greatest strain at the point where it was required, the greatest strength weakened the gun. Mechanical science, backed by an enormous expenditure of money, might enable them to get over the difficulty; but, in the meantime, they should be slow to give up a system which was not attended with the risks he had indicated, and which fairly satisfied the great object—certainty of accuracy. He wished to know how many muzzle-loading rifle guns there were in the Service? and the number in position at home and abroad must be great; because, to his own knowledge, important works had been left unsupplied with the heavier calibres of muzzle-loading guns for the last two years, in consequence of the enormous demand made by the Army and works abroad. Then it was important they should know how many breech-loading guns had been withdrawn from the Service—whether because they were to be replaced by muzzle-loaders, or on account of casualties? They all knew how great the risk was in the use of breech-loading guns; and he had some reason to believe that the reports of casualties to them, of which they had heard a great deal, were probably not much exaggerated. Those were the reasons which had induced him to ask for the Returns on the Paper. He had no doubt they would take some time to prepare; but he considered it right that the country should know what expense a change in the present system would involve.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for

  1. Return of the number of muzzle-loading rifled guns in position or used ashore or afloat, divided into classes by calibres:

  2. Return of the number of breech-loading rifled guns now withdrawn from the service that have been in position or used ashore or afloat, divided into classes by calibres:

  3. Return of the number of casualties to such breech-loading rifled guns whereby they have been rendered wholly or temporarily unserviceable:

  4. Special Return of the number of breech-loading rifled guns, sea service, which were thus rendered wholly or temporarily unserviceable in the last naval campaign against the forces of the Daimios of Japan:

  5. Gross cost of supplying the land and sea services with muzzle-loading rifled guns of all calibres.—(The Lord Waveney.)

  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that when the Notice was put on the Paper the noble Lord asked whether the Returns could be granted? and he replied that he thought they could; and the noble Lord then stated that in bringing the matter forward he intended to assign some reasons which, he believed, would be satisfactory to the Government, for producing the Returns. The noble Lord, judging from his speech, seemed to apprehend lest the gun now in use should be changed, and he required the Returns in order to guard against a change. He was informed that the Returns would not only be very difficult to obtain, but extremely costly, and that they would be of no particular value when prepared. He was sorry, therefore, that, not with standing the promise given to the noble Lord, he could not, on the part of the Government, assent to the production of the Returns; and he would ask the noble Lord not to press his Motion, but be content with having called the attention of their Lordships to the subject.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that perhaps the noble Viscount would not have any objection to state whether there was any intention, on the part of the Government, to alter the present field gun?
  VISCOUNT BURYstated that experiments were, of course, always going on, but there was no intention at present to effect any change.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETremarked, that for 200 years the same gun was used, and then, suddenly, great changes came. Various experiments were made, and considerable expense was incurred.

  1329
  Although, on the one hand, he was desirous that there should be no unnecessary outlay, on the other hand, he was anxious that no reasonable cost should be spared to insure our having an efficient weapon. A change would necessarily involve great expenditure, because the ammunition adapted to one gun was not suitable for another. It would be unwise for the War Office to pledge themselves that there should be no change whatever, for that would prevent any improvement. Ill-considered changes were to be deprecated; but the War Office must watch and make experiments, so that other nations should not surpass us, and this country might have the best available weapon.
  LORD TRUROinquired whether the experiments now going on were with the view of improving the existing gun, or of determining whether there should be a change from the present system—a change from the muzzle-loading to the breech-loading gun?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, a good deal of discussion took place on this subject while he was at the War Office. During that time the Department took care to make themselves acquainted with every improvement that was made in other countries. During the late war they had artillery and engineer officers watching the performance of breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns, and in that way, at a comparatively small cost, they obtained a vast amount of valuable information. The War Office would not be worthy of the name unless experiments were incessantly made, in order to secure an efficient weapon. After investigating the matter, he came to the conclusion that muzzle-loading guns had answered admirably; and while he was at the War Office there appeared to be no reason why the breech-loader should be preferred, either in respect of safety or rapidity of firing. It might be relied upon that whoever was in charge of the Department would employ the best officers in the Service to observe what was going on abroad and experiment at home—officers who had made artillery the study of their lives, and who were wholly unprejudiced. They looked into everything, and kept the War Office thoroughly well-informed, not with the immediate object of change, but with the view of suggesting change if they saw the necessity. Under such
  1330
  circumstances, he was confident that if the necessity arose the country would consent to change, whatever expense the process might involve.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, there could, of course, be nothing finite with respect to the construction of guns. It was not because great improvements were made to-day that other changes might not be wanted to-morrow; but if the question had not been asked, their Lordships would not have had an opportunity of hearing the satisfactory statement from the noble Viscount to which they had just listened.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COTTESLOEasked the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade, Whether the Board intends to make any representations to the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom respecting the state of the platforms at their respective stations, and of the foot-boards and door-steps on their carriages, with reference to the safety and convenience of passengers getting into and out of carriages on the platforms; and whether they would endeavour to obtain from the several Companies, from time to time, Returns of the alterations made, with a view to the removal of the dangerous intervals now existing at many stations, both vertically and horizontally, between the floor of the carriages and the level of the platforms, which, as recommended by their Inspectors, Sir H. Tyler and Colonel Yolland, should not exceed four inches where the platforms were on the curve, and two inches where the platforms were straight? As the subject was under the consideration of the House a short time ago he would, probably, be expected to assign some reason which would justify his again calling attention to it. The noble Lord who replied to the Question on the last occasion (Lord Henniker) stated that the Board of Trade were quite aware of the dangers to which railway travellers were exposed through the want of properly-constructed platforms and footboards; but that, although they concurred with the recommendations which had been made to the Railway Companies, they did not see

  1331
  their way to the proposing of any measure on the matter. That statement he considered unsatisfactory; and he hoped that on further consideration the Board of Trade would deem it advisable to take action. He was sure that the President of the Board of Trade could make representations to the Railway Companies, which would induce them to make alterations in accordance with public requirements, and the Returns now asked for would enable Parliament to judge whether further legislation was required. When the matter was last under discussion, the unfortunate death of Sir Francis Gold-smid was fresh in their Lordships' minds. The noble Lord representing the Board of Trade on that occasion referred to the Correspondence which had passed between the Board and the South Western Railway Company. At that time the Papers were not in the hands of their Lordships, but since then they had been presented to Parliament, and he must say that he did not consider the statement of the Company satisfactory. They were asked what measures they intended to take in order to prevent a repetition of such an accident? and, so far as he could see, they gave no answer to the inquiry. They appeared, in fact, to object to any interference whatever. Under such circumstances, he conceived that Parliament was bound to do something. Parliament ought to interfere and call upon the Railway Companies to discharge their duties to the public. It seemed to be thought that the Companies would soon awake to the necessity of taking action themselves; but whether that awakening was to be by the force of public opinion, by legislative action, or by the mild persuasion of the Board of Trade, was not clear. It was said that there was no wrong without a remedy; but in the present case the wrong was admitted, and the remedy was not yet forthcoming. He hoped, consequently, that the noble Lord would give an assurance that the Board of Trade would take some steps in the matter.
  LORD HENNIKERwas sure that their Lordships, like himself, would acquit the noble Lord of desiring anything in raising the discussion, except to serve the public interest. He thought he could safely say that, great as was the interest taken by the noble Lord in
  1332
  the subject, the interest taken by their Lordships was equally great. The matter was constantly under the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade; but as it had lately been discussed, it was only necessary that he should briefly answer the Question of the noble Lord. He might state, for the information of their Lordships, that for a long time past it had been the practice of the President of the Board of Trade to communicate with the different Railway Companies with regard to their platforms and foot-boards on all occasions when his attention was called to their dangerous or inefficient condition. The Board of Trade now proposed to address a Circular Letter to all the Railway Companies in the United Kingdom, inquiring what steps they had taken, and were about to take, for providing proper platforms, as well as proper door-steps and continuous foot-boards to all their carriages, so that passengers might be fully protected and provided with the greatest possible convenience? The Board of Trade regretted that they were not in a position to assent to the Return on this subject, which the noble Lord was anxious to obtain. It would be very difficult, and also most costly, to prepare; and would not, even if it were possible to obtain all the facts sought for, give the noble Lord the information he desired to elicit. At the same time, he need scarcely say that the Board of Trade were anxious to do whatever they could in the matter.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend for a further limited period section thirty-four of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 158.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.