The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-04-07 00:00:00

ITNIVER3ITIEB COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY CarICCIL

BILL.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 4, Mr. Roundell moved
tphlaeusieecdonwdasretoadrienngdeorf tuhnisivßeirlsLittihese
Colenict of
ewohfictih he x
ierrie
Privy
Council more accessible to the colleges when they proposed
to make changes in their statutes, and the chief part of the
Bill was drawn with a view to improve the machinery of the
Universities Act of 1877. There was one clause which dealt
with a matter of principle. The second section gave persons
in the Universities power to move the Universities Cam-
rnittee to make changes, if they wished, in the statutes of
the colleges. The rest of the Bill related to the machinery
by which the colleges should seek the intervention of the
Privy Council when they wished some change to be made in
their statutes. The Bill consisted of three clauses, which
were framed on the lines of the Universities Aet of 1877.
First of all, the promoters of the Bill wished to prevent
changes being made in the dark, and to render the Universi-
ties' Committee more freely accessible to the colleges.
Sir J. Mowbray moved as an amendment that the Bill be
read a second time that day six months, remarking that the
Bill would enable changes to be made in a college without
any notice to the authorities of such changes, and he main-
tained that the independence of colleges was entitled to as
much consideration as the independence of Universities.
The proposals of the Bill were so indefinite and 111-defined
that it was impossible the House could accept it. There
was really no demand for immediate legislation on this
matter, and he hoped that it would be withdrawn.
Sir W. Harcourt said he thought a well considered scheme
for making the Universities Committee an efficient body for
carrying out minor reforms in the Universities would be
very useful, and was one which ought to be accomplished.
The Universities suffered great inconvenience from want of
repose in these matters, and his experience of the Universi-
ties was that there was no objection to reforms which gave
them greater utility and advantage. Be should recommend
his hon. friend, however, to withdraw this Bill and recon-
sider the matter, and introduce a Bill which should have
the object he had ventured to state.
Mr. B. Hope, Mr. T. Rogers, and Mr. Itaikes supported
the proposal of the Home Secretary that the Bill should be
withdrawn.
After some further discussion in which Mr. L. Stanley,
Air. Talbot, and Mr. Bryce took part,
Mr. Roundell expressed his willingness to move that the
order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.
Sir J. Mowbray then withdrew his amendment, and the
order for the second reading of the measure was dis-
harged.
THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION.
Mr. R. T. Reid moved the second reading of a Bill
for the Prohibition of Vivisection. He said he regretted
that the duty had not devolved upon a gentleman with
more scientific knowledge than he possessed. Many
petitions had been presented to the House in favour
of his Bill, for the feeling was growing that the practice
of vivisection involved a cruelty to animals which ought
not to be tolerated. From one society alone petitions
had been received with 38,000 signatures, including those of
many medical men. After alluding to the facts ascertained
by the Royal Commission which inquired into the subject
some years ago, and the Act which was subsequently passed,
the hon, gentleman concluded by saying that vivisection had
been practiced for two thousand years, and he challenged
his opponents to show that any human ailments had been
leeseued or removed by these cruel experiments. If' how-
ever, all the doctors said these experiments were useful to
human nature, he would not follow them, because he took
his stand upon this principle, that the torture of dumb
animals was not justifiable, and was opposed to the mild
spirit of our religion, and to the unperverted instincts of our
common nature. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Cartwright moved the rejection of the Bill. Ile said
the case which the hon. gentleman had submitted was not
warranted by evidence, nor supported by facts. The
Act of 1876 was most stringent in its operations. The
hon. member gave an analysis of its prohibitions to
show that every guarantee possible was obtained
against cruelty. and said it had been administered by the
Home Secretary in the strictest and most vigilant manner.
-There was no reason, therefore, for disturbing the settlement
of 1876, which hampered and fettered experiments in every
possible way. The nature and the operation of poisons were
come of the most important branches of medical science, and
still very obscure, and it demanded such experiments as this
Bill world prohibit. It would be found impossible to carry
this Bill into effect, and he had no doubt that the House
would reject it.
Dr. Mayfair seconded the amendment. He said the Bill
was not to prevent cruel experimects, but to prohibit all ex-
periments whatever. Under it he would be unable to stroke
the back of a cat, or to put a frog's foot under the microscope
to show his eumlis the circulation of the blood. What had the
existing Act done? It was shown by the returns that 95 per
cent. of the experiments had either been upon animals
totally unconscious, or the pain had not exceeded the
pain of a prick of the skin -as in vaccination. Four per
cent. had been as painful as the healing of a wound, and
only 1 per cent was equal to the pain of a surgical opera-
tion. Out of 300 experiments in the last return for 1881,
only ten were attended with conscious pain to the animals.
After some further remarks, the hon. gentleman said he
was sure that the House would not consent to pass a Bill
the result of which would be greatly to increase the
sufferings of animals and of human beings, by throwing the
practice of medicine into the hands of empirics and quacks.
(Cheers.)
Sir W. Harcourt said the only question for him was
whether these experiments were necessary for the benefit
of mankind. If they were, there was a right to make
them, and they ought to be encouraged. He was prepared
to defend the principles a f the present Act. It contained
abundant safeguards. He had asked the assistance in the
administration of this Act of the most eminent men in the
medical profession to say whether the operator was a fit
man to have licence, and whether the experiment proposed
was one that ought to be made. yWith this assistance and
security afforded by the inspector, under the Act he
thought that they had ample security that the Act was pro-
perly carried out. The alit report—at present unpub-
lished—showed that in 1882 only 26 licences performed
experiments of this kind in the prosecution of medical re-
search.
air. J. Russell replied to the arguments which had been
adduced against the Bill.
Sir J. fil:Kenna was addressing the House when the time
for adjournment arrived.
The remaining Orders were disposed of, and the House
adjourned.

On Tuesday the Standing Orders Committee re•
solved unanimoubly that the Standing Orders should
not be dispensed with in favour 4if the Mlle prepared
by the Metropolitan Board of Works and Cotnmis•
sioners of Sewers for the removal of tho ventilators on
the Thames Embankment.
-

-
The latir"Ttidttre and Music Hall at Stevicton-oti--
Tees was burned to the ground on Tuesday morning,
and the whole of the scenery and properties de-
stroyed. There being no wind at the time of the fire
the surrounding buildings were saved, otherwise the
consequences would have been disastrous.