§ 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.
§ 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 TRUROI 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.