Derby, Col. Vincent. Romsey, Rt. Hon. W. Cowper-Temple, Devonport, the Hon. Leslie Melville. Plymouth, the Mayor of Plymouth. It will thus be seen that out of a total of sixty-four Societies, fifty-one (including the Parent Institution) were represented. Of the thirteen absentees, seven regretted they had been unable to secure a delegate (viz., Bath, Belfast, Liverpool, Perth, Norwich, Sussex, and Waterford); Bournemouth declined to attend at the present stage of proceedings; Tunbridge Wells refused to confer on the subject with Societies not pledged to absolute prohibition of even painless experiments; and no answer was received from Birmingham, Hull, Cirencester, and Shropshire. This attendance may be said to be an overwhelming representation of the public opinion of the Societies of the United Kingdom. After a statement made by Mr. Colam, the Secretary of the Parent Society, and an opening address by the President, on the provisions of the Government Bill, a general discussion ensued, and the following resolutions were unanimously passed :-- The Cruelty to Animals Bill, 1876, founded on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and introduced into the House of Lords by the Earl of Carnarvon, having been considered, it is resolved : (1) That the principle of the seven sub-clauses of the 3rd clause, forbidding the infliction of pain during or by experiments on animals, and the illustration of lectures given to students by means of experiments on animals, has the hearty approval of this Conference. (2) That the four provisoes of the third clause, three of which permit pain under certain exceptions and regulations, cannot be accepted by Societies founded for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and this Conference therefore respectfully beg the Government to reconsider the same. (3) That in the event of painful experiments being permitted on any animal, under exceptions and regulations provided by the Bill, it is the opinion of this Conference that the provisions of clause 5, giving special protection to dogs and cats, should be extended to horses, asses, and mules. (4) That the provisions of clause 9, for making known the results of experiments, are in the opinion of this Conference incomplete, and should be enlarged in accordance with the suggestions of the 14th section of the Society's Bill, placed before the Royal Commission, particularly with a view to prevent unnecessary repetition of experiments. (5) That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable to give a power of arrest in clause 13, especially in the event of offenders refusing to give their names and addresses, and to increase the amount of penalty of such clause (without power of arrest the offender could not be punished at all as provided). The President was then requested to place the above resolutions before the Government, and the Conference dissolved after a long sitting. INTRODUCTION. THIS Volume has a two-fold object--explanatory, as regards the proceedings and attitude of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in relation to the practice of subjecting living creatures to experiments for scientific purposes; suggestive, as regards the nature and extent of such practice in the United Kingdom, the opinions of physiologists and medical men thereon, the evils likely to arise out of its unchecked abuses, and the consequent necessity of promoting a sound opinion on the subject. It is not a treatise, a learned exposition, a sensational disquisition, or a vehement philippic. To secure a dispassionate consideration of the subject, it has been necessary to restrict its pages to the data on which the Committee of the Society have formed their conclusions, and the opinions, necessarily epitomised, on which the Royal Commissioners have founded their recommendations. Persons who have leisure, inclination, and capacity of analysis, should study the Blue Book from end to end; those who prefer a digest may find this volume useful, notwithstanding its imperfections; in which event the Committee will have attained their purpose in directing the Secretary to prepare the following pages. The Society consists of members holding at least six different views on this subject. There are vegetarians, who object to animal food and to animal destruction. Although they would probably destroy noxious animals, and are aware they cannot drink water or gather in cereal crops, or mow down grass, without destroying animals, they prefer not to kill unnecessarily. There are others who eat fish, flesh, and fowl, to obtain which they regret that animals are made to suffer more or less pain, but object to experiments on living creatures, even if it be established that such experiments cause less pain than the oyster feels which is opened for their wants. There are others who do not reject animal food, and do not oppose those experiments, said by physiologists to be necessary, when it is absolutely certain they do not cause the least pain. There are others who think the interests of human beings demand the occasional infliction of suffering on animals, and object therefore to limit the physiologist to painless experiments, while endeavouring generally to protect animals liable to Vivisection. There is another class who decline to consider the subject on the ground of pain, and while anxious to prevent wanton and reckless suffering, are willing to leave the nature and number of experiments to the discretion of physiologists. And there are a few only who think animals may be used for food, or for experiment whenever thought necessary for scientific purposes; and, though they would not permit the ordinary acts of cruelty committed by brutal people in the streets, they are prepared to tolerate any amount of pain committed by vivisectors"in the interests of general humanity." It will be manifest that, with such divergence of opinion in the same body, it is the duty of the Executive to adhere strictly to simple principles, to promote which the Society was established fifty years ago, and still exists. The object of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is obviously to prevent cruelty to animals, and nothing else. The lower fellow-creatures of man are under man's dominion, many species having being reclaimed from a condition in which they had the advantage of freedom, and placed by him in forced obedience to his will and wants. Some he uses for food, others for labour, and nearly all as material in manufactures. The universal practice of society in this respect assumes that man has not only superior rights to these lower fellow-creatures, but that he may ignore some of their rights when he pleases. For instance, he may put them into slavery, and he may eat them. It is true, and must be insisted on, that in this law of civilized life there is no presumption of a right to inflict torture on animals; nevertheless, negatively to some extent they are illtreated even when killed for food by the most merciful methods, and when used for labour by the most humane masters. Fish in sportive enjoyment are abruptly taken from waters congenial to their natures, and deprived of further pleasure. Birds soaring in glorious freedom and happy in song are shot down early in life, and while their capacity for pleasure is unimpaired. Some of these creatures, and many quadrupeds, are indeed brought into existence by man solely that he may kill them for his own food while they are still young and vigorous. Horses, asses, oxen, camels, elephants, and other animals, are deprived of freedom and worked under mechanical conditions to prevent their escape, and without taking into consideration their normal instincts and desires. The reader may judge for himself whether this is a fancied or real infringement of the love of life and freedom, which his lower fellowcreatures are endowed with as well as himself, if he will for a moment imagine the existence of a superior race of beings to man having a propensity to eat him when they desire food, and to put him into the captivity of chains and straps to minister to their pleasure or wants. Doubtless mankind would think it hard and cruel to be deprived of life and of freedom to supply superior beings with supposed necessities. That animals reduced to labour may be made happy is obviously true, which also could be said of human slaves, whose captivity nevertheless, like that of birds in small cages, has been considered inhumane; but nobody will contend that human or other creatures capable of happiness are kindly treated by being deprived of life, even though destroyed only for building up a higher race. Thus it will be acknowledged that some of the rights of animals are ignored or abridged by man's assumed rights. Starting then with this admission, civilized communities have established laws to regulate man's relations with those species of his lower fellow-creatures whom he domesticates and trains for his own wants. In his use of them, abuses may spring up; hence it has been provided that those animals shall not be cruelly illtreated, abused, or tortured, when human wants bring man in contact with them. These laws are enforced by the Society in Jermyn Street, which is the Parent of all similar institutions in the United Kingdom and the world. It is the duty, therefore, of that Society to interpose when butchers, drovers, carmen, and others cause animals protected by the statute to endure -what? The answer to this question is very important. The statute does not forbid the employment of animals as beasts of burden and draught, nor does it prohibit the pain of killing by the butcher, nor does it proscribe pain inflicted for reasonable correction, nor does it prevent the veterinary surgeon from performing a surgical operation on an animal for its own good, even though such operation cause much suffering. It provides that man may not "cruelly" inflict pain —that is, he may not cause unnecessary pain; for cruelty is the infliction of unnecessary pain. In order to prevent the abuse of cruelty it has been shown that the legislature has not thought it necessary to forbid the use of animals. It permits a man to take a horse and use it as he pleases, provided he do not cause needless pain to it. And this applies to all relations of man with those animals which are shielded by the statute from cruelty. So that not only cabmen, carmen, coachmen, drovers, butchers, and farmers, must obey the law, but all classes, including those who take animals for the purpose of subjecting them to experiments. The law makes no exemption in favour of persons professing to have high motives; it simply condemns those who inflict unnecessary pain. The trainer of animals therefore often finds that he may not cruelly illtreat an animal under a false pretence, just as vivisectors proved to have performed unnecessary experiments of a painful kind on domestic animals are condemned by the present statute. The law permits them to use a dog for experiments, but it restrains them from torturing it during or by that experiment; so that up to the present moment painless experiments on living animals may be carried on by physiologists. Much confusion has been caused by failing to keep this distinction in mind during the discussion on experimental physiology; for even Vivisection may be, and frequently is, an absolutely painless operation. Discrimination and accuracy are essential to an intelligent and just conclusion. The Society has never failed to distinguish between ex |