I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead therof the words

"this House declines to proceed further with a measure which would impose an unnecessary and vexatious obstacle to medical research."

I have not as yet spoken in this House on this Bill. On the last occasion I did not speak partly because it was not necessary and partly because the time was short, but chiefly because I did not approve of the Amendment proposed, and I could not have given it cordial support. I quite recognise the value of that Amendment as an alternative to the Bill itself, but the more I look at that Amendment the more I feel that it introduces a very great obstacle to research in these matters. It seems a very little thing to get an additional certificate, but I shall show that it really is not, and the very matter of getting this additional certificate is an obstacle which ought not to be introduced at the present time. From another point of view, I do not think that this Bill should be proceeded with, and that is because it involves a very grave censure upon a large body of honourable men and a great profession for which there is no justification whatever. I do not think this House realises what an amount of obloquy has already been thrown upon men who are only trying to do something which may be of great use to mankind and science. The Bill as it now stands practically states that this House has gone carefully into the matter of all these accusations, and it implies that cruelty is being practised, that the medical profession delight in torture, and that they cannot be trusted in the matter of animals.

That is not in the Bill.

I say that this is what it implies; and for these reasons it is alleged that it is necessary to tie the hands of medical men still further, even though such a proceeding may involve a serious loss to humanity. I can speak on this matter from first-hand knowledge, because at one time I held certificates and licences for a number of years, and later on in my career I became one of those men who had the responsibility of signing certificates. My experience dates back a good while, and no doubt there are other circumstances which hampered investigations at that time which may not do so now. As far as I remember, my first licence was taken out in the year 1880 or 1881, and from that time onwards I held licences for twelve or fifteen years. Not that I used them every year, but I held licences till at last I found that I could not serve two masters, and I could not serve God and mammon. Now, with regard to the difficulties of the existing Bill as it stands. In the first place, you have to have a laboratory in which you can do your work, and that must be licensed. When I commenced studying bacteriology it was then absolutely in its infancy, and I was one of the pioneers of it in this country. At that time there was no laboratory in the Kingdom which attempted bacteriological work. I got into a physiological laboratory, and at first they were very sceptical about any of the experiments, and later on they began to attribute any illness they contracted to my compounds.

Then you say yon have got to get someone to sign your licence, and you depute two to sign it. At one time the practical surgeons and assistants did not think much of bacteria, and they thought it was very unlikely that they had anything to do with disease, and they did not really think it was worth while investigating that subject. On the other hand, there were those who were entirely opposed to Lord Lister's revolution in surgery, and would oppose it in every way they could. While I was able usually to get one signature, I often found it difficult to get the second, which I usually tried to get from the President of the College of Surgeons, and for some years he was an opponent of Lord Lister and all his works. These are real difficulties. Then when these certificates were got we had to go to the Home Office, and they used to lie there for some considerable time before they went through. Now we are proposing to have further restrictions and another certificate, which has to be got in order to show that no other animal in the world is possible except the dog to experiment upon. It is difficult to get that certificate in the case of people who are very conscientious about this matter.

Then, similarly, you have not only to persuade the informed people, but you have also to persuade the Home Secretary, who, perhaps, knows very little about that department of science, that it is necessary. You are, therefore, adding a very great difficulty to many existing difficulties, and the result of those difficulties is to cause delay. As a rule, if you have just cause, you got your certificate, but the people who have the granting of them do not understand the value of time. Supposing that you are making a research, the experiment on the animal only forms a small part of it. There comes a time when you form certain views and have ascertained certain facts, and you want to test them. You have to get these certificates before you can do anything more. You have to lay aside your researches, the enthusiasm and inspiration which is guiding you goes, and when you get your certificate you have almost forgotten what you wanted to do. You have, perhaps, started another research and have got more interested in it. You thus have a vicious circle, and you lose that impulse which is so excessively important.

This Bill is going to make it still more difficult to be ready to do the experiments at the time that your thoughts are running in that direction. Put a man in a responsible position and he will try to fulfil the duties of that position fairly and honestly. However wild a man may be ordinarily, if you put him in a position of responsibility he will live up to that responsibility. Anyone placed in the position of having to decide "whether a man ought to undertake research or whether he was fit to do it or whetherthe research was worth doing—those are the two things to be considered—would try fairly and honestly to decide the matter. I do not pretend to be a bit better than anybody else, but I do say that when I have been asked to sign a certificate I have gone into the matter carefully. I have known the danger of delay, and I have tried to make the decision the same day. I have more than once refused certificates, either because I thought the research was not a good one, but was a foolish one or not well thought out, or because I thought the man had not sufficient preliminary education to take upon himself such an important work. I believe that feeling would inspire anyone put into that position. Any re- sponsibility put upon a man of honour will be fully discharged, and the suggestion of the Anti-Vivisection Society that that duty is not satisfactorily discharged is disgraceful.

There is a great deal of exaggeration. People do not understand what an experiment upon an animal means. Only the other day a lady whom I had not met before came to me, and, when she heard that I was opposed to this Bill, she expressed great disgust and astonishment that I should oppose such humanitarian ideas, and that I should advocate such a terrible thing as vivisection. I tried to get to know what her idea of experiments upon animals was. She told me that vivisectionists had cellars at the bottom of their houses where they kept the animals so that their cries could not be heard and that when the house was quiet they went down to those cellars to see the results of their experiments. The public as a whole think that you experiment upon animals to see what happens. That is not the spirit in which experiments are conducted. You have been thinking over the matter and collecting information from all sides. You have been working up researches, whether anatomical or chemical, and the time comes when it seems advisable to put the ideas which you have formed to the test. Dealing with living issues, you must either test them on manor beast. Let me take an example. Soon after bacteriology began to be studied, Koch demonstrated the presence of the bacilli of tuberculosis, and that was followed by the discovery of the fact that cattle were extremely subject to tuberculosis. As a result specimens of milk were examined and found to be tuberculosis. Going further and studying the disease in infants, it was found that the most common place for tuberculosis to occur in infants was the intestines. The natural conclusion was that you had better kill the bacilli in the milk, and the only way was by boiling the milk. For years children in hospitals and in private life have been given boiled milk; my own children were given boiled milk. A very curious thing resulted. I remember quite well years ago a physician in the children's hospital with which I was connected saying to me, "I am not quite sure about the boiling of milk. It looks to me as if you take the life out of it." I was more interested in the tubercular bacillus than anything else, and I cannot say that it impressed me very much. That idea, however, has existed, and experiments have been made in the nutritive values of food, with the result that it has been found that the boiling of milk does take the life out of it.

I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill deals with dogs. It does not deal with boiled milk, cattle, or anything else.

I quite appreciate your objection. I was only trying to show by a very simple illustration what an experiment means. I wanted to show that experiments on animals were the continuation of research, and that they were not merely carried on in order to see what might happen. It is a very important point. The main object of research is to get at the actual functions of various parts of the body, It is not a haphazard thing; it is carefully thought out and applied to one particular purpose. As I shall be unable to speak again on this Motion, I have tried to realise the principal objections which my adversaries may bring forward, and I think I can see three kinds of objections gathered from what I have read in the anti-vivisection papers. The first is that it is all nonsense to talk of the trouble arising through introducing extra limitations. It is suggested, indeed, that experiments on dogs are quite unnecessary, and opponents of these experiments assert that it is possible that all the knowledge required can be obtained by observations of patients and by post-mortem examinations. The second point is that experiments on dogs should be prevented entirely; and the third is that a great deal of work is done on dogs without any practical aim: that it is one thing to make experiments with a practical aim, but that it is another thing to do it simply to see what may happen under given conditions. I will endeavour to develop those points.

Take the suggestion that it is unnecessary to have any experiments on dogs, because if there is anything of value to be learned it can be obtained by observations on patients and by post-mortem examinations. That is one of the stock arguments of the anti-vivisectionist. But I would like to suggest an illustration. Take gassing. That is a matter in which experiments have been made on dogs. We all remember the terrible descriptions which were published of what happened when the Germans first used gas—how the men first began to cough, and then had to struggle for breath. Personally, I was very much alarmed, for it seemed to me that if the enemy had gas enough they could easily destroy whole armies. How were we to deal with that? Were we to sit and wait, were we to watch gassed men and wait for a post-mortem examination. Suppose that had been done. Suppose experiments on dogs had not been made. What course would have been taken. The chemists would have been set to work first to find out what the gas was; secondly, to discover the antidote, and then to provide proper masks. The results of the examination and the experimental masks would have had to be sent out to the troops, and much valuable time would have been wasted, and many lives lost. But what was done was to make certain experiments on animals—dogs and goats, and we all know that as a result of those experiments complete protection was quickly found against the gas. It is perfectly monstrous to suggest you could get a result like that by watching patients and making post-mortem examinations. The whole history of medicine is full of instances of prolonged observation of patients and of post-mortem examinations without ever arriving at results. Yet results have been achieved almost at once by experiments on animals. I do not know if I may mention some discoveries, but take the circulation of the blood. Experiments in connection with that were made on dogs and other animals. I suppose since the world began people have been wondering how the blood was distributed through the body. Before the days of Galen, who was the greatest physician on earth before the coming of Christ, extraordinary view were held as to the functions of the arteries and veins. When an animal dies what happens is that the arteries contract and empty themselves of blood. The conclusion before Galen's days was that the arteries contained air and the veins blood. But Galen laid it down that blood was contained in the arteries as well as in the veins.

This is a very interesting lecture, but we are dealing with the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that there is nothing in it which prevents any of the experiments to which he is referring so long as a certificate is taken out. That is the whole point, whether or not a certificate shall be taken out, and it is a very small point.

It is a small point, but I want to suggest that a great many experiments would have been prevented by reason of the delay involved in getting these certificates. This is a very intricate question. I am a new Member of the House, and it is somewhat difficult to keep within the rules of order in a case like this, but I am sure Mr. Speaker is perfectly fair. All I was trying to do, however, was to point out that delay might make many experiments impossible. If that is wrong, I am afraid I must leave out all I was going to say.

That was not wrong at all. If the hon. Member confines himself to urging that there will be delay in obtaining certificates, of course that is strictly relevant. But to show the advantage of experiments upon animals in assisting human nature is irrelevant, because there is nothing here to prevent the experiments except the necessity of obtaining certificates.

I was going to say about Harvey that I did not mean for one moment that he would not have been able to do the experiments if these certificates had existed. However, I will leave that. I have no right to say that an experiment was stopped. I only say that experiments would have been stopped if these obstacles had existed. I will pass from the question of experiments on animals as being proved of value to the seriousness of these restrictions. If: it is in order, I should like to deal with the second objection, namely, that this Bill is a reflection on the workers. In any remarks I may be allowed to make I do not wish to reflect on anyone in this House. I do not question the honesty and the humanity of anyone who is promoting this Bill. I take the position that they are misinformed. That is not their fault. It is the fault of people who inform them. I speak as one who knows that the statements made to them appealed to their humanity and, believing the statements made to them, they come here and promote this Bill. If it is in order, I would point out that some of the statements made to them are not true. The statements made to them are made by agitators, and we know what the agitator is. Ho only sees one side of the question, and disregards all other sides as being abso- lutely irrelevant, and he uses his persuasive power to convert others. This agitation is founded on misrepresentation. There is a good deal of statement of partial truths and a suppression of truth. If it is in order, I would like to show how these statements are manufactured. I have two about myself in connection with this Bill. Here is one that has been circulated. They did not send me a copy, but it has been circulated to all Members, containing statements about myself. It says,

"Dr. Watson Cheyne, who opposed the Bill, speaking in the Committee stage, declared that experiments on dogs were necessary for the cure of cancer."

I never said a word about it. It was mentioned upstairs in the Committee Room, but not by me—

"He warned the Members of the Standing Committee that if the Bill were passed in its original form it might be the cause of the death of many who would otherwise have lived."

I never said anything of the sort. It is true I am a member of the Imperial Cancer Fund and am familiar with all the work that has been done. I could have gone on till five o'clock telling you of remarkable things of value. I did not mean to prophesy about cancer, and I did not do it. But after this statement it will come up ever afterwards that I prophesied that very valuable research would be obtained. Here is another somewhat worse thing:

"Sir Watson Cheyne, Sir William Whitla, Dr. Macdonald, and Lieut.-Colonel Raw showed themselves almost passionately anxious —"

—this is in regard to the Bill promoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) in regard to the use of anaesthetics in veterinary surgery—

"showed themselves almost passionately anxious to save the dog every twinge of pain likely to be suffered at the hands of the veterinary surgeon. Sir Watson Cheyne was inclined to object to morphia as an anaesthetic being employed, although we are quite sure he would retain the use of it in vivisection."

Why should they say that? I have never claimed the right to do so in vivisection. I have never given the slightest ground for their making such a suggestion. But what will happen? Six months hence an old lady will come and tell you that I use morphia for experiments on animals. So the lie will spread, and hon. Gentlemen will come here and argue, if I happen to be a Member of the House six months hence, that I said so. There is another important thing I should like to mention as an instance of misrepresentation. Here are some remarks by Mr. Stephen Cole- ridge on rabies, dealing with the case of a man who was bitten by a mad fox. The result of statements like that would be that people would be prevented from going for treatment if they were bitten.

Really, what has this to do with the Bill before the House? Absolutely nothing. This Bill, as I have said, is a simple Bill. I believe that practically the whole of the first Clause was proposed by the Government. It is really a Government Bill introduced as an Amendment to the other Bill. It is very narrow in its limits, and all these other matters, such as replies to Mr. Stephen Coleridge, and so on, have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The hon. Member is not entitled to waste the time of the House in discussing them.

May I ask whether, in the first place, it is a fact that the Government is now opposing this Bill, and does not think that the Amendment introduced makes it any more represent the views of the Government? Nor does it represent the views of that very large body who consider it from beginning to end a mischievous and pernicious Bill. Surely we are entitled to bring forward arguments proving generally the pernicious character of the Bill and the harm that it would do by preventing experiments "which have rendered great benefits to humanity. That being the case, how is it possible for us to carry on an effective opposition unless our scientific friends are allowed to bring forward strong and convincing arguments to show that a restriction upon these experiments would lead to very great detriment and loss to humanity?

If the hon. Member will confine himself to a matter of that sort by all means. It is strictly relevant. But he was dealing with all sorts of questions—attacks upon himself for what he said in connection with a totally different Bill—not even this Bill—and replies to statements which have appeared in the Press over the name of Mr. Stephen Coleridge and the case of a Peer who was bitten by a fox, I believe, five and twenty years ago. What on earth have these things to do with a simple Bill of this kind? The hon. Gentleman asks me whether this is a Government Bill or not. I do not know. All I remember about it is that the greater part of Clause 1 was introduced by the Government. I do not mean that it is a Bill promoted by the Government, but what I say—and my recollection, I think, is correct upon that —is that the greater part of Clause 1 is in the wording of Amendments by the Government.

Is it not the case that the Government is now opposing the Bill?

I do not know. I cannot get a chance of hearing them.

it is a very curious thing that we have been passing two Bills, a Scotch and an English Bill, on health, and we are engaged in considering a Housing Bill, and at the same time we are considering the possibility of putting greater and greater restrictions on what is at the basis of the success of those Bills, namely, the advancement of knowledge. We are proposing to improve health, and I am afraid we are allowing the public to believe that health is to be improved much more rapidly than it is by these Bills, and at the same time we are proposing to disarm the profession which has to deal with health matters by preventing proper research. Surely the sensible thing to do would have been to begin by sweeping away all restrictions instead of imposing fresh restrictions. You may say I am an enthusiast in the matter. Perhaps I am, but we want to raise our standard of health from C 3 to A 1, and if anything stands in the way, whether it is this Bill or the Bill on which it is founded, it should be swept away, and if that is done I believe you will attain your aim. If it is not done, what will happen is what happened before, that the supreme authority on matters of health will again be Germany, because Germany from the first has acted in an enlightened manner. It has put on no restrictions, it has encouraged research on every hand, and I believe as soon as they get over the disappointment of losing the War, and see that they will get nothing more out of the Allies, they will set to work and will again take the supreme position they occupied before. Then it is a case of our doing as we did before, going to Germany to find out what has been found out in regard to these matters instead of doing it for ourserves.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot speak with the first hand knowledge which my hon. Friend possesses. My knowledge of the subject is distinctly second-hand, and that is, perhaps, a very good reason why I should second this Amendment. It expresses very clearly the object that we have in view in moving the rejection of the Bill. It is because it will impose an unnecessary and vexatious obstacle to medical research. The issue before the House is very limited. Let me look first of all at the title of the Bill. It is "To impose further restrictions on the vivisection of dogs." I take it by vivisection of dogs is intended experiments on dogs for the purpose of research with a view to the prevention and cure of disease. Therefore, the Bill proposes to impose further restrictions on a measure of that great and fundamental importance to the health of this country. But there is a great deal more even in the title because it implies that these restrictions are necessary in consequence of the cruelty that has hitherto been inflicted upon dogs by the distinguished medical men who perform these experiments. Therefore, if it were for no other reason than preventing any censure which is implied in the very title of the Bill from being indicated with respect to these distinguished scientific men, I should say that reason alone would be amply sufficient for rejecting the Bill. But there are other reasons strictly within the title of the Bill which seem to me to make it desirable.

I believe that if this Bill be passed in the form in which it now stands, the large number of relatively ignorant people who subscribe to the anti-vivisection funds will go about saying that the Bill has been passed in the House of Commons for the further restriction of experiments on animals, and that, although it is true that the Bill has been passed with slight amendments, nevertheless a Bill has been passed saying that experiments on animals are cruel and inhuman. That would produce a very bad effect. It would do more. Unless this Bill is rejected, these friends of anti-vivisection will say that they have gained something by the passing of this Bill, and the large sums of money which are absolutely wasted in the propaganda against vivisection will continue to be wasted and the sums of money contributed by sympathetic and benevolent old ladies of both sexes, which might be expended on founding research laboratories will be expended in the huge advertisements which meet one wherever one goes in support of objects which are not only useless but detrimental to the pur- poses of medical research. I think there is nothing to be done but to reject this Bill in toto, and to prevent these people saying that a Bill of this kind has passed through Parliament. By the rejection of this Bill, Parliament will have shown its appreciation of the efforts that have been made by scientific men through these researches to prevent and cure diseases, and it will be an argument in favour of research generally—research in science, in literature, in economics, in history, and other subjects. May I, as one interested in education generally, without any special knowledge of the particular branch of education to which this Bill refers, say how important it is to the interests of education at the present time in the country that everything possible should be done in favour of research work?

1.0 p.m.

The Bill itself seems to be very inconclusive and contradictory. My eminent Friend (Sir Watson Cheyne) has pointed out that many surgical operations arc in themselves experiments. Surgical operations on human beings are sometimes experiments. Might it not be, possible, with that love for dogs which some of us feel, that some eminent surgeon might desire to perform an experiment on a dog which would relieve it of great pain and possibly enable it to continue to live. How could that experiment be effected under this Bill? The first Clause of the Bill says

"Notwithstanding anything in the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, it shall be unlawful except as hereinafter provided to perform any experiment of a nature calculated to give pain or disease to any dog."

Such an experiment might be intended to cure the dog of a disease, and it may be absolutely necessary to carry out the operation almost immediately; but under this Bill that could not be done until the surgeon had obtained a special certificate from the Home Office. The Bill has been so drafted, and the Amendment introduced on the Report stage has been so worded, that it seems to contradict the first Clause of the Bill. Therefore, the Bill would have to be referred back if it were passed. My hon. Friend has pointed out that very great difficulties might stand in the way of obtaining a certificate, and that an eminent scientific man who is desirous of performing an experiment of the result of which he was not certain would hesitate if he had to go through the form of approaching the Home Office and explaining that the experiment could not possibly be performed upon any other animal than a dog. The words of the Clause are:

"and that no other animal is available for such an experiment."

Surely that is a very wide and sweeping thing for any scientific man to have to say. He would have to affirm on his own conscience, with the possibility of being punished if he were wrong, that this particular experiment could not possibly be performed on any other animal and that no other animal was available. If that is his first difficulty, what would be his difficulty in endeavouring to give the scientific reasons why this experiment could not be performed upon any other animal when explaining it to a Home Secretary who knew nothing about science, or certainly knew nothing of science in its application to surgery. I think I have given sufficient reasons why this Bill should not be added to the Statute Book by a Vote of this House.

The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill seems to have forgotten that there has been a great change in the Bill since it passed its Second Reading. His speech would have been more relevant if the Bill had come for Third Reading in the same state as when it passed its Second Reading. All that the Bill does now is to say that a certificate must be given in the event of a dog being used for certain experiments. The hon. Baronet said one of the reasons why he thought this House should not assent to the Third Reading of the Bill was because it implied a censure upon an honourable profession. If that is a reason for not passing a Bill to prevent painful experiments on dogs, it would have been a reason why the Act of 1876 should not have been passed. That Act prevented, for certain reasons, experiments being performed upon all animals, and provided that certificates would have to be obtained. Therefore, that argument of the hon. Baronet has no weight whatever. The next argument was that the supporters of the Bill only knew second-hand the statements which were made. I do not know whether he was referring to me, because this is the third Bill which I have introduced. The statements I have made have not been made second-hand; they have been obtained from statements made before the Royal Commission. On the Report stage I gave instances from the Royal Commission, and, as the hon. Baronet seems to have forgotten them, and as I think the House ought to be reminded of them, I will read one or two of them. Here is what Mr. Pembrey said in his evidence in the fourth Report of the Royal Commission, question 14067, page 763:

"I wanted to mention it in order to show the necessity of painful experiments."

That is not a second-hand statement; that is a statement by a gentleman who is himself an operator—

"I think that painful experiments are necessary."

Then I again read from the speech of Dr. Wilson, M.A., M.D., LL.D., in which he says,

"I have not allied myself to the anti-vivisectionists, but I accuse my profession of misleading the public—"

Shame!

Why shame?

To accuse his profession.

Why not? If his profession does wrong, why not say so?—

"misleading the public as to the cruelties and horrors which are perpetrated on animal life. When it is stated that the actual pain involved is of the most trifling description, there is a suppressio veri of the most palpable kind."

Then I read a letter from Sir William Collins, who is a well known medical gentleman, and was formerly a Member of this House, who wrote me:

"Allow me to congratulate you on the success which has so far attended your Dogs' Bill."

One of the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment of the Home Secretary —because it was a Government Amendment, and the Bill has become a Government Bill—was that the Government wanted to make the Bill in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The hon. and gallant Member for the Lanark Division (Captain Elliot), in an interruption, said,

"On a point of Order. May I read what is printed in red ink on the certificate, and which specifically states, 'Experiments are not to be performed under this certificate until licensee has been informed that it has not been disallowed by the Secretary of State'? That seems to be an absolute protection."

All this Bill at the present moment does is to say that a certificate must be required. The Research Defence Society have issued a memorandum to the Home Secretary dated June, 1919, in which they say,

"We desire to express to you our hope that the Dogs' Protection Bill will not be allowed to be read a third time. We recognise the value of the Government Amendment of 23rd May."

My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) was right in his point of Order when he said it is now a Government Bill. His own friends in the circular which they write to the Home Secretary say,

"We recognise the value of the Government Amendment."

Then they go on to say, giving the reasons against the Third Reading of the Bill:

"If the Bill were passed, the opponents of all experiments on animals would feel that something had been gained, and would immediately claim support for Mr. Cathcart Wason's Bill to prevent experiment on any dog, cat, horse, mule, ass or monkey."

Mr. Cathcart Wason's Bill is not my Bill. It was a private Member's Bill and every Member of this House knows perfectly well that such a Bill has not the ghost of a chance of passing. Whatever happens to this Bill will not affect by one iota the chance of the Bill to which I have alluded. Now I may refer to a short extract from the "Lancet." The Bill was founded and brought in in order to prevent experiments on dogs which we state are unnecessary because other animals can be secured and dogs are in such a peculiar position with regard to man that they should not be used for these matters. This is from the "Lancet" of the 31st May, 1919:

"The memorandum of the Medical Research Committee, which we also print in substance this week, demonstrates without reasonable protext for gainsaying that the experimental use of dogs has advanced our knowledge, and has been of benefit to suffering humanity. This is not to say that such knowledge could be acquired in no other way."

That is not a hearsay statement made by old ladies, unless the editor of the "Lancet" is an old lady. I do not know whether he is or is not. That is an argument made by the "Lancet," a representative journal of the Medical Society no later than the 31st May of this year—

"The habit of mind engendered by the pursuit of medical research is not dogmatic. A further indisputable if regrettable point is that the dog by virtue of his long domestication has specially fitted himself as a test object."

That is the secret of it. The dog is cheap.

No.

What about Dr. Chapple?

Read what Dr. Chapple said.

He is a member of the medical profession.

That was not a fair quotation from Dr. Chappie's speech. If the speech is read I think I can prove that that was the case.

I have the speech here—

"Even if we examine this question of cheapness we find that the difference is not between 5s. and 7s. 6d., but between 5s. and £5. It is not a matter of saving a few shillings; it is a matter of getting animals for experiments at a price that can be paid as compared with the price that cannot be paid. It would cost £5 to get a suitable monkey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1914, col. 524, Vol. 61.]

That is only one of many reasons. Dr. Chapple pointed out that dogs were the only animals available for many experiments.

I said it was one of the reasons. I have just given another, namely, that a dog by virtue of his long domestication has specially fitted himself as a test object. In a Memorandum the Research Committee referred to

"The well-known general reasons which render dogs invaluable for certain experimental work—namely, their long domestication, their size and structure of body, which cause the study of diet and of excreta to be applicable alike to dog, man and child."

I say that is the most contemptible reason that could be advanced. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] Oh, yes. Your reason is this: that because a dog has trust in man he does not fear and does not think that man is going to injure or hurt him; he therefore does not struggle and allows himself to be operated on, whereas if you took a monkey you would have great difficulty in carrying out many of your experiments.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the quotation say that the dog eats and excretes certain things, because it has been accustomed to live alongside man. Surely it is not a contemptible argument to say that a dog has been accustomed to eat certain things because it lives with us?

That is not a point of order.

Now I come to the position of the Government in this matter. First let me state that all these certificates and all the negotiations with regard to thy Vivisection Act of 1876 and various Bills which I have brought in dealing with dogs have always been conducted by the Home Office, and on 23rd May the Undersecretary of State for the Home Office recommended his Amendment on the ground that it carried out the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission, and this is the recommendation that he quoted:

"In view of the variety of practice and the divergence of opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs for experimentation and demonstration, we find some difficulty in deciding upon this important question. Some of us regard the provisions of the existing law as sufficient, some of us would prefer that in the case both of experimentation and demonstration the further special protection given to horses, asses and mules should be extended to dogs, while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether. But if any alteration is made in the existing procedure, the majority of us would agree that the special enactments now applicable to horses, asses and mules might be extended to dogs, and also to cats and anthropoid apes."

That is what the Bill in its present form does. This is what the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs went on to say:

"Every recommendation in that Report, except the one in the Amendment which now stands, in my name, has already been adopted by the Home Office, including, among the other things, the establishment of the Advisory Committee. We now want the House of Commons to assist us, by voting for this Amendment, to adopt the remaining recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat upon this question, and I think that that is an additional reason why this House, composed as we are of men with and without scientific attainment, should take the conclusion of the Royal Commission as the basis for their vote, rather than the view they may gather from ordinary literature, or from their deep feelings in reference to dogs, being experimented on at all."

He further said:

"I want also to say that we have on the side of the Home Office and the Government in this Amendment the vast majority of the scientific and medical profession."

The Government carried that Amendment, having stated through the Member then in charge of the Bill, who is now absent, that the Amendment was brought forward and fathered by the Government in order to carry out the last recommendation of the Royal Commission. Now we have the Government coming down with another Office and another Minister, sending out a three-line Whip in order to cancel and render nugatory the Amendment which they themselves put into the Bill a short time ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right, too !"] I say it is a breach of faith, not with me, but with the House. [HON. MEMBERS: ''No, no; nonsense!"]J It is no use saying "nonsense," which does not prove anything. I say it is a breach of faith, not with me, but with the House. The House was asked on the Report stage, by the Minister, in the words I have read out, to assist him and the Government in doing certain things, and the House did them; and then, when the House has done them, another Minister comes down and wishes that the House should reserve the decision which, by the request of the Government, they had arrived at only a short time ago. The arguments that have been put forward in favour of the Amendment are merely special pleading arguments, dealing for the greater part with the Bill not as it is now but as it was when it was introduced. The serious part, to my mind, is that the Government should do a thing of this sort—that having asked the House to take certain action quite recently, it should come down with a three-line Whip on a Friday—a most unusual thing—and ask them to over-ride a decision already reached.

I shall speak only a few words, and I begin by saying that I fully recognise the strong feeling, the honesty and sincerity of feeling, which inspires those who promote this Bill. It is not for me to go into the scientific question. There is no danger that I shall err against any ruling of yours, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) objected to being told that he and I alike must depend on others for second-hand scientific knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to put himself above scientific opinion, and to declare that in the opinions he held in regard to the use of these experiments he was not speaking second-hand. The right hon. Baronet claimed to hold his opinion as to the scientific value of the arguments not second-hand, as I and most laymen in this House do, but first hand.

When I said I did not hold the opinions second-hand I meant that they were not repeated to me by some person without knowledge.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a small minority of the medical profession. He said that the most serious part of the question was what he described as a breach of faith on the part of the Government. When the Bill was before the House on Report the Government introduced and supported an Amend- ment to lessen the pernicious character of the Bill. Is it in any way inconsistent that they should now, when there is for the first time a chance of throwing out the Bill, take that line. My right hon. Friend knows that the Bill slipped through the Second Beading almost silently. I was myself on the occasion of the Second Reading unable to be present, as I had to attend a Royal Commission.

I saw the hon. Gentleman in the House on the morning of the day on which the Bill was read a second time.

Yes, but I had to go away and could not possibly get back until half-past four. Is it inconsistent that the Government, having attempted to modify the hurtfulness of this Bill, should now come down and say that the whole Bill is wrong and oppose it. There is no inconsistency whatever in that attitude. Let me refer to the broad lines of this question as there is no use in splitting hairs on the Third Reading. We know what the position is. Some of us think that these experiments are justified and others think that they are not. Those in favour of them are prepared to oppose this Bill in any form, even amended. Those who quite sincerely think that these experiments are not justified support the Bill on the ground first that you have no right to use animals for the advantage of human beings. How far is that to be carried? Have we any right, for instance, to dispossess wild animals from the tracts in which they live? What about the treatment to which we subject horses in order to render them useful for our service? What right have we to destroy the rat or to exterminate whole races of animals? We know that those animals are hurtful to human beings and that their destruction is something that is expedient in the interests of human beings. If an hon. Member had a sick child of his own or in the case of anyone else would he not ride a horse to death in order to secure medical aid?

The horse enjoys being ridden.

Would he not ride a horse to death to get medical aid, and if he would do that does he not see that if it is permissible, it becomes an absolute duty, and that if justified morally, it becomes our bounden duty to sacrifice an animal's life in the interests of human life? Next there is the point that there is some peculiar sanctity about the dog. I have complete sympathy with the view that is taken as to the love of the dog. I have had dogs myself and found them good friends, and most of us have this love of dogs, but do not let us exaggerate it. It is a feeling which is not universal among humanity. Vast masses of humanity look down upon dogs, and our Eastern fellow subjects look on the dog as an unclean animal beyond all others. The dog is not always or at all times a great object of sanctity. Let me remind the House that we do not love the cynic, and the cynic means simply a man with a dog-like mind. Besides that there is an enormous amount of the love of dogs which is merely a form of selfishness. I have no patience at all with that love of dogs which shows itself in the case of the lap dog carried about in carriages and clothed in sumptuous raiment. There is an enormous deal of selfishness and cruelty mixed together in this love of dogs —

The hon. Baronet himself laid down very strict rules as to what is relevant and what is not relevant on this Bill, and I must ask him to abide by those rules himself. He is speaking generally about the relation of the dog to the human being, and that is not really very relevant to this Bill. That question is not relevant to the question as to whether a certificate is or is not to be issued in respect of experiments on dogs. That is a small point, and I must ask the hon. Baronet to keep to it.

This Bill is not confined merely to that. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, dogs are peculiarly closely connected with human beings, and therefore this Bill attempts to secure special exemption for dogs, to which we are opposed. While I do not wish to contest your ruling, Sir, is it not relevant to show that this argument of the peculiar sanctity of dogs and their close connection with humanity is not a sound basis for a Bill of this sort? The right hon. Baronet himself quoted an argument from the "Lancet" that the dog was specially useful because of its dietary, and he transformed the argument of the "Lancet" by saying that because the dog trusted us so it was a miserable and disgraceful thing for the "Lancet" to base such an argument upon it. I am endeavouring to show that the argument of the "Lancet" was sound and just, and that, on the other hand, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that the dog was so closely connected with us that it must be raised into a totally different position from all other animals, must not be carried too far. I have in my hand a letter from Dr. John Brown, the author of "Rab and His Friends," the greatest lover and historian of dogs that ever lived. That letter is strongly advocating vivisection, and he uses words which I wish I could ask the right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends to take to heart. He says:

"I am not an anti-vivisectionist-—"

Neither am I.

He goes on to say:

"I wish you and the public and all good people would have a little more faith in their fellow creatures and not think them brutes and demons."

The right hon. Gentleman quoted the well-known epitaph of Byron upon his dog. Byron was a great poet. He was also a very great master of sarcasm, and there is a good deal more sarcasm against his fellow beings than even love for his dog friends in that epitaph. We are divided on the broad point, and I pass over all details and ask, Are we bound by any duty to animals, or by any special and sacred duty to one particular species of animals, to do anything whatever that would check the advance of science that may be, and certainly has been in the past, for the advantage of all humanity; and are we to check these researches which have done in the past, and will do in the future, so much good, merely because of what I think often is a sentiment and not a very reasonable feeling on the part of those who accuse their fellow beings of being brutes and demons?

I desire at the out set to associate myself very strongly with the protest of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Bill against what he very mildly describes as a breach of faith on the part of the Government towards the House. Whatever be the merits of this measure, there is no person in this House to-day, including the learned and enthusiastic Gentlemen opposite, who will deny my statement that when the Report stage of this measure concluded every Member of this House was entitled to go away with the impression of the assurance from the Under-Secretary of the Home Office that by the introduction of this Government Amendment they had adopted the Bill. I have been told that Parliamentary bargains arc sacred things. I have been told that a bargain made behind your Chair, Sir, is sacred. Then what shall we say of a bargain made from the Treasury Bench in the face of the whole House? It ought to be absolutely sacrosanct, and I do not quite understand why it is that the new Minister of Health, who has been shouldered with the burden of this Bill all of a sudden, is placed in the embarrassing position of making almost his first official act in his new capacity that of throwing over the other Members of the Government. One is almost tempted to repeat the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) the other day: Will the Government never make up its mind about anything? At any rate, there has been an absolute change of front, and one which I venture to say without any qualification constitutes as complete a breach of faith with the House as you will find in all the annals of Parliament. I am going to base the very few remarks that I wish to trouble the House with strictly upon the terms of the only operative Clause of the Bill, which is that in future experiments or vivisection upon dogs must not be carried out without an additional certificate, which we are all familiar with, and which is to the effect that the object of the experiment would necessarily be frustrated unless it is performed on a dog, and then, with that redundancy which always characterises Government Amendments, it adds the proviso that no other animal is available for such experiment. Obviously, the one would include the other. I do not want to travel outside that limitation, but we are confronted with this position, that because this Bill requires that certificate we are seriously warned by members of the medical profession present that that would in some mysterious way inflict enormous injury on medical science and research, and also, I gather, deprive humanity of many advantages, to which, according to the ethics of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are entitled to help ourselves at the expense of the dumb creation—a dictum to which I do not subscribe. I have not that reverential respect for the mere ipse dixit of medical men, however eminent, which I suppose we all ought to entertain. The medical profession, like most other scientists, is one of the most gullible things in the world. The distinguished Member who moved the rejection of the Bill confessed that from 130 years before Christ, down to the time of Harvey, the medical profession did not know anything about the circulation of the blood, and that they thought the arteries were air-passages.

That is the meaning of the word "arteries."

The function, at any rate, of the arteries is to carry the pure blood through the body. I would explain it fully to my hon. Friend, but it might be out of order. But to tell me that a profession which, from 130 B.C. down to the time of Harvey, a hundred and odd years ago, thought the arteries were air passages, is only in keeping with many other instances in which the scientific world has been wrong. Was it not Charles II. who called the Royal Society together and gave a dinner, and asked them why, if they put half a dozen goldfish in a bowl of water, none of the water ran over? Each of the learned party gave an opinion, when someone suggested that they should send for some goldfish and see what happened. This was done, and it was found that the water ran over. Galileo held the opinion that the earth revolved round the sun. I am not unduly impressed by the fact that the medical gentlemen simply tell us, because they have cut up animals and people, and we have not, that we know nothing about this question. I do not want to be tempted into a dissertation about the dog, but I do venture to say this. I remember when the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was before this House one Member was asked why he did not vote. He said, "The fact is, my dear chap, my wife has a sister." Leaving the humorous, I support this Bill for the simple reason that I have a dog. That is quite sufficient for me. But, so far as the arguments which were specifically addressed to me are concerned, as to whether I would ride a horse to death to save the life of my daughter or anybody else's daughter, I do not think that would be a very effective way of saving life, because I do not know how I should reach the doctor's house if the horse dropped down dead, and I might not be able to see the doctor.

But all these questions are questions of degree. Riding a horse to the utmost of its capacity, caging a wild beast, killing a rat—some may be matters of absolute necessity, some may be matters involving no very great pain or suffering. The whole essence which the certificate and the Bill aim at is this: You shall not inflict suffering, essential and indispensable to vivisection upon dogs, without special permission. The Under-Secretary welcomed the recommendation of the Royal Commission and told us it had the entire support of the Home Office and the Government. The whole Government and the Home Office were unanimous in accepting this in the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] They certainly did not oppose the Bill, and I was rather surprised myself that the right hon. Gentleman did not snap the Third Reading on the last occasion. No doubt there was some subtle reason which we novices do not understand. Although my right hon. Friend and others, who are not opposed to vivisection, Base their support of the Bill solely on the ground of preventing unnecessary suffering to animals and preventing vivisection upon dogs above all animals, except in these special circumstances, I speak from another standpoint, not a sentimental one—I hope I am not a sentimentalist—but I do say that you have got to hesitate, and hesitate long, when you put to your own conscience this ethical question: "Am I, for the sake of saving some suffering to a human being, entitled to inflict suffering upon a dumb animal such as the dog?" I say you have not, and I personally would just as soon vivisect some human being for the sake of the dog; in fact, I think some human beings could serve no better purpose in life. I suggested this on the Report stage, and the Under-Secretary said, "We will not, because we are not barbarians." He told us just before that no suffering was intended. If you will not have human criminals, there are conscientious objectors who arc of no material use in the world. But I do plead for the dog, because, as I say, I have a dog, and have had many dogs, and it is in no spirit of bathos, no spirit of insincerity, that I conclude my remarks to-day with the observation that, having dogs, studying dogs and loving dogs, as we all do, in the course of a strenuous life, frequently in times of great mental anguish and anxiety, I have always found the dog the most faithful and sympathetic friend, and I say I cannot go back to my home and look all my splendid and glorious dogs in the eyes if I do not do my best to support the Bill.

I think the House will thank the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for having brought us back to the Bill we are discussing. Nevertheless, I am not able to accept the reproofs so generously showered upon us as to the breaches of faith which have been committed by the Government with the House, or to an extent indicated by the right hon. Member for North Hackney.

Not right hon. Gentleman yet.

The hon. Gentleman said, "unprecedented in Parliamentary history," or words to that effect. Anyone might think that the hon. Gentleman had not been in the House before, or had never seen opposition, or appreciated the fact that an Amendment might be unanimously and whole-heartedly supported, and then that Amendment having been secured—we will say—by some concession or the Government insertion of the Amendment in the Bill, finding the Government, or others, going whole-heartedly into the Lobby against the Bill as a whole. That is part of the ordinary Parliamentary procedure.

What was the position? It was that this Bill—and I should like to pay a tribute of admiration to the right hon. Baronet for the skill and, shall I say, the exercise of Parliamentary ability with which he got it through the Second Reading substantially without opposition— having reached that stage Amendments were made in Committee with the view of restricting the operation of the Bill as it then was. They were not in order. Therefore on the Report stage Amendments were brought forward which went as far as could be within the limits of the Order in amending the Bill in what was thought to be in the right direction. But there is no inconsistency in having supported an Amendment to minimise the harm which this Bill otherwise would have done, and afterwards voting against the Bill taken as a whole in deciding, after the Amendment has been incorporated, that even then it was not a measure which one could support. There is nothing inconsistent or unusual in that.

This particular Amendment was accepted by the author of the Bill, and constitutes the whole Bill.

In the first place the Amendment was not accepted.

Accepted by the House!

It was accepted by the House and moved by the Government. There is no doubt of that. It was moved by the Government so far as we could do it within the limits of the Order. I speak of the title.

:I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is in error. It was not within the title of the Bill. The title of the Bill had to be altered afterwards because of this Amendment.

That only makes my argument stronger. The ceet of the Amendment of the title was to amend it to the extent indicated; but we are not bound, having got the Amendment, and as the Bill now is, to state that it is one which as a whole the House should accept—that we can recommend the House to accept it. We have considered it quite fully and with great care; the safeguards and Amendment were taken into consideration before we decided. Nevertheless we still recommend the House not to support the Bill. We came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the Amendment, we would still advise the House to reject the Bill. There is nothing inconsistent in that procedure, nor do I think there is anything that can be fairly described in any way as not being enthusiastic. The Bill as it stands now does permit experiments in certain instances.

With certain safeguard.

I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman said he loved dogs. So do we all. That is not the point. That is not the question. The question is are these things justifiable? Let us see what the facts are, because the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said it is only a question of a certificate being required. That is just it. It is something you have to do in addition to what you have to do now. What have you to do now? A licence must be held for any experiments. They must be done in a licensed place. In the first place, therefore, everybody has to get a licence both for himself and for the premises. Then the animal must be fully anæsthetised, and remain under the anæsthetic. That certificate (a) may be suspended. In the case of an operation, or if the animal is required to recover, you must certificate (b), which will allow it to recover from the anæsthetic, and not die. If it is a dog or a cat that is to be experimented upon you have to get a further certificate in addition to (a) and (b) under the general licence, that is certificate (e). That is the existing position. By this Bill it is proposed to add to these conditions certain qualifications which the right hon. Baronet in putting forward his case concealed.

No, no! I mentioned all these on the Report stage, but subsequently when the Bill became practically a Government measure, I did not think it necessary to waste the time of the House to go through all these things again.

As a matter of fact—

You said "concealed."

I withdraw the word "concealed," and apologise. "Failed to mention," shall I say? because what the right hon. Baronet said was that all that was wanted was a certain certificate. It was on that statement that he based the whole of his argument. I suggest that any Member of the House familiar with its methods, and what debate means, would take away the impression that all that was involved was a certain certificate. That is not the case. I only say that the right hon. Baronet failed to mention these other things; but they are there all the same. Are we justified in imposing these further restrictions upon people who are already very frequently restricted, and especially restricted in the case of dogs, cats, and horses? Are we justified in this? Has a case been made out? I have not had a single case brought forward in this respect. Have these restrictions been evaded or improperly used? The question is: Has the existing scheme, which is very exacting, been found to be insufficient? No single case has been brought forward to show that it has been insufficient. Have they been insufficient for the prevention of cruelty? I suggest to the hon. Baronet that he has not brought forward a single case of that kind, and he cannot do it. I have read a good deal of this new literature to see what was in it, because in one respect I should like to say that I agree with the last speaker. I do not think this is a question which the House of Commons can be called upon to regard from the point of view of authority. It is not a question of the opinion of the medical profession so much, but it is a question as to whether a case can be made out for this change or not. This is a deliberative Assembly, and it is up to the hon. Baronet to show that the existing arrangements are inadequate; and I say that he has not done so. When, in addition, you have to require a person of responsibility to go into every single experiment and you have to get responsible people to certify that it would necessarily be frustrated unless it is done in a certain way, you can see the enormous protection you have got there.

I will take two cases. I will take one case in which I was responsible for getting the people together to deal with the matter. When the Germans started using poisonous gas we got a number of experts together, and the experiments which led to the elaboration of the gas masks were many of them performed on dogs; and why? Simply for the reason given in the article to which reference has been made. It was because you could do it more easily, and the dog was an available animal of a suitable kind which you could keep under observation, and you cannot do that so well in the case of a horse or a mule or a chimpanzee. That is why those experiments were performed on dogs. I think we did elaborate the finest defence mask that there was in the field. Now. supposing you had said in this particular instance that to perform these experiments you must have a licence and have a licensed place and certificates A and B, and that you must also have a certificate in order to do the experiment on a dog, in which case you have to show that your experiment would necessarily be frustrated unless it is done on a dog. I think that is carrying it much too far. If you want to stop research altogether, then say so; but unless you are prepared to say that, then you are not justified in applying so many complicated restrictions which almost make it impossible to carry on these experiments. As another example take the experiments in connection with rickets in children. There we have the same process to go through. In view of the existing restrictions there, again, you are going to vitiate a very useful and an entirely painless series of experiments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under one of the licences granted by the Home Office there is a special provision that pain may be inflicted if it is considered necessary for the experiment?

Yes, I am quite aware of all that. Experiments in regard to rickets are a very important consideration, because hundreds and thousands of people are crippled for life with this disease. I do not know whether it is true or not, but we are told that this disease is probably due to a dietetic defect. It may not be so, but the evidence seems to indicate that it is. A dog can live on a similar diet consisting of animal and vegetable food. You can keep it in the laboratory, you can feed it at stated times, and it is in many ways similar to a human being for dietetic experiments. These experiments have been conducted on dogs because they arc clearly suitable, and to prove that the experiment would necessarily be frustrated if you did not have a. dog for the experiment would be asking for something which is wellnigh impossible. Therefore these experiments are very important, because you see these bandy-legged children, stunted in their growth, by tens of thousands in our great cities and centres of population, and if experiments on an animal is necessary in order to find out what is this particular defect, you have no right in the name of humanity to come in and try to stop them, or needlessly embarrass the medical profession in proceeding with that work. In view of recent experience and modern methods of dealing with this question, T think you would be placing a great burden on these people in regard to these certificates that you should not ask them to undertake.

It would not be in the interests of science or in the interests of promoting the health of the people that this Bill should be passed in this form. There is nothing inconsistent in the line that we are taking. We minimised the damage as much as we could in the previous proceedings of the House, but, having done so, we still feel that the words as they stand make research difficult and embarrassing, contrary to the best interests of the well-being of our people, and on that account, without any hesitation and with no breach of faith or any misgiving whatever. I ask the House to reject the Bill on Third Reading.

I have had occasion more than once to feel surprise at the action of the Treasury Bench in the absence of their recognised leaders, but I confess that on this occasion they have surpassed all their previous records. This is a Bill which is essentially in the province of the Home Office. The Home Office have always dealt with Bills of this character. They administer these Bills, and up to this day they have dealt with this Bill. What has happened? When the Bill was before the House, on Report, the Home Office practically made it their Bill. The operative Clause is the Bill of the Homo Office. It is a Bill approved by the Home Office and carried by the House at the instance of the Home Office. Now, after hours of Parliamentary time have been spent in discussing this Home Office Amendment and adopting it, the right hon. Gentleman turns the Home Secretary down, prevents him, I presume, from coming to this House—at any rate, he is not here and occupies the position which ought to be occupied by that Minister. That is unprecedented in Parliamentary history within my knowledge, and I can only say that I should require to hoar some very strong reasons—which I was hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, but which T have not heard —why the Home Secretary has been turned down and why the right hon. Gentleman usurps his place.

The sole question to be considered in regard to this Bill is whether or not we are going to hamper research unduly by demanding this additional certificate. This additional certificate is already demanded in the case of operations upon horses, asses, and mules, and I have never heard that there is any difficulty n obtaining it when it is required. I wish to say at once that no one would object more strongly than I should to anything that would unduly hamper those men who have done so much for humanity, but I am out against unnecessary pain. You may say that it never occurs. If it never occurs, why have we these Bills at all? Why have we had a Royal Commission? Why did that Royal Commission report that certain restrictions were necessary, and why were those recommendations embodied in an Act of Parliament? The answer is simple. There were cases proved before that Royal Commission in which pain was inflicted upon animals without adequate reason, and it is because we who support this Bill feel that pain ought not to be inflicted upon animals without adequate reason that we ask the House to pass it. This proposal which is now embodied in the Bill is not our proposal but the proposal of the Government, backed up by the Report of the Royal Commission. If I thought that this Bill in its present; form would hamper research I should oppose it.

I have listened with considerable interest to hear what reasons could be suggested for rejecting the Bill after it had been approved by the Home Office, and I have not heard one. My hon. Friend, to whom we all listened with interest and respect, and to whose experience in medical affairs I would most gladly pay attention on appropriate occasions as regards research generally, suggested that this Bill was founded upon some implication that the medical profession delighted in torture. I should like to know who made that suggestion. If it has been made, I repudiate it. No rational person who supports this Bill suggests that the medical profession likes torture. I therefore put that suggestion aside. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman, in his position of usurper of the Home Secretary, and he says that this extra certificate is unnecessary. He did not give one single authority for that suggestion. He asked if there was any case for this additional certificate, and he said that he thought there was not. Has he read the Report of the Royal Commission which reported upon this subject after hearing all the experts, medical and otherwise? The Report said that this certificate was necessary and ought to be given before the licence was granted by the Home Secretary. I confess that, for my part, without belittling my right hon. Friend, I prefer the Report of the Royal Commission founded upon days and weeks of evidence of experts, and upon the opinion of the most eminent experts that could be appointed for the purpose at the time, to the offhand opinion, unsupported by any evidence at all, expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. What about his colleagues? Unfortunately, he differs from his colleagues. He may say, "So much the worse for them," but they may say, "So much the worse for him." His colleague at the Home Office, when he spoke, supported this Amendment and this extra certificate on the ground that it had the support of the Royal Commission. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman reads the report of the speeches of his colleagues in this House or elsewhere. Let me remind him that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, speaking with the authority of the Home Office, referred to the recommendation of the Royal Commission that this extra certificate should be granted in the case of dogs as it is already granted in the case of horses, asses, and mules. The Under-Secretary said:

"Every recommendation in that Report, except the one in the Amendment which now stands in my name, has already been adopted by the Home Office … We now want the House of Commons to assist us, by voting for this Amendment, to adopt the remaining recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat upon this question, and I think that is an additional reason why this House, composed as we are of men with and in that scientific attainment, should take the conclusion of the Royal Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1919, col. 775, Vol. 116.]

We, therefore, have against the opinion of my right hon. Friend, whose opinion on subjects outside this I value, the opinion of the majority of the Royal Commission and of the Home Office who have dealt with this matter from the very first. I would really ask the House to take some cognisance of the position in which the action of the Government has placed us. This Bill was brought in early in the Session, and the Government allowed it to pass. Why? It was either owing to incompetence on the part of the Government not knowing that it was coming on, though they now tell us that it goes to the root of all scientific research, or it was due to their ignorance, not knowing that it was an important Bill. In cither case, it does not seem a very creditable performance on the part of the Government to have allowed the Bill to pass without a Division when they now tell us that we are going to ruin research. The Bill went before a Committee upstairs. The Home Office were present and supported it in a halfhearted way, with the result that the Bill came back to this House on Report very much in the same form as it was originally framed.

And this is what happened: An agitation took place in the Press. Communications were written to the "Times" and other papers, and I regret to say that many of those communications indicated on the part of many scientific gentlemen a most astounding ignorance of the existing law and practice. They did not appear to know that under the existing law and practice not only were painful experiments permitted in certain cases, but that the Home Office were expressly issuing licences to permit those painful experiments. We were told in the letters to the "Times" that under no circumstances would any painful experiments be performed, whereas the fact is that licences are granted now for a form of experiment by which a dog is put under an anæsthetic, and is allowed to remain alive after the anæsthetic ceases to operate, although the pain continues. The only case in which a dog is killed after he has recovered from the anæsthetic is where severe and permanent pain accrues.

This agitation arose in the Press after the Bill had been upstairs. The Home Office apparently was stimulated to action by it, and the result was that when the Bill came on on Report they remodelled it from top to bottom and rendered it an entirely different Hill. It was framed in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and recommended to this House in the form in which it now is, but now it has come on for Third Reading the Home Secretary disappears. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office is absent, and instead of them we have a right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, who is signalising his activities in his new sphere of office, on which I heartily congratulate him, but to which I should be very glad if he would confine himself. Why is the Home Secretary away? Why are the representatives of the Home Office not here to tell us why a few weeks ago they supported the Bill which is now before the House, and whether there is any reason for a change in their views? I regret to see that the Minister for Health has left his seat, perhaps he will come back presently. But the only reason I can suggest for the substitution of the Minister of Health for the Home Secretary is that the Home Secretary has lost the confidence—of whom? I am sure he has not lost confidence in himself, and I hesitate to suggest that he has lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, as if he had done that I assume we should have had the announcement in the usual form. I can only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has lost the confidence of the Minister of Health. If he has I am exceedingly sorry for him, perhaps not so sorry as I should be if we were under different conditions from those which obtain to-day. We ought to be told why the Home Secretary is not here, and whether he has lost the confidence of anyone and especially of the Prime Minister. When we see these extraordinary Parliamentary fluctuations and transformations, in which one Minister throws over another without justifying his action, is it not about time we had some attempt to coordinate the Ministries in this House. Is it not time the Prime Minister came back to keep his party in order, and to reconcile, it' possible, differences between Ministers?

I think there is a good deal in what my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) observed, when he said it was very like a Parliamentary breach of faith when one Minister implored the House to accept a particular view which was in consequence embodied in the Bill, and then another Minister, in the absence of the first Minister, came down and asked the House to do exactly the opposite. But whether it is a breach of faith or not, it is not cricket. It is not even Second Eleven cricket. In that state of things I will venture to ask what is our duty as independent Members of this House? The Minister of Health has been going round to Members appealing to them for their support in the great business of housing in which he is concerned, and I am sure there is no one man in this House who is not willing to give the most earnest help in that great national work. Ho asks us to trust to his sagacity and competency. I confess his action to-day has not increased my confidence in either his sagacity or his competency. We pose to-day as being an independent House of Commons. I believe one of the great merits of this new House is that on proper occasions it shows independence of Government dictation and is willing to vote according to its conscience in the best interests of the nation. I venture earnestly and humbly to appeal to Members of the House to disregard this Government dictation, to disregard the throe-line whip, to abide by the decision of the House which it came to on the request of the Home Secretary and to overthrow the Minister of Health, and by so doing to pass this Act in a form which will not interfere one iota with the prosecution of legitimate research, but which will impose restrictions advocated by a competent body—by a Royal Commission—for the protection of dogs from unnecessary pain.

My hon. Friend has made a capital speech as he always does, and I am sure we have listened to him with great interest. But I have heard the same sort of speech very often before.

Never on an occasion like this.

Yes, I have heard such speeches sometimes from him and sometimes from others. Indeed, I have myself tried, with much less success and competency, to make the same sort of speech. We all know circumstances under which we are asked, with dramatic rhetoric, "Why is not this Minister here? Where is he? Why is that space on the Treasury Bench vacant? Why is the duty which should be performed by one Minister being done by somebody else?" All that has been excellently said by my hon. Friend. Speaking for myself, I am certainly quite as independent a Member of this House as my hon. and learned Friend. I want to approach the vote I shall give and the opinions I have formed on independent and simple lines. If I want to be independent of a three-line Whip, I also want to be independent of the sentimentalism of my hon. and learned Friend. I have listened to all his accusations of breach of faith. I see no breach of faith. I see nothing very much out of the ordinary line of Parliamentary procedure. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that one thing is unprecedented. I cannot exactly recall any particular case in which a Bill which at one time was in the care of one Department was at a subsequent stage in the care of another. So far I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but is there anything improper in that?

Yes.

I cannot share that view. It is perfectly natural. So far as a breach of faith is concerned, the reiteration of that charge shows a very great lack of confidence by my hon. and learned Friend and his associates in the strength of their real case on the merits of this Bill. Otherwise they would not spend so much time speaking about a breach of faith. We had a very amusing speech from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I am sorry he is not here now. He supported the Bill on two main grounds. First, that the scientific knowledge of the first century was not equal to the scientific knowledge of the sixteenth century. He objected to the rejection of the Bill because they apparently did not know about the circulation of the blood in the days before Christ. That was an inadequate reason for supporting this particular Bill. The second reason he gave was that he had a dog. He told us also that he was not a sentimentalist. Taking those two state- ments together, I want to find out what was the relevance of his fortunate possession of a dog to his support of this Bill, because I have a dog and yet am in favour of the rejection of the Bill. The relevance of one side or the other is about equal, and both are near zero. There are two reasons why I favour the rejection of the Bill. I could understand it if it were based on the ground of objection to cruelty to animals.

It is based on the avoidance of unnecessary pain to dogs.

Why does my hon. and learned Friend not object to cruelty to monkeys? Apparently he does not object to that at all. None of us are asked to object to the perpetration of any amount of this cruelty on monkeys. In addition to being an admission in logic, it is a failure in filial piety, because if we are to take steps for the protection of animals at all as against the services which they may be called upon to render to the human race, surely we should begin with the particular species which we have been told are our ancestral stock. Therefore let us put out of our minds the idea that it is cruelty to animals which is aimed at in this Bill. It is not; it is cruelty to a particular sort of animal, a particular animal to which, no doubt, we are more personally attached than others. That fact should put us on our guard against this sort of legislation which is based on sentiment. A few years ago a scientist, not very much in favour of democratic forms of government as they existed, thought the time might come when the failure of democracy would be shown in the fact that it was too uneducated to support scientific opinion. I do not know whether, if he were alive to-day, he would think that this is a fulfillment of his prophecy, but I am sure that if he found in the Bill the fulfillment of that prophecy as to the uneducated nature of democratic government he would be very much surprised to find my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) leading that undemocratic and uneducated cause. There is one reason why I am in favour of the rejection of the Bill. If it is passed on the ground of sentiment, it would not mean that you would prevent these operations taking place. Neither this Bill nor any Bill of the sort would prevent these operations taking place. If you prevent these operations taking place in this country by British scientists, the only result would be that an enormous number of dogs now painlessly put an end to at Battersea would be sold for a few shillings or a few pence and sent over to Boulogne or Ostend, where they would be operated upon by foreign scientists instead of our own, and, so far as I know, there is no law in other countries providing so much protection as they get here under the various certificates that have to be obtained. I am in favour of the rejection of the Bill—first, because the confinement of it to dogs proves it is not based on any high morality as regards our obligations to animals, but on pure sentiment for the particular sort of animal to which we are attached: and, secondly, because if you could make it effective in this country you could not make it effective elsewhere, and therefore you could not prevent an abuse— if it is an abuse—in another channel where it would be carried on under much worse circumstances.

There is one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) which ought to be corrected. He talked of the recommendations embodied in the Royal Commission's Report having been carried into law by subsequent legislation. There has been no legislation arising out of that Report. The Royal Commission made certain recommendations, and they have been carried out by administrative action. Secondly, there was no recommendation in the sense which the hon. and learned Member suggested. All that the Royal Commission said was:

"If any alteration is made in the existing procedure the majority of us would agree that the special enactments now applicable to horses, asses and mules might be extended to dogs and also to cats."

That is a very different thing from saying that the Royal Commission recommended a change in the law in that respect. It is quite true that during the Report stage the Bill was practically transformed, but if it is less disastrous to medical science now, it is more than ever libellous on the medical profession. It was originally founded on the principle that no amount of benefit to the human race justified the infliction of pain on the dog. The promoter of the Bill told us that he had no objection to monkeys being used for vivisection, and that he only wished to limit it in the case of dogs; but his own opinion, in all respects, will not count in the future. Once this principle has been admitted, it must be extended, and, as is suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission, it must be extended to all the higher animals. The right hon. Baronet(Sir F. Banbury) said that the advance of knowledge might have been obtained in some other way than by experiments on dogs.

The "Lancet" said so.

He quoted the "Lancet" as saying so. It might be obtained by experiments on human beings, but that would not mean that it would be better to experiment on human beings than on dogs. The House at large did not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley), who said he would prefer experiments on certain human beings than on dogs. This statement in the "Lancet" no way confirms that less suffering as a whole would have been inflicted if these experiments had been carried out on some other subject. Anyone who, like myself, has had a pet monkey must recognise that the intelligence and power of suffering in a monkey is very much greater than it is in a dog.

Oh !

Has my right hon. Friend ever had a monkey? It is to experiments on monkeys that we owe a great proportion of the existing knowledge of the causation and treatment of syphilis. Life is one in its origin. It is subject to loss by disease and death, which are unlimited by classification of species, and you cannot say to science "thus far and no further can you go," and medical research is not to be tied by artificial limits, unless you are going to condemn that research to absolute sterility and uselessness. Some people do not believe in doctors. Probably my right hon. Friend does not. Very likely he enjoys such good health that he may never need one, and I really believe that when he cuts his finger he would never dream of such a faddish cure as the use of antiseptics, but he is probably in the habit of collecting cobwebs and applying them in the same way that his great grandfather used to. But others of us have recourse to doctors, and do not feel that we can consistently take advantage of their science, and at the same time prevent them from having an opportunity of increasing their knowledge. Besides to support the Bill with any consistency one ought to be a vegetarian. No one otherwise could strain at the gnat of suffering involved in vivisection and swallow the camel of cruelty which takes place in our slaughter-houses. My right hon. Friend may live on nuts. If so, I congratulate him on having avoided the dyspeptic habit, which is generally associated either as cause or effect with that form of diet. But any of us who are not vegetarians are, I think, obliged, unless we are guided entirely by sentiment, to vote against the Bill. The original Bill was founded on some principle and was no aspersion on the humanity of doctors, but in its new form its only meaning is to endorse the charges of in humanity which have been brought by anti-vivisectionists against the medical profession. There is already very great difficulty in obtaining a licence for vivisection. To increase the difficulty and to add to the delay would only be justified if these carefully selected men who receive their licences for experiments on animals have shown themselves unfit to be trusted to use with humanity these powers which they are given.

My right hon. Friend has made a great point that certain evidence shows that painful experiments are necessary on animals. That is an admission which he quoted from vivisectionists. Of course, vivisection involves pain. I do not think anyone would deny it for a moment. But the question is whether that pain is unnecessary and, therefore, amounts to cruelty. We must in this avoid sentiment. Pain is necessary. There was a great surgeon who said that pain was a lighthouse on the rocks of ill-health. You have only to observe a child to see that without the experience of pain a human being would very quickly bring itself to an untimely end, by burning itself to death, or by breaking its neck or some other form of premature death. The question to most of us it not whether vivisection inflicts pain, but whether it really gets value for the pain inflicted. I believe that for every animal that suffers disease and pain from experiment, many more animals or human beings are thereby saved from suffering. I see no evidence ever adduced that the doctor who enjoys his carefully guarded rights to vivisection uses them except in the most humane manner. The Bill in its present form is an absolute libel on men who risk their lives in the investigation of disease. To handle these deadly viruses of disease is by no means small risk, and many of these investigators have paid the forfeit of their health and even of their lives in their efforts to discover and combat the springs of disease. I think, in view of the way the medical profession do their work for humanity for a small fee or reward, and sacrifice everything in their fight against disease, it would be a most unfair recognition of their work to pass such a Bill as this. The profession has never stood higher in the public estimation than it does to-day, and millions of our fellow subjects in the War have learned to bless the doctors in their self-sacrifice and their humanity. I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend intended this Bill to be the instrument of an attack on the medical profession into which his vivisectionist supporters have turned it. We have all admired his craft and subtlety in steering the Bill to a Third Reading in spite of its being opposed to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of this House, and it would be a graceful way of removing the bitterness which has been stirred up between doctors and their anti-vivisectionist accusers if, recognising that the House does not agree that vivisection should be entirely abolished, he would withdraw the Bill.

I shall certainly support the Bill, and it is to myself and my hon. Friends with whom I am associated a very great disappointment that the Amendment which was framed by the Government, and which the House was asked to support, is not before the House now, and that the rejection has been moved. I do not grumble at the Bill being in the hands of another Minister. In these matters it is always a pity, but there is generally some good reason for it, and I do not for a moment suggest that the reason of the absence of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department is that he did not like to have the conduct of the Bill after the proposition he made the last time. Nor am I for one moment going to say I consider the medical profession practice cruelty. I am certain in all their experiments they do not intend to cause unnecessary pain on the animals on which they operate, but I feel myself that there are other animals on which these experiments can be made and the result, I do not doubt, would be equally good. I consider that a dog stands in a peculiar position, that he is on a plane above other animals, and that we by our long association with dogs have raised him to that plane. The dog trusts us and is our best friend. Hon. Gentlemen may say that is sentiment. I do not mind if they do, but I have that very strong feeling and I know that many of my friends have the same. The Royal Commission Report was taken as the basis on which this Bill, with the Government Amendment was framed, and when you get the scientists of this country appointed in order to examine from every point of view a question so important and controversial as this question, I think that we in the House of Commons, men of all professions and men of no professions, not having the same opportunity of going into these matters so closely as the Royal Commission, which was composed of gentlemen who know everything that they are called upon to consider in connection with this matter, should, when the Commission comes to a decision and have reported act upon that Report in this House. There are many electors in every constituency who think very seriously about this measure and feel very strongly about it. It is not only the old ladies of both sexes who have been

Only one spoke.

But he spoke for all. I congratulate my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) for their efforts on behalf of the Bill, and I feel certain that though it looks as if we may be defeated in the Lobby, that when the opportunity comes again we shall be able to fight for the dogs.

I think the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) might give us some explanation of this Bill, and tell us the reason for the urgency of its being taken now at this late hour on Friday.

I should also like the hon. Baronet to give us some explanation.

This is a resumption of the adjourned Debate which took place "some time ago. I gave an explanation of the Bill then.

It is desirable that the right hon. Baronet should give an explanation of the terms of the Bill.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and -at the end of the Question to add the words

"upon this day six months."

I understand the right hon. Baronet gave a summary of this Bill on the previous occasion. That does not make it a better Bill. I ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. We cannot at this late hour on Friday reopen the whole question of agricultural policy in this country in regard to the growing of corn. There are a great many difficult questions involved in our future cereal policy in this country.

If he goes to a Division now I hope hon. Members will vote against the Second Reading.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a most important Bill, because it reverses entirely the whole of the Government policy enunciated a year or two ago.