Sitting of 22 May 1876

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—(£11,000,000) Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Elver Fishing* [162]; Smithfield Prison (Dublin)* [163].
First Reading—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland)* [159]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)* [161].
Second Reading—Tramways Order Confirmation (Wantage)* [157]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* [158].
Committee—Report—Notices to Quit (Ireland)* [114–160].
Considered as amended—Merchant Shipping [144];Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland)* [121].

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS ACT—NORWICH AND BOSTON ELECTION COMMISSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in accordance with precedent, to recommend to Parliament legislative action, based upon the Reports of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of Corrupt Practices in the City of Norwich and the Borough of Boston?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had not time to communicate with the hon. and learned Attorney General or his Colleagues in reference to the action that ought to be taken upon the Reports of the Norwich and Boston Election Commissions, but he would make a statement on Thursday or Monday.

IRELAND—THE UPPER SHANNON—BALLYCONNELL CANAL.—QUESTION.
MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the dilapidated condition of the Ballyconnell Canal, and of the various works connected with it; and if he can state who is responsible for the due application of the presentment annually raised for maintaining the Canal; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to why the swing bridge at Lanesborough has been allowed to remain for more than 12 months out of repair, and
1036
generally as to the bad state of the buoys and beacons on the Upper Shannon, with the view to having them put in proper repair?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: All the matters referred to in the hon. Member's Question are under the control of the Board of Works in Ireland, which is a department of the Treasury, and not responsible to the Irish Government. But I am informed by the Board of Works that steps are about to be taken to repair the Ballyconnell embankment; that the trustees who represent the counties of Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon are responsible for the due application of the presentment annually raised for maintaining the canal; that the swing-bridge at Lanesborough has been allowed to remain for some time out of repair because the small funds available for the repairs on the Upper Shannon navigation were more required for other works, but that it will be repaired this summer;and that the buoys and beacons on the Upper Shannon were much injured by last winter's floods, but have by this time been replaced.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOLS—QUESTION.
MR. HEYGATEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in the half-year ending Christmas 1875, the number of children in average attendance at the voluntary schools of the Tower Hamlets and Marylebone Divisions of the London School Board did not show a decrease of 1,082 and 714 respectively, whilst in the same period the increase in the Board Schools amounted only to 716 and 128 respectively; what amount of accommodation has been provided by the London School Board in the Tower Hamlets Division; whether, in the half-year ending at Christmas 1875, there was not accommodation for 412,259 children in "efficient"schools in London, and whether the average attendance for the same period was not 288,497 only; whether, in spite of the compulsory bye-laws and the opening of several large Board Schools during the period above mentioned, the general result has not been a reduction in the average attendance of children in the voluntary schools of 5,310, whilst the increase in the Board Schools has only amounted to 6,774,

1037
leaving a nett increase for all the "efficient"schools in London (both voluntary and Board) of 1,464 only; and, how many schools were opened by the Board during the same period, and what was the amount of additional accommodation thus provided?
VISCOUNT SANDON: I have referred my hon. Friend's Question to the London School Board, and will now give him their reply. It is true that in the half-year ending Christmas, 1875, the number of children in average attendance at the voluntary schools in the Tower Hamlets and Marylebone divisions showed a decrease of 1,082 and 715 respectively, and that in the same period the increase in the Board schools in these divisions amounted only to 716, and 128 respectively. The London School Board has provided, accommodation for 19,758 children in the Tower Hamlets division, of which accommodation for 955 children has been added during the half-year above mentioned. It is also true that in the half-year ending Christmas, 1875, there was accommodation for 412,259 children in efficient schools in London, and that the average attendance for the same period was 288,497. During the half-year ending Christmas, 1875, it is true that there has been a reduction in the average attendance of children in voluntary schools of 5,310, the increase in Board schools amounting only to 6,774, leaving a nett increase upon the efficient schools of London of 1,464. I am, however, bound, as a matter of justice to mention to the House that the School Board has informed me that the half-year which ended last Christmas was exceptionally bad, owing to the severity of the weather and the sickness which prevailed; also that the half-year which my hon Friend has taken includes the holidays, and that the winter quarter is, as a rule, the worst for attendance. I must also mention that if you compare the last half-year which my hon. Friend has taken with the corresponding half of the preceding year, instead of comparing it with that ending in June, it will be found that in the Marylebone schools there was an increase in average attendance of 716 in the Board schools and 268 in the voluntary schools, and in the Tower Hamlets of 1,932 in the Board schools and 406 in the voluntary. In fairness, also, it should be added, as the question is a very important one, that
1038
the Board informs me that if you compare the average attendance for the whole of the metropolis between 1875 and 1871 the increase in the average attendance in Board schools has been 78,645, and in the voluntary schools 35,551.

THE EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY ARBITRATION.—QUESTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been directed to the judgments delivered on the third instant by the Court of Appeal of the High Court of Judicature, in two cases arising out of the affairs of the European Assurance Company, which had been decided by Lord Westbury, and wherein his judgments had been confirmed by Lord Romilly, but against which decisions appeals had been brought by the Official Liquidators; if any similar appeals are now pending, and if the Official Liquidators still receive the salary of £4,000 per annum;and, if so, whether the same rate of remuneration will be continued during the progress of the present arbitration; and, if any arrangement could be made by which the Arbitrator could sit from day to day, in order to expedite the progress of the business, instead of only occasionally, as at present?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, that the appeals referred to had been properly brought under the Act 38 & 39 Vict., c. 157, and that judgment had since been given upon them. He was unable to answer the remaining questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, having no control over the Arbitration, and it not being part of his duty to ascertain the particulars referred to in the hon. and learned Member's Question.

PETITION OF MR. CHARLES HENWOOD.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked thehonourable Member for Southwark (regarding previous postponements), Whether he now proposes to withdraw his Motion in reference to Mr. Henwood?
  COLONEL BERESFORD: I beg to say, in reply to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Hythe, that I am not one of those persons who, having "put his hand to the plough looketh back,"

  1039
  and emphatically to assure him that from the moment I undertook to present Mr. Henwood's Petition for the consideration of this House, I have never halted nor faltered in my intention to bring the subject-matter of that Petition to a direct issue on the earliest day the Forms of the House will admit of my doing so. In fact, a Notice of Motion for a Select Committee stands in my name for Friday, June 9, and is No. 1 on the list, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Hythe will now join with me in an appeal to the hon. Member for Pembroke, who has expressed so much anxiety for the appointment of a Committee, but has taken no steps, that I am aware of, to secure it, to urge upon the Government the desirability of granting this Committee of Inquiry unopposed.

KOREA—PROPOSED TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PENDERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Correspondence received from Sir Harry Parkes, Her Majesty's Minister at Yeddo, on the subject of the Treaty lately concluded between the Japanese and Korean Governments; and, if instructions have been given to negotiate a Treaty on behalf of Great Britain with Korea?
  MR. BOURKE: No instructions have as yet been given to negotiate a Treaty with Korea, but Her Majesty's Governmentare in communication with other Governments as to the course which it may be advisable to pursue. There will be no objection to lay on the Table Papers on the subject of the Treaty between Japan and Korea. I need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government would be glad to avail themselves of an opportunity for extending British trade in the East, but we know very little about the Koreans, and from the little we do know, it would appear that there is a strong aversion on their part to hold any communication with foreigners. The case is, therefore, one in which it is desirable to act cautiously, and, if possible, to act in concert with other Powers.

SIERRA LEONE—THE FINANCIAL POSITION.—QUESTION.
MR. PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether
1040
it is true that any of the Government officials at Sierra Leone have been informed that, in consequence of the financial condition of the Colony, their salaries cannot be paid in full for the present, but that such sums as may be possible will be paid them on account, until the finances of the Colony improve?
MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, he was not aware that the financial position of Sierra Leone was as sad as the hon. Member represented it to be, though there certainly was a deficit in the colonial revenue. That deficit arose mainly from a decrease in the amount of Customs duties, and this was one of the grievances which it had been proposed to remedy by the cession of territory to France. The latter scheme having been abandoned, it would now be the duty of the Government to look into the matter, with a view of relieving the colony from its financial difficulties.

NAVY—ENGINEER OFFICERS AND ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When he expects to be able to communicate to the House the scheme for the improvement of the present unsatisfactory position of the Engineer Officers and Engine-room Artificers of the Royal Navy?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, he could only repeat what he had stated some time ago, that he could not promise to lay the scheme before the House very speedily, the matter being one of very considerable difficulty.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, he should call attention to the subject, and to the urgent necessity for taking steps to remedy the existing unsatisfactory state of things.

CRIMINAL LAW—RELEASE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. M. BROOKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is his intention to advise Her Majesty to extend Her Royal mercy to the prisoners still suffering punishment for offences in breach of their allegiance to Her Majesty?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it will be convenient to the House, in reference to

1041
this Question, which to a certain extent comes forward periodically, that it should have a clear conception of the number of persons who are at present in the situation described by the hon. Gentleman, because I think that without they have that information it would be difficult for the House to comprehend the circumstances under which any Government thus appealed to is to arrive at a conclusion. At present I find that there are only 15 persons who can come under the description of which the hon. Gentleman has availed himself. There are two of those persons in prison for the crime of murder; they were convicted of murder, and the sentence of death was passed upon them, and that sentence was commuted to one of penal servitude for life. I refer to this fact because on a previous occasion, in a discussion in this House, the case was noticed as one in which the individuals in question were guilty of high treason, and it was urged that that being the case, it was not right to allude to the circumstances of murder connected with the particular incident, because the prisoners must be looked upon as political offenders, provided they were found guilty, either of high treason or of treason-felony. I find according to the record they were not found guilty of high treason or of treason-felony, but they were prosecuted for the crime of murder, and found guilty of murder; and, therefore, under these circumstances, I do not think that we should be justified in admitting that they are to be considered as political offenders. It appears, then, that of these 15 persons—omitting the two to whom I have adverted—there are six in prison in England. A case which has excited great attention is the case of Michael Davitt, who was convicted with another man named John Wilson. They were charged with treason-felony, with conspiring to depose the Queen, with levying war against the State, and with supplying arms to the Fenian organization, and they were both found guilty. Wilson was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, Michael Davitt, his confederate, to 15 years'penal servitude. Now, it so happens that Wilson has worked out his time, whether entirely or with some of those attenuating conditions that attach now to almost every punishment I do not exactly know; but certainly he has served his
1042
time; and Davitt, who was sentenced to double the term, is still in prison. It is for the House to remember that the Judge, when he sentenced Davitt, respecting whom so many efforts of interposition are making, to double the period of servitude to the term passed upon the other offender, must have considered that there was in his crime very aggravating circumstances. Now, Wilson has just worked out his seven years, and it becomes necessary for those who are responsible for these matters to consider whether it is politic to permit a man who has been found guilty by a jury of very aggravated conduct to find himself equally free at the termination of half the period of his sentence with the comparatively harmless man whom the same authorities thought deserved a far lighter punishment. I think, however, that this is a question which society should not determine hastily, and which we ought to consider very deeply before we proceed to take action with regard to it. Then there is the case of Daly. Well, I have gone through these cases, and with the exception of these two, I find that the remainder in England are all military. There are three soldiers who are in prison in England for very aggravated cases, of knowledge of intended mutiny—knowledge of a conspiracy against the Queen, and not revealing it, and in their instances even taking an active part in the conspiracy. All the rest of the military convicts have been transported to Western Australia; and with regard to them, before I answered the Question of the hon. Gentleman I should have made myself acquainted with their exact and precise position. It is from no want of pains on my part that I have not succeeded in obtaining that information, for I should much like to know the exact condition of those persons. Two of them have, I understand, worked out their time, and are now free, and I cannot but believe, from something that has reached me at different times in regard to this matter, that those who are not free are in a position very different from that which is generally contemplated in this House as being connected with the condition of convicts in a state of penal servitude; and I would remind hon. Gentlemen that if pardons were offered to any individuals who had connected themselves

1043
with those disturbances in Ireland it is not highly improbable that conditions would be insisted upon in those pardons by which those receiving them would be compelled to absent themselves from this country. ["Hear, hear!"] That assent only proves that it may not be impossible that many of these convicts in Western Australia are, in fact, at this moment enjoying a state of existence that their Friends in this House are quite prepared they should accept, and by commencing, and perhaps pursuing, a life of some prosperity and comparatively little restraint, it is a question whether the attainment of the object desired by those Friends and the country would very much avail. I have thought it necessary to put these views on this subject before the House, and I will briefly recapitulate my remarks. There are only six of these Fenian prisoners imprisoned in England, and I doubt whether, except in England, any are enduring any hardship. Two of them are murderers. ["Oh, oh!"] They were convicted of murder, and I do not see the wisdom or charity of regarding them as political offenders. With regard to the case of Davitt, that, it is said, is a hard case, because his companion is free; but I beg to remind the House that in that instance his conduct was considered very aggravated, and that in justice to those who, like Wilson, have behaved with more moderation, though guilty of misdemeanour, it requires considerable hesitation before one interferes with the verdict of a Court of Justice. Then there are the cases of the three soldiers also imprisoned here, whose offences are of too grave a nature to allow them to be passed over. All the rest are military cases, and I would remind the House that since the question was mooted last year, and a Return moved for by an hon. Gentleman, two of these prisoners have become released in the natural course of the regulations, according to the punishment they were called upon to endure. Under these circumstances, the House will see that these are not cases to be decided in an off-hand manner, and, having indicated the principle which I think ought to govern any Minister in a case of this kind, I am bound to say that I am not prepared to advise Her Majesty to release the prisoners referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. O'CONNOR POWERbegged to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to record his protest against the decision which the Government had arrived at upon the subject. The announcement just made by the Prime Minister would, he believed, be received in Ireland with mingled feelings of surprise, regret, and indignation. He could not sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman in the hesitation which he had displayed in answering the Question of his hon. Friend. The memorial which they had presented bore the signatures of 138 Members of the House of Commons, who believed that the time had come when those prisoners might be released from their confinement; and he could not but express his condemnation of the policy of perpetuating political animosity by keeping the men in prison. He felt it his duty to protest against the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government of trampling, as they were in this instance, on fallen foes. It ought to be the policy of that Government to lay aside animosities in that struggle; and now, when Ireland was remarkable for peace and tranquillity, the opportunity might be taken for cementing the friendship which was growing up between the two countries by an act of clemency and generosity. It seemed to him that the appeal made by so many hon. Members ought to have more weight than it seemed to have had with the right hon. Gentleman, and especially at a time when the whole nation was rejoicing at the safe return of a Member of the Royal Family. He could only record his protest against the decision the Government had come to in the matter.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
MR. ANDERSON: Lest it should be supposed that all hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on this side of the House entertain the same opinion as that expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I beg to say that I rise to record my cordial approbation of the statement which has been made to the House by the First Lord of the Treasury. Regarding the Petition, signed by 138 Members, to which the hon. Member for Mayo has referred, I

1045
may observe that very great pressure was put upon hon. Members to sign that requisition. I myself was asked no fewer than six times to sign it; and I know that other hon. Gentlemen were repeatedly asked. Moreover, statements were made to them which were not in accordance with the facts communicated to the House by the Prime Minister this evening. For my part I refused to sign the memorial unless a clause was introduced excepting from it the extension of mercy to those who had been found guilty of murder through being connected with the Fenian affair at Manchester or with the Clerkenwell outrage, and as that was not inserted, I persisted in my refusal Many hon. Members on this side of the House refused in the same way; and I believe that a considerable number of those hon. Members who did sign the memorial signed it in ignorance of the fact that the clemency asked for was to be extended to the prisoners guilty of other crimes than that of breach of military allegiance. ["Name, name!"] I am not provided with names; but I have no doubt there are plenty of hon. Members who can endorse the statement I have made. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees, as I understand him to agree, to remit the sentences of those military men in Australia, under certain conditions of non-return to this country, I think he will do all that the House can expect of him.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought it right to say a few words in connection with that affair. It was a question which really concerned the honour of England more than that of Ireland. This question of the punishment of a few men might not seem a great matter; but if England were the great and powerful country that it ought to be, these things could not occur. It was generally supposed that the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces was one of those who had great objection to the remission of these sentences. That was not strange in a country which had entrusted the command of the Army to a German Prince not identified with England, and who could have no sympathy with either its interest or honour. It was not strange that this clemency asked for should not be granted by the Prime Minister, a Gentleman who had truckled last year to Prince Bismarck, and who was an alien
1046
in race and religion to the people of England. England had been brought so low that on a recent occasion, when the Eastern Question was raised, the three Emperors settled what they would do, and only then asked England whether or not she would agree. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question; England's honour was involved, and if she was afraid to let some half-dozen poor Irishmen out of prison, it did not speak well for her.
MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had spoken of two of the prisoners as being murderers, meaning those who had been convicted at Manchester. He had also spoken of soldiers subject to imprisonment in Western Australia. He had also spoken of those military prisoners who were in prison in England, and whose military crime he was disposed to consider a greater one than that of those in Western Australia. He (Mr. Parnell) was speaking of Davitt and Wilson, found guilty of selling arms. With regard to the Manchester affair, he held in his hand a book called The Rights of American Citizens, which could be seen by any Member, as it was ordered by the United States Congress as a Return. It gave a report of the trial of Condon and Maloney at Manchester. If any hon. Member would take the trouble to read the evidence—if the right hon. Gentleman himself would take the trouble to read the book, he would see that the evidence against Condon was given in full, and he would find that there was not a particle of evidence to connect him with that murder. At the very outside his name was mentioned by three or four witnesses as having been in the crowd around the van. He was not mentioned as being near the van, except by one man who said a stone fell on Condon's head from the van; but he was attended by a surgeon who said the wound was not caused by a stone, but more likely by a policeman's bludgeon. As regarded Maloney, he was apprehended in London after the three men in Manchester were hanged. He was convicted upon his own statement to a fellow-workmen that he had been present at the attack on the van; but there were many men who knew that Maloney was no more at Manchester on the day of that business than he (Mr. Parnell) was. He was put on his trial and found guilty

1047
of murder, and sentenced to be hanged, but the sentence was afterwards commuted to penal servitude for life. There were many men who believed in their own hearts that neither Condon nor Maloney was guilty of that affair. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Tipperary (Mr. Stephen Moore) was not in his place that evening to stand up and say he believed that Condon was perfectly innocent of the crime of killing Sergeant Brett at Manchester. With regard to the military prisoners who were confined in Australia, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension when he represented to the House that they were in a better position in Australia than they would be in this country. He (Mr. Parnell) remembered that the late Mr. Ronayne, before he left London to go to Cork—and he was a man with special information on the subject—told him it was supposed that the convict establishments in Western Australia were about to be given up, and, as a consequence, the prisoners, if not released, would be sent to penal servitude in England, so that it would be additionally hard to those men, who had been enjoying some absence from penal restraints, should they be brought back and put in such convict prisons as Chatham or Dartmoor, and subjected to the rigour of English penal servitude. He threw out those hints in order that the right hon. Gentleman might inquire into the matter. With regard to the three prisoners who were now in prison in England, M'Carthy, Chambers, and another, M'Carthy was a brave soldier, who had fought, and fought well, for England in many parts of the world. Was it fair, after that man had had 10 years in penal servitude—10 years of discipline, which was given in order to effect reformation in the minds of thieves, murderers, and the worst of criminals—was it fair to keep the man in imprisonment any longer? With regard to Davitt, who was sentenced to 15 years'penal servitude by a Judge, he might say that the man who only got seven years was an Englishman; and he did not know how much effect Davitt's being an Irishman might have had with the Judge. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "no, no,"but it was very hard to be superior to prejudices on all occasions; and he had little doubt that when this man was sentenced to 15
1048
years' penal servitude, the fact of his being an Irishman, and the fact of this occurring just after the Clerkenwell Explosion, and after the murder of Sergeant Brett, which created a great deal of feeling in the minds of the middle and upper classes of this country, had some influence in determining the sentence passed on him.
MR. CALLANregretted that the Prime Minister—he had no doubt unwillingly—had felt himself compelled to refuse the prayer of the Petition in favour of the political prisoners. He gathered some hope, however, from the subdued cheers with which that announcement was greeted, so different in tone and intensity from the vindictive cheers which greeted a similar announcement two years ago, that the time would soon arrive when the appeal for mercy would be yielded to. He rose to repudiate, in his own name and the names of the hon. Members for Limerick and Mayo, and the noble Lord the Member for Clare, the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), that they had obtained signatures to the declaration laid before the Prime Minister on false pretences. He repudiated with the most thorough contempt which the usages of Parliament allowed the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow. The language of the hon. Member was insolent to the House and unbecoming the position of a Member of Parliament. There were attached to that Petition the names of 138 Members. When the hon. Member made the charge of false pretences he should have proved it, and he (Mr. Callan) called upon the hon. Member either to give the names of the Members who had obtained signatures to the Petition under false pretences, or to withdraw the charge.
MR. ANDERSON: I did not use the words false pretences.
MR. CALLAN: I took down the words of the hon. Member at the time they were used, and they were "false pretences." ["Order"!]
MR. SPEAKER:I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Glasgow has disavowed the use of those words.
MR. CALLANaccepted the disavowal. He himself went to Members of Parliament whose signatures he was anxious to obtain. He went to the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland and

1049
the noble Lord the Member for Calne and took them to the Library and directed their attention to the offences for which those men were detained.
MR. M. BROOKSdesired to express his extreme regret that he had asked the Question that day; in the first place, because it had provoked a reply which would keep alive a sore in Ireland which her well-wishers would desire to see healed; and secondly, because it had provoked a scene and language from hon. Gentlemen which he was sorry to have any part in bringing about. He disavowed any sympathy with the words of the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Biggar), and he (Mr. Brooks) believed that he would speedily regret that he had been led to make use of them. He would on an occasion which would not be remote give the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister an opportunity of replying to that part of the question which concerned the Royal mercy. In Ireland it was believed that justice had been vindicated by the long imprisonment that had been endured by these men, and that the time had come when the Prime Minister could no longer say that mercy could fairly or with justice be withheld from them.
MR. BRIGGS,as one of the Members who signed the Petition, desired to repudiate, as far as in him lay, that he could for a moment have solicited pardon for those who had been concerned in murder. He perfectly recollected asking the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who asked him to sign the Petition, whether it included those men who were concerned in the affair at Manchester or in the affair at Clerkenwell. The hon. Member replied that it was solely intended for the purpose of obtaining the release of those who were concerned in purely political offences.
MR. STACPOOLEappealed to the Prime Minister to give a favourable consideration to the Memorial which had been signed by so many hon. Members. He believed that an amnesty for the political prisoners would do much good by calming the feeling of irritation which still prevailed in Ireland.
MR. WADDYsaid, he rose with great regret and some feeling of shame to say that he also was one of those hon. Members who signed the Petition. He could give his support to the statements of the
1050
hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Briggs). When an application was made to him to sign the Petition, he put the question twice distinctly whether it was intended to include and did include men who had shed blood. He was distinctly told that it did not include those who had been convicted of shedding blood at all, and had that assurance not been given his name would never have been put to that Petition. Having heard that day what had been stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, he (Mr. Waddy) was perfectly and entirely satisfied with the statement which had been made. Moreover, considering the temper and language of some hon. Members who had spoken upon the subject, he felt very strongly that it would be dangerous to let forth from their confinement men who were likely to be worked upon by persons in a superior position, but with so little command over their own temper and judgment as to use such language as had been unfortunately heard that evening.
MR. O'CONNOR POWER,said, he rose on a point of Order, and he desired to explain that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) had not accurately represented the scope of his reply in regard to the declaration which he was asked to sign. He (Mr. Power) stated that it did not necessarily call for the release of those who were engaged in the Manchester outrage, and it left upon the Government the responsibility of drawing a line between the different classes of prisoners. ["Oh, oh"!] He recollected very well what he said. The declaration left to the Government the responsibility of drawing a line between those prisoners who had been convicted for offences that were political and those that were non-political. It appeared from the tone of the Prime Minister's observations that he desired to convey the impression that the prisoners still confined were not suffering very severe treatment. He would give the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary an opportunity of bringing the question to the test of examination by calling attention to the subject in the House. As his only object in moving the adjournment of the House was to get an expression of opinion, he was ready to withdraw the Motion.
MR. BUTTsaid, that after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) he could not but think that his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo acted perfectly right in raising the discussion, although there was some inconvenience in discussing how these prisoners should be treated upon a mere question of adjournment. He could not quite concur in the statement that had been made with respect to the Manchester prisoners. He believed there had been no subject in England which had been more misunderstood than the case of those prisoners. Technically, it was undoubtedly a conviction for murder. [Laughter] Hon. Gentlemen who laughed would not do so, if they had the slightest conception of the nature of the English law on that subject. They were convicted without the slightest proof that they went there for the purpose of bloodshed. They were convicted on the well-known principle of English law that if a number of men were engaged in a common illegal enterprize, and that one of them shed blood in the course of that enterprize, even those who never contemplated it were guilty of murder, though they never struck a blow. He said more than that. He might say it was an established rule in a criminal case that a verdict must stand altogether or must fall. What took place here? Why, prisoners who, upon the same verdict, were convicted of capital offences were released two or three days after, because it was clearly proved that the verdict was wrong. The verdict, which was manifestly mistaken, was the same verdict upon which these men were kept in prison. If their offence had had nothing to do with political crime, he believed that they would have been released long ago. They might remember that they were dealing with a remnant—and a small one—of a treasonable conspiracy. The leaders of that conspiracy were released long ago, and the Government were now called upon to consider whether, having released the men who were the leaders, the men who led these soldiers into their crime, the latter should not also receive the benefit of clemency. They must consider whether that would be wise at that time. He believed the releases already made had had a most beneficent effect in Ireland, but that was marred every day by retaining the men
1052
who still remained in prison. He did hope they might have an opportunity by-and-bye of fully putting the question before the House, and when they did refer to the case of the soldiers, or that of Davitt, he would appeal with confidence to the justice and generosity of the House to say that the time had now come when they would allow their Sovereign to boast that there was not a single political prisoner confined in any gaol in her dominions.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, that his name was on the Petition, but no pressure was resorted to to induce him to sign. He found mercy staring him in the face, and he would remind the House that they would all want mercy some day.
MR. D. TAYLORsaid, he had refused to sign the petition for the release of the fenian prisoners as he did not think that they could ask the Government to release prisoners who had been guilty of murder; but he thought the Royal mercy might be extended to the other prisoners convicted of treason only.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW—ARRESTS UNDER THE VACCINATION ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that two tradesmen of Leicester (Palmer and Eagle) have been sent to prison for breach of the Vaccination Act, they having ample goods to distrain on; whether they were handcuffed, although they made no resistance whatever; and, whether this is in accordance with law?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he believed the statements in the Question were substantially accurate. He believed the magistrates had the power to commit persons to prison without first issuing a distress. It must be remembered, with regard to that part of the case, that the discretion rested with the magistrates, and also that these persons had only to put their hands in their pockets and pay the money to put an end to the matter. They had plenty of money, and they might have paid if they chose to do so. With regard to the latter part of the Question, he was sorry to say it was true that the men were handcuffed. He could not, however, imagine why a man, because he

1053
did not pay a small fine, should be treated in the same way as a man who had committed a criminal offence. It seemed to him an abuse of a petty power which he should do his best to put down in the future.

POST OFFICE—THE TELEGRAPH SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked the Postmaster General, If he will lay on the Table of the House Copy of an Official Report sent by the Postmaster of Glasgow to the Post Office in London, proposing that there should be a Controller of the Telegraph system in the east, west, and north of Scotland, and certain other things?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: No official report of the nature indicated in the Question of the hon. Gentleman has been received at the Post Office. I am, therefore, unable to lay it upon the Table of the House.

TURKEY—THE BERLIN CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRUCE:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury the following Question, of which I have given him Private Notice:—If it is true, as stated in the public journals, that Her Majesty's Government has declined to join in the new proposals made to the Porte by the Northern Powers at the recent Conference at Berlin?
  MR. DISRAELI: Yes, Sir; it is true that Her Majesty's Government have been unable to concur in the proposals which have been drawn up by the Governments of Russia, Austria, and Germany, and addressed to the Porte, and which since have been acquiesced in by the Governments of France and Italy; but we have no information at present that those proposals have been formally communicated to the Porte, and until we have that information I think it would not be fair to the Powers concerned if we placed the proposals on the Table.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman could state the commencement
1054
and duration of the Whitsuntide Recess?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, before the Question were answered, he should like to ask whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill that evening, and after what hour it would not be taken? Also, whether it was his intention to proceed with the Valuation Bill and the Motion relating to the exclusion of strangers?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we do not intend to proceed with the Committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill after half-past 10;but in case the Merchant Shipping Bill does not occupy much time, we propose to go on with it. Under these circumstances I do not think I need say anything about the Valuation Bill. With regard to the Notice which I have given respecting the Business of the House and the Exclusion of Strangers, I think it would be inconvenient to bring that subject forward at a late period, and I will see what arrangements can be made that will least interfere with Public Business. I will then communicate with the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) who has taken an interest in the matter. With respect to the holidays, I intend to propose that the House should sit on Thursday, the 1st of June, and rise that evening, and meet again on the following Thursday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [Bill 49.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Edward Stanhope.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [Bill 49.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES ADDERKEY, the following new clauses were brought up, read a first and second time, amended, and added to the Bill.
  After Clause 17, insert the following clause:—
  (Provisions of signals of distress, inextinguishable lights, and life buoys in passenger steamers and emigrant ships.—36 & 37 Vic. c. 85, s. 18.—See 17 & 18 Vic. c. 104, s. 301.)
  "Every sea-going steamship and every emigrant ship shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade—

  "(1.) With means for making the signals of distress at night specified in the First Schedule to 'The Merchant Shipping

  1055
  Act, 1873,'or in any rules substituted therefor, including means of making flames on the ship which are inextinguishable in water, or such other means of making signals of distress as the Board of Trade may previously approve; and

  "(2.) With a proper supply of lights inextinguishable in water and fitted for attachment to life buoys.

  "If any such ship goes to sea from any port of the United Kingdom without being so provided as required by this section, for each default in any of the above requisites the owner shall, if he appears to be in fault, incur a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the master shall, if he appears to be in fault, incur a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds."
  Page 16, after Clause 32, insert the following clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any ship whilst on the inland waters of Canada."
  CAPTAIN PIMmoved, after Clause 3, to insert a new clause providing that all masters in command of British merchant ships should orderly perform, or cause to be performed, Divine service in their respective ships on the Lord's Day, and should, as far as possible, cause Sunday to be observed as a day of rest for the crew.
  Clause (Observance of the Sabbath,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the Government could not, as he had said in Committee—interfere with merchant ships in this particular any more than they could enforce such an observance in a private household. He must therefore oppose the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIMproposed a new clause providing that all applicants for examination as masters, mates, and engineers, if of foreign birth, should produce papers of naturalization, showing that the applicant had been for three years previously in the exercise of the rights of a British subject.
  Clause (Foreign masters and officers,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time,"
  SIR CHARLESADDERLEYobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with the right of owners to contract with whatever captains they might select to command their vessels. He could see no reason why owners, being British subjects, should not employ Norwegians or any other foreigners for that purpose.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIMproposed a new clause, providing that any captain or person in command of a vessel under the British flag who neglected to take soundings, thereby causing the loss of such vessel, should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
  Clause (Neglect of taking soundings,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the clause, on the ground that a special regulation with regard to neglect of soundings might imply that other kinds of neglect were less important. There were general provisions against all neglect of duty.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIMproposed a new clause, containing provisions whereby the justices of the peace for a county might establish training ships for the purpose of training boys for the sea service.
  Clause (Training schools and ships,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the clause as not coming within the scope of the Bill. He declined to enter on the merits of the proposition.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIMmoved, after Clause 5, to insert a clause providing that an action for damages might be brought against the owner of a vessel in case of death by default of the owner.
  Clause (Action for damages against owner in case of death from default of owner,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYobjected to the clause, on the ground that it was superfluous. The first part was provided by the 5th clause of this Bill, and the rest was a repetition verbatim of Lord Campbell's Act.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. GOURLEYmoved, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
  "If a managing owner, ship's husband, or agent of any vessel, deems it necessary to ask for a survey of seaworthiness in hull, machinery, equipments, stowage, or stores for the conveyance of cargo, the Board of Trade shall, through a Board of Trade surveyor, order the vessel to be surveyed on payment of the survey fees, and in the same manner as if called upon to survey by one-fourth of the crew."
  This privilege did exist until a short time ago, when the Board of Trade issued an order to their surveyors not to make such surveys.
  Clause (Managing owners may require survey of vessel,)—(Mr. Gourley,) brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the adoption of the clause would place on the Government a responsibility—namely, that of a general Government survey of all ships—which was especially excluded by the Bill before the House and in every Act previously passed upon the subject. It was incompatible with the objects of the Bill and antagonistic to its principles, and he must ask the House to resist the Motion. The only ground upon which the Government undertook the survey of passenger ships was the safety of passengers, and the same ground did not apply to all ships carrying cargo, with seafaring crews who knew what they were about.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, the Board of Trade had formerly taken a more reasonable view of this question of survey.
  1058
  The present proposals of the Government were most objectionable, for to encourage surveys on complaint of the crew was practically to encourage insubordination, and led directly towards such cases as those of the Lennie and the Caswell. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House were quite mistaken in supposing that the legislation of 1873 and of last Session had worked satisfactorily in relation to survey, and nobody seemed to understand the incidence of their own legislation less than the various statesmen who had from time to time directed the operations of the Board of Trade. So far from being advantageous to British shipowners, the actual result of recent legislation was simply the depreciation of British shipping. Good second-class ships were now unsaleable almost at any price, and the only buyers were foreigners who would not give half their value. The hon. Gentleman then read a telegram from Messrs. C. W. Kellock and Co. in confirmation of these statements, and concluded by supporting the clause moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwould not follow the hon. Member who had just spoken into a discussion of the Act of 1873. The question before the House was, whether any shipowner having a doubtful ship should be permitted to obtain a survey from the Board of Trade? It appeared to him that a dishonest shipowner might avail himself of the proposal, and by hoodwinking the surveyors as to the real nature of the vessel, get a certificate of seaworthiness. This was the most dangerous form of Government survey ever proposed to the House, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to it.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that the object of his hon. Friend was good, but the clause was a bad one. If it were carried, a shipowner had only to get a seaman to write a letter to the Board of Trade and send a sensational telegraph to the hon. Member for Derby, and he would get his vessel surveyed and compensation besides for detention.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that the passing of the clause would entirely stultify the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIMmoved, after Clause 15, to insert a clause providing that all

  1059
  British passenger ships making long voyages should take one man from the Royal Marines for every 500 tons, for the purpose of instructing the crew in fire drill, &c., except in time of war; contending that such a provision would prove beneficial both for the naval and merchant service.
  Clause (British passenger ships making long voyages to take disciplined men to teach fire drill, &c.,)—(Captain Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  CAPTAIN PIM,in proposing a clause, in lieu of Clause 22, relating to the load-line and the displacement of a ship, said, it was the last he should offer to the House. What he had proposed had been from a sense of duty, because he knew of the present horrible state of the Mercantile Marine, on which we depended for the food we ate, and which, if a war broke out, would leave us to be blockaded as completely as Metz or Paris. He, however, would not proceed unless the Government gave him some hopes of their support.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had considered the clause, and could not accept it.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYKESmoved the insertion of a clause, after Clause 37, to provide that under certain circumstances power should be given to local authorities to reduce local light dues, subject to the approval of the Privy Council.
  Clause (Power to reduce local light dues,)—(Mr. Sykes,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the proposal.
  SIR HENRY JAMESwanted to know, in the event of the proposal being adopted, whether any charge would be
  1060
  thrown on the Consolidated Fund to make good the amount of light dues asked to be remitted?
  MR. E. JENKINSmaintained that the clause was out of place, as the Bill had nothing whatever to do with light dues.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYadmitted it was foreign to the general scope of the Bill, but it would prove a convenient measure, as it would enable such bodies as the Hull Trinity House to take the action they desired in the way of reducing tolls, without being put to the expense of promoting a private Bill. General lighthouse authorities had the power, and it was desirable that local authorities should by Order in Council be able to do the same.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTcontended that that was not a sufficient argument for the introduction of the clause.
  MR. T. E. SMITHheld that any proposal with respect to light dues ought to be brought forward as a separate measure.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYtook a similar view, and reminded the House that he had only very recently presented to the Prime Minister a memorial on the subject of lights.
  MR. WILSONhoped the House would allow the clause to stand.
  LORD ESLINGTONobjected to its introduction into the Shipping Bill. The subject ought to be dealt with on its own merits.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that after the expression of feeling which had taken place, it would be more convenient to withdraw the Amendment, which in his opinion went beyond the immediate scope of the Bill.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL BERESFORDmoved a clause to the effect that in all vessels with a passenger certificate from the Board of Trade when the passengers are in excess of the number which can be carried in the ordinary boats in the event of disaster at sea, such vessels should, in addition to such boats, be required to provide means for saving life by rafts or other appliances in such proportion as the Board of Trade might deem sufficient, and it should be in the discretion of the

  1061
  Board of Trade to allow shipowners to substitute rafts for a portion of the boats, such rafts to be approved by the Board, of Trade.
  Clause (Provision for rafts and other appliances for safety of life,)—(Colonel Beresford,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the law as it stood was far better than the clause which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had proposed. His clause would require the deck to be crowded with a number of boats, two-thirds of which probably would become rotten and unusable, and certainly all of them could not be lowered or manned in case of emergency. The law provided for an ample number, and gave the Board of Trade power to alter the scale when desirable.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, the President of the Board of Trade was not aware of the progress of invention in life-saving appliances. The Admiralty had ordered 28 Berthon canvas boats to be stowed away conveniently in transport ships, and each ship could carry a sufficient quantity to receive every one on board in case of shipwreck. A boat of 30 feet long could be folded up into 2½ feet of space, like a cocked hat. This indifference and ignorance of the Board of Trade would continue the wasteful loss of life which might be easily prevented.
  MR. MACGREGORsuggested that life belts should be added to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member, so that some second chance of safety should be provided for all. As to what had been called cocked hat boats, he feared they would have the same tendency to go below as the captain of a man-of-war in a fog.
  LORD ESLINGTONthought encouragement should be given to the carrying of large life rafts on board ship, and that ships should be allowed to carry no more than a certain number of passengers.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONapproved the object of the clause.
  MR. SAMUDAthought the proposed clause would not be the means of saving life, but might have the reverse effect.
  MR. RATHBONEbelieved that the Board of Trade already had sufficient powers in reference to that subject, and that no new enactments were necessary.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, the difficulty with regard to boats was to get them launched safely. If rafts were substituted for one or two boats, he believed it would tend to save life.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 178: Majority 93.
  MR. D. JENKINS,in moving the following clause:—
  "That from and after the first day of January, 1877, every British ship exceeding 100 tons register shall be provided with a certificate of classification or of survey from Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, or the Liverpool Underwriters' Registry, or the Bureau Veritas,or from such other association or associations as the Board of Trade may from time to time sanction for the purpose; or a certificate of survey from the surveyor or surveyors appointed by the local marine board of the district, such surveyors to be taken from a list approved of by the Board of Trade from time to time. Such certificate shall state the fitness of the vessel for the trade in which she is employed, and the period for which such certificate is granted. Provided always, That this shall not apply to vessels having passenger or other certificates from the Board of Trade, or to any vessel or vessels which the Board of Trade may from time to time exempt,"
  said, he had placed the conditions of survey on the broadest basis. He did not confine shipowners to any one association, and all he required was a test of mere seaworthiness. The clause did not require ships to be certified A 1, or according to any letter. The surveyors could not be appointed by a better qualified body than the Local Marine Board. He proposed to exempt vessels under 100 tons from the operation of the clause, in order not to harass the owners of small coasting vessels. The effect of the clause would be to lessen interference on the part of the Board of Trade with the Mercantile Marine, and to get rid of the Courts of Survey Appeals, which would entail a large and unnecessary expenditure. What he asked for was additional security against loss of life at sea.
  Clause (Certificates of classification of British ships,)—(Mr. David Jenkins,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. PLIMSOLLsupported the clause, and hoped the Board of Trade would display its wisdom in accepting it. It was one of three or four points, the discussion upon which would determine whether the Bill was to be an efficient one for its purpose, or whether it would be such an illusory measure that those who had been engaged in the movement for the protection of life at sea would have to renew and continue it. The hon. Member for Falmouth who proposed the clause had for many years been a captain of merchant seamen, he was now an extensive shipowner, and in both capacities had much experience. The clause met all the objections which had been urged against somewhat similar attempts. It did not throw upon the Board of Trade the duty of detaining and surveying all unclassed ships, nor incurring the risk of damages and compensation if they were improperly delayed. It would not relieve the shipowner in the slightest degree from the responsibility which attached to him as to sending his ship to sea in a seaworthy state; while at the same time it secured such a satisfactory and complete certificate of seaworthiness that within a twelvemonth every ship that did not meet the proper requirements would be swept from the seas. He implored the Government, for their own sakes, to accept the clause and the House to pass it.
  MR. MACIVERsupported the clause, and thought it would lessen the work of the Board of Trade. Much as he objected to compulsory classification in certain forms, he felt the Government proposals with respect to survey were so bad, that something must be done to improve them, both in the interest of the shipowners and the public. The clause of the hon. Member for Falmouth seemed to him to provide all the security which could be required with, the minimum of interferences.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he objected to the proposed clause, because it presented in slightly altered terms, but essentially the same in substance, a principle which had been already discussed at great length on three separate occasions, and upon each de-
  1064
  cided by a large adverse majority. The Board of Trade would not be justified in detaining any ship which they had not reason to believe was unseaworthy, compensation was secured for unreasonable detention, and any person lodging a complaint in reference to a ship except one-fourth of a crew would be obliged to give security for costs. No injustice could, therefore, in the end result from the detention of a vessel, even though, she were found on survey to be seaworthy. He would not farther enter into the question of detail. The simple fact was, that the clause was identical in principle with that moved by the hon. Member for Derby when in Committee, and was antagonistic to the principle on which the Bill was founded, which threw the responsibility as to the safe condition of ships on the shipowners themselves. The objection that had been taken to previous similar suggestions, as to their throwing private societies into partnership with the Government, applied also to this. Butthere was a more objectionable point in this suggestion. There could not be a worse body to elect surveyors than the Local Marine Boards, because they consisted of the shipowners of the district, or of those immediately connected with them. The proposal of the hon. Member for Falmouth, therefore, amounted to allowing shipowners to certify the seaworthiness of their own ships. The effect of the clause would not be to relieve the Board of Trade from the duty of interfering with the Mercantile Marine, but the opposite. It would first offer to secure for the shipowner a guarantee of safety from a private society, or else from the Government; but as the Government certificate would be the easiest to procure, being necessarily of a minimum standard, in time the Government would supersede the private societies, and have the task of certifying all, or the risk of an implied certificate when its power failed of reaching all in reality. If the House should adopt the new principle proposed by the hon. Member, it would undo all they had done, and the Bill might as well, in fact, fall to the ground. He therefore confidently appealed to the House to reject the clause.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKobserved, that if surveyors were wanted, and it was deemed necessary to appoint persons to control this branch of the trade of the

  1065
  country, those persons ought to be appointed by the Government, and ought not to consist of men appointed by a voluntary society like that of Lloyd's, who elected themselves and were not responsible to any one.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 98: Majority 38.
  Clause 4 (Sending unseaworthy ships to sea a misdemeanour).
  MR. MAC IVERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "British." Wherever their cases were parallel all vessels should be treated alike. We had a perfect right to prescribe the conditions under which cargo was to be shipped. We already did so in regard to passengers, and we had an equal right to prescribe the conditions under which either cargo or passengers were to be received; and in each case without distinction of nationality, and certainly without affording any ground for fears of retaliation on the part of foreign States so long as our regulations were reasonable. The practical question was the reasonableness of the regulations. If it was the intention of the Board of Trade to continue to interfere unreasonably with British shipping, he at once admitted the necessity of very great caution in extending such regulations to foreign vessels in our ports; but he hoped it was not yet too late for the Government to re-consider some of the provisions of this Bill. No foreign State would long tolerate the extended system of Board of Trade espionage provided for British shipping under Clause 6, and the criminal liabilities under Clause 4 were equally objectionable and likely to be equally useless. But whatever these criminal liabilities were, whether they were intended to be real or only intended to be a kind of "scarecrow,"he felt that they ought not to be confined to British shipping. They ought, if they were such as should be applied at all, to be applied equally—as regards persons residents in British ports—in the case of all vessels despatched from British ports. The crime surely did not depend upon the flag. He thought he had left the Board of Trade in a dilemma. If they meant to legislate reasonably, his Amendment could
  1066
  not be resisted, but the acceptance of his Amendment clearly involved others. Surely the Government would not disregard the views of every seaport in the Kingdom on such a matter. It was the undisputed fact that respectable ship-owning opinion everywhere was opposed to this clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "British."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to know the intentions of the Government on the subject better than they did themselves, and the opinion of the seaports better than their Representatives in that House. The Government could not accept the Amendment, which would be absolutely impracticable. If carried, it would affect to make every shipowner, of whatever nationality, at whatever port in the world, who sent a ship to sea in an unseaworthy state, guilty of a misdemeanour in England. He need hardly say it was not competent for them to do that.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS,as one of those who were anxious to extend the operation of this measure to foreign shipowners, felt that it was perfectly impossible to adopt the rough-and-ready plan of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, he was sorry he was not able to support the Amendment, because the hon. Member for Birkenhead had given great attention to the subject, and had made many remarks in these discussions which had been listened to with great pleasure by the House.
  Question, "That the word 'British' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAC IVER,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 20, to leave out from "misdemeanour" to the end of the clause, said, he did so for the purpose of raising discussion on that portion of the clause which allowed a shipowner to give evidence in his own defence. This was regarded as a privilege, but it was in reality an obligation and a hardship. Evidence would be expected from people who had none to give, and innocent men might find.

  1067
  themselves in real difficulty if "allowed," or in other words "expected," to prove their innocence.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out after the word "misdemeanor," to the word "conviction," in page 2, line 8.—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTprotested against the provision in this clause which allowed a shipowner charged with misdemeanour to be examined as a witness in his own favour.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from the word "Where" to the words "as follows," in line 30, inclusive.—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to detain unsafe ships and procedure for such detention).
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, the following Amendments were made:—
  In page 2, line 35, after "detained," insert "there shall be forthwith served on the master, agent, or owner of the ship a written statement of the grounds of her detention, and."
  In page 3, line 12, after "overloading," insert "and with the consent of the Board of Trade where a ship has been provisionally detained on any other ground."
  In sub-section (9), page 3, line 36, after "Trade," insert "with the consent of the Treasury."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Liability of Board of Trade and shipowner for costs and damages).
  On the Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Amendment made, in page 6, line 5, after the word "sole," by inserting—
  "And if the cause of action arises in Ireland, and the party aggrieved resides there, he may bring his action in any of the Superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland, and a copy of the summons or writ left at the office of the Queen's Proctor in Dublin, shall be sufficient service of the same on the Secretary of the Board of Trade."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Power to require from complainant security for costs).
  MR. MACIVERmoved, as an Amendment, to omit the second paragraph of the clause, which provided that where a complaint was made by one-fourth of the seamen, and was not frivolous or vexatious, security from the complainant should not be required. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, would tend greatly to increase insubordination.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 10, to leave out after the word "mentioned" to the word "Where," in line 18.—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  MR. MUNTZthought the clause required modification, but he could not support the proposal of the hon. Member.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYhoped that the House would not re-open this discussion or alter the existing law and the Bill by striking out this portion of the clause.
  MR. WILSONhoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  LORD ESLINGTONthought this part of the clause mischievous, and challenged the President of the Board of Trade to get up in his place and say it would work. The want of discipline on board ship was caused in a great measure by the knowledge among the seamen that this provision existed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as the House had now agreed not to have a general survey, but merely to institute one in special cases, he thought the clause should stand in its present shape.
  MR. MAGGREGORopposed the Amendment. He thought there was a good deal of merit in the clause as it stood. He would remind the House that the clause provided against frivolous and vexatious complaints by the men, but would suggest that the word "seamen" should be limited by the introduction of "able" or "able and ordinary"so as to exclude stewards, cooks, cabin-boys, and other persons who in some cases outnumbered the seamen.
  MR. RATHBONEconcurred in the suggestion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be necessary, in a case of law to define the term "able seamen,"and that he thought would be a difficult matter.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the words "able seamen" would exclude

  1069
  engineers and stokers, who might really know much more of the state of the ship than the deck hands.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words "the complaint was made without reasonable and probable cause," in order to insert the words, "she was not at the time of such complaint unsafe within the meaning of this Act."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 19, to leave out after the word "That" to the word "cause," in line 20, inclusive, in order to insert the words "she was not at the time of such complaint unsafe within the meaning of this Act."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, if the Amendment were made, the Board of Trade would get very little information about unseaworthy ships, for however reasonable complaints might be, this alteration would make those who raised them liable for the costs if the vessel afterwards turned out to be safe.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERurged that no objection had been raised by the hon. Member when the Bill was in Committee. The proposal was to make the same provision when the detention was caused by the seamen as when it occurred by the interference of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid he was in favour of retaining the clause as it stood. The Amendment, if adopted, would render the clause nugatory.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Amendment was not consistent with the general provisions of the Bill. The Board of Trade might very well be made liable for costs which a private person was quite unable to bear, and that therefore a different rule might obtain in the latter case.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no reason for making Clauses 10 and 11 in exact harmony. The clauses had better remain as they were.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was opposed to the Amendment.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that different considerations arose on Clauses 10 and 11, and he objected to the proposed Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and have both clauses re-considered in "another place."
  MR. RATHBONEobjected to such a course being adopted.
  MR. NORWOODalso objected to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He could not consent to the Bill leaving the House in an imperfect state and the whole thing changed in "another place."They were bound to make the Bill as complete as they could before it left that House, and he saw no reason why the Amendment should be withdrawn.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, the course proposed by the Government was a most inconvenient one. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a very proper one, and ought to be dealt with by the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 122: Majority 54.
  MR. E. JENKINSthought the House had every reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in this instance, and said he should divide the House on the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade having accepted an Amendment, went into the Lobby against it.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I beg leave to say that I did not accept any Amendment. I was willing, with the permission of the House, to withdraw mine in order that the matter might be considered in "another place."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERalso complained of the course pursued by the Government. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman seemed to diminish the chief security in the Bill for life—namely, the power of detention.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmaintained that there was no justification for the complaint that had been made with regard to the course pursued by the Government. The House having declined to let the matter stand over for consideration in "another place," the Government could not have

  1071
  done anything else than support their own Amendment.
  Question, "That the words 'she was not at the time of such complaint unsafe within the meaning of this Act,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RATHBONEproposed to amend the clause by providing that in cases of urgency the owner of a passenger ship might, instead of appealing, require a Board of Trade surveyor to again make a survey, accompanied by such persons as he might select from the list of assessors, when, if they agreed, their decision would be regarded as if rendered by the Board of Trade itself; and if they differed the matter should be referred to the decision of the Board of Trade in the same manner as if the requisition had not been made.
  MR. GREGORYasked for an explanation of the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,who supported it, said it would enable the owner of a passenger steamer, instead of going to a Court of Inquiry, to ask the Board of Trade surveyor to survey the vessel in company with an assessor. If the two agreed it would not be necessary to go to a Court of Inquiry; but if they disagreed, that course would be necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Stowage of cargo of grain &c.).
  MR. PLIMSOLLmoved as an Amendment, an addition to the clause, dealing with grain cargoes, which would secure that in the case of vessels loading at the ports which were reached through the Straits of Gibraltar and those which were in the Baltic Sea the grain on the starboard side of the ship should at the least be entirely separated from that on the port side, and that not less than one-third of the grain cargo should be in sacks, bags, or barrels. The hon. Member assured the House that the Amendment he proposed was the minimum provision they could make consistently with the safety of vessels carrying grain cargoes across the Bay of Biscay as a means of preventing the shifting of the cargo from side to side.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 16, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words "in such a manner in the case of vessels loading at the ports which are reached through the Straits of Gibraltar and those which are in the Baltic Sea as that the grain on the right or starboard side of the ship shall at the least be securely and entirely separated from that on the left or port side, and that not less than one-third of the grain cargo shall be in sacks, bags, or barrels."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYthought the Amendment much too minute, and that a better security for the purpose in view was given by the general penalty on insecure stowage. Besides the only officers boarding all ships arriving did not stay long enough to ascertain such minute particulars even if it were desirable to enact them.
  MR. WILSONhoped the hon. Member for Derby would withdraw the Amendment, concurring in the objections taken to it by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. A. BARCLAYexpressed his opinion that the clause as it stood would be inoperative for the purposes it contemplated, and said he thought the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby should be accepted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested that the Board of Trade should in each case send a surveyor on board to see that grain cargoes were properly stowed.
  MR. MACGREGORthought it impossible the provision just proposed could be carried out. The Custom House officers went on board in search of contraband tobacco and spirits, and having made the search turned off to board the next vessel, but were they to remain on board until the goods were taken out of the hold in order to ascertain how the cargo had been stowed, it would become necessary to employ a far greater number of them than at present, and that would necessitate a Supplementary Vote.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 17, to leave out the word "British," said he did so in order to bring before the House a point of great importance—namely, that as the clause stood it

  1073
  would place the owner of a British ship carrying a grain cargo under a most stringent regulation, while it would place the foreign shipowner under no such restrictions whatever. If the Bill passed in that form, it would tend very much to drive British ships out of the trade.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 17, to leave out the word "British." (Sir W. Vernon Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'British' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIEthought that, under any circumstances, the Amendment would only apply to foreign ships arriving in our ports laden with grain.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, experience showed that foreigners were more careful of themselves and of their stowage of grain cargoes than the English, and he hoped the Government would let the clause stand as it was. The foreigner would either have to conform or he would lose his share of the carrying trade.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsupported the Amendment, remarking that he was glad to hear that foreigners were more careful than the English showed themselves to be in the matter of grain cargoes. At the present moment we were importing grain in large quantities from the Black Sea in a very unprotected manner.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the Government showed their sense of the gravity of dealing with foreigners in such penal enactments by shrinking from putting clauses with this object into the Bill in the first instance. It was a step which no Government before had attempted to take, and it was only after a strong expression of opinion from the House that they decided to adopt such an extended application in the most cautious, careful, and limited manner, not, as the hon. and learned Member for Oxford seemed to think, in an unlimited and reckless way. He now proposed to them to impose a penalty on a foreign shipowner, agent, or master which would be difficult, if not impossible to carry out. We certainly could not punish foreigners for acts not committed within our jurisdiction. He must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. E. JENKINSwished to know whether the Government had not re-
  1074
  ceived a very strong representation from Canada with reference to the clause, and whether they had not asked either that all foreign vessels should be placed on the same footing with British, or else that Canadian shipping should be excluded from the operation of the Bill?
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that this was a repetition of the clause which appeared in the Bill of last year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were two distinct questions raised, one was as to the general question of the fairness of the clause as it stood, and its relation to other clauses of the Bill; the other question arose with reference to Canada. The Canadian Government had been watching with considerable interest, and some uneasiness, the course of legislation on this subject. A very intelligent gentleman was over here from Canada who was well acquainted with the subject, and since he had seen the provisions made, he had felt that great part of the discontent of Canada would be modified by the alterations made. The Canadian Government did suggest either that Canadian ships should, be excluded altogether from the operation of the Bill, or that British and foreign vessels should be treated on the same footing. As to the idea of putting Canadian ships on a different footing from British ships, he did not think the Canadian Government would, on deliberation, be inclined to favour it. It would be most unfortunate to establish such a distinction between Canadian and British vessels. The object was to place foreign ships as far as could be done in the position not only of Canadian but of all British ships. The Government were not neglecting the matter and would give it their careful consideration. With regard to grain cargoes the clause was practically the clause which had been in operation for the last twelve months, and he did not think that Canadian ships would be subject to any inconvenience from it. It was necessary that some discretion should be allowed with respect to grain cargoes, particularly so far as respected foreign ships.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not trouble the House to divide on the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PLIMSOLLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 21, the insertion of the words—
  "And it shall be the duty of the officer of customs placed on board any ship carrying grain cargo into any port of the United Kingdom to report to the Board of Trade what proportion of the said grain cargo were in bags or sacks, and whether the shifting boards were carried down to the keelson or screw-tunnel of the vessel, and if not, to what depth they were carried down."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 21, after the word "conviction," to insert the words "and it shall be the duty of the officer of Customs placed on board any ship carrying grain cargo into any port in the United Kingdom to report to the Board of Trade what proportion of the said grain cargo was in bags or sacks, and whether the shifting boards were carried down to the keelson or screw tunnel of the vessel, and if not to what depth they were carried down."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, believing that it would be impracticable to carry out the proposals of the hon. Member.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTconsidered it desirable that somebody should go on board every grain ship and report whether the cargo was properly stowed, and he trusted the President of the Board of Trade would assent to a provision of that kind. The other day they were all shocked by the Return which had been laid on the Table of the House respecting the loss of life in these grain ships, one of the most appalling documents that had ever been laid before the country. He considered that the hon. Member for Derby was right in proposing the Amendment, and would suggest to him the propriety of his making his provision more general, and directing the Custom House officer to make a Report to the Board of Trade on the subject.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. E. JENKINSmoved to add to the clause a Proviso, that nothing contained in the section should affect Canadian vessels not sailing or discharging at ports of the United Kingdom. The Canadian Government were fully alive to their duties, and had already taken the initiative in this matter, but they were the fourth maritime nation in the world, and they had very important interests at stake, which it was desirable to protect.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 21, after the word "conviction," to insert the words "Provided, That nothing in this section contained shall apply to or affect Canadian vessels not sailing to or discharging at ports of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid it would require special legislation in order to define what a Canadian vessel was. He objected to the Amendment principally, however, because it would be injudicious to legislate in this Bill exceptionally for Canada and to draw invidious distinctions in her favour.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause 19 (Space occupied by certain deck cargo to be liable to dues).
  On the Motion of SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, Amendment made in page 10, line 31, by inserting after "goods," the words "at the time at which such dues become payable."
  MR. MAC IVERmoved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it was useless and unworkable. He believed it had been passed under a misapprehension, and that there had been no intention of exempting vessels engaged in the home trade from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. WILSONsupported the Amendment. The House was really not aware how it had committed itself by adopting a system of exemption which extended to nine-tenths of the deck cargoes of the home trade.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYdid not believe the Committee had passed the clause in such a total misapprehension. The clause had been well considered in Committee, and he hoped the House would not now re-open the question with which it had dealt so decisively.
  MR. MACGREGORhoped the hon. Member for Birkenhead would not press his Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Penalty on ships carrying deck loads of timber in winter).
  MR. MACGREGOR,on this clause, which provided that no ship, British or

  1077
  foreign, arriving at any port in the United Kingdom, which had sailed from any port after the 1st of October, &c., should carry deck cargo, moved to substitute the 1st of September, as many of the heaviest gales took place in October.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 5, to leave out the word "October," in order to insert the word "September."—(Mr. Macgregor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'October' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that the date was fixed to meet the Canadian law. The proposed alteration would in fact impose a penalty on the Canadian timber trade, in the very enactment meant to meet it, and he could not assent to it.
  MR. MACGERGORsaid, he would withdraw his proposal; but in doing so would express a hope that an effort would be made to induce the Canadians to alter their law so as to prohibit deck cargoes in the month of October.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Amendment made in page 11, line 6, by leaving out from "carry," to "any timber," in line 9, and inserting "as deck cargo, that is to say, in any uncovered space upon deck, or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage."
  MR. PLIMSOLLmoved the omission of certain words in the clause with the view of the insertion of the words "deals and battens as deck cargo" after the word "timber;" the object being to prohibit the carrying of such cargo as dangerous, and thus practically the carrying of all deck loads of timber in winter. Between the 1st October last year and the 31st January of the present year as many as 45 vessels sailing from ports in the North of Europe alone were lost in consequence of the practice of carrying deck cargo.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 9, after the word "timber," to leave out all the words to the word "deck," in line 11, inclusive, in order to insert the words "deals or battens."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would be unwise to impose a penalty upon the regulations of Canada and increase irritation between the two countries in the very act of assimilating the laws of both. At all events, if it were wise to make this further alteration, we had better make the Amendment together, after having first got ourselves on common ground.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmaintained that the Canadians had made no objections on the subject, but the right hon. Gentleman had made the position. The correspondence proved distinctly that the Canadian Parliament had expressed their willingness to concur in any law we might pass provided foreigners were placed on the same footing as themselves.
  LORD ESLINGTONdeclared that some of the leading "Mutual Insurance"associations in the North had for some time past refused to insure vessels carrying deck loads. Deals were one of the most dangerous cargoes that could be carried in the winter months, and therefore he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, this was the most important clause of the Bill, and ought not to be disposed of without the fullest consideration. To allow a ship to be piled up on deck with battens and timber would materially interfere with her free working.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the House that the clause dealt with a very delicate question, in that it would refer not only to the condition in which ships reached this country, but that in which they sailed from the ports at which they loaded. In framing the clause an attempt had been made to adopt the Canadian law, so as to have precisely similar regulations at the ports of departure and arrival. The House was now asked to go beyond that law, and he confessed that he had heard no arguments to induce him to believe that it was desirable to pass a law more stringent than the Canadians had done. The representative of the Canadian Government, who was at present in this country, was desirous that

  1079
  the clause should be left as it now stood.
  MR. HERSCHELLdid not think it followed that because Canada, when tying her own hands, had legislated in a particular manner she would object to a measure in the same direction which only extended to her the provision which it was deemed necessary to apply to other countries.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 162: Majority 19.
  Question, "That the words 'deals or battens' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 12, to leave out the word "is," in order to insert the words "deals or battens be."—(Sir Charles Adderley.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. PARNELLmoved, on account of the lateness of the hour, that the debate should be adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second that Motion?
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would do so.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed a hope that as the remaining Amendments were mostly of a formal character the Bill might be proceeded with.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Parnell,)—put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Marking of load line).
  MR. WILSONmoved an Amendment on the clause, with the object of securing that the loading of a ship should be in conformity with the principle of a sufficiency of surplus buoyancy, as customary for the description of the vessel and the circumstances of the voyage.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 8, after the word "mark," to insert the words "in conformity with the principle of a sufficiency of surplus buoyancy as
  1080
  customary for the description of vessel and the circumstances of the voyage."—(Mr. Charles Wilson.)
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that an owner might fix an improper load-line, no doubt; but still he did not think that the Amendment now proposed would work well. The object of the hon. Member would be better attained by inserting in the 2nd sub-section words to the effect that the disc line should be placed at such a draught of water as to the best of his judgment was a safe and proper immersion. That would require the owner to fix an honest load-line.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYagreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken. He considered the Amendment proposed had no meaning whatever. That a ship should be loaded sufficiently and as was customary was no definition at all.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. PLIMSOLLthen proposed the insertion in the clause, after the word "centre," of the words—
  "In a position approved as reasonable either by the builder of the ship or some other independent and competent authority."
  He made the proposal, he said, by way of Amendment on the owner's line pure and simple, which was admitted by every one who was practically acquainted with the matter to be a delusion and a snare.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 13, after the word "centre," to insert the words "in a position approved as reasonable either by the builder of the ship or some other independent and competent authority."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYtook an entirely different view from that of the hon. Member of the clause as it stood, and said experience had shown, and the Chief Surveyors had reported, that at all the principal ports in the country the disc had been placed in a bonâ fide way in almost every case. Besides, the opinion of the builder was not likely to be an independent one; it would probably be given so as to please his employer, the owner.
  MR. NORWOODbelieved the clause had worked very well on the whole,

  1081
  and put the responsibility on the right shoulders.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clause 24 (Application to foreign ships of provision as to detention).
  On the Motion of Sir Charles Adderley, the following Amendments were made in the clause:—
  Page 13, line 13, leave out "five," and insert "six;"
  Page 13, lines 13 and 14, leave out subsection 1;
  Page 13, lines 19 to 25, leave out subsection 3, and insert—

  "(2.) Where a ship has been provisionally detained, the consular officer, on the request of the owner or master of the ship, may require that the person appointed by the Board of Trade to survey the ship shall be accompanied by such person as the consular officer may select, and in such case if the surveyor and such person agree, the Board of Trade shall cause the ship to be detained or released accordingly, but if they differ, the Board of Trade may act as if the requisition had not been made, and the owner and master shall have the appeal to the court of survey touching the report of the surveyor which is before provided by this Act; and

  "(3.) Where the owner or master of the ship appeals to the court of survey the consular officer, on the request of such owner or master, may appoint any competent person who shall be assessor in such case in lieu of the assessor who, if the ship were a British ship, would be appointed otherwise than by the Board of Trade.

  "In this section the expression 'consular officer'means any consul general, vice consul, consular agent, or other officer recognized by a Secretary of State as a consular officer of a foreign State."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Appointment, duties, and powers of wreck commissioners for investigating shipping casualties).
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Amendment made in page 13, line 32, after "Commissioners," insert—
  "And in case it shall become necessary to appoint a Wreck Commissioner in Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall have the appointment and the power of removal of such "Wreck Commissioner."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Assessors and rule of procedure on formal investigations into shipping casualties).
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 10, to leave out the words "one of."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  Question, "That the words 'one of' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Ships'managing owner or manager to be registered).
  On the Motion of Mr. Norwood, Amendment made in page 16, line 4, leave out all after "registry," and insert—
  "Where there is not a managing owner there shall be so registered the name of the ship's husband or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner; and any person whose name is so registered shall, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876, be under the same obligations, and subject to the same liabilities, as if he were the managing owner.
  "If default is made in complying with this section the ship may be detained until compliance."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March 1877, the sum of £11,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
MR. O'SULLIVANobjected to pass a Vote of such magnitude at a quarter past 1 in the morning, and moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the Vote was merely a formal one, and did not ask the House to vote any money beyond what had been sanctioned in Committee of Supply.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 87: Majority 72.
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March 1877, the sum of £11,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.

  ELVER FISHING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Monk, Bill to amend the Law relating to Elver Fishing, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Monk and Mr. Price.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]

  SMITHFIELD PRISON (DUBLIN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to authorise the sale of Smithfield Penitentiary Convict Prison, Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (86); Cruelty to Animals (85).
Committee—Partition Act (1869) Amendment* (52); Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments)* (82); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Aldborough, &c.)* (78).
Committee—Report—Poolbeg Lighthouse* (79).
Third Reading—Drugging of Animals* (53); Chelsea Hospital Accounts* (81), and passed.

TURKEY—SECOND NOTE Of THE THREE POWERS.—QUESTION.
EARl GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question on a subject of considerable interest. We are informed that in consequence of the failure of the Andrassy Note, the Three Powers—Germany, Russia, and Austria—have agreed to a second Note. We are further informed that France and Italy have concurred in this Note; but that Her Majesty's Government decline to be a party to it. If this representation of affairs be accurate, it would appear as if the communications on the subject have come to an end. I have, therefore, to ask the noble Earl if, without any injury or inconvenience to the public interests, the noble Earl can give now, or a short time hence, information to the House as to the exact state of this most difficult of questions?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, nothing can be more legitimate than the Question put to me by the noble Earl opposite. But I confess that at the present moment I am not in a position in which I can, in justice to the other parties

1001
concerned, give detailed information as to the result of the late conferences at Berlin. Your Lordships and the public are probably aware that these conferences ended in an agreement between the Governments of Russia, Austria, and Germany to make certain propositions to the Porte with a view to the pacification of the Turkish Provinces now disturbed and the termination of the state of civil war. These propositions, so agreed upon by the three Powers, were laid before the Governments of France, of Italy, and of England, with a request for their adhesion. The French and Italian Governments gave an immediate assent. Her Majesty's Government, after a careful examination of the proposals, found themselves unable to do so. I may say that we came to that decision with regret; and I may perhaps be allowed to add that in taking that view we were not in any degree influenced by a motive which I have seen imputed to us—namely, the fact that we had not been consulted in framing the document to which our assent was asked. If we had thought the plan proposed likely to effect its object, the consideration to which I have referred would not have weighed with us. I am afraid I cannot give further explanations of our reasons for refusal; they would hardly be intelligible, unless I could lay the proposals themselves upon the Table, and that I am not in a position to do. They have not yet, I believe, been formally communicated, to the Turkish Government; it is even possible—though I do not at all assert that it will be so—that they may be modified before they are so communicated; and that being the case, I should not be justified in publishing them without the consent of the Powers with which they originated. As soon as that objection is removed there will not be the slightest desire on my part or that of my Colleagues to keep back from the House any information we may possess on the subject.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

  (NO. 85.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in moving that the Bill be now read the
  1002
  second time, said: I need not recapitulate the various stages by which the public mind was first directed to the subject of vivisection and the Government induced to advise the Crown to issue a Commission, the Report of which is now the basis of the present Bill. Last year a noble Lord in this, and a right hon. Gentleman in the other House, introduced Bills dealing with it; but the subject is not only an extremely painful, but it is a difficult and delicate one to deal with. On the one hand there is the danger of going too far; on the other, the danger of not going far enough: on the one side there is the strong sentiment of humanity; on the other, there are the claims of modern science. It is a sea strewn with rocks, and it is not easy to steer safely through them. Personally I can hardly describe with how much pain I have waded through the horrible details of an almost sickening subject in order to arrive at the necessary conclusions; personally I can hardly say with how much effort I now bring the subject before this House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; but I am sustained in what I feel to be the difficulty of the task, first of all by the feeling that legislation is right and necessary, next by the unanimity of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject; lastly by the fact that the conclusion of that Commission is in harmony not only, as I hope, with, the general opinion of the intelligent and humane people of this country, but with much of the highest professional opinion—surgical, medical, and even physiological. And if I may be allowed I would venture to offer my humble tribute to the well-balanced and temperate reasoning of that Report, and to the wisdom of the general conclusions at which the Commissioners have arrived. I will take example by them, and I trust that I shall, in stating a case which is more than usually open to controversy, say nothing which can justly provoke irritation on any side. And first as to the present law. Up to the time of the passing of the 3rd of George IV. there was no legislation for the protection of animals, and our early literature, whether prose or poetry, shows abundant evidence of the national brutality on these subjects; since then there have been a series of enactments passed with humane objects, and affording legislative protec-

  1003
  tion to domestic—but only domestic, animals. It is therefore enough to sum up this part of the subject by briefly saying that only domestic animals are so protected; that as to vivisection the protection afforded to those animals is insufficient; and that for animals which are not domestic there is no protection at all.
  My first proposition, therefore, is that legislation is necessary from the defect of the law, my next and much more serious proposition is that legislation is necessary from the nature of the case. Now the practice of vivisection in its more objectionable form has been mainly carried on abroad. It is to foreign countries that we owe the painful interest which is now felt in this country with reference on the subject. It is from the Continent that the warning has come, thence that the impulse has been received; it is there that the mirror is held up in which the worst and most hideous of those practices are reflected. But indeed for experiments conducted abroad it is probable that public attention and sympathy would not have been awakened in this country. It is not necessary for me to prove the existence of this practice abroad. It is abundantly stated in books, in periodicals, in scientific writings. It stands as a confessed and admitted fact. What that practice has been abroad it is too painful—it is happily also unnecessary—to narrate in anything like detail. It has been carried on for every imaginable purpose, and for no purpose at all—for the investigation of disease, for scientific research, and for wanton curiosity, and this with a barbarity that must shock the dullest and the coldest nature. Experiments have been prosecuted with an exquisite refinement of torture not merely for hours, but for days, for weeks, and, in some cases that have been recorded, even for months, on the same living and palpitating animal—prosecuted, I say, until even in foreign towns public decency has been scandalized, and. the dull sense of morality, which is never wholly extinct amongst men, has been stirred into life. But in England, whatever may be the abuses committed, they are at most but a feeble reflection of what has been done abroad. I notice, in the evidence taken by the Royal Commission, a remarkable tribute paid by the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of
  1004
  Cruelty to Animals, to the greater humanity manifested in this country, where there was, he said, an entire difference in the practice of vivisection in this country as compared with the same practice abroad. But, at the same time it is clear, and it is admitted, that the practice exists in this country, and that, side by side with it, there exists no sufficient security that abuses may not arise, even in our medical schools and great institutions. In the Appendix of this Report, there is a table given of between 30 and 40 public institutions, of which more than 30 admit the existence, more or less, of the practice. In the very great majority of those cases it is, I hope, clear that anæstheticsare carefully used, and that precautions are taken to prevent suffering in the animal; though I do not consider that I should be justified in saying that this is invariably so. But it is not enough that we may, to some extent, trust to public opinion and high professional authority in those schools and institutions as securities against abuse; but there is a much greater danger. Experiments are carried on in private houses by the young and ignorant and callous, with no check of public opinion, and there is reason to believe that gross abuse does here exist in connection with experiments so conducted. Your Lordships are in possession of the Report of the Commission, and therefore I will not read many or lengthy extracts from the evidence, but it may be well that on this point I should refer to the conclusion of the Commission itself—
  "There can be," they say, "little doubt that experiments have been and now are performed occasionally by private persons, of whose numbers we are able to form no accurate computation."
  And further on they refer to the evidence of Dr. Anthony, residing near Birmingham, who knew young men who carried on those experiments in private houses from mere curiosity. They conclude by referring to cases—
  "in which the unpractised student has taken on himself without guidance, in his private lodgings, to expose animals to torture without anæsthetics for no purpose which could merit the name of legitimate scientific research."
  But the matter does not end here. Not only is vivisection carried on in private houses in this country, and therefore out of the ken of public opinion, but there

  1005
  is a constantly widening growth of the practice. It is growing, as all such practices must grow, from its own internal vitality: it is growing with the development of the new schools of physiology and biological research: it is growing, because the students themselves are more and more in the habit of frequenting foreign schools, and return to this country with the traditions and the modes of those schools. I have myself endured so much mental pain in reading what was done in some of these foreign schools that I will not wound the ears of those to whom I am speaking. I will not repeat what I have read. I indeed could scarcely do so in Parliamentary phraseology; but to those of your Lordships who may desire to look more closely into these horrible details, very sufficient evidence will be found in the Appendix to the Report of the Commission, and in a hand-book which has become a textbook in our surgical schools, and was edited by a high authority, to whom I will immediately refer, Dr. Klein. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this book, which bases its teaching amongst other things upon experiments that have been performed upon living animals, must act as a powerful encouragement to students to repeat those experiments: as, indeed, is illustrated in the evidence of one witness, who, when questioned on the point of repeating experiments on the same animal, testified with much emphasis to the necessity of constant and reiterated repetition in the general practice of physiological experimentation.
  But it is said that anæsthetics are used, and that consequently there is no pain. I wish it were so. There is, unfortunately, ample testimony that in many cases no anæsthetics at all are used, and that even the use of them is frequently of a very partial and defective kind. There is in the evidence given before the Commission a statement by Dr. Klein, to whom I have already alluded, which is extremely instructive in itself, and illustrative of that point to which I am now directing the attention of the House. Dr. Klein ranks high as a scientific man, he is conversant both with foreign and English practice, has studied at Vienna, and is lecturer on general histology at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He received the report of his evidence as taken by the shorthand
  1006
  writer, and he returned it corrected—not in accordance with the custom by which witnessers before Commissions and Committees are permited to make verbal correction, but so altered and amended that the Commission felt bound not to receive it in that form. Dr. Klein then requested that his evidence should be withdrawn. The Commissioners rightly, as I think, declined to comply with his request, but they included in the Minutes, the shorthand writer's note, as it was originally taken, and then placed in parallel columns, in the Appendix Dr. Klein's amendments. I have now before me arranged side by side the two versions of Dr. Klein's evidence, and I shall take the liberty of reading to your Lordships the original, and, as I am bound to think, the more faithful expression of Mr. Klein's opinion. He was examined on the use of anæsthetics, and here are some of his examinations as reported by the shorthand writer:—
  "What is your own practice with regard to the use of anæsthetics in experiments that are otherwise painful?—Except for teaching purposes, for demonstration, I never use anæsthetics where it is not necessary for convenience."
  Again, there followed question and answer—
  "But do you think that where it is only a question of time a professor of physiology is not bound to consult humanitarian feelings?—An investigator has no time. I myself, when I am going to make an experiment for pathological research, have no time really with regard to what the animal will feel."
  The subject was pursued, and in reply to Mr. Forster, Dr. Klein's practice and. opinions were further elicited—
  "Do you not sometimes find an inconvenient interruption from the cries of the animal?—Only then I do use chloroform: that is what I said; I use anæsthetics for convenience sake."
  "And it is only because the dog might howl, or get into contortions that you would use anæsthetics at all?—Yes."
  "And you think that the view of scientific men on the Continent is your view, that animal suffering is so entirely unimportant compared with scientific research that it should not be taken into account at all?—Yes, except for convenience sake."
  I venture to hope that no one in this House will endorse these answers of Dr. Klein, and whatever may be the difference on matters of detail, I do not hesitate to affirm both for myself and for every person in this House that such an expression of opinion is simply detestable. In connection with this part of the subject, I ought to add that

  1007
  a so-called anæsthetic known as urari or curari, has the effect of paralyzing all the nerves of motion, while it allows the nerves of sensation to remain in their normal condition. I have read somewhere of a very eminent French Professor who, having administered this to a dog, remarked to his pupils—"You observe that there is in his face no sign whatever of suffering, and yet he is enduring the most diabolical torture." The Bill now before your Lordships absolutely prohibits the use of urari as an anæsthetic, for independently of the atrocious cruelty, practices such as these must lead to the demoralization of those who assisted in them.
  I come now to the consideration of the principles on which legislation ought to proceed in order to deal with such abuses whether existing or possible; but I will pause for a moment to refer to an objection which is sometimes urged to any legislation. We are told that field sports ought to be put in the same category as vivisection. I pause indeed to allude to this objection, but I will not dignify it by the name of argument; and so groundless, rhetorical, absurd, is it that I will not condescend to reason upon it. I notice it only that it may not be thought that I have overlooked it. Well, then, what ought to be done? There are the views of two extreme parties. There are some for the total abolition of vivisection, there are others who, as claiming to speak for a section of the scientific world, object to any restriction. To those who advocate the total abolition of the practice I give credit for the highest intentions and feelings, but I entreat them to consider that by refusing all compromise on this subject they are defeating their own objects, they are sanctioning the continuance of great evils, and with that continuance they are fostering a demoralization amongst those who are guilty of cruelty to an extent and in a way which may make the present great wrong far worse in the future, and far more difficult hereafter to eradicate. But it is impracticable to contend for a total abolition; and if so, do not let us fall into the greatest mistake to which legislators are liable—do not let us pass an impossible law. Were total abolition in this case insisted upon by Parliament, one of two consequences would follow—
  1008
  either there would be a general rush of medical students abroad, where they would be under no restraint; or they would betake themselves to the dark holes and corners of this country, where, out of reach of all public opinion and the wholesome influences of a controlling morality, they would with inferior appliances, and far greater indifference to the sufferings of animals, carry on these practices at their pleasure. On the other hand, those advocates of vivisection who claim for it total exemption from all restriction, claim for it an exemption which is granted to no other practice, class, interest, or profession; which I trust will never be granted, and which healthy English public opinion will not endure for one moment. Nor can I believe that the highest authorities in medicine or surgery desire such an exemption. As far as I can gather their opinions, expressed in this Report or elsewhere, I understand it to be the reverse. They have agreed to accept restrictions in the case of vivisection, and it is one of the great merits of this Bill that, being founded mainly on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission, it will not only have the support of the distinguished men who composed that Commission, but also I hope the concurrence of all the great lights of the medical, surgical, and scientific world. Of course, there may be differences of opinion with respect to details, but these authorities have given in a substantial adhesion to the principle embodied in the Bill; and if the Bill is in the nature of a compromise it is not, perhaps, the worse for that.
  Now, what are the principles of legislation which are profitable and expedient? The Commissioners in their Report give in the first place the reasons which in their opinion justify legislation; they next go on to argue that it is impossible to abolish the practice, and that even if it were possible it would not be desirable to do so, but that it is essential that existing abuses should be restrained. Moreover, so far back as 1871 the British Association appointed a Committee to inquire into the subject, and that Committee reported the following conclusions:—
  "(1.) No experiment which can be performed under the influence of an anæsthetic ought to be done without it. (2.) No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a

  1009
  law or fact already demonstrated; in other words, experimentation without the employment of anæsthetics is not a fitting exhibition for teaching purposes. (3.) Whenever, for the investigation of new truth, it is necessary to make a painful experiment, every effort should be made to ensure success, in order that the sufferings inflicted may not be wasted. For this reason, no painful experiment ought to be performed by an unskilled person, with insufficient instruments and assistants, or in places not suitable to the purpose; that is to say, anywhere except in physiological and pathological laboratories, under proper regulations. (4.) In the scientific preparation for veterinary practice, operations ought not to be performed upon living animals for the mere purpose of obtaining greater operative dexterity."
  These recommendations do not stand on their own authority alone, great as that authority is. They are endorsed by the highest names, including Professors Darwin, Owen, Huxley, and Sir William Gull. And if this Bill goes somewhat beyond them, I may safely affirm that there is nothing in it which is at variance with them. And now, lastly, what are the principles which Parliament ought to keep in view in dealing with this difficult question? The principal object which this Bill recognizes as one to justify vivisection is the lengthening of human life, or the lessening of human suffering. Whether, indeed, science has gained by vivisection what she claims to have gained even by the mouths of the most moderate advocates of the practice is perhaps open to doubt. On the one hand such facts as were ascertained by Hervey are, I apprehend, indisputable; on the other, it is quite certain that many eminent men have deeply regretted the extent to which vivisection has been carried, and Dr. Nelaton, the eminent French surgeon, no mean authority in himself or as representing the French school, if I mistake not, has expressed himself as, on the whole, unfavourable to the practice. Probably, however, in fairness and on the general balance of testimony, it must be admitted that experiments in vivisection have tended to lengthen human life and lessen human suffering. But, admitting this, we must be clear that the object in view is worth the experiment. Pain ought to be spared altogether by the use of anæsthetics; and where this cannot be, then it should be reduced to a minimum, and death should be immediately and mercifully inflicted. Under no circumstances can it be right to sanction the infliction of torture for
  1010
  minor or secondary objects; for the purposes of illustration in schools; for exhibitions to mixed audiences, as has sometimes been the case; by the young or the inexperienced; in secret, or for the acquiring of manual skill. It may be said that the study of medicine and surgery, or physiology, involves, and will more and more involve, like many other studies in these later days, an experimental process. This is true; but, on the other hand, there is this marked difference, that in this case the experimental process involves also the infliction of pain; and where this is so we have a right to take guarantees against that pain, especially where there is reason to believe that any part of it is unnecessary. We endeavour, therefore, under this Bill to provide guarantees which will secure a certain amount of Government inspection, will bring the light of public opinion to bear, will invoke the aid of the higher professional authorities, and will lay down certain regulations.
  The Bill opens by prohibiting in express terms and as a general principle the practice of vivisection; but it proceeds to concede various cases in which this rule may be relaxed under certain safeguards and conditions. Thus it allows an exception for certain purposes of teaching, subject to anæsthetics;it allows further an exception for purposes of research even without anæsthetics; it allows exceptions in the case of a criminal trial, and on the responsibility of the presiding Judge; it allows, in fact, exceptions as to the use of anæthetics, but only in most rare cases; and in these cases a certificate from certain professional authorities, and the sanction of the Secretary of State are necessary. As the almost universal rule, the animal operated on must be put to death the moment the influence of the anæsthetic passes away, if pain will be the result of a prolongation of life. An exception is, indeed, allowed in this instance, but only in very rare cases and under precautions such as those to which I have just referred. By the 6th clause any public exhibition of vivisection is declared illegal. Clause 7 provides for a registry of the place in which experiments by vivisection are conducted; and the following clause for a licence by the Secretary of State to any person whom he may think qualified to perform such experiments.

  1011
  Subsequent clauses provide for inspection and reports. The legal proceedings under the Act are to be summary, with a power in the person charged to elect to be tried on indictment. In the case of summary convictions there is an appeal to the Court of quarter sessions.
  Clause 5 rests on a peculiar and different footing from the other provisions of the Bill. By it there is an immunity from vivisection in the case of dogs and cats. This exception may not, perhaps, be strictly logical; but we need not always be guided by strict logic: there are even yet higher principles and considerations; whilst, as a matter of fact, there is a legislative precedent for a distinction between domestic and other animals in Martin's Act. If, indeed, there are any animals who, by their habits and companionship with man, are connected with him by familiar and often by very touching bonds of sympathy it is the dog and even the cat. It may, perhaps, be added that a large number of dogs are now stolen for these horrible purposes, and a trade in direct violation of law, and demoralizing to the persons who, whether as sellers or buyers, conduct it, has sprung up.
  I have now briefly traversed the ground on which this measure rests. I have argued it for the most part on the lower grounds of expediency, of past legislation, of professional opinion; but I cannot take my leave of it without reminding your Lordships that there is a yet higher law of religion and morality under which it falls—a law which neither individuals nor nations can disregard without paying a heavy penalty. If, indeed, Christianity recognizes one vice as specially worthy of abhorrence it is cruelty for its own sake, and if religion, through successive generations, has set the crown on one quality more than another it has been on the great and absorbing virtue of sympathy—sympathy with man and woman, with freeman and slave, with child and animal. And ever since Christianity was founded, the stream as it ran has broadened with its course, down from its fountain head in the merciful precepts of the Old Bible Law through mediæval saint and reformer, through poet, and painter, through writer and artist, until it distinctly and unequivocally embraced the animal world and took a legislative form, re-
  1012
  buking the oppressor, giving protection to the helpless, and, like all good works, bringing a reward with it in the gentler nurture of children, and the kindlier sympathy between man and man. In England we have never been quite dull to this appeal; our merciful legislation on this subject has been earlier than that of other nations, and it is now simply desired that this legislation should be carried one legitimate step further. I remember some years ago seeing in one of the darkest parts of this great town a reformatory into which were gathered the degraded and outcasts of society. And when I noticed in every room the presence of flowers and tame animals, I was told by the excellent manager of the institution that it was by fostering the love alike of animals and flowers, when other sympathies were dead, that the first gleam of a better feeling arose among the inmates. And in truth this love of animals does insensibly link itself on to a whole sphere of love and religion. All will remember the famous words of the poet—
  "He prayeth best who loveth best
  Both, man, and bird, and beast;"
  and I may also remind some here present of a passage in a delightful book written by Sir Humphrey Davy in the sunset of his life, and tinged with the sober colours of his mature intellect—a philosopher who is not unworthy to be set by the side of the ablest of modern men of science—where he says—"I was in my early youth a sceptic, and it was by considering the qualities and properties of animals that I first learnt to believe." It may, perhaps, be said that the misery around us which can be relieved is only a drop in the ocean. But that is a specious argument, which if it were admitted might be made a plea for every wrong and injustice. The world is doubtless full of suffering and wrong, and it is as impossible to prevent the one as it is to redress the other; yet this is no reason for acquiescing tamely in every form of evil and abuse; and amidst the highest questions of public policy it is something to devote one chapter of our domestic legislation to such an object as the present, to raise the standard of public thought, to relieve one fraction of the misery around us, and to reconcile the high laws of modern science with the

  1013
  still higher laws of morality and religion.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would admit that the Government took a wise course in appointing a Commission, and that the Report of the Commissioners did them great credit; but he could not help thinking that the Report went a little beyond the legitimate conclusions of the evidence, and the Bill a little beyond the Report. There was no definition of "animals" in the Bill; it seemed to take in every animal, from the elephant downwards to the smallest insect ever put under the microscope, and no form of animal life was to be experimented on under the Bill. He thought there ought to be some definition, and that the animals to which the provisions of the Bill were to extend should be put into a Schedule. He quite agreed that there should be no public exhibition of experiments on animals. Then the Bill created a new definition of "cruelty," and the offence under the Bill was described as "subjecting animals to experiments for scientific purposes."But animals might still be subject to pain inflicted for no purpose of science. He would undertake to say that one of their Lordships in a good day's rabbit shooting would inflict more pain than scientific men in a whole year of physiological experiments. Notwithstanding all that had been said, it was unfortunately the fact that pain was daily inflicted upon animals for purposes of amusement, curiosity, and vanity. Birds were killed that they might be worn on the top of ladies' bonnets; they ransacked the Arctic regions for their sealskins, and India for their ornaments; and then we were told they were so humane that they could not bear the idea of inflicting pain upon animals. Horses, in 99 cases in 100, were subjected to cruel and painful operations—would those operations come within the Bill? The "firing"of horses was a cruel operation, yet it was never attempted to administer anæsthetics during its performance. Again, was there no cruelty witnessed at the Zoological Gardens, in which they put a rabbit into the den of the boa constrictor? It was a security that at present these scientific experiments were usually performed in
  1014
  a laboratory and in the presence of other scientific men; but what he was afraid of was that the effect of the Bill might be to increase those performances in private houses which they wished to prevent. It was all very well to refer to the example of the Anatomy Act. If the body of a man were taken to a Professor for anatomical purposes, it would be known; but who could tell when a scientific man carried home a frog for his experiments?—and it was usually a frog upon which these experiments were tried. It would be almost impossible to prevent experiments, and it was better they should be performed in a laboratory, where a certain number of men might see them. Another difficulty had been alluded to by one of the medical men, who said—
  "When a surgeon cannot try experiments on animals he will probably try experiments on his patients."
  That was not a very agreeable prospect! A late President of the College of Surgeons said that surgeons sometimes abused their opportunities; and he instanced the case of a surgeon who was in the habit of pausing over a splendid operation, while he was expatiating on the brilliancy of the performance. If it were true that, if experiments were not made on animals, surgeons would experiment on man, they would, of course, make experiments on their patients, and it was probable that such experiments would be made on the poor in the hospitals rather than on the rich. He objected to Clause 3, which said that—
  "The experiment must be performed with a view only to the advancement by new discovery of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging human life or alleviating human suffering."
  And that it must be performed in a registered place, and by a person duly licensed. There ought to be security enough in requiring the performer to hold a licence; at all events, it was totally impossible to say what the effect of an experiment might be. It was a common practice, if anyone was suspected of having been poisoned by a pudding, to give some of the pudding to a dog; but under this Bill that could not be done; the persons interested in the discovery might eat the pudding themselves, but they must not

  1015
  give it to a dog. He did not like the character of the certificate that was to be required by an operator. One of the signatories was to be the President of the Royal Society; but the President of that Society might chance to be an astronomer or a botanist, and know nothing of physiology. There seemed to be something suggestive of trade unionism in naming the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians of London, Edinburgh, or Dublin; for a man might be unknown to any one of them, and yet be a very clever physiologist, and because they happened to know nothing about him he might be unable to get a licence. Important discoveries were often made by comparatively unknown men rather than by the most prominent physicians and surgeons, and yet such students were to be prevented from prosecuting their researches. He would enforce the use of anæsthetics where it was possible to use them; but in many cases it was not possible. In the case of a poison, an antidote, a new medicine, or an inoculation, you could not resort to the use of an anæsthetic, because it would defeat your object, which was to see the actual operation of the specific under natural conditions. It was said that vaccination had saved more lives than were destroyed by the wars of Napoleon, and vaccination was arrived at by experiments on animals. He was sorry to see some doubts thrown on the value of vaccination by an eminent public man within the last few days, because he believed it had been a great blessing to the world. While assenting to the principle of the Bill, he feared its provisions would go too far to prevent original research, and he therefore trusted it would be well considered and amended in Committee. The object of physiology was to prolong human life and mitigate human suffering. It was necessary that experiments should be performed on animals, and he trusted we should be careful to preserve and maintain the opportunities of performing them. Many discoveries were made almost by accident; the value of chloroform, for instance, was discovered by distilling red ants, which certainly inflicted pain upon animals; and it was not desirable that the possibility of such accidental discoveries should be diminished by too restrictive legislation.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the Bill did not go as far as could be wished, but, nevertheless, he desired to thank the Government for bringing it in. The excitement through out the country was very great, as was shown by the Petitions that had been addressed to Parliament; and they would have been more numerous and forcible if the people had not believed that the Government would legislate on the Report of the Commission. To show the strength of the feeling which he believed predominated in the country, he would quote the language of one Petition, which was as follows:—
  "That your Petitioners, feeling that cruel experiments are on no grounds justifiable, hereby humbly entreat your Honourable House to legislate for the total abolition and utter suppression of what is termed 'vivisection,' or the cutting-up of living creatures, or otherwise torturing them, or putting them to death by torture, under any scientific pretext whatsoever. Perpetrators of these atrocities allege that they physically benefit mankind, though competent authorities deny the assertion. But, even if it were so, no physical gain can possibly equal the injury caused by the moral degradation of the feelings which such barbarous experiments must naturally induce."
  The supporters of the Government measure would, he feared, be misrepresented, or, at least, misunderstood, for it could not be denied that the feeling of the country was in favour of total abolition; but, knowing the difficulties which surrounded the question, he was prepared to accept the Bill, which only imposed restrictions; and he did it upon this ground—that while he believed restriction might be effective, he feared that abolition would be a dead letter. Now, if it had been difficult to obtain evidence before the Royal Commission for information, how much more difficult would it be to obtain evidence for a prosecution when all the men of science were opposed to the measure. All sorts of arguments were urged against interference, but he had heard none so groundless as those of the noble Duke. Field-sports might be justifiable or unjustifiable, though he had nothing to do with such sports. The argument was not applicable to him. He never hunted a fox in his life; many years ago he hunted a hare, and he then determined from that time never to do so again. But he would not go into the question of field-sports at all. They were beside the

  1017
  question. One evil, supposing this to be an evil, did not palliate another. Was it not permitted to abate suffering, though it could not be extinguished altogether? Common sense drew a distinction between them and prolonged deliberate mutilation, the submitting of animals to torture from hour to hour and month to month. The argument derived from field-sports was, if good at all, good only against those who hunted, and it was no argument whatever to the mass of the people of these lands who never hunted, and who yet were the Petitioners that demanded these prohibitions. But, if the amusements of the fine folk of England were to be quoted as reasons why there should be no restriction on vivisection, let those amusements be contrasted with the amusements of the vivisectors, with that continuous excitement of morbid curiosity which found its employment and recreation in ingenious and prolonged suffering. M. Brachet, an eminent French physician under Charles X. and Louis Philippe, who obtained the physiological prize from the Institute, narrated the following experiment:—
  "I inspired a dog," he begged noble Lords to observe the rich language of science, "I inspired a dog with the greatest aversion for me by plaguing and inflicting some pain or other upon it as often as I saw it."
  Here was a precious pursuit of knowledge!—
  "When this feeling was carried to its height, so that the animal became furious as soon as it saw or heard me, I put out its eyes; I could then appear before it without its manifesting any aversion."
  What a discovery!—
  "I spoke, and immediately its barkings and furious movements proved the passion which animated it. I destroyed the drum of its ears, and disorganized the internal ear as much, as I could."
  This was the language of absolute relish—
  "When an intense inflammation which was excited had rendered it deaf, I filled up its ears with wax. It could no longer hear at all. Then I went to its side, spoke aloud, and even caressed it, without its falling into a rage; it seemed even sensible to my caresses."
  What a heart the man must have had! It was thought necessary to repeat this experiment, in order that there might be no uncertainty in the result—
  1018
  "And what," observes Dr. Elliotgon, who criticized the case, "was all this to prove?Simply that if one brute has an aversion to another it does not feel or show that aversion when it has no means of knowing that the other brute is present. If he had stood near the dog on the other side of a wall, he might have equally proved what common sense required not to be proved. I blush for human nature in detailing this experiment."
  Dr. Elliotson wrote well. Why did not every man blush who heard of it? And here let the amusements of the French physiologist be compared with that of a day's fox-hunting! It might be said this was a foreign practice; but what was the testimony of Sir William Fergusson, that great and eminent surgeon? He said—
  "The impression on my mind is that these experiments are done very frequently in a most reckless manner."
  He added—
  "I will give you an illustration of an animal being crucified for several days, perhaps; introduced several times into a lecture room for the class to see how the experiment was going on."
  What was this but sheer amusement? Could science have gained, by a cold-blooded, systematic, cruelty such as this, one hair's breadth of knowledge for the use of mankind? This, perhaps, was gained; a proof was gained of what men can bring themselves to do when science is degraded to a wretched monomania. Sir William was asked if he believed that much of this was going on, and his answer was—"I believe a great deal of reckless mutilation is going on among students in private houses."Well, all sorts of objections had been urged, heavy and light. Seal skins, it was stated, were obtained by reckless means. Now, first, an effort had been made by law to appoint proper seasons for the seal-fishing; and, secondly, this argument was effective only against those who wore that kind of fur, and not against the millions who, dressing in cotton and woollens, demanded that animals should be protected. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) in a controversy he had with a distinguished man—an eminent surgeon—when he was urging on him the necessity of moderation and care in physiological experimentation, received for reply, that he must look at home and ask himself if he did not indulge in paté de foie gras (pie of geese

  1019
  with livers artificially diseased). Why, he, and the masses who sympathized with him, had never tasted paté de foie gras in their lives, and probably never should taste it. All he could say was, paté de foie gras brought its own punishment with it—being as indigestible as it was wicked. Now, this evil of vivisection was extended over the whole of Europe, and was beginning to be very rife in this country. Dr. Haughton, on this point, fully confirmed the testimony of Sir William Fergusson, and stated—
  "I believe that a large proportion of the experiments now performed upon animals in England, Scotland, and Ireland are unnecessary and clumsy repetitions of well-known results; that young physiologists in England learn German and read experiments in German journals, and repeat them then in this country. There is a good deal of that second-rate sort of physiological practice going on,"
  all of which their Lordships might believe was as useless as it was atrocious. Now, if vivisection had been exhibited to their Lordships for the first time, all would have shrunk from it with abhorrence; but now, suddenly, they were confronted with a long-established system; and they had to deal with the arguments and facts of learned men of very various dispositions. Vivisection was urged as a grand necessity for the prolongation of human life and the alleviation of human suffering. Doubtless, there were many and great names in favour of the practice, but there were also great names who questioned the necessity, and hesitated to believe that any real good had resulted at all in proportion to the thousands of hecatombs of animals that had been slaughtered and tortured in this terrible pursuit of science. Sir WilliamFergusson observed that—
  "Mr. Syme lived to express an abhorrence of such operations, at all events, if they were not useful…..His ultimate authority was strongly on the other side, as expressed in a special report of his own….No man, perhaps, said Sir William, has ever had more experience on the human subject than Mr. Syme…and I myself have a strong opinion that such an expression, coming from Mr. Syme, was a mature and valuable opinion."
  When asked whether his own opinion in mature life was much less favourable to these experiments than when he was young—
  "Yes," he replied, "because I had not the same grasp of the subject at that time. I was
  1020
  more, perhaps, influenced by what other people had done and by the wish to come up to what they had done in regard to such matters, but the more mature judgment of recent years has led me to say to myself now that I would not perform some of the operations at this present time that I performed myself in earlier days."
  This was of weight. Professor Rolleston stated—
  "Haller fell in his later age into a permanent anguish of conscience, which is shown in his epistles, reproaching himself most bitterly for his vivisection. These are Krug's words….I think I may say this (but I shall not give the name), that it is within my own personal experience that a person who has a considerable name before the world, and has performed a large number of vivisections in his time, has expressed himself to me as exceedingly sorry that heever did them—did them, I should say, to the extent to which he did."
  To these might be added the names of Dr. Child, Dr. Crisp, and others. But further. In the life of that accomplished man, Sir Charles Bell, was to be found this passage—
  "In his study of the system of circulation, as in that of the nerves, Charles Bell was necessarily compelled to make more than one experiment in comparative anatomy; but he abstained as much as possible from torturing animals, which he considered, in most cases, a useless act of cruelty, leas certain in result than was commonly supposed, and less profitable than an attentive study of pathological phenomena, because vivisection not only alters the substance of the mutilated organs, but disturbs, more or less profoundly, the natural condition of life, and excites, through pain, irregular motions differing from those expected or previously observed, &c."
  Why, this passage was almost an answer to the whole inquiry; not only did he avoid torture, so far as he could, but he considered the study of pathology superior to the practice of vivisection. But here was, no doubt, the difference in the minds of the experimentalists; pathology was long, and vivisection was short; study a bore, but action an amusement—
  "Sir Charles admitted that his own opinion was not the opinion of some of the best and most virtuous men he had ever known, but that for his own part he could never convince himself either by the experiments he witnessed or by any of those related to him."
  What a testimony from such a man! But he wished particularly to call their Lordships'attention to a letter written by Sir Charles Bell himself—
  "I should be writing," he said, "a third paper on the nerves, but I cannot proceed with-

  1021
  out making some experiments, which are so unpleasant to make that I defer them. You may think me silly,"
  would their Lordships mark these words?—
  "but I cannot perfectly convince myself that I am authorized in nature or religion to do these cruelties:"
  would they pause here for a minute? Sir Charles proceeded, and—
  "for what" he said. "For anything else than a little egotism or self-aggrandizement; and yet, what are my experiments in comparison with those which are daily done, and are done daily for nothing?"
  Their Lordships might be assured that the people of England rested their hatred, no lighter term could be used, of this terrible system on the grounds suggested by Sir Charles Bell. It was with many of them not simply a matter of feeling, it was one of religion. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) did not believe that it could be eradicated; he hardly believed that it could be partially subdued. A violent unqualified opposition to their wishes might bring on such expressions of sentiment as would end in the most coercive measures, and the formation of a public opinion, hostile alike to science and to scientific men personally, in the matter of vivisection. But this Bill did not demand the solution of the difficulty whether vivisection were really necessary or not; it went only to the extent to which the men of science would go in limitation of an acknowledged evil. Now his noble Friend had stated facts. He would add one or two. It was impossible to describe the feelings they excited. The narrator in this instance was M. Bouillaud, a man of high scientific name, and one of the most conspicuous physicians in the Medical School of Paris. The account of the eleventh experiment began thus—
  "I made an opening on each side of the forehead of a young dog, and forced a red hot iron into each of the anterior lobes of the brain"—
  would their Lordships observe the light jaunty way in which he relates his chamber sport?—
  "Immediately afterwards, the animal, after howling violently, lay down as if to sleep. On urging it, it walked or even ran for a considerable space; it did not know how to avoid obstacles placed in its way, and on encountering
  1022
  them groaned, or even howled violently. Deprived of the knowledge of external objects, it no longer made any movements either to avoid or approach them."
  As if common sense would not have taught this to any one—
  "But it still could perform such motions as are called instinctive. It withdrew its feet when they were pinched, and shook itself when water was poured upon it. It turned incessantly in the cage as if to get out, and became impatient of the restraint thus imposed."
  After noting many revolting details, he said—
  "It slept occasionally for a short time, and on awakening began its mournful cries. We tried to keep it quiet by beating it, but it only cried more loudly. It did not understand the lesson; it was incorrigible."
  What stuff! to say nothing of his feelings; was the man in his senses? Some days elapsed, and the journal continued—
  "Its fore legs are now half paralyzed in walking, or rather in dragging itself along; it rests upon the back of its foot, bent upon the leg. No change has taken place in respect to his intellectual power; as its irrepressible cries disturbed the neighbourhood I was obliged to kill it."
  Here the atrocious prolongation of torture should be noted. This gentleman was insatiable; he presented another rich experiment, rich in showing what men can do and what animals must submit to. Another young dog, so went the narrative, that had been exposed to similar suffering from having had "the cranium and cerebral hemispheres sawed transversely," escaped from its torturer by a comparatively easy death—
  "To prevent its plaintive cries disturbing my neighbours"—what humane consideration!—"I enveloped it in a thick sack. On examining some time afterwards, I found that it had died from suffocation."
  Another dog was selected—
  "Possessing the reputation of being lively, docile and intelligent."
  The anterior part of its brain was transfixed on the 28th of June, and day after day, for several weeks, it was tortured in every possible way, and the effects recorded. After detailing the results, he said, on the 7th of July—
  "When menaced it crouches, as if to implore mercy,"
  could anything, except a demi-fiend, have felt or written in that way?—

  1023
  "but it does not in consequence obey. It, on the contrary, utters cries which nothing can repress, similar to those of an uneducated dog, whose intellect is undeveloped."
  What did their Lordships think the dog would have replied to the developed intellect of his torturer, could he have spoken? The very dumbness of the animals should be a powerful appeal on their behalf—
  "I watched it attentively," he went on, "for the remainder of this and for the first 15 days of the succeeding month."
  The ferocious prolongation of suffering should again be observed. But to sum up, in the words of Dr. Walker, let them listen to a choice category of experimental recreations—
  "Forcing substances into the stomach of a dog after exposing the gullet, and tying it to prevent vomiting; opening the abdomen, tying a portion of the small intestine in two places, opening the intermediate portion, and injecting a noxious fluid into it; starving rabbits till they would eat dead frogs; forcing boiling water into a dog's stomach; boiling frogs; starving pigeons till they dropped from their perches, and then cutting off their anterior or posterior extremities to show that this caused death when the organism was exhausted from want of food."
  Did man, from all this, walk in greater honour and greater security? and was it not now clear to their Lordships that they ought to do something to put a check upon such wild, wanton, and superfluous, cruelties. Now let them hear Dr. Acland, a very eminent physician—what did he say?—
  "The number of persons in this and other countries who are becoming biologists without being medical men is very much increasing. Modern civilization seems to be set upon acquiring almost universally what is called biological knowledge, and one of the consequences of this is, that whereas medical men are constantly engaged in the study of anatomy and physiology for a humane purpose—that is, for the purpose of doing immediate good to mankind—there are a number of persons now who are engaged in the pursuit of these subjects for the purpose of acquiring abstract knowledge. That is quite a different thing. I am not at all sure that the mere acquisition of knowledge is not a thing having some dangerous and mischievous tendencies in it."
  That very striking and most true observation deserved serious attention—
  "Now it has become a profession," he continued, "to discover, and to discover at any cost."
  Mr. Gr. H. Lewes said—
  1024
  "One man discovers a fact or publishes an experiment, and instantly, all over Europe, certain people set to work to repeat it. They will repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it."
  Mr. Lewes was right. Unless checked, they would repeat any amount of cruelty without the slightest addition of knowledge. Dr. Haughton said—
  "I would shrink with horror from accustoming without foresight or forethought, large classes of young men to the sight of animals under vivisection. I believe that many of them would become cruel and hardened, and would go away and repeat these experiments recklessly. Science would gain nothing, and the world would have let loose upon it a set of young devils."
  Was not, he asked their Lordships, the great rush of them already begun? Dr. Anthony, another high testimony—
  "Knew himself of instances of young men, from mere curiosity, carrying on these experiments. Could mention them, but I should scarcely like to do so…No anæsthetics are used to diminish the pain of the creature."
  Of course not, it would be too much trouble. Respecting demonstrations by professors to students, Dr. Anthony said—
  "I believe the more you keep the scenic element away the better….The reason.….is the existence of morbid curiosity. There is a morbid curiosity which is known to medical men well with reference to operations of all kinds."
  That was just what had been asserted all along—
  "There are a certain number of persons who are very fond of coming to see the different operations at the hospitals. I look upon that, and particularly upon the desire of seeing these experiments on animals, as something very, very morbid indeed."
  Could anything, he asked their Lordships, be more illustrative than the written statement put in by Mr. James B. Mills?—
  "Observing from the daily papers that Mr. Ernest Hart alleges that students do not perform experiments on living animals as an exercise in the prosecution of their studies, I beg to forward to you a summary of my experience in that respect during my College career at Edinburgh. I am a veterinary surgeon, and I feel it my duty to aid your Society in repressing unnecessary experimentation; surveying the past as I do with much regret, so far as I have participated in the practices which I am now compelled to condemn. At Edinburgh the veterinary students and the medical students frequently associate for pleasure and for study. The experiments were certainly never designed to discover any new fact, or elucidate any obscure phenomena, but simply to demonstrate the most

  1025
  ordinary facts of physiology. Our victims were sometimes dogs, but more frequently cats. Many of the latter were caught by means of a poisoned bait, the animals being secured whilst suffering from the agonies caused by the poison, when antidotes were applied for their restoration. They were then imprisoned in a cupboard at the students' lodgings, and kept there until a meeting could be arranged. Sometimes the students secured their victims by what is known as a cat hunt—that is, a raid on cats by students armed with sticks late at night. I am not prepared to say that the object of the students was to commit cruelty, or that there was any morbid desire to witness pain, but I say emphatically that there was no other motive than idle curiosity and heedless, reckless love of experimentation. What, for instance, could justify the following experiment, performed for the purpose of witnessing the action of a cat's heart? The operator first of all made an incision through the skin of the animal's chest, extending from the neck to the belly. The skin was then laid back by hooks, in order to enable the operator to cut through the cartilage of the breast-bone, and to draw his knife across the ribs for the purpose of nicking them. This process is necessary to enable him to snap the ribs and lay the fractured parts back, which also are secured with hooks. It is needless to say that such operation is a most cruel one; but it is only one of several others performed at Edinburgh. Now, the action of the heart is well known, and is one of the first things taught to students of physiology, and can be taught as well without experimentation as with. In a few cases the animals were narcotized, when no suffering was caused either in the process of poisoning or in the after experimentations."
  The repetition, then, their Lordships would see, was for diversion, not for knowledge.
  "The securing an animal for an operation like the above requires experience and care, and it is fearful to witness the struggles of the animal while this is being done. I desire to exonerate the Professors from any participation in the experiments performed by students, which were conducted at the private lodgings of students, when none but students were present."
  On cross-examination, Mr. Mills confirmed these statements. He said—
  "The experiments" (made chiefly on cats and dogs) "had no other motive than idle curiosity and reckless love of experimentation."
  All the students (a class of 70 or 80) assisted more or less at these useless experiments. They were sometimes done in public in the yard of the college—
  "The habit of doing such things is sure to go on unless a stop is put to it."
  He referred to a special case which occurred last winter session. A horse was bought for the purpose of dissection.
  1026
  This animal was subjected during a whole week to various operations, such as tenotomy and neurotomy, &c. The operations were "very painful." No anæstheticsof any kind were given. The experiments were made "all over the animal." Edinburgh, it was clear, would soon be a match for Paris in competitive examinations on animal torture.
  "A dog, too, which was first half poisoned and then restored by an antidote, received 'brutal usage.' The brains were knocked out by a hammer."
  The story of the horse was subsequently confirmed by Principal Williams. Dr. Scott, also, might be heard on the easy indifference of these lovers of scientific truth. After describing how he ceased to attend the physiological lectures in Edinburgh on account of the cruelty he witnessed, he said that—
  "It did not provoke the slightest symptoms of abhorrence among those who witnessed it." He "never knew an operation cause the least abhorrence to a medical student."
  Vivisection, he believed, went on among students in their own rooms. But few things had alarmed him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) more than something he saw lately in the text book of the Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education, a book entitled Lessons in Elementary Physiology, by Thomas Huxley, LL.D., F.R.S. Had he not seen it he could hardly have believed it possible, strange and numerous as were the novel things that sprang up every day. In the preface to the first edition, Professor Huxley said—
  "The following 'Lessons in Elementary Physiology'are primarily intended to serve the purpose of a text book for teachers and learners in boys' and girls' schools."
  In the next place, it was strongly insisted—
  "that such experiments as those subjoined shall not merely be studied in the manual, but actually repeated, either by the 'boys and girls' themselves, or else by the teacher in their presence, as plainly appears from the preface to the second edition. There it was said, 'the knowledge' which is 'attainable by mere reading, though infinitely better than ignorance,' yet loses 'almost its whole worth as an intellectual discipline' to those who seek it only in books. Where then could it be sought but in the living animal?"
  And the last phrase showed it by as-

  1027
  serting the necessity of the knowledge "arising from direct contact with fact." But, that there might be no doubt, he asked their Lordships' attention to the passage in the ninth edition, page 52—
  "If in a rabbit," the Professor stated, "the sympathetic nerve which sends branches to the vessels of the head is cut, the ear of the rabbit….at once blushes….To produce pallor and cold in the rabbit's ear, it is only necessary to irritate the cut end of the sympathetic."
  It was manifest that the incision to make the ear of the rabbit blush must be on the living, and not on the dead, animal. And was that the way, he asked, to bring up children? Was that the progress we had made in the 19th century? Prom ignorance, perhaps, the tendency of children was to be cruel, and who did not know the necessity of daily rebuke to check that propensity? But under this unprecedented scheme of intellectual training they were to be accustomed, from their earliest years, not only to witness, but to inflict, agonies of pain on the poor helpless creatures they should be taught to love and protect. Sir Astley Cooper must have been brought up after this fashion. In his life by his nephew, Bransby Cooper, we read the following story:—
  "During this time, Astley, who was always eager to add to our anatomical and physiological knowledge, made a variety of experiments on living animals. I recollect one day walking out with him, when a dog followed us and accompanied us home," mark this—the dog is taught by nature to confide in man, "little foreseeing the fate that awaited him. He was confined for a few days, till we had ascertained that no owner would come to claim him, and then brought up to be the subject of various operations. The first of these was the tying one of the femoral arteries. When poor," mark the pity, "poor Chance, for so we appropriately named the dog, was sufficiently recovered from this," mark the brutality of that tender care, to cure him for further suffering, "one of the humeral arteries was subjected to a similar process. After the lapse of a few weeks the ill-fated animal was killed, the vessels injected, and preparations were made from each of the limbs. It appears," the biographer continued, "that the dogs sacrificed in my uncle's scientific researches were not unfrequently procured in this manner."
  That was, as the biographer had stated elsewhere, by agents, who obtained the animals by every form of illicit art—
  "Nothing but the objects which led to these delinquencies," added the historian, "could offer an excuse for such proceedings."
  1028
  And so they had there, as elsewhere the full indulgence of the precept, that the end justifies the means. But he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) must go further. He did not know whether their Lordships would hesitate to join him in believing that in such an ardent adoration of science, worshipped and pursued under the high pretext of the universal alleviation of human suffering, pursued for discoveries that were to raise man's intellect by perpetual progress, in this kind of knowledge, with an increasing relish for it; the step was very narrow between the vivisection of the animal and the vivisection of the human being. It had been so in old times; it might be so again. Dr. Macaulay, in his valuable work Plea for Mercy to Animals, said, that the system prevailed in the days of Celsus, in a time of refinement and what was termed high civilization—Celsus wrote with horror of the cruelties perpetrated on living men and living women. But the world was returning, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said, to many of the opinions of those earlier days; and why not, then, to their practices? This was no mere conjecture. It was to be recollected that Cheselden, one of the most distinguished surgeons of the last century, wishing to investigate a surgical question, had proposed to try the experiment on a criminal condemned to death, but the opposition which was manifested on this occasion prevented his desire being carried into effect. That was good; but people became familiar very soon with strange things often proposed; and science at that time had not then, as now, been deified. But something was dawning even in modern minds. The testimony of Dr. Rutherford gave cause for disquietude—
  "In your judgment," he was asked, "are operations of that description upon the dog to be taken as evidence of what the effect would be on a human being?"—"Certainly not; but merely as suggesting what the action would be, that is all. The experiment must also be tried upon men before a conclusion can be drawn."
  Exactly so; and if in the fanatical authority of science, and the equally fanatical obedience to it, some conclusions were declared to be absolutely necessary, criminals, as heretofore, might be utilized for the purpose—For, though scientific men were no worse, they were no better,

  1029
  than other men, most of whom succumbed to temptation and opportunity. Professor Rolleston seemed to entertain a similar apprehension—
  "With regard," he said, "to all absorbing studies, that is the besetting sin of them and of original research, that they lift a man so entirely above the ordinary sphere of daily duty that it betrays him (in other lines of original research as well as this) into selfishness and unscrupulous neglect of duty;"
  and he added the testimony of an eminent Professor. Mr. Skey, said he, wrote in his work—
  "A man who has the reputation of a splendid operator is ever a just object of suspicion."
  No doubt, for opportunity to such men was almost irresistible. But these operations appeared to blunt the understanding in many as much as they hardened the heart. Some learned men had actually declared that animals were like puppets—they kicked, cried, and made a noise, but had no feeling whatever. Such was the attempted despotism of science over common sense. Others urged that animals were not to be pitied, because they had no foreknowledge of what was going to happen. But, if that was so, it was the best and most fearful argument he had ever heard, and one conducing to the issues just mentioned, for the vivisection of babies and idiots, for they would have no foreknowledge of the torture that awaited them. But the strongest part of the whole evidence to show the degradation of moral feeling was that of Dr. Klein, who was employed officially by the Medical Officer to the Privy Council. These were some of the questions put to him, and his answers to them—
  "When you say that you only use anæsthetics for convenience'sake, do you mean that you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the animals?"—"No regard at all."
  "Then for your own purposes you disregard entirely the question of the suffering of the animal in performing a painful experiment?"—"I do."
  "But, in regard to your proceedings as an investigator, you are prepared to acknowledge that you hold as entirely indifferent the sufferings of the animal which is subjected to your investigation?"—"Yes."
  What could surpass or even equal such philosophy as that? And finally, a gentleman, whom he would not name, bore testimony to the "kindness" of Dr.
  1030
  Burdon Sanderson and Dr. Klein. When interrogated—
  "Whether he did not think that the habit of regarding animals as a mere battery of vital forces on which particular results are to be studied, necessarily to a certain extent produces the effect of diminishing the sympathy with their sufferings?" he said "I think not. I do not know anywhere a kinder person than Dr. Burdon Sanderson." "Or than Dr. Klein, for instance?" asked the Commission. "I have no reason," said this gentleman, "to think otherwise of him."
  That opinion, from such a person as the gentleman he would not name, completed his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) conviction of the evil effects of those practices on a kind and generous nature. But to conclude, the subject was inexhaustible; it was impossible for him to compress within a small compass all the arguments that might be urged, and all the facts that might be adduced; but he was not pleading for total abolition, he was pleading only for mitigation of the system, and surely there was no wisdom in declaring that one evil should continue to exist because another could not be put down. Up to this point scientific men were with the advocates of restriction. England had prohibited bull-baiting, cock-fighting, prize-fighting, all of which had, in their day, no end of logic and sentiment in their favour; and why should she not hold her place among all the nations of the earth, and be the first to reduce, within the closest possible limits, the sufferings inflicted by man on the whole animal creation?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few remarks on the subject of vivisection, dealt with in the Bill before the House, as he had taken some interest in it, and last year brought in a Bill to deal with it. He readily withdrew the Bill on the appointment of a Royal Commission, and it would afford him much gratification if he could suppose that its introduction had in any degree tended to bring the question to an issue. He believed his Bill was all that public opinion would have sanctioned at the time; but during the last year a great advance had been made. The public had been roused to a sense of the real position of affairs by the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission, on which two well-known physiologists served. He believed also that the feeling on the

  1031
  subject was not confined to this country but was spreading to other countries. In Sweden and in America a movement against the practice of vivisection was on foot, and he believed that a Bill was actually in print in America, and its promoters were only waiting to see what action was taken in this country before introducing it to the Legislature. The Government deserved the thanks of all those who agreed with him in thinking that legislation was necessary, for bringing in this Bill. They had introduced a stronger measure than that he had himself ventured to bring forward last year, at the same time it was not of too stringent a character—too stringent legislation would be unwise. Perhaps those persons who wished to see the practice of vivisection absolutely prohibited might think the Bill did not go far enough, but he would venture to remind them that there was such a thing as going too far, and particularly in regard to a question of this kind—if it went too far it was almost certain to be evaded. They were not dealing with an uneducated class of men, but with the most cultivated and intellectual class, and he believed—whatever some physiologists, who acted on purely selfish motives, might feel—that the leading men among them would set the example by loyally carrying out any reasonable measure which might be passed; he believed also that public feeling would be against passing too strong a measure. The Bill of the Government should secure the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for it embodied many important suggestions made by that Society last year, with the exception of one—namely, that the use of curare should not be prohibited as an anæsthetic. He hoped there would be no modification of this clause, for, although the discovery was wonderful in itself, it was so terrible in its effects that its use ought not to be sanctioned. As to those who practised in physiological schools, no one, for a moment, wished to cast any sweeping condemnation upon them—they appeared willing to accept any reasonable measure. But it appeared to him that when fresh schools for scientific teaching were being established every day, and the taste for scientific research was increasing, the proper time had arrived for
  1032
  dealing with the question, so that all might know on what ground they stood; and he thought that the Bill introduced by the Government offered a fair basis of a settlement of this question.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he did not wish to enter into any discussion on the principle of the Bill, with respect to which their Lordships seemed to be practically agreed, but desired to point out that one of its provisions was much more stringent and sweeping than anything recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission. He referred to the sub-section of Clause 3, which would absolutely prohibit a class of experiments which, although they might give a certain amount of pain, were neither unimportant nor unnecessary, and which might be productive of great utility in dealing with the diseases of domestic animals such as cattle and sheep. During the time of the cattle plague numerous experiments were tried which proved unsuccessful; had this Bill then been in operation these experiments could not have been tried, and the result would have been a prohibition against experiments of any kind. It would be a strong thing to interfere with experiments for discovering the causes and remedies of diseases in cattle and sheep—especially as they were usually attended with very little pain and the diseases were becoming more widespread and severe than formerly. It appeared to him also that Clause 5, which absolutely prohibited experiments on dogs and cats, went considerably beyond the recommendations of the Commission, and ought not to stand in its present form. All were agreed that effectual provision should be made against the infliction of wanton cruelty, but care must be taken not to make restriction too stringent. He would propose an Amendment in Committee on the subject.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, no time should be lost in putting a stop to vivisection as it was now practised, for it had been stated, and the report had not been contradicted, that women carried lobsters and rabbits and other animals to vivisect them in girls' schools. Such education was only fit for the daughters of Danaus. The philosophers wished to introduce this study of anatomy into the elementary schools, whilst they excluded from them the Bible.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHexpressed, as a Member of the Royal Commission, his satisfaction at the way in which the Bill had been received by the House. But he wished to refer to a point that had been raised relative to the absolute exemption of two classes of animals—cats and dogs—from vivisection. He believed such a distinction was unnecessary. The Commissioners did not name those animals in their Report because they had confidence that efficient legislation would follow on their Report, and that, if it were properly carried out, neither dogs nor any other domestic animals would be subjected to anything like unnecessary cruelty. As to the objection made by the noble Earl who spoke last but one (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he would only say that he would find that the investigations to which he alluded might be carried out under another clause of the Bill. The noble Earl said it had been shown that Harvey had not discovered the circulation of the blood by vivisection; but Harvey's own words quoted in the Report, proved that this statement was incorrect. He preferred the evidence given before the Royal Commission by Professors and recognized authorities to the pamphlets and the statements which he saw in the public prints. The noble Earl doubted whether any benefits had been derived from vivisection. He (Lord Winmarleigh), on the contrary, was of opinion that many remedies for complaints could be traced to the practice. This Bill of the Government being based on the recommendations of the Commission, would receive the support, not only of the physiologists, but also of all reasonable anti-vivisectionists. The persons who took an ultra view of vivisection could not found their arguments on the evidence adduced before the Commission. They had been led to adopt exaggerated notions, which hitherto had carried too much weight in the country. Believing that the Bill would prevent all abuses, and fairly combined the views of physiologists and philanthropists, he should give it his cordial support.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLdenied the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that the Report of the Commissioners had gone beyond the evidence, and in that view he was supported by Sir Thomas Watson, Sir
  1034
  George Burrows, Sir James Paget, Dr. Acland, and other eminentmembers of the medical profession. Men like Mr. Darwin, Professor Owen, Mr. Huxley, Sir William Fergusson, Dr. Taylor, and Professor Gamgee concurred in thinking that the practice of vivisection called for regulation by superior authority, and far from being afraid of the restrictions recommended by the Commission, would be willing supporters of any measure which did not go beyond its recommendations. We were passing through a scientific revival, and a great start was being given in this country to the practice of vivisection. Everything depended, therefore, whether we should seize the opportunity for wise legislation. If we controlled the system in its infancy we should have an advantage which might never occur again. In the Bill generally he had the greatest pleasure in concurring, reserving to himself the right of suggesting some Amendments in Committee in points where the Bill had gone beyond the views of the Royal Commission. It had been a painful duty on the part of the Commissioners to go into the horrible details connected with this subject; but if his noble Friend should be able to carry this Bill into law, they would be amply rewarded for their painful duties. The Government would do credit not only to themselves, but to the country if they were able to pass a measure of this kind on a subject which had interested the people of England from the Sovereign on the throne to the humblest of her subjects. The Crown and Parliament of this country would set an example to the civilized world by dealing with this subject in a manner which, as he believed, while it avoided any interference with the claims of science, would recognize the just claims of humanity.
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.