Sitting of 4 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Vivisection Abolition [46], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—National Gallery (Loan)* [128], and passed.
Withdrawn—Universities Committee of Privy Council [15].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNIVERSITIES COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL.
  (Mr. Charles Roundell, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Shield, Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  UNIVERSITIES COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL BILL.

    [BILL 15.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ROUNDELL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to render the Universities Committee of the Privy Council more accessible to the Colleges when they proposed to make changes in their Statutes, and the chief part of the Bill was framed with a view to improve the machinery which was already contained in the Universities Act of 1877. There was only one clause—the 2nd clause—which dealt with any matter of principle; and that clause gave to a certain number of persons in the Universities a power of moving the Universities Committee to make such changes in the Statutes of a College as seemed desirable to them, if that Committee thought fit to do so. He was aware that there was a very

    1387
    widespread feeling of opposition to the clause; but he thought it was based partly on a certain misapprehension of the objects of the framers of the clause. It was said to be an invasion of the independence of the Colleges, and an interference with the normal exercise of the power of the Colleges for self-legislation. He could only say, in reply to that objection, that neither of those objects was at all contemplated by the framers of the Bill. What they had regard to was the possibility of the growth, in some of the smaller Colleges, of grave abuses connected chiefly with what was a new element in the constitution of the Governing Bodies of the Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge—he meant the presence of the married Fellow element. One effect of the changes recently made by the Universities had been to make the small Governing Bodies in most of these Colleges still smaller in number than before, and to throw more power into the hands of married Fellows, who, in the future, would be a formidable element, and have much to do with the administration of the public funds intended for education at the Universities. It was not too much to say that, in these cases, it would often be that there would be a conflict between the interests and the duties of these married Fellows. The clause was carefully guarded by giving full and ample discretion to the Universities Committee. The chief ground on which he submitted the clause to the consideration of the House was that the Colleges would have to choose one of two things—either to accept intervention on the part of the University as proposed, or abuses of a grave kind would grow up, and then they would have to come to Parliament again for another Act. It was, therefore, with the view of preventing, in time, the growing up of those abuses, which there was every reason to expect would arise, that this proposal now was introduced, of giving an independent body in the University a power of moving the University Committee, if they thought fit, to frame a new Statute for a College dealing with any such abuse. For his part, he had always wished the Universities to have a rest and cessation from Parliamentary interference. Within the last 30 years, some three or four Commissions had been appointed, and now
    1388
    everyone felt that time should be given for the changes made to remain in operation; and the object of the framers of the Bill was to secure that rest by resorting to the timely intervention of a friendly authority. But he would at once say that, as the opposition to which he had averted was widely expressed, he would be prepared to omit the clause rather than wreck the Bill. The rest of the Bill would stand unimpaired, being framed with the view of amending the machinery by which the Colleges, when they wished to have a change in their constitution, should seek the intervention of the Privy Council; and these clauses of the Bill had been mainly framed on the lines of the Universities Act of 1877. The object of the Bill, in that respect, was to do two things—first, to prevent changes in the Statutes being made in the dark; and, secondly, to render the Universities Committee more freely accessible to the Colleges. As regarded these matters, there were certain defects in the existing system. By the Act of 1877 there was not adequate provision made for giving publicity to proposed changes in the Statutes of the Colleges—nor for any adequate provision for enabling persons to submit their objections to the Privy Council. Moreover, the Privy Council must either wholly allow or disallow the Statute. This Bill provided an improved machinery to remedy these defects, by requiring that any proposed new Statute should be published by the Vice Chancellor within the University; that objections laid before the Privy Council need not, as now, be signed by one or two counsel; and by bringing to bear upon the Statute by means of an extended right of objection, a wholesome criticism by those who were best able to judge of the matter—namely, the persons resident in the University. Another important alteration of the existing machinery proposed by the Bill was that, as a matter of course, it practically referred every new Statute to the Universities Committee—a body qualified to give advice on its general bearings. The Bill also empowered the Universities Committee, if they thought fit, to remit the new Statute back to the College with a declaration; and power was also given to the Universities Committee to refer minor matters of detail, involving special University knowledge, to experts.

    1389
    The Bill made no provision for simplifying the rules of procedure before the Universities Committee. That matter was, he thought, better left open to be arranged between the Committee and the Universities, under the power which was given in the Act. The alterations proposed in these clauses of the Bill involved no question of principle; they were of the nature of improvements in machinery, and were intended to simplify the procedure of Colleges when they came to seek for changes in their Statutes; and, therefore, he thought no objection would be offered to them. As he had said, the only portion of the Bill involving any question of principle was the 2nd clause; and, if he had been rightly informed that there was a widespread opposition to that provision, he would be willing to drop it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Roundell.)
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY,in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he was placed in a position of some embarrassment by the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell), because hon. Gentlemen who had read one Bill were now asked to consider what was practically another Bill, viewed in the light of a certain statement just made by the hon. Member. They were desirous of knowing who the originators and framers of the Bill were, seeing that the hon. Member had talked about the objects contemplated by them, but had not stated who they were. After diligent communication with members of both the Liberal and Conservative Parties at Oxford, he had been unable to discover that it had originated in that University; and he had authority for saying that the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. Shield), whose name appeared on the back of the Bill, himself dissented from it. The object of the measure appeared to be a simple one; but he (Sir John E. Mowbray), for one, looked upon it as being a very insidious and dangerous measure, starting, as it did, with a perfectly innocent Preamble, and following it up with some most obnoxious clauses.
    1390
    The Bill set forth that it should be read as one with the Act of 1877, the assumption being that it was based on the same principles; but with regard to the 2nd clause, the hon. Member did not even attempt to argue for its being retained in the Bill. He (Sir John E. Mowbray) felt sure that the interests of the Colleges would be compromised if that most obnoxious clause were not struck out. The hon. Gentleman said the clause was intended to provide against abuses arising from married Fellows. If that was so, the Liberal Party, who had promoted the University legislation of the last 30 years, were answerable for those abuses. By the Act of 1877, there was ample protection provided for the Colleges; for it required that when changes were contemplated notice should be given to the Colleges, special meetings were to be called, and two-thirds of the members present must concur in any alteration of the Statutes. The protection, therefore, was complete; but, by the present Bill, no notice would be given. Why were these Colleges to be thus treated? They were an integral part of the University, and he (Sir John E. Mowbray) felt sure that his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) was as jealous of the fair fame of Balliol and Merton as he was of the University of Oxford; and he was equally sure that he (Sir John E. Mowbray) and the Prime Minister did not value Oxford less because they had a tender regard for the good estate of Christ Church. With regard to the employment of counsel when objecting to a Statute, that was contingent upon the right of petitioning the Queen in Council. His hon. Friend, again, had forgotten to call the attention of the House to a most remarkable clause in the Bill, which, so far as he could understand, was objected to quite as much as any other, and which was to the effect that the Privy Council, set in motion by 25 members of Convocation, might refer the matter to any one person experienced in University affairs to inquire into it. In other words, those 25 members of Convocation might move an external body to make any change they pleased, free from the restriction imposed by all previous legislation as to vested interests, and without any of the modifying influences of the Act of 1877. His hon. Friend had not deigned to give an Interpretation Clause, and there was nothing to show whether the "person experi-

    1391
    enced in University affairs" was to be a graduate, or what he was to be; and it seemed to him that even the beadle who preceded the Vice Chancellor, or the "bulldog" who followed the Proctor, was well within the clause. The result was that the Universities Committee, which was headed by such august personages as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire, and the Marquess of Salisbury, was to end in one obscure person experienced in University affairs. "Desinit in piscem." Either the Bill was a very great Bill indeed, or a very small one, and it was trifling with the University to bring in a Bill on such a subject. What was the opinion on the Bill in the University itself? One of the complaints he had received was that his hon. Friend had brought the Bill in at such a time as to make it impossible to obtain an expression of opinion on it from the University. The Hebdomadal Council had passed a resolution last year recording their opinion that the provisions of the Bill were inexpedient. What was the Hebdomadal Council? A body of men well versed in the affairs of the University, the majority of them being Liberals, and not a body of Tories who objected to all changes. If the hon. Member had not yet made up his mind as to what his Bill was to be, he had far better withdraw it, in order that he might afterwards introduce a measure more in accordance with the views the hon. Gentleman entertained. There was no demand for immediate legislation this year. Full effect had not yet been given to all the Ordinances under the Act of 1854; and, as regarded the Act of 1877, it must be said it did not begin to operate till October last, and it was impossible to point out any deficiency in so short a time. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would appear that his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) had introduced this Bill because he thought certain difficulties and evils were likely to accrue in consequence of
    1392
    recent reforms in the University scheme. That was not a satisfactory result to put forward so late in the day. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not say, however, that he differed from his hon. Friend at all. He had never been a great admirer of the introduction of the married principle into the Colleges of the University. He had protested in that House at the time against filling the great Court of Trinity with perambulators, as being by no means an improvement of the traditions of that place. It was quite enough that Professors should have the privilege of being married; but to promote an extension of the principle seemed to him not altogether favourable to University life. Then, again, there was no doubt they had rejected in the Protestant decrees the celibacy of the clergy, and they had regarded a wife and a number of children—perhaps to the extent of one-third of the number of those Articles—as a protection to the Protestant faith. But he did not think they had always required that as a guarantee of learning and research. Whether that was so or not, it was too early yet to enter into action against the married Fellows whom they had so recently constituted. They must wait to see the results of those marriages. They need not be in such a hurry on that matter. He was very glad, therefore, that his hon. Friend was not going to insist on the 2nd clause of the Bill, because it would not be a wise or a safe proceeding to have 25 roving gentlemen attacking any College by model schemes which might recommend themselves to the minds of those 25 gentlemen. He was sure the College to which he had the honour to belong would not care about it. The proposal, indeed, would not bear discussion. He agreed, however, with his hon. Friend in his desire to give greater efficiency to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council; and he believed that, to a certain extent, the Representatives of the Universities would not differ from him in that view. Indeed, the Government considered that the institution of a scheme for making the Universities Committee an efficient body for carrying out, from time to time, minor reforms in a University was a very useful thing, and one that ought to be accomplished. There was nothing worse for a University than accumulating an arrear of

    1393
    small abuses that led to the issue of Commissions which very much disturbed University life. He was very glad to hear his hon. Friend recognize that the one thing which the Universities wanted was repose. But that ought not to prevent necessary reform. He knew very well that both Universities had suffered inconvenience and some mischief, for the last five or six years, from everything being hung up in consequence of the University Commission. Nobody knew what was going to happen. That was very injurious to those studious retreats. There arose, from time to time, inconveniences, abuses, and faults; and it would be a very great advantage to have a trustworthy body, such as the University Committee of the Privy Council, to whom those matters might be referred without issuing a Commission to redress those grievances and reform those abuses. He would, therefore, join with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John R. Mowbray) in suggesting to his hon. Friend that, in conjunction with the Universities, he should prepare a scheme—no man, from his knowledge of and interest in the Universities, was better fitted to do it—which would make the Universities Committee of the Privy Council more effectual for the purpose to which he had alluded. That was to say, that it might be a body by which reform might be carried out, not in a violent or aggressive spirit, which ill became the feeling of those learned bodies. From his (Sir William Harcourt's) experience of both Universities, there was not amongst the resident members of the University any indisposition to effect reforms, from time to time, which were calculated to make the Universities of greater utility and advantage to the public. If they had that feeling, and had a body like the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, there ought not to be any great difficulty in framing a measure which would make the Universities Committee a practical body for carrying out that which was desired in the Universities themselves—namely, that they should become in the greatest degree useful to the higher education of the country. If his hon. Friend preferred that view, he would recommend him to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the matter, with a view to the introduction, next year, of a more satisfactory one, which should
    1394
    have the objects in view to which he had ventured to allude.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the debate need not be a protracted one. On behalf of the University of Cambridge, he rose to support what seemed to him the very wise and reasonable proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell), in which he sought to commend the Bill to the House, reminded him very much of one who invited his friends to partake of a haunch of venison at dinner, but who, on discovering that venison was not in season, asked his Friends to be satisfied with the currant jelly instead. The hon. Member wished to offer the currant jelly, and leave the haunch out. Now, this Bill, with the 2nd clause and other clauses knocked out, and the others entirely remodelled and transmuted, might be made a workable Bill; but it would not be a satisfactory or dignified proceeding to legislate after that fashion. People would not like it. They would say it was a patch-up, a make-shift Bill. He thought his hon. Friend would save time by withdrawing his Bill; for what all of them wanted was, indeed, to set things right, if there was anything wrong in the Universities, but, above and before all things, to secure that peace and repose for which those great bodies had been for so many years longing, but which would be vitally affected if there were any attempt to force this Bill through the House. If he withdrew it, then all the parties concerned would be able really to apply their minds to the question. By all means give the Committee of the Privy Council more power to call up evidence if it did not possess sufficient at present; but do not set its members aside altogether, as seemed to be aimed at by the provisions of the Bill, which, if they had any meaning at all, pointed to the creation of an unknown and impossible hybrid, not exactly assessor and not exactly witness.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERShoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would take the advice given him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and postpone the consideration of this measure. At the same time, he thought the principle of the clause objected to was

    1395
    good. Although the Bill of 1877 was a just and good measure, it had been very badly administered; and he could not help thinking there were occasions when 25 members might initiate a very necessary and important reform. He did not think that a movement on the part of 25 responsible persons would be unimportant, or other than of great value to the deliberations of the Committee of the Privy Council. The same remark applied to the experts who might be appointed to advise the Committee of the Privy Council on questions connected with the University. Such advice was contemplated by the Act of 1877. He did not, therefore, think that this motive force of 25 members ought to have been treated, as it had been, with contempt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The principle, he maintained, was sound, rational, proper, and suitable to the circumstances as anything could be. He could not but see that the changes introduced of late year6 would, under the present system, end, as far as Oxford was concerned, in very serious abuses.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought there was very little use in prolonging the debate after the expression of opinion that had fallen from the Treasury Bench. It was very probable that the speech which they had just heard from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would be the only real defence of those parts of the Bill to which objection had been taken, and which were not seriously defended even by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) himself. He (Mr. Raikes) had heard the second reading of a good many Bills moved, but never one before in so apologetic a speech. He agreed with those hon. Members who had urged objection against the constitution of what had been rather unjustly described as a roaming body of critics of the sort proposed by the Bill; but he also believed that the objections to a residentiary body of the kind were almost equally strong. The Bill also contained no provision for giving notice to the University, or to a College, of any Statutes which were to be considered on the initiation of such a body. That was a singular omission in such a Bill. Then, as to the question of assessors, they were so-called, apparently, because they were not to sit with those to whom they were to be assessors.
    1396
    They were to be a sort of Sub-Commissioners, perpetually present in the Universities for the purpose of holding those inquiries. If the Bill of the hon. Member, when it came on, had been confined to Clauses 8 and 9, it would have had his support. He thought it desirable that some such power should be given to the Universities Committee of dealing with the Statutes, and he believed there was a consensus of opinion on the point. However, he thought that with these preposterous clauses at the beginning and the end of the Bill it was impossible to assent to its second reading. If the Bill were passed as it stood all the crotchet-mongers and Gentlemen anxious to tinker the University system and constitution would naturally come together, and there would be a sort of tinkers' association, for the purpose of perpetually receiving the accounts of any grievances which might reach them, and holding over the heads of every College in the University the terror of their probable interposition. He did not think the House was anxious to reform the constitution of the Universities again, merely to create a number of accidental posts for academic travellers or University bagmen. The draftsmanship of the Bill was very faulty; and if it became law it would cause considerable injustice. He hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn, and that, when it was next introduced, it would be in such a form that it could be properly discussed.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that, after the friendly discussion they had had that day, his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would do well if he withdrew the measure under notice, and next year they might have a Bill embodying some of the practical suggestions made in the discussion, and omitting all that was crude in the present Bill. He did not concur in some of the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers"). He (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) believed that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were desirous of doing their duty and applying their funds to the best educational advantage; therefore, he could not say he liked the main part of this Bill. He did not think it desirable to extend the powers of an external body, such as the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. He believed that it was the wish of Parliament, in passing the late Act, to give

    1397
    greater importance to the University than to the Colleges; and, accordingly, there were provisions in that Act enabling the University to investigate the accounts of the Colleges and to modify the College Statutes. He thought that the decision of all questions should he left to a body of recognized authority and not to a casual clique. Such a body they already had in the Council of the University, and that was the body in which any initiative power should be vested. He did not think the Colleges should be left to their own initiative in these matters. The intention of Parliament, as expressed by the Act of 1877, being to give greater power to the Universities as against the Colleges, a reasonable machinery might surely be devised, at some subsequent time, for occasional modifications in matters of detail. He acknowledged the fair manner in which the question had been dealt with by the Members for both Universities, and also by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In his opinion, what the Universities required was a period of rest, in order to see how the present Statutes worked.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he thought the discussion had done more good than harm; and the discussion, on the whole, had been satisfactory, although the spirit in which the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was conceived was one unworthy of the occasion. The hon. Member had stated that the opponents of the Bill had not answered the Bill by argument; but the obvious reply to the charge was that the most important part of the Bill—Clause 2—had been abandoned by its authors. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) certainly thought it very unsafe to entrust such powers to 25 unknown persons. He wished the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, in his admirable speech, added a word of warning to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Roundell). The practice which had lately sprung up, and which was rapidly growing on the House, of the author of a Bill making important alterations in it when it came on for the second reading, so that it became impossible for hon. Members to see what the object of the Bill really was, was most objectionable, and a most un-Parliamentary proceeding. It now frequently happened that, as soon as the
    1398
    discussion of a Bill began, the person who introduced the Bill and was supposed to know most about it withdrew the most important part of it. In no business assembly would such a thing be permitted for a moment; and surely it ought not to be permitted in such an Assembly as the House of Commons. In the present instance, the most important clause of the whole Bill had been summarily abandoned. Being of opinion that the Universities Committee of the Privy Council was not at all satisfactorily constituted, he earnestly trusted that the Government would direct their attention to the matter. Such a subject as that deserved both their serious attention and that of the House. At present it did not contain a single member who need be a member of either University, with the exception—if it was an exception—of the Chancellor. He hoped, before the next Bill was introduced, its proposals would be placed before the Universities. It would be a great advantage to have a Committee composed under the authority of the Government, to which the Universities might give cordial support, and from which, from time to time, valuable and useful suggestions might emanate.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that hon. and right hon. Members for the Universities who opposed the Bill had confined themselves to objections, and had not suggested what reforms they would consent to, though they did not deny that the Universities Committee of the Privy Council was unsatisfactory. It would greatly facilitate the settlement of this question if these Members for the Universities would indicate the line which they thought that a reform of the admitted evils should take. Though his name was on the back of the Bill, he would acknowledge that he disliked Clause 12; and as regarded Clause 2, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Roundell) would have done better had he adhered to his proposal of last year, and left the initiative with the Hebdomadal Council. But the provisions between Clauses 2 and 12 he thought useful and valuable. The Committee of the Privy Council, as now constituted, was very unsuitable for its purpose. It consisted of very distinguished, eminent, and exalted persons, who, from the very eminence they had attained, were not fit to discharge the duties imposed on them. They had taken their

    1399
    degrees 40 or 50 years ago, and were not acquainted with the present state of things in the Universities. Two remedies were possible. The one was the addition of specially qualified assessors to the Committee. The other and better method was the constitution of a permanent body, connected with, but forming a part of, the administrative government, to replace this Committee of the Privy Council. Such a body would contain not only such exalted persons as now formed the Committee, but others less exalted and more experienced in educational matters, who would be able to deal with questions which called for reform; and it could, with great advantage, undertake other functions in connection with other Universities and with the endowed foundations of the country, educational and charitable.
    MR. ROUNDELLsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the Members for the Universities and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the way in which they had met the Bill, and for the valuable suggestions which had fallen from them. He understood that the Motion for the rejection of the Bill would be withdrawn, and in that case he would move that the Order for the Second Beading be discharged.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.

  VIVISECTION ABOLITION BILL.
  (Mr. R. T. Reid, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Firth.)
  VIVISECTION ABOLITION BILL.

    [BILL 46.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. R. T. REID,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving the second reading of a Bill for the Abolition of the Practice of Vivisection; and I must say, at the outset, that I regret it has not been practicable, in the limited number of men in this House, for someone to make the Motion who has a large scientific knowledge—because I believe there are many persons of large scientific knowledge who strongly object to this practice. Inasmuch, however, as it has not been practicable to get any hon. Gentleman of that character, I have been obliged myself to
    1400
    bring the matter forward. There have been many Petitions presented in favour of the Bill. There is a very strong and a very growing feeling in the country that vivisection, involving as it does frightful cruelty to animals, cannot be justified, and ought no longer to be tolerated. This is a small social question; but with regard to it, from one Society alone, in the course of the present year, we have had Petitions signed by 38,000 persons, including many medical men. There are other places in which Petitions have been got up, and other gentlemen who have signed them. So much by way of preface upon matters on which I do not intend to dwell any longer. It will be in the recollection of the House that a Royal Commission sat to consider this subject some years ago, and sat for a considerable time. Prom the proceedings of that Commission, and the evidence elicited by it, it appeared that cruelties of a very sad and most painful character had been perpetrated, and were being perpetrated, especially on the Continent, but also in England. I will not refer to them. I assure the House it is not my intention to endeavour to thrill them with horror; but any hon. Gentleman who will take the trouble to read the proceedings of that Royal Commission, and the evidence taken before it, will find enough to make his blood run cold, at the horrors and cruelties perpetrated on the wretched victims of experiments. Sir, the feeling raised by that Royal Commission was such that it was necessary to bring in a Bill on the subject. Accordingly, a measure was brought in in 1876, and passed; several were introduced, but this was brought in and passed. Under that Bill it became necessary that before these experiments were—I will not use the word "perpetrated," I will say performed—I do not wish to use language that can pain any hon. Gentleman's feelings—before these experiments were performed, the person performing them should have a licence from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was also provided that the Secretary of State might authorize the performance of experiments without anæsthetics; but the scope of the Act was that anæsthetics should be used where practicable. I know that some persons have been in the habit of saying and thinking that this Act of Parliament has

    1401
    had a deleterious effect. I do not agree with that. It is said it has a deleterious effect, because it sanctions this practice, although in a limited form. I do not entertain that opinion at all, and I think that the country, and all who feel sympathy with these wretched animals, owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and to those who assisted him in passing this Bill. It has done much good, and I think it has brought about a state of things infinitely preferable to that which existed before. But, then, none the less, that Act has had an evil effect, which could not have been avoided by its authors, and for which they are in no sense responsible. It has encouraged the public to believe that, by reason of the use of chloroform and other similar anæsthetics, experiments practically are carried out without pain. The idea is prevalent that the horrors which take place abroad, and with which everyone who has studied the question is familiar, do not occur in England. It is not the fact that, in England, the use of anæsthetics is either required by law, or is systematically or invariably applied. I am very sorry that I should be obliged to any extent to refer to the actual experiments that are going on, or that have gone on; but, inasmuch as it is constantly asserted that England is different from other countries, and that these horrible experiments are not performed in England, and as people are in the habit of believing it, I feel it to be my duty to refer to one or two examples—and I will make them very few—for my own sake, as well as for the sake of the House. I will show that these things have been done in England, and done since the passing of the Act of 1876. Allow me to make this observation in the first instance—I do not suggest that these gentlemen who have practised these experiments, and whose names I am going to mention to the House, are cruel men, in the sense that they are doing what they believe to be wrong, nor do I wish to say a word to give pain unnecessarily to them or their friends; but I shall not scruple to say what I think about the things they have done. I will take one instance from certain experiments performed by Professor Rutherford, and reported in
    1402
    The British Medical Journal. I refer to the series of experiments commenced December 14, 1878. These experiments were 31 in number; no doubt, there were hundreds of dogs sacrificed upon other series of experiments; but now I am only referring to one particular set, beginning, as I say, on the 14th of December, 1878. There were, in this set, 31 experiments; but, no doubt, many more than 31 dogs were sacrificed. All were performed on dogs, and the nature of them was this—the dogs were starved for many hours. They were then fastened down; the abdomen was cut open; the bile duct was dissected out and cut; a glass tube was tied into the bile duct, and brought outside the body. The duct leading to the gallbladder was then closed by a clamp, and various drugs was placed into the intestines at its upper part. The result of these experiments was simply nothing at all; I mean it led no increase of knowledge whatever, and no one can be astonished at that, because these wretched beasts were placed in such circumstances—their condition was so abnormal—that the ordinary and universally recognized effect of well-known drugs was not produced. These experiments were performed without anæsthetics; the animals were experimented upon under the influence of a drug called curari.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: In what year was it the hon. and learned Member says?
    MR. R. T. REID: In the year 1878, and I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if I am wrong in any of my facts, I shall be very glad to be corrected, and shall sincerely regret if anything I say should in any way mislead the House. If I am wrong in any statement, I shall be very happy to withdraw it. In the report which appears in The British Medical Journal, there is no record whatever of any anæsthetics having been used except curari. I say, anæsthetics could not be used in these experiments, and in support of that statement I quote from the report in The British Medical Journal relating to another set of the same experiments in which it is set forth—
    "It may be well to state that in these experiments anæsthetics were not administered, because of their disturbing influence on the biliary secretion."

    1403
    All were on the subject of the biliary-secretion. Well, I say, they were made without the use of any anæsthetics except curari. Now curari is a fearful drug, of a character which I will describe to the House not in my own language, but in the language of the Report of the Royal Commission, and in the language of eminent practitioners themselves. The Report of the Royal Commission says—
    "This poison is very convenient to an operator, since it paralyzes the motor nerves and keeps the animal quiet. It has, however, been positively stated by, perhaps, the highest authority on such a subject, Claud Bernard, to have no effect in producing insensibility to pain. This opinion is now beginning to be disputed; but we think that until the question shall be much better settled than at present, this poison ought not to be regarded as an anæsthetic by those who administer the law in respect of experiments on animals."
    I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that it ought not to be so regarded.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes; that is my opinion, and the Act of 1876 so requires.
    MR. R. T. REID: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement. The Act of Parliament, which interprets our view of the law in the matter, says it shall not be regarded as an anesthetic. Well, Claud Bernard says, speaking of death under curari—
    "If, in fact, we pursue the essential part of our subject by means of experiments into the organic analysis of vital extinction, we discover that this death, which appears to steal on in so gentle a manner, and so exempt from pain, is, on the contrary, accompanied by the most atrocious sufferings that the imagination of man can conceive. In this motionless body, behind that glazing eye, and with all the appearance of death, sensitiveness and intelligence persist in their entirety. The corpse before us hears and distinguishes all that is done around it. It suffers when pinched or irritated; in a word, it has still consciousness and volition; but it has lost the instruments which servo to manifest them."
    The experiments I have referred to, made by Professor Rutherford, were carried out without anæsthetics and with the use only of this terrible drug. Let me refer to another matter. I have told the House I desire to shorten the subject as much as possible, and I will keep my word. Let me refer to what has been done by Dr. Roy in 1880, partly in the physiological laboratory at Cambridge, and partly in the Leipsic In-
    1404
    stitute, the experiments being carried out on rabbits, cats, and dogs. The animal was placed under curari, artificial respiration was used—that is to say, a tube was pushed down the animal's windpipe, and worked by an engine in regular puffs, in order to keep the blood oxygenated. Then the back, skull, chest, and abdomen were opened. I do not suppose these were always opened in one animal, as, in many cases, the animal would have died. No doubt, sometimes part of the experiment took place on one, and sometimes on another. The various organs were dissected out. The principal nerves, such as the sciatic nerve and so on, were tied in two places, and cut. This lasted for many hours. It is stated the animal was under the influence of anæsthetics; but the use of curari is admitted. In the most scientific opinion, when curari is used, it neutralizes the use of the anæsthetic. I feel myself at a great disadvantage in treating of these matters, as compared with the Gentlemen beside me; but, if I am making a mistake, I trust I may be corrected. In this instance, however, I believe I am right. Curari creates paralysis, it paralyzes the muscles, and prevents the animal resisting or showing the symptoms by which alone the existence of anæsthesia can be tested. Let me just refer, lastly, to some other experiments of a most terrible character. It is said that the use of anæsthetics is the means of preventing these kind of operations from causing pain. It must be borne in mind, constantly, that there are many kinds of operations. Some of them are of such a character that they last for days and weeks, and even months. Although, in the first instance, an animal may be under the influence of anæsthetics, you cannot keep up a protracted comatose condition for days or weeks, or months; and, therefore, it is perfectly idle to suggest that the horror of the operations is at all diminished. As I have made up my mind to deal with the cases out of the mouths of those who have operated themselves, I now refer to the Croonian Lecture, dealing with experiments on the brain of monkeys, by David Perrier, Professor of Forensic Medicine, at King's College. These were performed before the Act was passed in 1876. The object with which I make these quotations is to show that, in scientific inquiries of this character,

    1405
    from the very nature of the experiments, you cannot rely on anesthetics giving relief. [An hon. Member: What is the date?] The date in which they were performed is immaterial; but they were performed, I think, in 1875, and they were all embodied in the lecture which I hold in my hand. The document contains the minutest details of the experiments, together with diagrams of the brains operated upon. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: 1875. Before the passing of the Act?] Yes; my purpose, in quoting these experiments, is not to criticize the actual working of the Act, but to show that there are many kinds of experiments which, even under the influence of anæsthetics, cannot be performed without fearful pain to the animal. In these experiments, a hole was made in the top of the head of a monkey. The operation was performed under chloroform; but, the hole having been made, hot wires were put down the hole, and these hot wires were worked about in the brain, so as to destroy this or that portion of the brain as might be desired. There are several ways of destroying the brain. Sometimes they cut away a slice of the brain with a knife. Sometimes an ingenious Professor uses a squirt to throw water in the brain and wash it away. This gentleman selected hot wires. He said—
    "By means of hot wires the temporospheroidal lobe was divided transversely in this region."
    I will not read further on that point; but the Professor goes on to say—
    "The operation was completed at 4.0 p.m; and at 4.30 p.m. the animal has recovered from its chloroform stupor and moves about rather unsteadily. It evidently retained its sight, as it directed its course to the fireplace, where it sat down to warm itself; 5.0 p.m., drank a dish of tea offered to it. It sits still, with its head bent on the floor, and seems disinclined to move. It has no muscular paralysis, and can hold on by both feet and hands. Sits, however, very unsteadily when perched on the back of a chair. Gives no sign of hearing when called to as it used."
    There are many kinds of results that ensued, and they are carefully reported here; at one time, deafness ensues; at another, blindness, or this or that portion of the body is paralyzed. There is another interesting paragraph, which will show the kind of way in which these animals are treated after being operated on.
    1406
    "There is distinct re-action with the application of a hot iron to any part of its body, though there seems somewhat less re-action on the right side as compared with the left."
    At 8 p.m. the next day it was reported that—
    "On being tested with a red-hot iron, there was the entire absence of re-action on the right, The left side seems to re-act somewhat less than before. The animal was struggling when acetic acid was placed in its nostrils; it moved all four limbs; but it fell repeatedly while trying to get rid of the irritation."
    This animal, having had its brain destroyed by red-hot irons and been subjected to other horrible torture, actually moved its four limbs! I will not trouble the House by any further reference to this experiment. The next experiment to which I will refer to is No. 19. The brain was destroyed by a stilette with expanding wings being passed through the canula or tube thrust down through the hole made in the skull. The operation was completed at 5.30 p.m., and at 5.50 p.m. it was reported—
    "The animal looks quite active and intelligent. Can move about pretty freely, but seems weak in the left side. Does not use the right in taking hold of anything presented to it. A hot iron applied to the left hand caused the animal to wince and rub the part touched."
    A hot iron was applied in this case, and amongst other experiments—
    "The animal was placed on the floor and surrounded by a circle of battery jars. It turned round and round, knocking its head against them, and apparently unable to find its way out between them."
    Next we find that a "lively and active monkey, but of rather a timid disposition, and unwilling to be handled," was operated upon. It was operated upon March 18th; but by the 10th of April, after receiving nourishing food, "it had, however, entirely recovered from the effects of the operation," and the economic Professor used it for another experiment, notwithstanding the horrible torture it had previously undergone. I must say that I think this poor brute had, by its previous sufferings, deserved death. I do not wish to say anything more with reference to these matters. I am glad to have done with the illustrations of these horrible operations. They have been performed by gentlemen who believe they were doing their duty. In my humble opinion, it is a painful fact that men, intelligent and high-minded, and men of real feeling, should be so

    1407
    enslaved by the customs and habits of a mistaken science, as to perform these experiments, which, in calm moments, must be revolting to them. I think that anæsthetics are no protection where animals are kept in suffering for weeks; and I ask, what security have we, when there is no public inspection over the operation as it is performed—what security have we that these anæsthetics are actually applied, and that their application is properly maintained? The House can have but one desire, and it is to prevent unnecessary cruelty; but what security is there that in the excitement of the operation the anæsthetics are carefully applied? I have seen it asked in papers, and I have been asked by medical men—"How is it you attack us, when you do not attack sport?" They know that sport is very popular in the country and in the House, and endeavour to divert the attention of the public from these spectacles by attempting to compare them to sport. I am not a sportsman; I have given up sport for some time, for reasons with which I do not desire to trouble the House; but I contend it is a libel to compare sport to the kind of operations I am bringing under notice. When the sportsman takes away the life of an animal, he does it, or endeavours to do it, in the most expeditious and most ready way that comes to his hand. I do not say all do it so. At all events, what they all do is to give the animal a chance; they do not tie it down, and operate upon it in the manner I have shown. But, whether sport is right or wrong, I entirely decline to be drawn away from the just consideration of this subject by any analogy of this sort. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the reason why I am attacking this practice is this—that it is the practice of gentlemen standing high before the country—the higher the men, the sooner they ought to be attacked when a wrong thing is done. They are men of education, who can measure the exact degree of torture or pain to which they subject the animal. How can we justly punish the poor who ill-treat animals, if we are afraid to attack worse cruelties on the part of men of high position? The only possible justification from any point of view that can be advanced for this practice is that it is necessary for the benefit of science. That is the plea which is ad-
    1408
    vanced by the gentlemen who perform the operations, by gentlemen who say they are as anxious as I am to see good done to the cause of animals. They say vivisection is necessary in the interest of science; but let me remind the House of the value of this miserable contention. Formerly, it was considered that the manner in which science could really be advanced was by studying recorded experiences; but no sooner were these iniquities of vivisection exposed and denounced, than, all of a sudden, we heard the merits of vivisection as a scientific method extolled beyond all belief. I suppose it is only natural that, whenever any body or class of men think they are attacked, they should close their ranks and defend all their doings. Certainly, in this instance, many eminent medical men have treated us as if they were resenting a personal imputation, rather than calmly maintaining a scientific truth. I should be sorry to have it thought that the measure was intended as an attack upon the Medical Profession. It is not intended as an attack upon the Profession, and I shall refrain from saying anything that can be even twisted into a reflection upon that eminent body of men; but when I find that the authority of Medical Congresses and medical practitioners are paraded as conclusive against this measure, I must take the liberty of stating why I do not attach any undue importance to their views. It is the necessity of medical men that they should be familiar with scenes of pain. I suppose it would be impossible that they could properly discharge their duties without first acquiring some degree of insensibility. Now, I do not believe that men who are long and often accustomed to witness human suffering, and whose privilege and duty it is to seek for any means of alleviating it, are the proper judges of a morality which seeks to limit their field of search. They are impelled by humanity to find a remedy for human maladies; ambition lends an additional incentive, while habit deadens that tenderness towards suffering which is implanted in our breasts as the best safeguard against cruelty. And it is possible, too, that they have been assailed with acrimony, perhaps with un-wisdom, by those whose strong and deep indignation has escaped control. The result has been most unfortunate, for severity, on the one side, has produced

    1409
    undisguised resentment on the other, and has enlisted on the side of their professional brethren many who, in calmer moments, would have judged otherwise, though at all times loth to condemn a practice in which they may have themselves taken part. That is the way in which I account for the extraordinary crop of exaggerations we hear on the subject of the benefits derived from vivisection. Now, Sir, by no means all medical men are in favour of this practice, or believe in its utility. I will quote the opinions of two or three eminent men of science, to show that, in their judgment, no advantage whatever has accrued by this practice at any time. The first and the most conspicuous is Sir William Fergusson, who is well known as a gentleman of the highest scientific position. He is dead now; but he did hold the highest scientific position, and I am satisfied we shall not hear anything against the weight or authority of his opinion. I will not trouble the House with all he says on the point; but, amongst other things, he says—
    "I have reason to believe that sufferings incidental to such operations are protracted in a very shocking manner.…Mr. Syme lived to express an abhorrence of such operations."
    Hon. Members round me know who Mr. Syme was. He was a gentleman in the highest position in Edinburgh, and one of the foremost opponents of this practice. Sir William Fergusson proceeded—
    "His (Mr. Syme's) ultimate authority was strongly against them.…I do not go in with that view, which is very prevalent, that these experiments may now be permitted, because we have got anæsthesia to prevent the pain. You cannot make a perfect experiment on the animal until it is in its normal condition.…I am not aware of any of these experiments on the lower animals having led to the mitigation of pain, or to improvement as regards surgical details.…I have thought it over and over again, and I have not been able to come to a conclusion in my own mind that there is any single operation in surgery which had been initiated by something like it on the lower animals."
    Mr. Taylor is a gentleman of high authority, and he speaks strongly on this subject. He speaks, indeed, more strongly than Sir William Fergusson; but I need not trouble the House by reading his words. Sir Charles Bell, another great authority, in his work on the nervous system, says—
    "For my own part, I cannot believe that Providence should intend that the secrets of nature
    1410
    are to he discovered by means of cruelty. And I am sure that those who are guilty of protracted cruelties do not possess minds capable of appreciating the laws of nature. Anatomy is already looked upon with prejudice by the thoughtless and ignorant. Let not its professors unnecessarily fear the censures of the humane. Experiments have never been the means of discovery, and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural notions."
    I have other opinions here; but I will not engage the House by reading them. I do not in the least seek to ignore the existence of authority on the other side, nor do I seek to ignore the weight of that authority. I deeply grieve at the weight of that authority. If I had chosen to trouble the House, or if I thought that the House would take upon itself to decide between conflicting scientific opinion, I could have produced many other authorities of weight against the practice. Let us just see what this business is. For 2,000 years the presence of vivisection has more or less prevailed; and at the end of 2,000 years we find this situation—that men like Sir William Fergusson, Sir Charles Bell, Mr. Syme, and another, whom I ought to have referred to, Mr. Lawson Tait, a most eminent practitioner of the present day, are of opinion that no advantage has accrued to science, but that positive evil has been produced by it. I contend that before this House sanctions a practice so fearful as that which I have illustrated, it is, at least, necessary that it should be shown to be absolutely essential to human beings. Will any unbiassed man say, in the face of these opinions, that that affirmative has been made out? The period of probation is long enough—20 centuries—probably many millions of animals have been sacrificed—there is not a part of their body, there is not a nerve, muscle, or bone that has not been experimented upon. Is it possible that if, by these ghastly records, knowledge has really been advanced, there should still be room for controversy? If vivisection has really been of use, is it possible that men like Fergusson and Syme, Bell and Lawson Tait, should be so hardy as to deny the result? I must briefly advert to another argument. It is said that, under the provisions of the present Act, we have a guarantee that no unnecessary pain

    1411
    will be inflicted; and I have been referred to the Returns made under the Act by the Inspector, Mr. Busk, as proving that there is, in fact, no cruelty in England at present. Have we reason to be satisfied that that is so? The Returns before the House are compiled by Mr. Busk; and that gentleman certifies that, in his opinion, no appreciable amount of pain has been inflicted. Let me explain how these Returns are got up. A gentleman gets a licence to perform operations. He performs them in secret, or, if in the presence of others, in the presence of persons who hold no position of authority. The accounts of the operations are forwarded to Mr. Busk; and he, in his Return to Parliament, gives no clue to the operations, but simply records his opinion as to their nature, and gives a list of the licencees. Now, in the case of any other things that we might licence under exceptional circumstances, would it be reasonable to make the licencees the judges as to how they used their power? And is it reasonable, in this matter, to make the person who has to perform the operation the judge as to how far the operation he performs is painful? Mr. Busk is a gentleman of honour; but he is a great partizan against the agitation in which I take a humble part. Therefore, I say upon that, we have not got an accurate means of ascertaining what is being done, what the nature of the experiments is. But really this is immaterial to my contention. The law at present existing allows licences to be given for performing these experiments. It is that law I am endeavouring to alter. The law allows painful experiments without anæsthetics; and when I complain of that law, it is no answer to my complaint to tell me that, in fact, no pain is now inflicted. It may be inflicted, and that is enough for me. I do not desire to put before the House a balance of scientific testimony. There is another and different ground on which I proceed. If all the Medical Profession were to say, in one voice, that this practice were beneficial to human nature, I am bound to say I would not follow them. I believe, and many others believe, that the torture of dumb animals is not justifiable, come of it what may; that it is opposed to the mild spirit of religion, and to the unperverted instincts of our common nature. I should like to
    1412
    say what the tendency and effect of this practice is. We all know there have been different Statutes passed for the purpose of relieving animals from suffering. We have passed Statutes protecting them; and everybody was hoping that we should, by degrees, have got a better state of things as regards the treatment of animals, when we were suddenly awakened to find that a new school of physiology had arisen. The old doctor, as I said before, relied upon other methods; but now chemistry and other branches of science are making advances. Accordingly, advances were sought in the field of experimental physiology. Professor Humphrey, in August, 1881, said—
    "What we may call dead structure is pretty much worked out; it is living processes that need to be investigated."
    Hon. Members will understand the significance of these words. The Lancet says—
    "Vivisection has been practised in all ages, and in all countries, more or less extensively. It is the analytical method applied to the study of organic life, just as the demolition of the earth's crust by the geologist's hammer is the analytical method applied to inorganic nature. The fact that the living animal feels is an unfortunate contingency; but it cannot qualify the major consideration."
    What does that mean? It means that we are only at the beginning of this system; it means that every poison has to be tried on every kind of animal, and that, whenever any theory is propounded by any sciolist, that theory has to be tested by torture. I know there are some hon. Gentlemen—I suppose the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) for one—will call us sentimentalists, possibly sickly sentimentalists. I do not think men of sense and firmness need trouble themselves about accusations of that kind. This is an old weapon, which has been brought down from the shelf on any occasion on which any reform has been advocated by an appeal to the better feelings of our nature. It was used when it was sought to amend the Penal Laws, when the agitation was carried on against the Slave Trade; and I have no doubt that it has been often used against Lord Shaftesbury, while, in the course of his long and philanthropic career, endeavouring to promote measures for the improvement of the condition of the

    1413
    people. And this is essentially a matter on which an appeal ought to be made to our better feelings. These animals are entirely at our mercy. They are dumb and powerless to resist; there is no kind of brutality that we cannot, at our pleasure, inflict upon them. I say that the whole current of human traditions and customs is opposed to the practice of vivisection. Men will not be cruel if you leave them to themselves. It is only when you appeal to their selfish fear of disease or death that you will induce them to condone what they really condemn, in the false hope that they may escape pain themselves by inflicting it upon unoffending animals. I do not know in what sense the House may regard this measure; but I am glad to learn that the younger men and students in hospitals are generally acquiring an aversion to vivisection. I can only say that, although it is hopeless to endeavour to alter the opinion of the older practitioners, whom inveterate custom has blunted past redemption, I hope that when these young men come to inherit the authority and position of their predecessors they will make a nobler use of their power. But what I chiefly rely on is the steady growth of public opinion in regard to this matter, which I am sure will no sooner appreciate what is sought to be done in the name of science, than we shall see the last of this most odious and most useless form of cruelty. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
    Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL and Mr. CARTWRIGHTrose together.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon the last-named Gentleman.
    MR. CARTWRIGHT,in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said: Sir, although I rise to differ from the views just laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. R. T. Reid), I beg to say, at the outset, that no one can take exception to the temper, and tone, and straightforward manner in which he has brought the subject forward. Making every allowance for what the hon. and learned Member has said, I still remain of opinion, and I hope the House will remain of opinion, that the
    1414
    case which he has submitted for the judgment of the House is not warranted by evidence and not supported by facts. Sir, the facts in reference to this question have been most singularly obscured by the reckless and random statements indulged in by the inveighers against physiological experiment, many of which the hon. and learned Member has invoked. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not wish to cast a slur upon the Medical Profession; but he threw out the insinuation that they were men who were so accustomed to see pain and suffering as to be indifferent to theirs, and that, therefore, they ought not to be regarded as judges as to the cruelty of experiments on living animals. When we are constantly hearing statements of that kind—statements put forward with high authority—I am bound to say we cannot altogether disassociate this agitation from an attack upon the Profession. The Bill, I must say, appears to me to be an inconsistent and illogical one. It prohibits all operations for scientific, physiological, or medical purposes; and those who denounce vivisection from a high moral standpoint say that, if all the scientific men united to proclaim the necessity and importance of such practices, they would still agitate against them. The promoters of this measure are guilty of inconsistency, because they say nothing against other practices perpetrated wholesale which are quite as cruel and quite as painful, and which are done for the gratification of the palate, or the pecuniary benefit of those who trade in agriculture. The Bill proclaims, nevertheless, and asks the House of Commons and Parliament to proclaim, that, though done for the purpose of relieving intense human pain and promoting research, and performed under all known appliances for lightening the sufferings of the animals under the operations, all experiments on living animals are to be under a ban and absolutely prohibited, though the number of such operations is infinitesimal, while those done for gratification of the palate are to be counted by millions. It seems to me, if the moral argument is to be received, and is to be good for anything, the moral argument in regard to these particular practices should extend further than it is pushed in this Bill. I observe there is a clause in it—Clause 8, I think—in which a whole class of ani-

    1415
    mals are excluded from the benefit of the prohibition in the 2nd clause. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to explain the grounds upon which he proposes to introduce this class of exemption. It can only be because the invertebrate animals are proved to be, in his opinion, and in the opinion of those who act with him, animals of an inferior sensitiveness; but I will ask the hon. and learned Member, under whose authority and testimony he knows this to be so? He can only know it under the authority of physiologists; and if the hon. and learned Member considered the testimony of physiologists credible in regard to excluding a whole class of animals from the advantage of his proposed legislation, the testimony of physiologists should also be believed in regard to other matters connected with vivisection on which they have spoken with confidence. Throughout the speech of the hon. and learned Member, not only was there no attention paid to the testimony of physiologists, when it was given in support of the practices of vivisection, but when it came into conflict with his sentiments it was immediately put out of Court and pronounced worthless. But to proceed to the subject-matter before the House. I will not discuss it from a scientific point of view. I am not a man of science; but I venture to make an appeal to the common sense of the House and the country, against the passionate and fanatical statements of persons who style themselves philanthropists, against a practice for which so much is to be said. The hon. and learned Member, and those who agree with him, make statements with which it is not quite easy to grapple. They bring together facts from divers sources, and relating to divers periods—they present an array of random statements and passionate allegations which are singularly bewildering, and are very difficult to sift. It is well, I think, to take as a standpoint what has been proved by evidence in this country, and what is permitted under the law as it exists. The habit of going to foreign countries and drawing upon the records of foreign practices is not one calculated to illustrate the truth in regard to what alone concerns us—namely, English practice. It seems to me to be misleading, and not to the point. In the remarks I have to offer to the House against
    1416
    the Bill, it will be my duty to confine myself strictly to that which applies to this country—to what has been practised in this country—under the existing limitations. The hon. and learned Member has thrown out, in the course of his speech, that the Statute passed in 1876 is not kept in the letter, still less in the spirit; but I will give my reasons for thinking why the hon. and learned Member has not made out his case, and I will support these reasons by what I consider irrefutable official evidence. The hon. and learned Member began by drawing a frightful picture of the horrible things which have been practised by physiologists in this country, and he went back to a period prior to the existing Act; but I think he failed wholly to prove his case. There is one thing I should like the House to bear in mind; and it is, that, when vivisection was unrestrained by any legislation, the British Medical Association, in 1871, passed a number of resolutions concerning it; and specifically enjoined that it was desirable, and not only desirable, but incumbent, that anæsthetics should be applied in all operations where they possibly could be applied. The hon. and learned Member has dilated upon what he calls horrible practices which had prevailed before 1876. Well, before the Act was passed, a Royal Commission sat, some of the evidence taken before which has been quoted by the hon. and learned Member. Amongst that evidence not quoted by him was that of an eminent gentleman, who certainly had no sympathy with vivisection; and he—Mr. Colam, Secretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—said he knew of no case in which wanton cruelty had been performed in this country by an English experimenter. The Royal Commission made a Report, and subsequently the Bill was brought in. That measure went beyond the spirit, and intention, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but it has been loyally accepted, and strictly observed by the practitioners of this country. Reference has been made to experiments carried out by Dr. Ferrier, and it has been insinuated that the legislation of 1876 was evaded by him. The hon. and learned Member should have said something about the attempted prosecution of Dr. Ferrier for having evaded the Act. He does not do that—

    1417
    he has wisely given the go-by to it, for that prosecution lamentably failed altogether, and ignominiously broke down. The charge brought against Dr. Ferrier was, that he operated without a licence, and infringed the law, by doing those things to which the hon. and learned Member referred; but the charge was not supported by one tittle of evidence, and had to be abandoned. Now, I wish to say a few words with regard to the legislation of l876, because, after the statements of the hon. and learned Member, it may really be supposed that great liberty and latitude is allowed to experimenters. The Act of 1876, under which all experiments are regulated, is one which falls into two parts—the first being general regulations; and the second containing administrative provisions for the enforcement of the Act. The part which has relation to the general regulation of experiments and of restriction is of the following nature:—In the first place, by one clause—the 2nd clause—no person is allowed to perform any experiment calculated to give pain, unless subject to the stringent restrictions enjoined in the 3rd clause. These restrictions are such that they require the experiments to be performed with a view to the advancement of some new discovery in physiological knowledge, or with a view to the prolongation of life, or the alleviation of suffering. It is provided that experiments can only be carried out by persons possessed of licences, and that the animals operated upon shall, during the whole of the experiments, be under the influence of anæsthetics. Beyond that, it is provided that no exception can be made to this regulation, except in cases where specific certificates are granted, which have to be endorsed by certain scheduled persons of standing in the scientific world; and they are, furthermore, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Moreover, after obtaining the licence or certificate, persons in the possession of such licences or certificates are strictly limited with regard to the kind of animals that are to be operated upon. No cat, dog, horse, ass, or mule can be operated upon without a specific certificate for the purpose, and then only on the approval of the Secretary of State, after considering the testimony of two scientific and professional endorsers of the certificate, to the
    1418
    effect that it is necessary that the experiments shall be performed on that class of animal. But, stringent as these provisions are, they are made more stringent by the method in which the Act has been administered. The Act gives the Secretary of State virtually an unlimited power, either to grant, or to refuse, the licence, or to attach to it conditions which he may consider necessary. Moreover, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, enjoin that the experiments which are made under the certificate shall be carried out in a registered and public place. I believe—and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved the second reading of this Bill has not contradicted the assertion—that all the facultative provisions of this Act have practically been made obligatory by the Secretary of State, who has acted as a vigilant reviewing judge throughout of all applications for licences, though backed by the highest scientific authorities. I will point out to those who are inveighing against the Act, and those also who are contending that the operations it was framed to prevent are clandestinely carried out, and that the law is being evaded, that the provisions of the measure are construed by the Secretary of State in a far more stringent spirit than they were conceived. I know that the demands for licences and for certificates signed by the highest authorities in this country have been refused by the Secretary of State, because he thought the experiments it was intended to carry out were not sufficiently interesting or necessary for the advancement of science; and when I find that there are such stringent provisions in the Act, such great limitations, and that no cases of infringement of the law have been made out by those who are in favour of this Bill, and are such vigilant observers of what is going on, I am bound to say I consider the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman has broken down. Some better reason than that which has yet been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member or his Friends should be given, before they ask that the settlement of 1876, which has been loyally acquiesced in by the Medical Profession, should be disturbed. I hope I have made clear the position in which experimenters in this branch of medical science are placed by existing legislation, hampered and fet-

    1419
    tered by the provisions of the Act of 1876, and still more so by the manner in which that Act is administered. The hon. and learned Member merely glanced at the question of whether the results of experiments made on living animals have been important and really conducive to the material advancement of medical science. The hon. and learned Member says he would not quote the opinions of the Medical Association. Well, as to that, I must say I do not think opinions of this kind should be made light of. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member whether he would make light of the opinions of legal gentlemen in connection with a professional question, and refer only to the views of those who do not belong to the Profession? For my own part, I think the greatest weight should be attached to the deliberate expression of opinion of those serious professional men who, having devoted themselves to the earnest pursuit of medical science, have given a deliberate opinion with regard to the special matters they have studied. The first opinion of really great importance seems to me to be the one which was expressed at the Medical Congress, which met in London in 1881. That Congress was one which, I believe, in regard to its numbers and the character of its constitution, was the greatest assembly of the kind which ever met in Europe. It was attended by 3,000 medical men, 2,000 of whom were English. These gentlemen met, and amongst the other subjects they discussed was the question of the discoveries resulting from experiments on living animals. They passed a resolution, giving their opinion of the importance of the results of these experiments. The words in which they did so were these. They—
    "Recorded their conviction that experiments on living animals had proved of the utmost service to the science of medicine in the past, and were indispensable to all future progress."
    Now, that resolution was put on record in this great assembly of 3,000 distinguished medical men without one dissentient voice; and, subsequently to that, the British Medical Association—the most representative Medical Body, not of England, nor of Scotland, nor of Ireland alone, but of the whole United Kingdom, at its meeting in the Isle of Wight—passed a somewhat similar revolution with only one dissentient voice.
    1420
    Well, I have explained what the provisions of the Act regulating this matter are, and the manner in which they have been carried out; and I would now just like to touch upon the experiments which have been performed since the passing of the Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that these practices have been characterized by an enormous amount of cruelty—that they have been such as are calculated to excite horror and indignation in all human beings. He could not say that they were very numerous, though his words might leave that impression. I will give some statistics in this matter; and I will say this—that if the figures I give are incorrect, great blame lies with the hon. and learned Member and his Friends for not having brought out the fact before this. With all their agitation, and all their Petitions, and with all their argumentation, they have entirely refrained, except in one case—that of Professor Ferrier—from bringing cases before the public, by prosecuting experimenters for evasions of the Act, and in that one case they signally failed. What is the enormous amount of cruel practices? I have gone to the trouble to put down the number of licences which have been granted every year since the passing of the Act. I find that the highest number that ever were granted in any one year was 32 in the year 1879 to 1880. The number of licences for the first year were 23; for the second, 28; for the third, 32; for the fourth, 30; for the fifth, 26; and for the last, 28. The number of licences for operations without anæsthetics were, in the first year, one; in the second, four; in the third and fourth, seven; and in the last two, only three. Now, anyone who can do a reasonably simple sum in addition will be able to find out, from those figures, the number of people who have been allowed to perform operations without anæsthetics. In the case of those animals, to experiment upon which a specific licence is necessary, the number of licences issued was, in the first year, none; the second, four; the third, six; the fourth and fifth, none; and last year only one. I do not know whether anyone who speaks hereafter will be able to inveigh against the authenticity of these Returns. So long as they remain undisproved, I think I am justified—and I think, in this, public

    1421
    opinion will back me up—in referring to these Returns as authentic, and in offering them against the passionate, fanatical, and unreasonable statements of the opponents of vivisection. There are many fallacious opinions held, and many fallacious statements made, by the friends of this Bill; and great capital was made by the hon. and learned Member out of certain experiments made by Professor Rutherford with dogs. I should like to meet him in regard to this allegation. He spoke of countless dogs having been used. [Mr. R. T. REID: I said hundreds.] Well, hundreds. If he had looked carefully at the evidence of the Royal Commission, he would have found testimony there which would have weakened his faith as to the truth of the allegations he has lent himself to disseminate. Professor Rutherford did practise on dogs, in connection with a matter as to which medical men in the highest walks of the Profession consider there should be the greatest research. He made experiments for a number of years. He made experiments before the Royal Commission sat, and when it sat he gave evidence in respect of these experiments. He told the Commission frankly that in one year—in the year 1874—he had experimented upon40 animals. That was not what he did every year; and when he published his statement in regard to the experiments he had made that ranged over a whole series of years, he referred them to the cumulative experiments. The way in which the hon. and learned Member and his Friends have dealt with this subject is an illustration of the uncritical mode and manner—I might almost say a dexterous want of criticism—which the advocates of this Bill put forward in many of their speeches and publications. When Professor Rutherford was asked if this 40 dogs had been the largest number he had ever used, he said—
    "The whole five years I was in London I did not use more than 10 dogs in this matter. Forty dogs was quite an exceptional thing."
    But Professor Rutherford continued his experiments after the passing of the Act of 1876. Dr. Rutherford is a man of high honour, and he has stated that, so far from having practised upon 40 dogs, or anything like it, the whole of his experiments have been confined to 12 dogs in one year. This was necessarily the case, because he was restricted by his
    1422
    licence, and he abided by his licence strictly and loyally. But has any substantial good resulted from these particular experiments? It is the opinion of professional men, and those who are the most eminent men of the Profession, that the amount of benefit to the whole human race acquired through knowledge of alleviation of suffering in one of the most painful of human ailments from these experiments of Dr. Rutherford is incalculable; and it is a noteworthy fact that so perfectly were these experiments made, that there has been no call in any laboratory of the world to test them by repetition. I should just like to say one thing more. An appeal has been made to us to prevent the sacrifice of so many animals for the relief and alleviation of human pain. The hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely kept out of view the fact that a number of these experiments have been made for the alleviation of pain among animals. Twenty-nine experiments were made in one year with reference to the nature and treatment of that most serious disease splenic fever; and yet the hon. and learned Member has harked on the allegation that these experiments are made solely for the benefit of man. The hon. and learned Member referred to some scientific evidence in support of his case, quoting the opinions of Mr. Lawson Tait and Sir William Fergusson. But, although Sir William Fergusson gave expression to an opinion not in favour of these experiments, at the same time, before the Royal Commission, he intimated that he did not think these experiments ought to be restrained by legislation. He would, therefore, not have supported a Bill like this, which does not go to limit certain experiments, but really prohibits their practice entirely. I think, after what has been said in question of any serious addition to our knowledge which has been derived from these experiments, a few words as to what has really been accomplished through them, and as to the manner in which the present Act has worked, may not be out of place. I believe that no one in this House who has any knowledge of the subject will deny that the three most important additions to the Pharmacopœia—namely, pepsine, chloral, and amyl—in the last 25 years have been due to experiments of this kind. But I would draw attention to the fact

    1423
    how the present Act, which it is affirmed is not severe enough, has, for some time, operated, and may continue to operate, dangerously in restraint of medical discovery. I will take the case of that most eminent man, Professor Lister. It is in the knowledge of everyone that that gentleman's discoveries have really revolutionized surgical science; and, in the opinion of those who are best acquainted with the subject, he has reduced the mortality of man by 7 or 8 per cent. The initial step in these discoveries was one which could not have been taken by him if the Bill of 1876 had been in force at the time. While on a vacation tour an idea occurred to him, and he at once tested it on an animal, and out of that grew a great and beneficial discovery—the discovery of the antiseptic treatment. If he had been unable to make this test, the initial step would not have been taken; and who can say that when back at practice he would have had the time to make the experiment? Now, had the Act of 1876 been in force, Professor Lister could not have tested his idea off-hand, for he would have had to obtain a special licence in order to practise on the particular animal requisite. It may be said that this statement of mine is a little fanciful and overstrained. But look at what has happened to Professor Lister, not as an unknown man, but with all his reputation for acquired knowledge of science. Being in London, and being desirous of prosecuting further the discovery with which he had already made so much progress, in consequence of the provisions of the present Act he has been obliged to go abroad to prosecute his investigations, because he could not make in his own house the needful observations; but by the construction put upon the Act it was incumbent on him to operate in a public laboratory, which was quite unsuitable to his purpose. Thus, a man of such European and universal reputation has been obliged, in consequence of the provision of the Act which makes it impossible to operate except in a public place and under close conditions, to go abroad, in order to perform an operation which will probably be for the immense further benefit of the human race. There is another case which I will quote. It is brought repeatedly within the knowledge of everyone that poisons—and especially organic poisons—are very dangerous
    1424
    things to deal with. Nevertheless, it is the case that an eminent practitioner, who was desirous of testing a new poison from Africa, was refused a certificate for testing its nature on an animal. Those who have been in India know the vast number of deaths that take place annually in that Empire from snake-poisoning. The Government of India have long been giving grants for the promotion of experiments with the view of providing an antidote for the poison of snakes. In this country there is a most eminent man, Dr. Brunton, who has devoted himself greatly to this branch of medical science; but such are the difficulties of carrying on his operations in England, that he has been on the point of going to America, in order to continue the prosecution of his researches. His investigations have been hindered in one instance, because, having obtained some of the poisonous snakes, during the prolonged delay in granting a certificate, they died; and I do not know whether he succeeded in getting others to replace them. But there is a case which brings the matter nearer home. I refer to a great trial which took place not long ago. In the Bill of 1876, it is enacted that, for judicial purposes, it shall be within the power of a Judge, when he thinks it necessary for the conviction of crime, to give a certificate for experiments on animals. Well, we all remember the great trial for poisoning known as the Lamson case, which took place about 18 months ago. The clinching evidence for that man's conviction was only obtained through an experiment upon a living animal. Eighteen days, however, elapsed before the individual who had to test the poison could obtain his certificate; and, during that time, there was imminent peril of the implicating matter being decomposed. When such a long delay has taken place in a case of that kind, how many cases of poisoning may not escape detection? I myself have received a letter written by a great practitioner—a man whose name I have no authority to disclose; but which, if I could mention it, would carry weight with the House and with the country—and he says that, in a case in which there was every reason to believe that poison was being employed to destroy a human life, it was impossible for him to apply the indispensable test of experiment on an animal, because he could

    1425
    not obtain a certificate; and the patient died, without inquest or inquiry, to the probable advantage of a great and unconvicted criminal. Is not that a proof that there is ground, at least, for not going beyond the present legislation, and for not entirely doing away with the means of bringing conviction home in cases of this kind? Surely the hon. and learned Member, if he was at the bedside of some person who was dear to him, and who was suffering from a complaint which could not be cured, unless there were means of testing the remedy to be applied, would not say let that person die rather than that the means of saving him should be obtained by experiment on an animal. A case of this kind occurred in an infirmary with which I am connected. A person was suffering from lock-jaw. The practitioner, a man of great eminence, wished to apply a certain drug—curari—and the drug was to hand. But it is difficult—I believe it is impossible—to ascertain the actual strength of a preparation of that drug without testing it on an animal. The patient was lying at the door of death. There was nothing for it but to break the law, and apply the test without a certificate, which the physician did. Can the hon. and learned Member say he ought not to have done so? In conclusion, I would only say a few words in regard to what would be the action of this Bill if it were to become law. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is very tender-hearted where the lives of a few animals are concerned, he does not seem to concern himself that, if this Bill passed into law, the few experiments now made on animals would have to be made constantly on human frames, and made in the cruellest form, because they would be experiments on persons at the point of death, and a mistake would be fatal. We know that England is the land of free letters, and the birth-place of experimental philosophy; but now, in the 19th century, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends ask us to prohibit investigation, to annihilate inquiry, and to say that science is a thing which must be persecuted. The proposition need only be stated to demonstrate its absurdity. Where you have no liberty of the Press, you have clandestine publications; and if you try to dam up science, you will find that men will se-
    1426
    cretly practise that which it is necessary, in the interests of their Profession as well as of humanity, they should practise. I think it is only necessary to state the impossibility of carrying into practise a Bill of this kind, to make the House and the country feel that it would be folly to enact it. I feel confident that England, which for 15 years has been steadily fostering education, is not going to put under a ban a large class of its most enlightened and educated men, whose inquiries are conducted for the benefit of humanity. I therefore beg to move the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I am glad, Sir, that the rejection of this Bill has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), who is entirely unconnected with the Medical Profession, and I second his Amendment, because I am intimately connected with it, having many hundred medical constituents, and representing, as I do, the largest medical University in the world. Now, I will try to avoid the subjects so ably treated by my hon. Friend. I would, however, emphasize what he has said. This Bill does not only deal with vivisection in the abstract, but it seeks to repeal the Act passed in 1876 for regulating vivisection, so as to produce either no suffering, or the minimum amount of suffering, in animals experimented upon. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid) proposes to abolish all experiments on vertebrate animals for the purposes of physiology, medicine, or science. The experiments prohibited are not confined to painful ones. Under the plain interpretation of his Bill, a man could not stroke the back of a cat, to show a student that electricity was developed, without committing a crime, and could not give to a constipated patient a dose of castor oil, as an experiment, to see whether he would do without a drastic dose of croton oil. This is positively the case, unless my hon. and learned Friend is prepared to deny that man is a vertebrate animal, so that the Bill not only repeals the regulating Act of 1876, but it renders all experiments on animals illegal, for the purposes of physiology, medicine, and science, even if they are wholly innocent and painless. A physiologist, after this Bill becomes law, could not put the web of a living frog under a microscope to show the circula-

    1427
    tion of the blood. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire has explained the nature of the Act which it is proposed to repeal. It provides that all painful experiments, with the rarest exceptions, must be made when the animals are unconscious with anæsthetics. As a matter of fact, only 1 per cent of all the experiments made under the Act is as painful as a surgical operation. Of the 300 experiments made last year, only 10 were attended with real pain. The Reports of the Government Inspector for Great Britian, Dr. Busk, and of Dr. Stokes for Ireland, are quite conclusive on this point. The question is not only whether vivisection, in the abstract, may or may not be right, but whether a regulating Act, which was passed in the year 1876, and which the Government Inspectors assure us works so admirably as to prevent pain in the animals experimented upon, is to be repealed. The hon. Member for Hereford cited experiments made before the regulating Act was passed, to prove that experiments were cruel. He described, in terms which, to those unacquainted with physiology, appear horrible, some experiments made on the brains of cats and monkeys by my constituent, Dr. Ferrier. But he did not explain that the animals on which these experiments were made were wholly unconscious, and not susceptible to pain. This is fully proved in the evidence before the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire has, however, answered these allegations, as well as those against Professor Rutherford, so I will not repeat the answer to these statements. With these exceptions, the hon. and learned Member for Hereford, and the societies which back his efforts to prevent vivisection, chiefly rely on cases of foreign cruelties, although they are impossible under the present law in England, and are now, as they have been at all times, repugnant to the spirit of the English physiologists. That some of the old experiments, made before anæsthesia was discovered, were carried on in France and other foreign countries, with an indifference to animal suffering that was truly horrible, I entirely admit. That they are still carried on in foreign countries without due regard to the use of anæsthetics, I fear, is only too true, although to a much less extent than formerly. We are not called upon
    1428
    to legislate for foreign countries; but we are asked to repeal an Act which has worked well in England, and to substitute for it another Act, which prohibits all physiological experiments in this country, although the evidence is conclusive that English physiologists have always been remarkable for the careful and humane consideration with which such experiments have been made. The hon. and learned Member for Hereford does not care for proofs that experiments on animals have been carefully and humanely practised in England. His Bill proposes to abolish them altogether as being opposed to the moral law. I at once make the admission to my hon. and learned Friend that I am bound to traverse this argument, and not to shelter myself under the fact that he is attacking a mere microscopical point in the field of animal suffering. It is no sound argument against his Bill to say that, because only 10 out of the 300 animals experimented on last year suffered considerable pain, therefore it is right to continue such experiments. The real question is, whether there is a justification for sacrificing or inflicting suffering on any animals with a view to benefit man? You do not doubt this in the case of noxious animals. Last year, in India, we hunted down, without mercy, 6,000 tigers and leopards, besides many wolves, and we paid for killing 300,000 snakes. And what was our justification? It consisted in the fact that they had killed more than 20,000 of the Natives of India. The justification is that man's duty to man is greater than man's duty to beasts. The benefit to man is, in fact, our only justification for a vast amount of pain which we are constantly inflicting on animals during their lives. How otherwise can the farmer justify the cruel mutilation of oxen, sheep, or swine, to improve their condition for food, or, of horses, to fit them for labour? How otherwise could we justify the cruel and continued punishment of animals when we employ them in labour? Even the prophet of God, when he beat his ass, was so cruel that the angel had to intercede. If I thought that a comparative argument as to cruelty had much force, I could allude to the continued sufferings of the horses, mules, and camels in the Afghan and Egyptian Wars, in terms which would be too horrible and terrible for this

    1429
    House even to listen to. But even in the relation of man to man, how, otherwise than by a common or national benefit, could we justify the sacrifice of whole battalions in assaulting a fortified position? Or even how could we justify the frightful suffering which a surgeon inflicts when he excises a joint, or cuts out a huge tumour? How otherwise could you justify a parent when he flogs a child, or the State when it flogs a garotter? It is not the mere, or even continuous, infliction of pain which is an offence against moral law, but the unnecessary infliction of pain without an adequate motive to benefit mankind by the act. It is not the mere act, but the motive for that act, which either makes it an offence against morality, or which gives to it a justification. Still, you may grant the motive, but deny the necessity. I need say little as to the motive. Unquestionably the motive is a high one which seeks to extend our knowledge of life and disease, so as, by a few experiments on animals, to ameliorate disease and suffering, not only in the whole human race, but also in all the animals which come in direct relation to man. This is so clear that it requires no argument in its support. The opponents of vivisection, however, deny its utility under all circumstances, because they assert that experiments on animals give no results comparable as to the human body. This is only one of the ordinary appeals to human vanity which seeks to find a wide abyss between man and other animals. This is altogether contradicted by the discoveries of modern science. Except in regard to his highly developed brain, man does not differ widely in his bodily functions from other animals. As Aristotle has truly said—"Nature never marches by leaps." There is a continuous chain, with slowly diminishing links, from man to the lowest animal. If you place the blood or flesh of a man and the blood or flesh of a sheep in the most expert chemist's hands, he can detect no difference between them. The same kind of heart, lungs, liver, and spleen are found upon the animals experimented upon as in man; and the same anæsthetics, the same drugs or poisons, and the same parasites, act upon man and such animals in the same way. It is quite certain that the observations made upon animals can be applied by phy-
    1430
    siology to man, for man physiologically is only the king of all animals. But I deny altogether that an unskilled public can form an adequate judgment on these points. The utility and the necessity for such experiments are most important considerations; but they must be determined by the opinion of experts. I do not mean by the few experimentalists, not above 40 or 50 in number, but by the whole body of medical men, who devote themselves to the cure and amelioration of disease. They are the qualified judges as to the utility and need of making such experiments, from the results of which they benefit. Outsiders, who have no knowledge of the requirements of surgical and medical science, are not even witnesses who have a right to be heard in such a case. Now, among 24,000 medical men in this country you will, no doubt, find a few, like Mr. Lawson Tait, who deny the utility of such experiments. But the vast majority of the Medical Profession are emphatic in their testimony. In August, 1881, there was a great International Congress of medical men in London, and the Congress passed the following resolution:—
    "That this Congress records its conviction that experiments on living animals have proved of the utmost service to medicine in the past, and are indispensable to its future progress; that, accordingly, while strongly deprecating the infliction of unnecessary pain, it is of opinion, alike in the interest of man and of animals, that it is not desirable to restrict competent persons in the performance of such experiments."
    This Congress was remarkably representative of all countries, both from the Continent of Europe and of America. But lest you should think it tainted by the presence of foreign experimentalists, I may cite the testimony of the British Medical Association, which, on the 10th of August, in the same year, passed the following resolution:—
    "That this Association desires to express its deep sense of the importance of vivisection to the advancement of medical science, and the belief that the further prohibition of it would be attended with serious injury to the community, by preventing investigations which are calculated to promote the better knowledge and treatment of disease in animals as well as man."
    I cannot conceive that the House would reject such testimony, coming from the great body of medical men, and including such names as Jenner, Owen, Paget, Darwin, Carpenter, Sanderson, Huxley,

    1431
    Gull, and a host of others, whose scientific knowledge is only equalled by their broad humanity. While the House will admit the weight of such testimony, it has a right to know what is the nature of the knowledge acquired which has produced this conviction on the minds of the great body of the Medical Profession. There are three classes of experiments made upon animals. The first class aims at acquiring knowledge of the processes of, or of the nature of, disease; the second as to the action of drugs or poisons; and the third of the actual production of disease. The first class seeks for knowledge of vital processes, or diseased conditions. Such experiments were made by the ancients, and, since medicine became a science by physiologists, in our own country. The great discovery of the circulation of the blood by Harvey was determined by experiments on a variety of animals, and was ultimately demonstrated before Charles I. and the Princesses upon a living animal. In the progress of such experiments by men like Harvey, Halley, Hunter, Bell, and many others, great and leading discoveries, such as the circulation of the blood, the lacteal and lymphatic system of vessels, and the compound function of the spinal nerves were established. Such experiments, probably, often originated in the love of knowledge only, without immediate reference to its application to the amelioration of human or animal existence. Nothing is more shortsighted than the cui bono cry of the ignorant against investigators in science. It is as superficial as the remark of Savarin, when he said—"He who invents a new dish does more for humanity than he who discovers a star," forgetting that to astronomy we owe navigation. But exactly as navigation is an outcome of astronomy, or as bleaching or dyeing is an outcome of chemistry, or as engineering is an application of mathematics, so is medicine an outcome of the sciences of physiology and pathology. To strangle these sciences, by refusing to them the only modes of research which render their progress possible, would be to relegate the medicine of the future to empiricism and quackery. Indeed, nothing is more established in science than the fact that every abstract truth given to the world constantly leads to the most unexpected and most useful applications to humanity. Thus, when
    1432
    Galvani put a copper hook through the spine of live frogs, and hung them on the iron rails of his balcony at Bologna, in order to study the muscular contractions which were thus produced, who could have predicated that this experiment was to establish the science of galvanism and lead to the discovery of the electric telegraph, to the electric light, to new motors for our machinery, and to the important use of electricity in the cure of disease and relief of human suffering? So is it with other discoveries in physiology, which, even when they appear remote from practical application, constantly lead to the most important benefits. Thus, when Pasteur and Lister made experiments on the minute organisms which appear during fermentation and putrefaction, who could have predicated that the experiments of the former philosopher would have opened up to us such a wide field of promise in the treatment of diseases which afflict our flocks and herds, or that the observations of Lister would give us that admirable method of antiseptic treatment which now ranks as one of the greatest improvements of modern surgery? And yet Lister had to go abroad to perform a few experiments on animals, as the present Act was too restrictive for him to perform them in this country, though the pain inflicted was no greater than the healing of some slight wound. When you recollect the horrible pain which used to be inflicted after a surgical operation, by burning the bleeding vessels with a red-hot iron, the successive steps in surgery that have attended experiments in the healing of wounds, and which have culminated in the antiseptic treatment of Lister, have surely justified the small amount of brute suffering by giving comparative safety to the most formidable surgical operation in the case of man. The second class of experiments, with drugs or poisons, are sometimes absolutely necessary, not only in the interests of medical science, but in the cause of justice. The promoters of this Bill would not even allow experiments in the cause of justice. For myself, although formerly a Professor of Chemistry in the greatest medical school of this country, I am only responsible for the deaths of two rabbits by poison; and I ask the attention of the House to the case, as showing a strong justification for experiments on animals,

    1433
    although I would have been treated as a criminal, even under the present Act, had it then existed. Sir James Simpson, who introduced chloroform—that great alleviator of animal sufferings—was then alive, and in constant quest of new anæsthetics. He came to my laboratory one day to see if I had any new substances likely to suit his purpose. I showed to him a liquid which had just been discovered by one of my assistants; and Sir James Simpson, who was bold to rashness in experimenting on himself, desired immediately to inhale it in my private room. I refused to give him any of the liquid, unless it was first tried upon rabbits. Two rabbits accordingly were made to inhale it, and quickly passed into anæsthesia, but soon recovered, though, from an after action of the poison, they both died in a few hours. Now, was this not a justifiable experiment on animals; and was the sacrifice of two rabbits not worth saving the life of the most distinguished physician of his time, and who, by the introduction of chloroform, had done so much to mitigate animal suffering? Would that an experiment of a like kind on a rabbit or guinea-pig had been used by John Hunter, who probably shortened his own noble life by experimenting on himself with the ignoble poison of syphilis. Let me give one other instance, in which two valuable lives were sacrificed from want of such experiments. A few years ago two young German chemists were assistants in a London laboratory. They were experimenting upon a poison which I will not even name, for its properties are so terrible. It is postponed in its action, and then produces idiotcy or death. An experiment on a mouse or a rabbit would have taught them the danger of this frightful poison; but, in ignorance of its subtle properties, they became its unhappy victims, for one died and the other suffered intellectual death. Yet the promoters of this Bill would not suffer us to make any experiments on the lower animals which would protect man from such catastrophes. It is by experiments on animals that medicine has not only learned the remedial, but also has been taught how to avoid the dangers of such potent drugs as chloroform, chloral, morphia, and bromide of potassium. The third class of experiments is in the production of disease. At the first blush, this would appear to
    1434
    be the infliction of animal suffering without a beneficent motive. But this is the exact reverse of the truth, for no one can know how to prevent disease without knowing how to cause it. Prevention of disease is a much higher aim of medical science than its amelioration or cure. Now, in this class of experiments, the greatest progress has been made in recent years by the sacrifice of a few of the lower animals. A large class of disease, both in man and animals, is now ascertained to arise from the introduction into their system of self-multiplying and destructive germs of a very low class of living organisms. The promoters of this Bill would not deny this, but would say—"Observe the necessary facts when disease occurs, and draw your deductions from them, without experimenting upon animals." So you may, if you are content with the sacrifice of hecatombs of human beings to obtain knowledge which the sacrifice of a few mice or guinea-pigs would equally give you. Take an instance in point. A foreign experimentalist—Thiersch—by sacrificing 14 mice, found that the germs in choleraic discharges, imbibed through water, reproduced cholera with certainty. The same fact, it is true, was suspected in the cholera epidemics of 1848–9, and of 1853–4, when the Southwark and Vauxhall, as well as the Lambeth Water Companies, supplied water tainted with choleraic evacuations to about 500,000 of their consumers. In the case of Lambeth, during the first of the epidemics 125 out of every 10,000 of the population died; but in the second epidemic only 37, for, in the interval, the quality of the water was improved. But the Southwark and Vauxhall Company made no such improvement, and the cholera deaths were 118 to 10,000 in the first, and 130 in the second epidemic. These experiments with water, charged with fœcal matter, on 500,000 human beings were valuable to medical science, but not in the least more valuable than Thiersch's recent experiments on 56 mice, of which 44 took the disease, and 14 died. Had these been made anterior to the cholera epidemics, the great mortality might have been averted. It is thus constantly that much needless experimentation on man is saved by a few experiments on animals. The recent experiments made for pro-

    1435
    ducing disease in animals are full of promise for the future prevention and amelioration of disease in man, especially in the case of consumption, which is accountable for one-seventh of the total deaths, and for one-third of those persons who die young. But time does not allow me to describe these. I will only mention one fact—that the milk of consumptive cows is found to produce tubercolosis in animals. As milk of such cows is freely distributed, it is surely wise to make some experiments on animals, rather than to parody them on some thousand men and women before the danger is either negatived or affirmed. The House will perceive that numerous consequences must flow from the establishment of the fact that many diseases of animals arise from the planting in their blood of minute germs of alien life. Take one instance merely. Since the time when in Egypt there was a grievous murrain, "the breaking forth of blains upon man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt," the same disease anthrax, or splenic fever, has desolated the flocks and herds of all countries, from the reindeer in Lapland to the Cavalry horses in India. In France, this fever kills sheep to the value of 20,000,000 francs annually. Pasteur has shown how the baccillus, which produces it, may, in a milder form, mitigate its virulence, so as to render it as protective and innocuous as vaccine virus. Large flocks of sheep are now protected by it in Prance. I do not like quotations from the Bible in this House; but I cannot help recollecting that He who was all-merciful once exclaimed—"How much better, then, is man than a sheep." If we extend such protection to man against the attacks of many maladies which are produced by similar germs, the sacrifice of a few mice or guinea-pigs, which would only suffer a short and scarcely sensible pain in inoculation, would surely be justifiable in obtaining a lasting boon to humanity. How much more limited is this infliction of suffering than that of our daily intercourse with animals. If the House do not wish to interfere with the cruel operations on cattle to fit them for human food or labour, if it do not wish to stop the inoculations which have produced such important consequences in splenic fever and chicken cholera, in protecting cattle and poultry, why should we be asked to
    1436
    prevent the extension of knowledge for the benefit of the human race? I am much indebted to the House for listening to me so long on a subject which requires so much scientific explanation; but to my medical constituents, who are numbered by thousands, the decision of the House this day will either carry dismay or satisfaction. I must remind you what the Royal Commission told us would be the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind. They said to prohibit experiments on living animals—
    "Would inevitably lead either to a general evasion of the law, or to an universal flight of medical and physiological investigators to foreign schools and laboratories, and that, by this means, the general treatment of animals would certainly not be altered for the better."
    You may retard, but you cannot arrest the progress of science. Even the burning of the Alexandrian Library did not stop the growth of literature. By passing this Bill you might produce the result which the Royal Commission so much deplores. This House has already passed an Act to regulate experiments on living animals, and I have shown how successful that Act has been in its operation. You might increase its restrictions; but these are already too tightly drawn, and increased restriction might be followed by evasion. The present Act excludes the unqualified from making such experiments, and entrusts them, with suitable precautions, to the skilled physiologist. Why should you show increased distrust, when there is no evidence of any breach of the existing law? The general presumption of law is, that well-qualified medical men may be trusted for their skill, and for their humanity even with human life. You allow to a medical man to judge whether, in certain cases of childbirth, he may kill the child in order to save the mother, and we are asked to distrust the few and the most specially qualified of that profession to judge whether a mouse, a guinea-pig, or a frog may be sacrificed for the benefit of the human race. You cannot be surprised that, as a Representative of a great medical constituency, I should speak warmly on this subject. That Profession has always been marked for its self-sacrifice and devotion to the interests of humanity, and they naturally resent the imputations of cruelty which are made upon them, because they desire that knowledge should be

    1437
    extended in the only way which is possible. I do not at all undervalue the humane feelings and sentiments of many of the promoters of this Bill. But I think that the out-of-door agitation in regard to it has been got up in a spirit of unthinking and aggressive ignorance. I claim for physiology higher humanity than that of the opponents of vivisection. Its aim is to mitigate the sufferings of humanity, by studying the processes of life and of disease. The only way in which it can prosecute its aims is to experiment on living beings, and not on dead corpses. The total number of laboratories in the whole world engaged in studying the laws of life, with a view of lessening the immense amount of suffering among all animated beings, are but few in number. Those in this country are conducted and regulated under an Act which has given statutory effect to the pervading spirit of English physiologists, that the experiments on animals should be made with a minimum amount of suffering. I cannot believe that this House will give a second reading to the Bill, which would drive English physiologists to foreign countries, or make them work secretly to evade an unjust law, and thus brand as criminals men whose whole object is to ameliorate the condition of suffering humanity. Limited as is the scope of this Bill, its purpose is to repeal an Act under which the official Inspectors assure us scarcely 10 animals in the year suffer sensible pain; but it would take no account whatever of the torture or cruelty perpetrated upon animals out of the most wanton and purposeless malignity. [Mr. E. T. REID: That is a crime already.] I beg your pardon. It is not a crime already. It is a crime only in the case of domestic animals. I say, it is only experiments made with the noble motive of relieving the ills of suffering humanity with which you interfere. The existing Cruelty to Animals Act, called Martin's Act, is confined to domestic animals only. All other vertebrate animals are excluded from the operation of that Act. If this Bill passes into law, no more protection is given to them, however wantonly, wickedly, and cruelly any boy or man may experiment upon such animals. It would be a complete defence under this Bill to say that the experiments were made out of pure malignity, and with-
    1438
    out any reference to the promotion of physiology, medicine, or science. But as soon as the motive is high, noble, and humane, you propose to brand those who experiment as criminals. I cannot believe that this House will consent to pass a Bill that has originated with philanthropy, but in a philanthropy wholly indiscriminate, and which, I believe, will infinitely augment the animal suffering that it ignorantly seeks to alleviate.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Cartwright.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise, Sir, to argue the general question at this time of the afternoon, when so little space remains for the debate. Indeed, I could hope to add nothing to the powerful argument we have just heard—an argument reinforced by the practical knowledge of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Lyon Playfair), than whom there is no one who has a greater right to speak on the subject. But I think the House would expect to know something of the practical action of the existing Acts at present in force in this country. I observe that that is a subject which has been entirely avoided, and I think absolutely excluded from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. E. T. Reid) in the introduction of this Bill. He said a great deal upon the general principles of vivisection; he said much upon experiments abroad, upon experiments before the passing of the present Act; but he did not lay any foundation whatever for the measure he proposes to the House, in the way of proof of existing cruelties by experiments for scientific purposes in this country. It is my duty to state my firm conviction that no such cruelty exists at all under the operation of the existing Act. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who says—"Cruelty or no cruelty, advantage or no advantage, I am against the system altogether." I, of course, respect the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not share it. I hold, and I think the great majority of this House hold, that for the benefit of mankind, man as the superior has a right to use,

    1439
    and does use the inferior animals. How can we deny that, we who live upon meat; how can we deny that, we who employ animals in labour, to them very often painful and irksome; we, who perform upon them, for our advantage, as painful an operation as any to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred—perform upon oxen and wethers to the amount of thousands and hundreds of thousands, in order that our horses may be more quiet in our carriages, and that our meat may be fatter and more tender? My hon. and learned Friend does not interfere with operations of that character. After his Bill, as before, it will be permitted for man to lay strychnine and arsenic and phosphorus for rats. Far greater tortures are inflicted upon animals of that kind, which men destroy in that manner, than upon the animals which are the subjects of vivisection. But the experiments upon the rats are protected, because they are not for the promotion of science or medicine. Therefore, I cannot argue upon that ground with the hon. and learned Gentleman. For me there is only one question—are these experiments necessary for the benefit of mankind? If they are so, it is my opinion they are experiments you have a right to make, and which you ought to make; and, so far from discouraging, you ought to encourage; and you ought, as was the object of the existing Act, to take care that they are not made wantonly; that they are not made by inexperienced people, in whose hands they will be useless; that they have adequate objects and are made with proper safeguards. That was the object of the existing legislation, and I am perfectly prepared to defend the principles upon which that legislation was founded. The only thing I have to ask myself is—has that legislation succeeded in the objects to which it was directed? What is the state of the case? I have before me successive Reports from the Inspector. Does my hon. and learned Friend say that he believes there is cruelty exercised under the certificates given under this Act? If experiments are made outside the certificate, the law will reach the case; but does my hon. and learned Friend affirm that the men who, year after year, are nominated in these Returns, who have certificates of the most specific character, by relating the experiments
    1440
    they are to perform, do inflict unnecessary cruelty without adequate objects upon these animals? My hon. and learned Friend will not attempt to affirm that.
    MR. R. T. REID: I said all these experiments were unnecessary, and I gave instances of the most cruel experiments.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I listened most attentively, and I never heard one. All I can say is, that in my opinion, and upon these Returns, and under these certificates, I entirely and totally differ from my hon. and learned Friend. There is one class of experiments which, by a misnomer, are called vivisection, and which are performed without anaesthetics—inoculation experiments. They are by far the most numerous class; but the cases in which experiments are permitted, with the exception of inoculation experiments, without anæsthetics, are extremely rare. Now, does anybody condemn inoculation for the purpose of seeing the effect of contagious diseases on the lower animals? At least, I do not; and I do not think they can be, or ought to be, condemned. Let me remind the House what are the safeguards. In the first place, no man can have a certificate to experiment at all, unless he has the recommendation of most eminent and experienced persons. That is the first security. Then he gets his certificate. The places which are registered for the performance of the experiments are subject to being visited; and I should like to mention to the House an additional security that I have been able to obtain. The House is probably aware that there was established last year in this country an Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research. I believe the Association is of the greatest possible value, and has produced, and is likely to produce, the greatest benefits to mankind. In that Association are the most distinguished men of science, medical and other science, in the country—Sir William Jenner, Sir James Paget, Lister, and others. I have had several interviews with these gentlemen, and they have convinced me—though I did not need convincing—that experiments of this sort are of the highest value. They said that the existing Act required to be worked with discrimination and with care, with which I entirely agreed; and they offered me their assistance in seeing

    1441
    that it was carried out. I accepted that assistance with satisfaction, and I said—
    "Now, will you undertake the responsibility—a responsibility, indeed, for which I personally would have been extremely unlit? I cannot judge whether a particular experiment is necessary and useful, and whether a particular individual is the proper person to make it. You have a knowledge of the Profession; you have a knowledge of the state of science; you can say whether such and such a man ought to perform the experiment, and whether it will be useful and necessary. And I said, if you will undertake the task of reporting to me upon such experiments, I shall undertake that no certificate shall be granted, except upon previous recommendation by you of the operator and of the experiment."
    Well, Sir, I believe that this Association has accepted the proposition; and, therefore, we have a double security—first of all, that no licence will be issued by the Home Office, except upon the guarantee of the first men of science in the country, that the operators are fit to be intrusted with the power, and that the experiment is one that ought to be made. And in the next place, there is a security that the experiments will be properly carried out under the inspection of an officer specially appointed by the Homo Office. I do not see how it is possible to have better security that the right should not be abused. I must, however, leave the House to judge of that matter, and I simply say that that is the condition of things under which the law now stands. Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the last Report of the Homo Office Inspector, which is not yet in the hands of the House. It is, however, being printed, and will be presented immediately. In that Report the Inspector says—
    "That the names of the 42 persons who held licences during any part of the year 1882 are given in the table subjoined, in which are the names of 26 licencees who performed experiments."
    Consequently, in England, 26 persons alone performed experiments of this kind. Twenty-six persons were engaged in making experiments for the benefit of a population of 30,000,000 of people; and not for those 30,000,000 alone, but, in reality, for the benefit of the whole civilized world. My right hon. Friend behind me has referred to a great danger, of which it is well that the House should be aware—namely, that of making your laws such that you cannot have an intelligent and educated
    1442
    School of Medicine in the country, and compelling medical students to go and learn elsewhere. I am sorry to say that, to some extent, that is the case already, and the foreign Schools of Medicine are supposed to be superior to our own. Perhaps the House will permit me to say that one of the gentlemen interested in this question came to see me personally. He was an eminent oculist, and he said that a lady had brought to him her child, who had sustained an accident to her eye. He believed he could perform an operation which would save the child's sight; but, in order to be on the safe side, he wished to try the experiment first on a rabbit. He did not wish to try it on the child for fear of risking the sight of the child. Would any man say that, in such a case, an experiment ought not to be made? Should we interpose such delays and difficulties that the sight of the child would be entirely destroyed before leave was obtained to try the experiment upon a rabbit? We should have been guilty, in my opinion, of enormous cruelty if we had refused to allow the experiment to be made. It was far truer humanity to allow the experiment to be tried; and I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend behind me, that among those who made these experiments may be found some of the most tender-hearted members of society. I have no wish unnecessarily to delay the House, because I know there are other hon. Gentlemen who wish to address it upon the subject; but I have thought it my duty to tell the House exactly how the matter stands under the administration of the present law. Personally, I dislike, as much as anyone in this House, the infliction of pain upon animals; but I am perfectly satisfied that, under the existing administration of the law, very little pain is inflicted. Whatever pain there is is inflicted under certain securities, which afford a guarantee that no pain is wantonly inflicted; and I believe that these experiments are abundantly justified by the interests of humanity at large.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I find myself, Sir, under considerable disadvantage in having to reply, at this late period, to three successive speeches on one side, including that of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) which was delivered at preposterous length.

    1443
    The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was contained within much narrower limits; but many of the analogies which it contained strike me as being altogether misleading. I fail to see what analogy there is between vivisection and the killing of tigers in India, unless it can be shown that the dogs and rabbits operated upon would devour the vivisector unless the experiments were performed. Then, again, the analogy of the flogging of the garrotter also breaks down, because the garotter has been guilty of antecedent crime, for which flogging is inflicted as a punishment. Nobody says that the wretched dogs and rabbits have been guilty of crime, and that these cruelties are inflicted by way of punishment for that crime. It is generally held that man has a right to inflict pain on the lower animals within certain limits; but the common sense of humanity exacts three conditions—first, the object must be the benefit of the human race; secondly, that the infliction of pain should be reasonably calculated to produce the end in view; and, thirdly, that it should be inflicted as sparingly, as slightly, and for as brief a time as is consistent with the object in view. Now, I venture to say that these conditions are not observed in the case of vivisection. There is a glaring hypocrisy about the whole thing. We are told that the first object is the benefit of the human race; but on the Continent, where the truth is more boldly spoken than by English physiologists, we are told that the experiments are undertaken in the interests of research; that discovery is the first object, and that to relieve suffering is not the primary object kept in view by the vivisectors. In the second place, it is not proved that the pain inflicted is certain to attain the object of the operation, even if that object is the relief of human suffering. And there is a considerable difference of opinion among medical men as to the probable benefit resulting to mankind from vivisection. I have been told that Mr. Lawson Tait, of Birmingham, has received 200 letters from medical men, condemning the practice of vivisection; but he is not able to give the names of the writers, owing to the esprit de corps, and a tendency to "Boycott" a man for his convictions which prevails even in learned Professions. The third condi-
    1444
    tion is, that pain should be inflicted as seldom, as sparingly, and for as brief a time as is consistent with the attainment of the object. Now I think that the legislation of 1876 has failed to secure this end, and that it has not exempted the animals which are operated upon from the most extreme agonies. It is in the power of the Home Office to license physiologists for experiments without anæsthetics. No doubt, the present Secretary of State has tender feelings towards animals; but, as has been well said, in dealing with the Roman Empire we cannot act as if there would always be a Marcus Aurelius on the throne. We decline altogether to trust the possible Successor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with this absolute power over the sufferings of the brute creation. Even in regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, himself, I am afraid there is about him a smattering of science which inclines him to regard laymen like myself as scarcely deserving attention. He relies on the testimony of his Inspector as to the cruelties inflicted on animals. I do not doubt that the Inspector is a man of honour; but he is advanced in years, and imperfectly acquainted with the latest developments of scientific cruelty; he is a simple, honest, and confiding man, but not endowed with those detective-like qualities which would enable him to judge for himself. He has to rely, of course, on the testimony of the vivisectors themselves; and a man whose moral sense has become so decayed that he can bring himself to perform these awful cruelties on unoffending creatures cannot be expected to feel very keenly about the moral heinousness of equivocation and evasion. I make no accusation against these men, beyond what is borne out by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chairman of Committees calmly contemplates the arrival of the day when, if vivisection be prohibited, the whole Profession will violate the law, and carry on the practice in secret. I cannot, at this hour of the evening, read any of the large numbers of cases of horrible cruelty with which I have fortified myself—[Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR: Are they cases which have occurred since the Act?"] The right hon. Gentleman corrects me; I have collected them from all parts of England

    1445
    and the Continent. They cannot be practised here without a licence. But when once the licence has been granted, the vivisector can import into his Engglish laboratory as many horrors as he chooses from the other side of the Channel. If the Secretary of State has a right to dispense with the use of anæsthetics, surely we have a right to ask whether the inspection is a searching one. It is an insult to our common sense to tell us that there is any comparison between vivisection and the sports of the field. In the latter case, skill and endurance are the main objects to be gained, and the pain is only an incident—[An hon. MEMBER: No!]—an hon. Member contradicts me. The hon. Member is a fox-hunter and a pigeon-shot; but he is not accustomed, like the vivisectors, to the sensation of seeing his victims writhing in excruciating agony beneath his knife. Despatch is of much less consequence to the physiologist; on the contrary, I quote from a physiologist, and say—
    "It has even its disadvantages, for he has to seize in passing all the manifestations of the vital activity which occur under his eyes during the course of the experiment, since all the circumstances, which for the surgeon are but accessories, serve to advance the physiologist on the path of exploration and sometimes of now discovery."
    There are moral objections to the Bill which cannot be dismissed in one word. We object to it because, even granting that vivisection may under circumstances be permissible, it is used again and again not in order to discover fresh truths, but only for the demonstration of acknowledged truths to students.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Under the Act?
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Since the date of the Act, under the Act.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Under the Act these demonstrations are prohibited.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Except by licence. The Act itself, which I dare say the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in his hand, will bear out what I say. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not convinced, I, with so few minutes left me, must decline the hopeless task of convincing him. With regard to the operations themselves, I contend that they are misleading. Sometimes they produce no result; constantly, when prac-
    1446
    tised by different men of science, they lead to opposite results—frequently to erroneous results; and, instead of being a source of benefit to the human race, they have been a source of positive mischief. Dr. Rutherford placed 36 dogs for eight hours under the influence of curari, which paralyzes voluntary motion while it heightens sensation, in order to test the effect of certain drugs; but Dr. Rutherford himself assured the Royal Commission that these experiments would certainly not afford any evidence of what the effect would be on human beings. In others, the experiment was useless; and, according to Dr. Rutherford, after the slow torture of his 36 dogs was consummated, "it must also be tried upon men before a conclusion can be drawn." And to that state of things we are rapidly tending, and there seems to be no reason why this torture should not be tried on human beings as well as animals. There is a life beyond for a human being, who has a soul that will live after the death, and the argument, therefore, seems to go the other way, because, at any rate, it implies the idea of compensations after death for extra misery endured in this world. The garotter, or the murderer, or any person lying under sentence of death for the commission of a great crime, may be regarded as a fit subject for the fit experiments of vivisection. Then there are physically defective people, whose existence only tends to deteriorate the race. It might be regarded as a public service to sweep away such people, and in doing so to make them the subjects of vivisection. It has been said tonight that it is not unlikely, if the vivisectors be prohibited from trying their experiments, that they will be tried by the medical men who attend us on our sick beds, and therefore it is another reason why we should not encourage "the sleeping devil that is in the heart of every man." Certainly it is a horrible outlook, if we are to find our medical men treading in their paths of devilish cold-blooded cruelty, and then have to call them in to the assistance of our wives, our children, and our sisters. These experiments are exhibited before the young lady students at Cambridge, and thus we try to destroy all those traits of humanity in the female character which have done so much to ameliorate the condition of the world. We are told

    1447
    again that we may come to a compromise on the matter. The time for compromise is passed. A compromise was sought to be effected by the Bill of 1876; but compromise has completely broken down. We cannot compromise with men, who, like the vivisectors, meet you only with the language of scorn, insolent defiance and contempt, and speak of you as sentimental, pusillanimous, hysterical, effeminate, and irrational. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. E. T. Reid) is certainly a very good specimen of these hysterical, sentimental, and effeminate reformers. We claim that, until the whole of the scientific Medical Profession come to us with a united and unanimous voice, so that there can be no mistake about it, the practice of vivisection should be forbidden. Let them make it clear to reason that it is likely to conduce to the good of the human race; but we claim that they should make their appeal clear to the understanding of laymen and non-professional men. We ought not to permit affairs of conscience and morals to be ruled by the arbitrary edicts of the scientific priesthood which is arrogating to itself a power which our fathers, when it was exercised by a religious priesthood, would not endure. It is due, I will not say to our Christianity, but to our civilization, to humanity, to that moral sense which it is the first duty of a State to educate, to terminate the sufferings undergone by the most helpless of God's creatures. Nor less do we owe it to our material prosperity to check the insolent cruelty of modern science before it has begun to demand for its enjoyment the deeper music of a human agony.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: It appears to me, Sir, as if the hon. and learned Gentleman who has introduced this Bill (Mr. E. T. Reid) desired to pose as the only friend of humanity in this country. [Cries of "Divide!"] I have not the slightest objection to a division being taken upon this Bill, except that I believe it would be taken upon a false issue—upon the statements of would-be humanitarians, which are more likely to injure the cause of humanity towards the brute creation than to serve it. Since the Act of 1876 was passed, there is no proof that the experiments in the United Kingdom have been cruel. [Loud cries of "Divide!"] I have no objection
    1448
    to a division, if the House thinks fit to demand one; but I think that it ought to be taken on the question of adjourning the debate. It is impossible for a division upon the Bill at the present moment to prove anything; and you will be afforded, by an adjournment, another opportunity of going into the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill adduced, in support of it, a number of fallacious arguments. Indeed, I think there can be nothing more calculated to injure the cause which the advocates of the Bill profess to have at heart than the arguments which have been brought forward. Under the Bill before us a Justice of the Peace is to be bound to issue his warrant for an examination of the premises in which any vivisector is suspected of an intention to operate, and any contravention of the Act is visited with heavy penalties. Let me call to mind one fact. We afford no such protection to the human race. If anyone suspected that another was about to murder his wife, and it was only a mere suspicion, he might go into fits before the Justice of Peace would issue a warrant for the entry of the premises. He must produce evidence on oath of facts to justify the magistrates in assuming that a breach of the law is intended, and a mere suspicion of murder would not be sufficient to put the law in motion. What I venture to say in this case is, that if we allow the second reading of a Bill like this to be decided upon now, it will do more injury to the cause of humanity in regard to the lower animals than if the Bill stood over now, and were brought in upon some other day in an amended form.
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.