THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY suggested that, in the case their Lordships had to deal with, the use of the word "living" was unnecessary. Vivisection was not performed on dead animals. the magistrate. Their appointment fur- | enter on the work of definition proposed ther involved the selection of a class of by the noble Duke. The General Medical officers very difficult to obtain, for it Council had spent half a day in enwould be necessary that they should deavouring to define "any living have professional knowledge sufficient animal," and ultimately giving up in to enable them to judge accurately of despair, recommended that there should the value of these researches, and it be no such definition. would not be easy to find persons in whose judgment the public and the Profession would have confidence. It was only by acting in unison with the highest professional authorities that Parliament could hope to effectually regulate the practice of vivisection, and he feared that in his zeal to prevent abuse the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill would alienate the support upon which he ought to rely, and discredit the good. cause of humanity in which every Member of the House was interested. Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly. Clause 1 (Short Title). THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, that at the proper time he intended to propose that the title of the Bill be changed from "An Act to prevent cruel experiments on Animals" to "An Act to amend the law relating to Cruelty to Animals." This change he proposed in deference to the opinion expressed by a deputation of the medical Profession. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (General restriction as to performance of painful experiments on animals). THE DUKE OF SOMERSET called attention to the opening words of the clause. "The following restrictions are imposed by this Act with respect to the performance on any living animal of an experiment," &c. Was a jellyfish a living animal? A great number of experiments were perpetually performed by farmers; and there were continual experiments on small animals and insects for their benefit. What was to be done in these cases? Had they not better define what a "living animal" was? He feared they were about to pass a Bill which would be absurd in its application, and which no one would clearly understand. THE EARL OF CARNARVON thought their Lordships would do well not to The Marquess of Lansdowne THE EARL OF CARNARVON thought the matter was not so clear as his noble Friend supposed. With some animals the head might be cut off and signs of sensation might still appear. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET hoped his noble Friend who had presided over the Royal Commission, and other noble Lords who had served upon it, would come to their aid and help them in a definition of "living animal;" and that they would also explain what they meant by "inflicting unnecessary pain upon animals," because it was sometimes necessary to destroy animals wholesale. the VISCOUNT CARDWELL said, Royal Commission had the advantage of hearing the most eminent physiological and medical authorities; and, further, it had the great advantage of having as one of its Members a most eminent physiologist. He trusted that, after that, the House would not feel overtroubled by the difficulties with respect to definitions which presented themselves to his noble Friend. The Commissioners had not felt themselves at all perplexed in their inquiries, and had come to a unanimous conclusion as to what they should recommend. Since the Commission closed its labours, he had received from many of the most distinguished professional men in this country the expressal of the entire approval of the result of those labours; and only on the previous day he had the honour of seeing a letter from the President of the Royal Society, in which similar approval was expressed. They had now to deal with a practical measure, and he trusted that their Lordships would deal with the subject practically, and not be thrown off the scent by the red herring which was now being drawn across the path of the Bill. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET only hoped the magistrates would be able to do that which it appeared neither the General Medical Council nor the Legislature | not take the trouble to understand or to were able to do-to define that which care about a question, a force the weight might or might not be done-otherwise of which can hardly be over-rated by it might go hard with a farmer who destroyed a wasp's nest. LORD WINMARLEIGH pointed out that destroying a wasp's nest was a positive act of destruction, and not an experiment on a living animal; and the destruction of animals wholesale would not be done as an experiment. any practical man who has to run counter to it; this force will be strengthened by the passing of any Bill whatever, and will greatly aid the opposition of those comparatively few men of ability and intelligence who now actively oppose the regulation even, as well as the abolition, of cutting up animals alive. So much by way of general entreaty to the noble Earl. Next, as to this particular Amendment, I may say that, LORD RAYLEIGH moved, as an Amendment in sub-section 1, to leave out from ("advancement") to ("suffering") and insert (" of medical or phy-individually, I have that true respect for siological knowledge.") LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I do not desire to stop for a moment the progress of a Bill, in the success of which I feel so deep an interest, by any unnecessary speaking. But I wish in the fewest possible words to tender my thanks to the noble Earl for a measure, humane indeed, yet wise and temperate, and practical in its humanity, and to entreat him, if he will allow me, to stand firm to the main outlines of the Bill, and to resist all attempts to change its essential character. Some of the Amendments which have been suggested would, if carried, make the Bill valueless in my eyes; indeed, I would rather see it lost than see it carried with some of those Amendments. Better a thousand times the present state of things, with the aroused and increasing indignation of a people, sometimes coarse and brutal, no doubt, as some portions of all great multitudes will be, but never deliberately cruel, never turning away from the appeal, even if it be the mute appeal, of suffering and oppressed creatures;-better this, than a recognition by the Legislature of the moral lawfulness of inflicting torture for any but the very highest objects, and in the fewest instances, and a law which would be rather an encouragement to the vivisector than a protection to his victims. It is of vital consequence that this Bill should be a real effective measure-a real step in the direction in which its advocates mean to go. For a Bill of this kind, and the feeling which generates a Bill of this kind, cannot be produced every year. Whatever passes will be treated by many men as a present settlement of the question. The inert force of that large mass of men who wish to leave things alone, or do the noble Earl, and so much confidence in his intentions and his judgment, that if he thinks it, on the whole, wise to accept it, I shall certainly not trouble the House by dividing against him. But what is the main and great object of the present Bill--its characteristic, its essence? I apprehend, speaking for the moment without the qualifications (which, nevertheless, I do not forget), it is to prevent by law the infliction of torments upon living creatures. Experiments themselves are only to be allowed. for certain definite objects. As a rule, in all experiments, insensibility is to exist in the subject during their performance, and as a rule they are to be performed only for the prolongation of human life, or the alleviation of human suffering. This limitation, as I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Rayleigh), it is proposed to relax. Now, for my own part, I must confess, that, the more I think about it, the less I am satisfied that we have the moral right, which is assumed, to torture animals for the benefit of mankind. least it seems to me more and more certain that the exercise of this right, if it exists, should be restrained within the narrowest practicable limits; and that it should never be done, except in what is, perhaps, a legal phrase, but none the worse for that, whenever it is reasonably necessary. I have heard it indeed denied, and denied on very high authority, that there is any justice to be observed by us towards animals, on the ground that there is nothing correlative on their parts towards us, and that they have been given over absolutely into our dominion. I will not embark your Lordships or myself in a discussion. on the metaphysic of morality, but, granting that they have been given At to us, or, what comes to the same thing | tive to any such insulting question. This as far as they are concerned, that we theory of the rights resulting from absohave taken them absolutely into our lute dominion must, it seems, have some power; and granting that we cannot be stern limitation put upon it. But further unjust towards them in the strict sense still. In the lofty and spiritual philosoof the word, all this does not absolve us phy of the great Bishop to whom I have from our moral duties towards them, of already alluded, our bodies are called which the plainest and simplest of all is, masses of matter in which we are nearly that we should never needlessly torture interested. I suppose that other bodies them. What do we know about them? would have been described by him as We do not know their life; we cannot masses of matter in which we are not so describe their interests; we cannot nearly interested. And, if the prevailing foretell their destiny. Whether they views of the opponents of this Bill be have reason, or responsibility, we do not correct, and are to be acted on, there is no know. Some men doubt whether they limit, except that of power, by which we have feeling in the sense that we have, should be restrained from operating for as they seem to have no reflection and our own benefit, and for the advancement no foresight. Whether they perish alto- of science, on the bodies of others-these gether, appeared to so great a man as masses of matter in which we have not so Butler to be at least far from certain. I near an interest as our own. If the presume, therefore, to doubt extremely principles on which these limitations are whether we know enough of them to resisted become widespread and effective, conclude that we have the absolute right if science is the great object, if advance of torturing them, even for our own direct in knowledge-genuine if you will, and benefit. I doubt whether, if it were honestly pursued if you please is to certain that by putting 1,000 horses to justify all cruelty in ourselves and all death in slow and hideous torments, we suffering in others which advance, or could prolong the life of a man or of tend to advance, real knowledge, depend men for a few hours or a few days-I on it you will find that not only in reason, doubt much if it would be justifiable so but in fact, men and women will not to torture 1,000 horses. I believe, long be respected as subjects for scienif I spoke my whole mind, I should say, tific experiments, and, if the end justifies that I do not doubt that it would be the means, I do not know why they clearly and abominably wrong. This should be. There is a frightful letter in rule of what we may do with creatures The Examiner of this week, signed by in our power for our own benefit, we Mr. Maitland, the statements of which, ourselves being the judges, may be very as regards our hospitals, if well founded, convenient, but is undoubtedly capable would go to show that poor men and of dangerous extension. Dogs and cats women are not now respected by scientific were described as carnivorous animals men, but are regarded, like cats and of great value for purposes of research. dogs, as animals of great value for purWell, dogs and cats cannot be heard poses of research. I hope and pray against the scientific accuracy of the that these statements may prove to be definition. But what as to slaves? More exaggerated or unfounded. But, unless than 2,000 years ago Aristotle called you tell scientific men that, as a rule, it is them "living tools.' And in the life- unlawful to inflict tortures for the sake time of the youngest Peer in your Lord- of research, the statements of that letter ships' House, in a great, allied, and will soon be neither unfounded nor exChristian country, at least in a great part aggerated. I need not say, therefore, of it, it was hardly an exaggeration to that the Amendment of the noble Lord, say they were as completely chattels, and as far as my own judgment goes, is one had as few legal rights as chairs or that I would strenuously oppose. But I tables. They were held in absolute repeat that I shall not dispute the judgdominion. Could they have been law- ment at which the noble Earl the Secrefully (I mean in morality) put to cruel tary for the Colonies may finally arrive. torture for the purpose of prolonging I have detained your Lordships too long; the life or alleviating the suffering of the but there is another matter which seems superior race? Most certainly not. The to me of consequence to say, and I should whole voice of civilized mankind would be glad to be allowed to say it. I hope have returned a fierce and angry nega- and pray that your Lordships will not be Lord Coleridge either alarmed or misled by the argument which, in Parliament and out of it, has been used against the Bill, drawn from the alleged cruelty of certain fieldsports; and from the pain inflicted upon numbers of the males of many agricultural animals by practices familiar to us all. I must frankly say, that some fieldsports do appear to be to me detestably cruel; and that, perhaps, in a perfect state of the word we should all learn"Never to blend our pleasure or our pride With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels." I do not, however, think that all sport is cruel; and I know well enough that, if it were, what Mr. Windham said 70 years ago is true to day-namely, that cruel sports do not make cruel men. Admit, however, all that is said on this subject, and I cannot see the sense or follow the logic of it. Where is the sense, where is the logic, of saying to a practical man-a--" You must not try to put down this, not because it is not cruel, but because you are not at the same time trying to put down that, which is cruel too?" My answer is, that I do what I can; and that, if ever the time arrives when the great majority of mankind think the practices I have spoken of as cruel as they think the practices which it is the object of this Bill to prevent, they will then put down those practices without the smallest hesitation. Oh, but says an opponent, this is "fancy" legislation; sometimes the expression is "partial" legislation. As to fancy legislation, I must observe, that calling bad names does not advance the argument a single step; and, as to partial legislation, my answer is, that all legislation is in a sense necessarily partial; you cannot do everything, any more than you can say everything, at once. The one question for a man of sense to answer is this-Is the thing right in itself to do? I cannot conceive any one who has read the Report of the Royal Commission, or the evidence for instance of Dr. Klein, answering that question except in the affirmative. If so, we reply that we mean to do it, and do it now. My Lords, I know how very easily a clever cynic may turn all this into fun. Nothing is easier to do. Nothing in its proper place and at its proper time is more amusing or more delightful than to hear such a man humourously laughing at anything tinged with imagination and enthusiasm. It is true that you may, as it has been said, so speak of earth, that it grows more earthy, so speak of Heaven that it recedes from view. But surely my Lords, keen pain and long-drawn agony, even in the meanest of God's creatures, are not convenient matters for a jest ; and I am very sure that in your Lordships' House, whatever conclusions are arrived at, will be the issue of grave and serious argument, and that, as the cause is worthy of your Lordships, so your Lordships will be worthy of the cause. VISCOUNT CARDWELL said, that as he had himself given Notice of an Amendment almost identical with that which had been moved by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Rayleigh), he wished to say a few words in its support. He hoped to be able to convince the noble Earl who had introduced this Bill that if he intended to make it a practical and effective measure he must accept some such Amendment as that now before the Committee. In drawing up a measure of this kind it was above all things necessary that it should be plain and intelligible — such that those who had to administer the law would be able to apply, and which need not remain a dead letter on the Statute Book; and he trusted that the noble Earl would act upon the practical principle of doing all the good which he could, even although it might not be all that he wished to do. This was exactly the position in which the Royal Commission found themselves. Their object was to do what they could to do away with the torture of animals in experiments, entirely where it was possible to do so, and to reduce it to the smallest amount in cases where it could not be altogether abolished. In arriving at the conclusion they had done on the subject they had not been governed by medical opinion or by mere scientific opinion. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken (Lord Coleridge) appeared altogether to have omitted from his consideration the recommendation of the Commission that anaesthetics should be employed in all cases where they could possibly be had recourse to. That was the key to the whole question. If in the Royal Commission they had occupied their time in discussing the metaphysics of morality-in examining the relations of man to the lower animals as regarded by Aristotle-or in considering with Bishop Butler the possible existence | to them he would say at once that the of the lower animals in a future state- Government would agree to the clause they would have made little progress in being so far altered as to admit of phythe practical duty confided to them by siological inquiries being carried on. He the Crown. That duty was to assist the admitted that the Bill was a penal meaLegislature in framing enactments which sure, and that therefore it was essential without retarding the progress of dis- to make perfectly clear all processes of covery for the benefit of man, might put law that might be required to carry out the closest attainable limit upon the its provisions; but the Government suffering inflicted upon the lower ani- would accept no Amendment which they mals. The real question for their Lord- thought would render the essential ships would be whether or not the Bill clauses of the measure one whit less would be improved and rendered more effective than they now were; but after welcome by the adoption of the Amend- careful and repeated consideration he ment, which would render its construction believed that it was possible to admit more easy to those who would have to physiological inquiries into the same work under it and who would have to category as medical inquiries. What they carry it into execution. It was most de- had to look to was this-whether the sired by those who were anxious on the Bill was stringent and effective for its side of humanity that the measure purpose, and if so, whether they might should be above all things practicable. not with comparative safety discard the It would be very hard for a Court or a question of the intention of the party magistrate to distinguish between the in conducting the experiment. In cermotives of persons who made these ex-tain cases it would be extremely difficult periments, but very easy to determine whether due recourse had been had to anaesthetics. The Report of the Commissioners showed that great discoveries had been made where the experiments had not been conducted for medical purposes; but should the experiments be restricted on that account? The discoveries of Harvey did not appear to have been arrived at by experiments which would be within the Bill as it stood. His were mere scientific experiments; but would they on that account have prevented the discovery of the circulation of the blood? The Commissioners had before them the great experiments performed by Dr. Ferrier and Dr. Crichton Brown. But for the use of anaesthetics these experiments would have inflicted the most horrible tortures, but by their use they were performed apparently without pain; but no one could say whether, under the wording of this Bill, they were physiological or medical experiments. One of the operators spoke of them in one sense in his evidence and one in the other. But, as he had pointed out, the greatest discoveries of science had not been made under the conditions of this Bill, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would adopt the Amendment. The EARL OF CARNARVON said, that there were three Amendments proposed to this clause, which were substantially the same; and in reference Viscount Cardwell to say whether the inquiries were physiological or medical; and if the existing words were left in the clause they might perhaps create doubt and uncertainty. On the whole, he might say that of the three Amendments he preferred that of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell). There were some Amendments which attacked the principle of the Bill, and there were others which concerned the particular interests of professional gentlemen. As to those which went to the vitality of the Bill, nothing would induce the Government to make any alteration; whilst as to the others, the Government would be anxious to meet the views which were put forward. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, that the position of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Coleridge) would alter the principle of the Bill, because he said that we had no right to inflict pain upon any animal whatever. The noble and learned Lord referred to horses; but if we had no right to inflict pain upon horses, what was to become of the Cavalry? No one would deny that the firing of horses was a most painful operation. When any of their Lordships got ill they sent for Sir James Paget or Sir William Gull, and paid them to get the benefit of knowledge which had been acquired from experiments upon living animals. Now, it savoured of hypocrisy to pay for this |