knowledge, and then to legislate to prevent it being acquired. The very men who were now legislating against scientific men were the men who had profited by their science, and he thought that instead of visiting them with censure and reproach, they ought rather to propose to them a vote of thanks. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH agreed that they had no right to inflict unnecessary pain upon animals; but it was very difficult to decide what was unnecessary pain. The destruction of wasps and other animals had been referred to; but, on the other hand, there was the case of the wretched man who was convicted of skinning cats alive, because the skins were more valuable when taken from the live than the dead animal. The extra money got the man a dinner. The solution of all these questions must be left to the practical common sense of an English jury. He preferred the Amendment of the noble Viscount to that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Rayleigh), because the form would limit the experiments, so that whenever a discovery had been fully ascertained it could not be repeated. This would prevent the repetition of it for the mere purposes of instruction of experiments on living animals in reference to physical facts and phenomena which had already been settled. Such practices could not but have a demoralizing effect. THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH suggested that the case of veterinary surgeons ought not to be overlooked. These gentlemen were not less interested in the progress of physiological science than those in other branches, and he thought experiments ought to be permitted with a view to the advancement by new discovery of knowledge, which would be useful for prolonging or alleviating animal as well as human life or suffering. EARL FORTESCUE said, that curative processes as regarded animals ought to be considered and provided for as well as curative processes as regarded human life, and the same words ought therefore to be used in the case of veterinary, as of other, surgeons. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said that the word "physiological" would cover and include experiments on animals having for their object the saving of the lives of animals. Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn. Then it was moved, in line 25, after (" of ") to insert ("physiological or medical,") and after knowledge") to insert ("or of knowledge.")-(The Viscount Cardwell.) Amendment agreed to. Then the 1st sub-section agreed to. THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE drew attention to the 2nd sub-section, which provided that experiments must be performed in a registered place. The effect of the provision would be to limit and obstruct useful and beneficial dis ment should modify the requirements of the Bill in this respect. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL observed, that the sub-section restricted nothing and prevented nothing-the element of intention would remain precisely where it was. Its value was that it was a declaration on the part of Parliament as to the intention with which certain ex-coveries. He suggested that the Governperiments ought to be performed, and the only intention which could possibly justify them. He was glad that the noble Lord opposite had accepted the Amendment of his noble Friend the Chairman | of the Commission; it should be remembered that there were not only humane but conscientious men engaged occasionally in the work of vivisection, and it would be a serious grievance to them, as a matter of conscience, if the clause were allowed to remain unaltered. He rejoiced greatly that the arguments of his noble Friend had led to the acceptance of the words he proposed, for they placed the clause on a satisfactory basis. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY regarded the limitation as an outrage on the learned Professions affected by it. It treated them with great mistrust to say that they should not only be licensed themselves, but that they should perform their experiments in registered places only. VISCOUNT CARDWELL observed that the highest authorities before the Commissioners recommended inspection, and inspection could not be made unless the places were known and recognized. The medical witnesses before the Commission did not object to this provision. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, the Bill | not know the place in which the act of made no distinction between two very vivisection was to be done, how could different classes of painful experiments the inspection recommended be made? -vivisection proper, which was the sub- But they would be doing the worst ject of all the Petitions which had been possible thing for the medical profession presented to the House, and the exhi- if their Lordships struck out the rebition, as medical men called it, or ad- striction in question. The result would ministration of drugs to animals for the be that the Secretary of State would purpose of ascertaining their effects. only have the character and trustworthiNow, where drugs were so administered ness of the person seeking the licence to it might be desirable that the animal rely on, and he would be placed in the should be allowed to pursue its ordinary invidious position of giving to those course of life, and not be shut up in one who were known to be men of place but the restriction to a registered honour, and withholding from those place seemed to refer exclusively to the of whom nothing was known, whereas case of vivisection proper. Some of the under the clause as it stood, the Secretary greatest men who had ever lived had of State would, besides that of character, been cut off by diseases of which nothing have the further protection which would was known either as to their causes or be afforded by the licence of the place. as to the agents by which they might be In the interest of the medical Profession, prevented or cured. Their Lordships therefore, it was desirable that the place would be rendering an essential service where vivisection was to be performed to humanity by recognizing the title of should be registered. the profession to ascertain the effect of drugs upon animals, and that without any unnecessary restriction. When drugs were administered, it was not necessarily for the purpose of destroying life; in many cases it was most desirable that the animal should recover, and be restored to its natural life. LORD WINMARLEIGH said, the members of the medical Profession who gave evidence before the Commission did not object to inspection. His own opinion was, that there ought to be as much liberty as possible given for the carrying out of such experiments consistently with a due regard for the object of the Bill, and the prevention of its misuse. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY pointed out that the General Medical Council of the United Kingdom in their memorial to the Government objected in the strongest possible way to this limitation of experiments to registered places. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the point for the consideration of the particular question under discussion had not been reached. In another part of the Bill words might be proposed to the effect that any person holding a licence under the Act, might, in any place, licensed or not, administer drugs to animals for the purpose spoken of by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). But if the restriction in this sub-section were rejected, they really might as well. give up the Bill altogether. If they did LORD RAYLEIGH feared that very valuable medical and surgical work would be lost if the restriction in question were insisted on. He suggested that in certain cases only a second certificate should be given. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON asked whether anything could be more invidious than that the Secretary of State should be compelled to say "Sir William Gull" or "Sir James Paget, I know you and can trust you to carry out experiments anywhere," and to other gentlemen, "I do not know you, and cannot trust you unless with a limited certificate." The honour and status of the Medical Profession would not be upheld by such a provision. THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH earnestly trusted that the provision would not be given up by which a knowledge of the place in which the experiments were to be performed was secured. THE EARL OF CARNARVON reminded their Lordships that there was no Amendment before the House. He was aware that a large proportion of the Medical Profession objected to the provision in question. At the same time it was the keystone of the Bill, and if it were given up the measure would virtually be at an end. The noble Earl opposite said that the Medical Profession regarded the restriction as an outrage. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY said, that that was his own opinion; but the opposition to registered places emanated THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, it from the Medical Council. THE EARL OF CARNARVON could not see how the provision could possibly be so regarded. As had been pointed out, if the Secretary of State had not the security of registered places he should have that of known character, and a great responsibility and most invidious duty would thus be thrown upon him. The Secretary of State had accepted in this matter a great responsibility, and it ought not to be increased, as it would be by the adoption of this Amendment. So long as these places were registered, so long, by means of inspection and the other guarantees provided, we should have an effective control; but the moment these places were unregistered control vanished. No matter how conscientious the Secretary of State might be, it was impossible he could exercise the control which the Bill contemplated, and without which it would be nothing at all. The worst cases of abuse had occurred, not in public institutions, but in private lodgings, and these cases could be met only by maintaining carefully and effectively this particular clause. He should be sorry to see it weakened in the slightest degree. never could be imagined that the subsection would prevent the application of a particular remedy to an animal for its own sake in any place where it might be. Second sub-section agreed to. Then the other sub-sections and provisoes agreed to, with Amendments. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 (Use of urari as an anæsthetic prohibited). LORD HENNIKER moved an Amendment to leave out the words ("for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be anaesthetic "), and to insert (“be used upon any wounded animal.") He said, the Amendment was due to a certain extent to the physiologists themselves, for the discussions by the Medical Council, the Medical Association, and in The Medical Journal had caused an inquiry into this clause. It was argued that what science left unsettled-namely, the anæsthetic qualities of curare, should not be settled by law. If it were sought to settle such a question by law, he would admit there was something in the objection, but the clause only said curare was not to be considered an anesthetic "for the purposes of this Act," and so in no way could it be said that it did so. The Medical Council wished to insert the words, "until proved to be so." If these words were put in, who was to be the person to decide the question? He thought the opinion of the Royal Commissioners. ought to be sufficient to show the necessity for this clause. They said in their Report THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said, that if this sub-section were to be omitted, the Bill might as well be abandoned at once. The evidence went to show that the practices in question were carried on in garrets, bedrooms, cellars, and other places difficult of access. With all respect for the Medical Profession, there was another party to this question. Some regard ought to be paid to the strong feelings of many persons who contended that on moral and religious principles vivisection ought to be prohibited absolutely, and who had consented for a time to a Bill of restric-insensibility to pain." tions because they believed the Government would take every security that the Bill should be effectively enforced. If this condition were struck out, the Bill would give no satisfaction to the country. "It has, however, been positively stated by perhaps the highest authority on such a subject, Claude Bernard, to have no effect in producing The Amendment which he wished to propose conceded the point, however, but added to the clause.. He hoped the noble Earl and the House would accept it, for it would be a popular one out-ofdoors. The 4th clause did not absolutely prohibit the use of curare, for it might be used under the clauses allowing experiments to be performed without anesthetics, and this substance, propre-bably, would, when it came to carrying out the Act, be often used. The Amendment did not absolutely prohibit the use THE DUKE OF SOMERSET urged that the sub-section would interfere with the experimental treatment of diseased or injured animals for their own relief or cure, and that, by retarding or venting such treatment, it would prolong or increase their sufferings. of curare. It would not do so where | glad to have quoted a passage from a Amendment moved, lines 4 and 5 ("for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be an anesthetic ") and insert ("be used upon any wounded animal.")—(The Lord Henniker.) THE EARL OF CARNARVON thought it best to keep the clause in its present form. If there were any experiments in which its use might be beneficial, a separate clause would be the best way of providing for it. Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 (Absolute prohibition of painful experiments on dogs and cats). THE EARL OF HARROWBY moved to include in the prohibition, "or horse, or ass, or mule." Amendment agreed to. bered that a frog respired through its skin, and what might be an anæsthetic in such a case could not be so with other animals. To show exactly what Schiff thought on this subject, he must quote a passage from his last published work -Sopra il metodo seguito negli experimenti sugli Animali Viventi, and he thought his Amendment could have no "But nothing in this section shall prevent a better support. At page 34, he said-person holding a license under this Act from adtranslated into English THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved, in page 3, line 8, to add- ministering to a dog or a cat drugs or medicines with a view to ascertain their effect in the cure or treatment of disease, or with a view to the detection of crime." could read the Report of this Commission without seeing that medical science had been advanced by experiments made upon living animals. Only one witness before the Commission supported the prohibition of experiments on cats and dogs-Dr. Hutton-and with regard to what Dr. Hutton laid down-namely, that you were not justified in inflicting pain on lower animals whatever benefit "In experiments such as we have described we use curare as a means of preventing the disturbance which the movements of the animal might cause us, but we have read with extreme THE EARL OF AIRLIE objected to the regret that in some modern articles on the sub-clause altogether. He thought no one ject curare has been recommended as an anesthetic in experiments upon animals. We have read the description of certain experiments requiring great mutilation of the animal, which were performed under the influence of slight curarization. I can here only entreat my colleagues, as I have already done before, to consider well the above reasoning. Not to allow themselves to be imposed upon by the apparent impassibility, and never to use curare as an anaesthetic except in cases where the wound is slight, and the irritation of a nature to provoke only moderate sensation. In experiments on the blood pressure, curare acts solely as a tran-accrued, he (the Earl of Airlie) confessed quillizer, which, impeding movement, hides the that-without underrating the sufferings pain from the observer. And it is nothing but of these poor creatures-he could not put hypocrisy to wish to impose on oneself, and dogs and cats in the scale when there others, the belief that the curarized animal was a chance of saving the lives of men, never feels pain." women, and children. Dr. Taylor told them that the effect of poison on a dog was very similar to that on a human He need not quote any further opinions on this subject. He would have been Lord Henniker being. Those persons who spoke of the infliction of pain on dogs and cats as demoralizing to the person who inflicted it looked only at the pain and not at the results of the experiment. He should have been glad to have been able to have supported the Amendment of the noble Duke, but in his opinion it was not sufficient to meet the case. THE EARL OF CARNARVON thought the Amendment moved by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was somewhat unnecessary. The Bill was not rigidly confined to experiments with the knife, for the whole scope of it included drugs and medicines. He did not, therefore, feel disposed to accept the Amendment as it stood. In legislating on such a subject as that now before them, the Committee must look more to public sentiment than to strict logic. The dog especially had always been regarded as something more than a mere animalhe had been looked upon as the companion and the friend of man, into whose affections he had wormed himself. The cat also was regarded as a household pet. It was a fact that these two animals were most susceptible to pain, and that experiments performed upon them frequently inflicted most exquisite torture. He knew of an eminent physiologist and an eminent doctor, who, at different periods of their lives, had performed vivisectional operations upon the dog or cat, and he would state to their Lordships what were their experiences. In the one instance the impression made upon the operator's mind was such as to haunt him for months afterwards, and he declared that no circumstances would induce him again to perform an experiment of that kind. In the other case, the gentleman who had witnessed a similar operation determined that nothing would tempt him to witness such an experiment again. Physiologists, however, stated that there were certain valuable experiments which could only be performed upon the dog and the cat, and he had felt bound to take that fact into consideration. Under all the circumstances of the case his proposal was that whenever it was absolutely necessary that such an experiment should be made upon dogs and cats, it should be made not only under all the guarantees and provisions of the Bill relating to other animals, but that it should only be made in special cases, for which special reasons should be assigned, and for which the consent of the Home Secretary should be specially required. He proposed to amend the clause by inserting after the word "cat" the following words: this Act mentioned, and that for reasons speci"Except on such certificate being given as in fied in such certificate and where the object of the experiment would be necessarily frustrated unless it is made on an animal similar in constitution to a dog or a cat, and no other animal is available for the experiment." He had no objection to include horses, asses, and mules in the same category with dogs and cats. On the whole he thought it would be best to defer this branch of the question for the present, and he would, therefore, bring it forward again on the Report. VISCOUNT CARDWELL expressed his willingness to accept the proposal of the noble Earl, which he thought would meet the views that had been stated in the discussion. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, that if they would pass the clause in its present form he would endeavour to bring up an Amendment on the Report which would meet the views of their Lordships. by leave, withdrawn; Amendment (The Then Amendment (The Duke of Argyll) Earl of Carnarvon) agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 11 (Certificates of scientific bodies for exceptions to general regulations.) THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved to add the President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the President of the Royal Irish Academy, the President of the General Medical Council, Dublin, and the President of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved that the President of the Royal Veterinary College be also added. AND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND GORDON said, it must be recollected that there was a College of Veterinary Surgeons as well as a Royal Veterinary College, and if the name of the President of one were inserted, he did not see how the latter could be left out. The President of the Royal Veterinary College was the Commander-in-Chief, and |