HL Deb 15 July 1879 vol 248 cc419-36

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

LORD TRURO

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, be had been induced to lay this Bill on the Table of the House by the numerous Petitions against the practice of vivisection signed by many thousands of persons—whose opinions, he might observe, were shared by a large number of medical men, some of them of undoubted eminence in their Profession. The object of the measure was to ex- tend the provisions of Martin's Act, which applied to domestic animals only, to all animals whatever; and to prohibit the practice of vivisection for experimental purposes, or for any other purpose than that of alleviating or curing any disease from which the animal operated upon was suffering. He desired to treat the subject in the most rational and not in a rhetorical manner. The measure which had been passed by the Government a few years ago—the 39 & 40 Vict. c. 77—though framed with the best intentions, did not meet the views of those who entertained the sentiments he did on the subject of vivisection. It was quite true that the measure was framed, in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the matter; but a very eminent man told him that a Royal Commission was not generally an impartial tribunal, because its Members were chosen by those who had a bias with the object of seeing whether that bias was not well founded. He did not say that was a correct view, because he himself had always supposed that the object of a Royal Commission was to sift evidence and ascertain the truth; but it was impossible not to see in the proceedings of the Commissioners, who were not scientific men, if not a bias, certainly an inclination to adopt the views and opinions of the Medical Profession in relation to vivisection. Those who opposed vivisection did so, in the first place, on the ground that it was cruel and immoral; and, secondly, that it did not offer to the public the advantages which the Medical Profession claimed for it. If medical men were engaged in seeking remedies for nervous pains, he would suggest that vivisection was useless for that purpose; because nervous disease arose from hereditary cause or from excess. It was said that vivisection was valuable in the discovery of diseases of the liver and kidneys; but that proposition was denied by competent authority. The Royal Commission reported, however, that it was desirable to permit vivisection under certain regulations; and, under the Act of 1876, the practice was subjected to conditions and restrictions. But the thousands who had sent up Petitions against the practice believed that all restrictions were a failure. A witness stated to the Com- missioners that from what he knew of medical schools and medical students, he believed that restrictive regulations would not be carried out by them. That was the evidence, not of a layman, but of an eminent medical man. He believed that those who advocated vivisection were led away by an Utopian idea—they hoped, through it, to arrive at a state of things which was utterly hopeless; and they alleged that if vivisection were prohibited humanity would suffer. That was not the opinion of the late Sir William Fergusson. The great discoveries in medicine and surgery had not been made by vivisection; they were the results of the careful work of trained anatomists, or of clinical observation and that long experience which was the basis of sure knowledge on all subjects. Again, it was said that if vivisection were prohibited here our medical students would go to Germany. He would let them go there rather than have in this country anything like the horrors they read of as being perpetrated in the medical schools of Germany and France. In all Professions there were enthusiasts; and he believed that the medical men who advocated vivisection were mistaken, and overrated their success in scientific discovery. There were enthusiasts in the Legal Profession and in the Church; but the law compelled even the last class of enthusiasts to keep within bounds. He believed that one witness told the Royal Commission that through vivisection he hoped they would discover a remedy for snake bites within 50 years. Let their Lordships only think of what an amount of suffering would be inflicted on countless animals in that time if the practice of vivisection were continued. Would the remote chance of a discovery for snake bites in 50 years justify them in permitting such an amount of suffering? Could their Lordships think that those who were moving in the matter would let it rest if the Bill were rejected? Certainly, he did not expect to carry the measure he now offered for their Lordships' acceptance; but thousands on thousands had petitioned for the total proscription of the practice, and the time was not far distant when there would be such a demand for its total abolition that there would be no alternative but to pass a measure of the same kind. As to licences, 45 licences for vivisection were granted in 1878; but of these 18 were not acted on. The number of experiments performed under the 27 active licences were 481. As to their nature, he would refer their Lordships to Return No. 127, from which it appeared that 317 experiments were performed under the licence alone; 87 under special certificates for experiments without anæsthetics; 30 under certificates permitting experiments illustrative of lectures, for which the use of anæsthetics was obligatory; 5 certificates dispensing with the obligation to kill the animal before recovery from anæsthetics—the experiments, about 18 in number, under these certificates being included in the 87 just mentioned. Whatever might be thought of these figures, those whom he represented were not satisfied with the results shown by that Return, though those who opposed the Bill might be. He and the petitioners felt that the practice was unjustifiable, and that it was impossible by any regulations to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain on the animals subjected to vivisection.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Truro.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP,

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months said, that the noble Lord who had moved the second reading objected, in the first place, to the practice of vivisection; and, next, to the manner in which the Act of 1876 had been administered. He (Earl Beauchamp) must say that if there was any justification for the violent language that had been used that Act had been founded on a wrong principle. But he found that, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, Sir William Fergusson stated that he would not go the length of restraining rational men from doing what they thought necessary in experiments on living animals; but he would be for great caution in such experiments. Dr. Haughton also, who was claimed as an opponent of vivisection, declined before the Commission to say that he would in all circumstances entirely prohibit vivisection, though he did say that he would not leave any discretion to the operator. Both these eminent authorities were not opposed to vivisection under certain conditions. The noble Lord had sneered at Sir James Paget for saying that in 50 years a remedy might be discovered for snake bites, and asked whether vivisection was to be permitted on the chance of a discovery for the cure of snake bites 50 years hence? But when it was remembered that each year 20,000 human beings lost their lives from snake bites in India, their Lordships would probably be of opinion that a cure for snake bites would be a discovery of the last importance, and that the lives and suffering of our fellow-subjects in India deserved, at least, some consideration at the hands of the noble Lord. Every humane mind must shrink from contemplating the sufferings which were inflicted on animals; but they could not forget that men of the most humane character were in favour of experiments of this nature; but a good deal of prejudice existed on the subject of vivisection. Within the last 30 years the whole question had been changed by the discovery of anæsthetics, and how had the benefits of this discovery been gained? A knowledge of the use of anæsthetics had been gained because, in the first instance, they had been tested on the lower animals. In the evidence given before the Royal Commission there was an account of the most useful discoveries for alleviating human suffering which had been made by means of vivisection. Knowing that to be the case, and also that, at the present time, there was an immensely increased activity of physiological and biological research, the question arose how they were to deal with the circumstances in which they found themselves? In 1875, two Bills on that subject were introduced into Parliament—the one in that, and the other in the other House; and the result of those Bills was the issue of a Royal Commission. A third Bill dealing with vivisection was presented to the Royal Commission by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The publicity of the proceedings of that Society, h e must say, contrasted very favourably with the extraordinary secrecy and mystery adopted by the Society which promoted the Bill now before their Lordships. That Society shrank from affording proper facilities for duly testing the assertions and opinions they uttered. The Bill submitted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the Royal Commission provided that vivisection, under anæsthetics, in a regis- tered place, and by a licensed person, might be allowed, but not for the purpose only of acquiring manual dexterity and skill. The Royal Commissioners drew up a Report, which was unanimously agreed to. That Report was embodied in the Act of 1876, the provisions of which, as far as they differed from the Report, were more stringent in the restrictions and regulations which they laid down. Then came the Act of 1876, under which a person holding a special licence from the Secretary of State might, with a view to the advancement of physiological knowledge, the prolongation of human life, or the alleviation of human suffering, perform those operations on animals under the influence of anæsthetics in a place which was properly registered. It was further provided that a person holding a special licence, and having a certificate from competent scientific authorities might, with the same object, in a duly registered place, perform such operations without anæsthetics, but on condition that the animals operated upon were reduced to insensibility. Parliament, after the fullest deliberation, sanctioned and adopted that policy of regulation. That policy the present Bill sought to reverse. It would repeal the Act of 1876, and substitute new provisions. If they were to take their stand on the principles laid down by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Truro), why were they to limit their sympathy, as was now proposed, to "vertebrated "animals? There was something halfhearted in stopping short in that way, and not including invertebrated animals also. On the other hand, he did not know the full meaning of the words "wantonly or barbarously,"used in the 3rd clause; but he thought, perhaps, they might bring within its scope anybody who shot a rabbit. He next came to the consideration of how the Act of 1876 had worked. Returns on that subject had been laid before Parliament; and while he rejoiced at the very limited number of the operations which had been performed, he held that it did not follow that these experiments ought to be prohibited altogether. They had been told that the demand for vivisection was increasing, and that the appetite for it grew by what it fed upon. Therefore, it was satisfactory to find that the practice was not so largely adopted as they had been led to anticipate. The noble Lord talked of the suffering of animals; but what was the alternative? A witness of the highest authority had pointed out this obvious result—that if the Medical Profession were precluded from acquiring knowledge by these experiments they would be driven to experiment on their patients. The whole case against undue restrictions on vivisection was that the repeal of the Act of 1876 would really throw open the door to the consequences which were sketched in the Report of the Royal Commission—namely, either that those who were actuated by a thirst for science would pursue those operations in privacy and without due securities against abuse; or they would have some of the most intelligent and promising of their medical and surgical students driven to other countries. He did not think that either of those results would be satisfactory. Further investigation, he was sure, would remove a great deal of misconception with regard to the object of those who, from the highest and purest motives, had pursued these researches. They had to consider how to make use, in a proper manner, of the means which Almighty God had placed in their hands. The passing of this Bill would be a retrograde step, and would strike a serious blow at that research which had done so much to alleviate human suffering.

Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Steward.)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

requested leave for a few words on this sad question. He said that, notwithstanding what had been urged in answer to the noble Lord (Lord Truro), that noble Lord had done right in presenting a Bill for the total abolition of the practice of vivisection. Licences had been freely granted for painful experiments; for dispensing with anæsthetics, and with the obligation to kill the suffering animals after the experiment had been performed. Now, if this was done under the superintendence of a Secretary of State who had brought in the Bill, and who had ever declared himself, and truly, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) believed, to be anxious for every possible abatement of the evil, what they were to expect from anyone who might succeed him, and whose opinions, tinctured by the idolatry of the day, were that everything was to be sacrificed to the image of science? No one, he believed, had laboured harder than himself to carry the present experimental Act. He had hoped much amelioration from it, but he found none; and more especially was he convinced of its inutility when he saw licences and certificates granted to Dr. Rutherford, whose abundant and cruel experiments were set out in the Report of the Royal Commission, and who himself had declared that his experiments, to be conclusive, must be tried on the living man. That Professor, moreover, did not stand very high in the medical world. His attention had been directed to the Hunterian Oration by Dr. Moxon in 1877, in which the Professor's doings were elaborately ridiculed, which remarks were endorsed and supported by many medical authorities. But the Act, he maintained, was not only useless, it was delusive and misleading. Many persons were lulled into a belief that by its provisions protection was afforded. So it was, no doubt; but it was protection to the vivisectors, and not to the animals. The noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) had enlarged on the security of anæsthetics. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) might ask on that point some preliminary questions. Were the anæsthetics administered at all? Were they carefully and accurately administered? What were they? Were they effective? Was it chloral? If so, a very weak application. Was it curare? If so—and he said it on the authority of the great vivisector, Claude Bernard—that it caused more suffering than it attempted to prevent. Was it morphia? Why that only utterly subdued the victim, without deadening the pain. There was much delusion in all these assurances; there was little confidence to be placed in them. But no fact had more influenced his judgment than the announcement of a public memorial to the well-known operator on animal life, M. Claude Bernard. This memorial was supported by many of the most scientific men in England, who testified their admiration of his zeal and skill in this department of science. He asked permission to give one specimen, out of many instances, perhaps hundreds, of the deeds of that singular man. The extract was taken from Claude Bernard's Liquides de l' Organisme, p. 40.— "We cut out the kidneys from a bull-dog "[a pretty statement to begin with]. "Next day, twenty-four hours after the operation, the dog, without being enfeebled, appeared dejected, respiration was impeded, and sighing. He had vomited during the night. He refused all food and avoided movement, appeared to suffer, and at times cried out. In order that his cries should not disturb the neighbours we applied a muzzle pretty tightly."[What a spirit of consideration for the peace of the locality!] "When during the day we returned we found the dog lying dead, his muzzle bathed in a fetid fluid, which he had vomited. The muzzle had hindered the expulsion of the vomiting and caused the animal to be suffocated by it. Such was the man that the philosophers delighted to honour! And that was the work of science !—of that which its worshippers called science—and yet among the promoters of the memorial might be found some who had testified, in the strongest manner, against the infliction of needless pain, and the practice of mere speculative vivisection. What, then, could be a fuller proof of a cruel and morbid curiosity, and what hope remained that investigators and operators, delighting in such things, would respect the principle, and be restrained within the limitations of the Act? Now, further, he observed that since the passing of the Act, as well as before, many learned lectures had been delivered, and many learned treatises published, denying altogether the value of vivisection; nay, more, maintaining that the results were fallacious, and more likely to lead to error than to truth. The contradictions of vivisectionists were surprising. They agreed in nothing but that the animals should be cut up. Now, the three following questions had been propounded and admirably handled in a recent work by Dr. Gimson:— "1. Have vivisections and painful experiments been of any scientific value? 2. Have they led to the discovery of scientific facts of permanent importance? 3. Are there not fallacies underlying such a method of interrogating Nature, which of necessity vitiate the results? Many sound and really scientific men were prepared to say "No" to the first two questions, and "Yes" to the third; and most justly, too. For was it not manifest that safe and accurate conclusions could not be drawn from examinations of an animal reduced to such an abnormal state? Were it placed under an anæsthetic, would not all its internal functions—he did not pretend to use professional language—be altered or suspended thereby, so as utterly to nullify all close and reliable deductions as to what might be the case in its natural and ordinary state? Was it under the operation of the knife, pure and simple—would not the pain, the terror of the wretched victim, render the conclusions still more fallacious? The vivisectors, many of them, felt the force of the argument. To evade it, they asserted—and, nevertheless, had the audacity to call themselves masters in science—that the poor animal whined and winced, and gave every indication of suffering, but that it was hard, dull, insensible. Others, claiming some portion of humanity, rejoiced that the animals had no forethought, at least, of the tortures that awaited them—an argument which, if of any value at all, might, in their zealous regard for the comfort of the human race, be brought to bear on the vivisection of idiots and babies. But scientific men of this stamp should be listened to when deploring their own ill-success. What said the famous Claude Bernard? Why, after 30 years of operations on living animals, he confessed— "Our hands, without doubt, are empty today, but our mouths full, it may be, of legitimate promises for the future; and he said no more; but yet that was the sole result of countless experiments of the most cruel description. And what said Dr. Rutherford? He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) must again refer to him. He allowed that— "His experiments were only suggestive of inferences, which, to become conclusive, would require the experiments to be tried on man. Exactly so; but what, then, had been gained by this almost unprecedented torture of animals? Why, the important admission that continued experiments were useless, and that man himself must be subjected to torture before that Professor could arrive at a conclusion. And yet to this Professor had the power been renewed of the free and fruitless use of the knife ! The vivisection of man was no new thought; the proposition had once been made by the great Professor Cheselden, and was rejected, solely because public opinion was not then ripe for such a step in scientific pursuit. He was happy to state that resistance was spreading rapidly, and extending through all parts of Europe and in America. Associations had been formed in France, in Italy, in Germany, and in Russia, for the total suppression of vivisection. Persons of all ranks and degrees, Professors and learned men were at the head of those associations, and much good had already been effected at Alf ort and at Florence by their combined exertions. It was impossible, he said, in discussing this question, to avoid the repetition of old arguments and the production of similar instances. The opponents of the system urged, and urged truly, the brutalizing effects on the minds of the vivisectors, and on the minds of those who approved them. He would quote, in brief, but one instance; but it was a striking one, and he implored their Lordships to listen to it—it was extracted from an address delivered at Dresden by Baron Ernest von Weber, who took it from the work of Professor Goltz, of the Physiological Institution at Strasburg— "A very clever, lively young female dog, which had learnt to shake hands with both fore-paws, had the left side of the brain washed out through two holes on the 1st of December, 1875. He begged them to mark the coolness and evident pleasure wth which he thus treated his pet companion. "This caused lameness in the right paw. On being asked for the left, the dog immediately lays it in my hand. I now demand the right; but the creature only looks at me sorrowfully, for it cannot move it. Did their Lordships observe how he relished his barbarous experiments? "On my continuing to press for it, the dog crosses the left paw over and offers it to me on the right side, as if to make amends for not being able to give the right. Without that fact, recorded on such authority, would it have been thought possible that an educated man should have been insensible to such an appeal? But he was so, and, revelling in his science, he prolonged his amusement. "On the 13th of January a second portion of the brain was destroyed. But that was not enough— "On the 16th of February a third, and on the 6th of March a fourth, this last operation causing death. Thus, to gratify the peculiar taste of the inhuman wretch, that poor little animal was kept under torture and examination, as foolish as it was ferocious, from the 1st of December to the 6th of March, a period of more than three months. Now, in what way, he asked, was true science advanced by such curious and refined cruelty? In what way was man benefited or knowledge blessed by such discoveries? And yet these were the certain and necessary consequences of legalized vivisection. Scientific men, he said, and, indeed, others, who ought to know better, were pleased to talk of the "lower animals." In what sense was the epithet "lower" to be applied to that affectionate little thing? Had their Lordships observed its unabated attachment to its cold-blooded master? Had they not been struck by its spirit of forgiveness under treatment so cruel? Had they not seen an exhibition of qualities that would have become a thinking being? And that was the use they made of the creatures committed to their charge—that the account they would render of their stewardship. All he could say was—and he said it truly and conscientiously—that, in every respect, he would infinitely rather be the dog than be the Professor. But whether the law was efficient or inefficient, whether vivisection was conducive to science, or the reverse, there was one great preliminary consideration. On what authority of Scripture, or any other form of Revelation, he asked most solemnly, did they rest their right to subject God's creatures to such unspeakable sufferings? The thought had troubled the mind of many vivisectors; it had deeply touched the heart of Sir Charles Bell. That they might take the life of animals for food, or to remove danger or annoyance, he fully admitted; but he utterly denied that they were permitted to indulge their curiosity, or even advance their knowledge, by the infliction of exquisite torture on the sentient creation. They were told, in haughty and dogmatic style, that the secrets of Nature could be learnt in no other way. Learned in no other way ! Could it be believed that the Almighty had issued such a decree? The animals were His creatures as much as we were His creatures; and "His tender mercies," so the Bible told us, "were over all His works." He, along with many, repu- diated such an atrocious and shallow doctrine; and, under that conviction, he would ever do his best to put down a system that was as needless as it was cruel.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

said, that it had been his misfortune, on a few occasions, to differ from the noble Earl who had just sat down; but he had never done so with more reluctance than on the present occasion. He sympathized so heartily with the feelings he had expressed, and concurred so entirely with the sentiments of the concluding part of his speech—that the question had to be settled on principle, and that the lower orders of the creation had rights as against us, inasmuch as they, like ourselves, were God's creatures—such was his abhorrence and detestation of the instances of cruelty the noble Earl had mentioned, and such the sincerity of his repudiation of the doctrine that torture might be inflicted under the pretence of searching and interrogating Nature—that it was with great pain and reluctance that he found himself unable to support his demand for making vivisection absolutely illegal. Now, the Bill was directed against cruelty to animals; but everything depended on what was meant by the word "cruelty." He was willing to define it as "the infliction of unnecessary pain." Pain, of course, might be unnecessary in two ways—either when the object was one for which no pain ought ever to be inflicted—as, for instance, when a child tortured an animal—or, again, when it was in excess of the object for which it was sanctioned. If, however, the object for which pain was inflicted could be justified, and if the pain was not in excess of its object, it could not properly be characterized as cruelty. The question was, whether vivisection was ever necessary in order to preserve or to prolong human life? Now, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had said the use of animals was given by their Creator for food. But what was food? Food was the means of prolonging human life. The killing of animals for the purpose of prolonging human life was as justifiable in the one case as in the other—nay, more so, because animal food was not necessary to a very large portion—perhaps, one might almost say the majority—of the human race, which, sustained human life with- out the use of animal food. There was more necessity for inflicting pain, if pain was to be inflicted, for the purpose of curing disease than for the purpose of supplying human beings with food. As to the question of the real advantage to the science of surgery or medicine in the way of prolonging human life by the practice of vivisection, a single fact should outweigh any amount of abstract reasoning. He would mention one which he recently heard from one of the most eminent surgeons in London. The gentleman in question had become very famous in his Profession for his great skill and success in performing one of the most difficult and critical operations in surgery—one, of which it was said that the man who attempted it deserved to be tried for manslaughter—and he had declared that he had arrived at his skill and success in the operation, by which hundreds—he might say thousands—of human lives had been saved, by experiments in vivisection tried upon 12 rabbits, and tried under chloroform. Would anyone venture to say that those hundreds of human lives, that had been preserved to their families and children at an expenditure of the lives of 12 rabbits, had been preserved at an extravagant and wanton destruction of animal life? He would ask the noble Earl whether a total abolition of vivisection would not lead to virtual experiments on human subjects, because a surgeon who could not try an experiment upon an animal would, in the interests, or supposed interests, of his patients—to say nothing about the interests of science—be induced to try experiments on human subjects. Of course, they might say, with some plausibility, the human subject would be an assenting party. But that was an entire mistake. A surgeon, on the eve of a critical operation, would not ask his patient's opinion as to the manner in which that operation should be conducted. He earnestly desired that every precaution should be taken against the abuse of the practice of vivisection; but if it were not permitted under regulations, he feared it would be practised surreptitiously, and practised with a disregard of suffering which could not now exist. The securities of the present law might or might not be sufficient. If they were not sufficient, he earnestly hoped they might be made sufficient. In the very interests of human life, and in the interest of the very animal creation, as to the use of which for food they had that Scriptural charter to which the noble Earl appealed, he ventured earnestly to deprecate a complete, immediate, and total abolition of vivisection.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, that he was the author of the Act of 1876; it passed their Lordships' House in the same condition as he had introduced it; but in the House of Commons it underwent changes which, in his opinion, deprived it in a great degree of complete effectiveness. The Government, however, decided—and he thought wisely decided—to accept the Bill so altered, and it was incumbent on those who supported this Bill and desired to prohibit vivisection altogether to show that the Act of 1876 had, in some material points, been a failure. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in his most eloquent speech, pronounced that Act to be a failure; but he failed to inform their Lordships in what respect it was a failure. The Act permitted experiments to be made for special purposes, and under special regulations,'; and if the Secretary of State did his duty he believed the Act of 1876 would work tolerably well. He agreed with the opinion that it was a great mistake to attempt impossible legislation. If their Lordships, in their natural disgust at the horrors perpetrated, framed an Act of such severity that it would be evaded, they would only defeat the object they had in view. And it seemed to him that the Bill of the noble Lord was of that character; it would not only defeat its own purpose, but it would open the door to further abuses. The Return that had been alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord Truro), and which had been recently presented in compliance with the Act of 1876, showed the state of things in regard to vivisection in this country. It showed, no doubt, a considerable number of experiments in last year—481 in all; but of these, 164 were of a character which it was possible to make without the use of anæsthetics, and there were only 16 which were accompanied by possible pain. He maintained that if they had gained only that their Lordships would have achieved an immeasurable blessing as compared with the state of things which preceded the passing of that Act. He could not vote for the Bill which the noble Lord had introduced, for the reason that he did not think the Act of 1876 had been wholly wanting in beneficial effects, and still less did he think that any proof had been given of its failure. He had heard with considerable regret, not so much the remarks of the noble Earl, who, on behalf of the Government, moved the rejection of the Bill, as the tone in which those remarks were made. The noble Earl adopted a tone of apology in referring to the Act of 1876; but he (the Earl of Carnarvon) hoped that was unintentional, and did not indicate the views of the Government on the subject. If the opinion got abroad that the Government was careless as to the enforcing of the restrictions contained in the Act—restrictions which it was the deliberate intention of Parliament to impose—a strong feeling of indignation would be aroused in some of the most powerful classes, who viewed this question, not merely as a matter of sentiment, but as one of gratitude and religion.

VISCOUNT CARDWELL

said, as Chairman of the Commission which sat on the subject, and on whose Report the Act of 1876 was founded, he must give his cordial support to the Amendment. The scientific members of the Commission, he must declare, entered on their inquiry without any bias or inclination in favour of vivisection. The most eminent medical men from all parts of the country were examined before them, and nearly all were in favour of the cause of humanity. The result was the Act of 1876, introduced by the noble Earl; and the Return now referred to showed how beneficially it had worked. So beneficial appeared to him the results that he felt sure that the example which had been set by this country in regard to restrictions upon experiments was one which, must, sooner or later, be followed by foreign countries in the civilized portion of the world. As far as he was able to judge, the existing law was being satisfactorily administered; and he saw no reason, at present, at any rate, for altering it.

LORD ABERDARE

said, he was connected with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and he wished to state that that Society had never advocated the total prohibition of vivisection. As the Bill was now drawn, it might be applied to shooting or vaccination. He believed that the existing law on cruelty to animals was very imperfect, and allowed acts of cruelty to be committed fifty times as numerous as those practised in vivisection. He would, therefore, urge upon the Government to make the necessary amendments in the law.

LORD WAVENEY

objected to the unscientific manner in which many of the vivisection experiments had been conducted. He thought there was an element of good in the Bill, and that it might be made a useful measure in Committee. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 97; Majority 81.

CONTENTS.
Ailesbury, M. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Shaftesbury, E. Leigh, L. [Teller.]
Sherborne, L.
Winchester, L. Bp. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Calthorpe, L.
Camoys, L. Talbot de Malahide, L.
Colville of Culross, L. Truro, L. [Teller.]
Congleton, L. Waveney, L.
De Mauley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.) Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Nelson, E.
York, L. Archp. Pembroke and Montgomery, E.
Northumberland, D. Redesdale, E.
Richmond, D. Romney, E.
Westminster, D. Rosse, E.
Spencer, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) Stanhope, E.
Verulam, E.
Abergavenny, M. Westmorland, E.
Salisbury, M. Wilton, E.
Amherst, E. Cardwell, V.
Beaconsfield, B. Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Beauchamp, E.
Bradford, E. Cranbrook, V.
Brownlow, E. Gough, V.
Carnarvon, E. Hardinge, V.
Dartmouth, E. Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Devon, E. Melville, V.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.) Strathallan, V.
Peterborough, L. Bp.
Dundonald, E.
Gainsborough, E. Aberdare, L.
Granville, E. Airey, L.
Harewood, E. Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Kimberley, E. Bagot, L.
Lanesborough, E. Bolton, L.
Lucan, E. Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Morley, E.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Mostyn, L.
O'Hagan, L.
Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) O'Neill, L.
Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Colchester, L.
Crofton, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)
Delamere, L.
de Ros, L. [Teller.] Raglan, L.
De Saumarez, L. Ranfurly, L. (E. Sanfurly.)
Ellenborough, L.
Elphinstone, L. Rivers, L.
Emly, L. Robartes, L.
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) Rodney, L.
Rosebery, L. (E. Rose-bery.)
Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Saltoun, L.
Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) Selborne, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Hanmer, L.
Harlech, L. Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)
Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Sudeley, L.
Inchiquin, L. Tredegar, L.
Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) Ventry, L.
Walsingham, L.
Leconfield, L. Windsor, L.
Lilford, L. Winmarleigh, L.
Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.) Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Monson, L.

Resolved, in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.