MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 9 March 1888)

§ VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH

, in moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence between the Home Office and the Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection in reference to two recent instances of infringements of the law, asked, Whether it would in future be a portion of the duties of the authorities at the Home Office to cause legal proceedings to be instituted in similar cases? He had brought these cases before the House a few days ago, when the noble Lord who represented the Home Office was, unfortunately, not in his place. In one case the operation was performed on a rabbit, but without anæsthetics; and in the other case a number of animals were inoculated in the presence of a number of persons, and without anæsthetics. The law had been distinctly contravened; but upon the attention of the Home Secretary being drawn to the oases, he replied, in the one case, that the licence would be withdrawn, and in the other that so long a time had elapsed since the infringement of the law that he did not feel justified in instituting proceedings. Under these circumstances he desired to know, whether in future, in cases brought to the attention of the Home Office, it would be deemed its duty to institute proceedings.

§ EARL BROWNLOW

said, it certainly was a portion of the duties of the authorities at the Home Office to cause proceedings to be instituted in cases where the Vivisection Act had been infringed, and that duty had in the past been carefully discharged. This matter was brought before the House a short time ago by 694 the noble Viscount, when he himself was not in his place, and the Prime Minister then pointed out that no answer could be given as the Home Office did not know to what cases the noble Viscount referred. Since then the noble Viscount had privately informed him upon this point; and it appeared that the oases to which he referred were those of Dr. Hine and Professor Pemberley. Dr. Hine had a certificate, but clearly exceeded the powers granted by the certificate; and the Home Secretary, on having his attention called to the matter, withdrew the licence. Mr. Pemberley had not a certificate, and his explanation was that he was acting as the assistant of Dr. Robertson, who had. However, the infringement of the law was not discovered until the time of limitation had passed. There were extenuating circumstances in both cases. Cases could be dealt with by the Home Office according to their circumstances, and it was not necessary on every occasion to take legal proceedings. The Government had no objection to lay the Correspondence asked for upon the Table.