Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1934 > Select Committee on Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933 > Report Proceedings and Minutes of Evidence - Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 17° Eanair, 1934.

Wednesday, 17th January, 1934.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

SENATOR M. F. O’HANLON in the Chair.

Mr. Coffey (Assistant Clerk to the Sea nad) attended as Secretary to the Select Committee.

Professor J. F. Craig, M.A., M.R.C.V.S. (Principal of the Veterinary College of Ireland), called and examined.

682. Chairman.—You have a few observations to make on this Bill?—I have jotted down some comments, and I shall read them, varying them as I go along, if I may. I should like to say, in the first place, that I welcome the appearance of this Bill for the promotion of the humane slaughter of animals, and I am very largely in agreement with most of its provisions. I have had the opportunity of observing, from time to time, various methods of slaughter and have studied the recorded observations and opinions of others on this important subject. The most important part of the measure is contained in Section 1 (6). I am dealing with that, firstly, because I think it is the essence of the measure. In the slaughter of animals for the food of man, there are two considerations—(1) that the animal be killed in such a way as to avoid unnecessary pain, and (2) that the keeping quality of the flesh shall be good, and, therefore, that the animal shall be well bled. The keeping quality of the flesh is, undoubtedly, influenced by the amount of blood retained in the carcase. The methods of slaughter in vogue include—(1) bleeding without preliminary stunning; that is, in calves, sheep, goats and pigs. In this method, consciousness is retained while the knife is used to open the vessels of the throat and for a time until bleeding is advanced. The latter period may vary up to one or more minutes. The bleeding is efficient, but it cannot be maintained that unnecessary pain is not inflicted. Sheep and goats struggle a good deal after sticking and, although the spinal cord may be cut through, consciousness, and, therefore, the sensation of pain is not removed at once. As regards this question of pain, may I say that, in large measure, it must be due to the use of the knife, in the first instance, in bleeding. The pain may be continued until unconsciousness follows from anæmia of the brain. (2) Bleeding following upon preliminary stunning. Various instruments still adopted for this purpose are (a) pole-axe. I do not think it is necessary to describe the pole-axe. It is a good instrument in experienced hands for cattle, but, with the inexperienced, more than one blow may be required to stun effectively. That is a defect of this instrument.

In large slaughterhouses, one knows that experienced slaughter men use this instrument with great efficiency and I must pay a tribute to the slaughter men at the Dublin abattoir when the pole-axe was being employed. (b) Mechanically propelled instruments. These would include (1) the humane cattle killer (Greener’s). This killer has a free bullet and is, therefore, objectionable. There is always the danger that, as the result of a miss, the bullet may ricochet off some part of the wall of the slaughter chamber. This method is efficacious and is commonly used for the destruction of horses. I cannot claim that, with this instrument, the bleeding is very efficient. (2) The captive bolt pistol, e.g., Cash’s or Temple Cox. This is a weapon that can be used with success after very little training, but the pistol requires careful attention to prevent fouling of the bolt. That has been noted on more than one occasion. Occasional misses may occur in restive animals. In this particular method of destruction the bolt which is present in the chamber of the pistol is driven into the skull—into the cerebral hemispheres—and it stuns the animal but it does not destroy the essential centres in the medulla—that is the important part of the brain connected with respiration, blood circulation, etc. The third method is a new method which has come into vogue. It is the electric method. The instrument is called the Electro-lethaler, which was invented by Professor Muller, of the Veterinary College of Munich. Up to the present it has been used largely for sheeps, goats, calves and pigs. The current used has a voltage of 40 to 70. When applied for five or ten seconds the animal falls and becomes unconscious in a few seconds. Unconsciousness is retained for a few minutes. That is a very good method. As regards efficiency in bleeding after stunning, I think I can say that, on the whole, with the captive bolt pistol and the electro-lethaler, efficient bleeding is not adversely affected by the stunning but it has been noted that in the case of some of the smaller animals if bleeding is delayed after the stunning what is called splashing may result—that is to say, little hæmorrhages are formed at various points. These hæmorrhages may be extensive and large and interfere with the appearance or keeping qualities of the flesh. That adverse feature of this type of stunning and bleeding is largely done away with now that the cause of the trouble has become evident. These are the various points I want to mention in connection with Section 1 (6). I want now to refer to sub-section (2) of Section 1, which states that every person engaged in driving or bringing any animal to a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard shall do so in such a way as to avoid the infliction upon the animal of any unnecessary suffering, pain or fatigue. It is well to remember that this is not of the nature of advice to the owner. It is of the nature of an instruction which has to be acted upon by those administering the Act so as to prevent any unnecessary suffering on the part of the animal.

One knows quite well that although fatigue is a thing to be avoided in animals which are to be slaughtered immediately, it would be a thing difficult of interpretation, and therefore would give rise to a good deal of trouble. Therefore, I would advise that that particular term be omitted from this clause, and that it should be amended to read: “Any unnecessary suffering or pain”. My second comment has reference to sub-section (3) of Section 1. “Every owner or occupier of a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard or any premises attached thereto or occupied or used in connection with a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard shall cause every animal which is confined in such slaughterhouse knacker’s yard or premises preparatory to being slaughtered to be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water, and where such animal is confined for a period exceeding twelve hours with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food.” It is well known that to preserve the keeping qualities of flesh the animal should always be fasted before slaughter, but the question, and it is a difficult one to answer, is as to the length of the period which is required for that purpose. In the case of ruminants, one knows that digestion is going on for a very long time owing to the formation of the stomachs and the rumination that occurs. Therefore, the period that should be allowed should be greater than in the case of animals with single stomachs. On that account I think the period of twelve hours is too short. One can see that in the administration of the Order there will be cases where that time would be legitimately, or one might say illegitimately, exceeded if it were laid down. I, therefore, recommend that twelve hours be increased to 18 or 24 hours. The next comment I have to make is in connection with sub-section (4) of Section 1: “No person shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered any animal or dress or cause or suffer to be dressed the carcass of any animal within the view of another animal.”

Now, the greatest difficulty, and it is one which has given rise to a great deal of discussion, applies in the case of sheep. There is no question, I think, with regard to other animals. My observations lead me to believe that a sheep is not materially affected by the sight of slaughter. I have seen a sheep standing quietly, apparently indifferent to what is going on around it, but it is excited by noise, by the movement of people in the slaughter house, by the explosions of pistols, and by handling or an approach to handling, and it is that, I think, that has given rise to misconceptions. To my mind, at least, it is not the sight of slaughter but of noise and excitement that is responsible for any apparent fright on the part of sheep. To avoid excitement or fright in the case of animals in that situation it is desirable that they should be excluded from the slaughter chamber until they are about to be slaughtered, but I am not sure that, without great structural alterations in the premises, that could always be provided for, or, at all events, that it could be readily provided for. I say it is desirable, but it is a question whether it can be reasonably expected that this shall be done. I think that something should be put in modifying that sub-section, at any rate so far as sheep are concerned in this way: that so far as practicable, without great structural alterations to premises, animals should be excluded from the slaughter chamber until they are about to be slaughtered. Of course, the question that arises in that respect is as to the interpretation that would be put on that clause by the people administering the Act. That, I think, will depend largely upon what is done in regard to Section 5. I notice that in this section a great many different persons may be empowered to enter and investigate what is going on in slaughterhouses. To my mind, that is undesirable. The Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be enforced with reasonableness and commonsense, and that may be defeated in this way. I would suggest that the powers of this section be confined to any member of the Gárda Síochána, a veterinary surgeon, or an inspector authorised by the Department of Local Government and Public Health or the Department of Agriculture. These are the chief comments that I have to make upon this measure. I am quite prepared to answer any questions so far as I can which the Committee may wish to put to me.

Chairman.—Senator O’Farrell is in charge of the Bill in the Seanad and I am sure, Professor, that he would like to ask you some questions.

683. Mr. O’Farrell.—You are the head of the Veterinary College here?—Yes.

684. Do you agree that the civilisation and culture of a people are to some extent, at all events, indicated by their attitude towards the brute creation?— That is a rather involved question, but I should say in the main that it is true.

685. It has something to say, at all events, in judging their culture?—It has something to say.

686. I suppose you will agree that, in the campaign for the humanising of our treatment of dumb animals, the veterinary profession should take some part?— Quite.

687. And to that extent, I take it, that you, as head of the Veterinary College, would welcome and, if possible, assist any attempt in that direction?—Yes.

688. I think you indicated your preference for some mechanical method of stunning all animals?—Yes.

689. You favour the mechanical method rather than the pole-axe?—Yes, for general use.

690. You, of course, have never conducted any experiments to show the efficacy of either method?—No, only the observations I have made from time to time.

691. You mentioned the efficiency of the weapon in the hands of expert butchers? —Yes.

692. Of course, you are aware of the general manner in which a man becomes an expert?—Yes. There must always be a period during which a man is unable to stun at the first blow.

693. And he must practise on the living animal?—Yes. Attempts are being made to practise on dead animals, but that is not quite the same thing owing to the fact that when an animal is living it is apt to make a movement. Therefore experience can only be gained by practice on living animals.

694. I take it you will agree that all sorts of humane considerations and physical ability enter into the process?— Yes.

695. I do not know if you are aware that the London Corporation conducted experiments in which none but expert pole-axe men were employed?—I know the statistics.

696. It was found that it took 665 blows to fell 400 animals?—Yes. One has to remember that the proportion of bulls in the lot was rather large.

697. One hundred, but strange to say, pigs took almost the same number. It took 255 blows to fell 100 pigs?—Yes.

698. In the case of these experiments all sorts of animals were taken. The selection was perfectly impartial?—Yes.

699. Under the other method they took a similar number of animals, 1,255, and they were felled by 1,259 shots?—Yes. There were two or three blunders there. I do not suppose that under any method of stunning you are going to get perfection. Allowance must be made for the human element and also for the instrument.

700. Perfection is not claimed for any instrument, but in this case only two cartridges failed, and two animals moved at the time of firing. At any rate, that is the nearest thing to perfection that one could have?—Yes.

701. You agree, I take it, that with the captive bolt bleeding is quite all right. It does not stop the respiratory organs?— No.

702. I gather that you favour the electrolethaler, for the smaller animals particularly?—Yes.

703. The only material objection to that is the cost of it?—Yes.

704. I am in agreement with you with regard to the question of fatigue which is dealt with in sub-section (2) of Section 1, but I would quote this section of the English Act for you, and ask if you agree that it is reasonable:—

Every person engaged in driving or bringing any animal to the place of slaughter shall—

(a) avoid, so far as practicable, driving or bringing the animal over any ground which is likely to cause the animal to slip or fall; and

(b) otherwise adopt such methods and precautions as will prevent the infliction upon the animal of unnecessary suffering and pain.

Would you consider if that is a reasonable provision?—I think it is a reasonable provision. The difficulty is the interpretation that the people administering the Act would put on it. That is where I see trouble is bound to arise. You are looking at it from one aspect, but I think you have got to look at it from the other as well.

705. I am trying to look at it from every aspect?—My view is that it would be very difficult to ensure that animals would not occasionally slip and fall on ground over which they were travelling, covered, to some extent, with soft material, during wet weather.

706. You will notice that the words are “unnecessary suffering and pain”?— Yes, that, of course, is quite in order.

707. I think you will agree that the English are a singularly unsentimental and practical people?—In some respects, yes.

708. They are so credited at any rate. You know that this Act was the subject of a long discussion on all sides before it was agreed to?—Yes.

709. On this subject of feeding animals before slaughter, does hunger supervene in the case of ruminating animals only when rumination ceases?—Yes. The evidence of the presence of hunger is largely feeding. It is not a question of hunger so much, in this instance, as it is a question of whether you are doing any serious detriment to the animal by leaving it without food.

710. I am not concerned so much with detriment as I am concerned with unnecessary cruelty to the animal. What I want to know is, can an animal feel the pangs of hunger and at the same time be ruminating?—That is a very difficult matter. The evidence of hunger is that the animal will feed.

711. You mentioned rumination and you made a distinction in that case, and I wanted to know was it your view that an animal could not be hungry and suffering while ruminating?—I think that is true.

712. If they are ruminating they would not be quite hungry?—That they could not be, I think, would be the right statement.

713. Do you make an exception in the case of non-ruminating animals?—Yes, they might come under the 12 hours’ system, but I think most of the animals you are dealing with are ruminating animals. You are not dealing with pigs.

714. No, but there was a witness examined who advocated the inclusion of pigs, and we want to know the position because there may be an effort to embody an amendment to that effect before the Bill goes through. In regard to the slaughter of sheep, I would like to know if, in your opinion, the spinal cord can be severed by shooting behind the ear without destroying the brain for commercial purposes?—Why shoot behind the ear?

715. I understand that if the instrument is placed behind the ear you can destroy the spinal cord without causing hæmorrhage of the brain?—I do not think it is desirable. In any case, if you destroy the medulla, which is a continuation of the spinal cord, you are destroying the central connection, and respiration, and so interfere with breathing.

716. You think it more desirable to shoot through the brain?—Yes. You want to render the animal unconscious and destroy connection with sensation.

717. You are quoted, I think, as the standard authority that sheep have very little brains or intelligence in regard to fear or impending danger. Do you agree that they can suffer physical pain?—Oh, yes, that is quite a different matter.

718. I do not know whether you saw the report of the observations of Doctors Dryerre and Cameron of the Physiology Department of the University of Edinburgh, which they made at a demonstration held at Gorgie slaughterhouse, Edinburgh, in 1928. They stated:—“In our opinion shooting and sticking is much to be preferred to sticking and checking from the humanitarian point of view. We base this opinion upon the following observations: (1) The respective periods of time elapsing between the commencement of slaughter and the loss of consciousness; (2) in every case where sticking was not preceded by shooting we observed the presence of the extension of the free rear limb on contact of the knife point with the neck before cutting actually commenced, indicative of a painful stimulus. This was absent in control observations with a blunt instrument similarly applied.” That indicates that the sheep did not extend its limb or display terror while a blunt instrument was used, while it did in the case of a knife. Did not that indicate some intelligence on the part of the sheep?—I do not think it was a very good indication. If you take an ordinary pin and apply it to the skin of a horse generally it will react on every occasion, but if you apply it to cattle or sheep they will not react.

719. But this was two different systems of treatment of the one animal?—I know.

720. Then they stated in a third paragraph “In sticking and checking without shooting pain in our opinion is inflicted at three distinct stages, (a) piercing of the skin, (b) section of certain structures in the neck, (c) section of the spinal cord.” You agree with that?—Yes.

721. And again, “in shooting, the shock resultant upon the injury to the brain, paralyses the centre of pain-perception almost instantaneously”?—Yes, I think that is quite right.

722. Then again they show, as the result of experiments, that the time that elapsed between the commencement of slaughter and the cessation of consciousness were in sticking and checking 30 sheep, thirtythree and one-fifth seconds; shooting and sticking 20 sheep, four-fifth of a second. Do you agree that that probably would be right although you have not conducted such experiments yourself?—Yes. Of course it does not seem clear, exactly, on what ground they decided as to when consciousness ceased. You cannot go entirely by the absence of trembling. Sometimes you can go by the absence of corneal reflex, but even that is not absolute. In the case of that four-fifth of a second I am not quite sure, again, how they determined that. It is rather difficult to do. What it is that they were going upon is not obtained from this report, but I should say, generally, that the statement is approximately correct.

723. It was conducted as an experiment and to that extent it is valuable rather more so than a person giving his personal opinion without any experiment?—Oh, yes.

724. There are matters in the Bill on which you will probably be questioned but I do not think it would be fair to question you about anything except what you deal with professionally. You would agree, I take it, that it is undesirable that young people should be allowed in the vicinity of slaughterhouses, unless they have business there, to witness the destruction of life and the cutting up of carcases?— Yes, in the main one would agree with that.

725. Have you heard that in professional slaughterhouses young fellows have paid butchers a few pence to be allowed in to see the animals intended for slaughter. You think that undesirable?— Yes.

726. To that extent you think it desirable that these men should be licensed? —Yes.

727. The consumers have a right to be ensured that animals are properly slaughtered and that the fever and emotion which comes from bad slaughtering should be avoided?—Quite.

728. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—I take it you approve of the Bill generally, with the two or three omissions you mentioned? —Quite so.

729. Mr. Counihan.—I am in thorough agreement with the greater portion of the evidence given by Professor Craig. I have very few questions to ask him. There was a statement made here by one witness that he would not have the pole-axe or the captive bolt but that the most humane method of slaughter was the 4 lb. sledge for stunning purposes?—I cannot understand such a statement being made. If he was depending on experience of the various methods of slaughter——

730. He had experience in the various methods of slaughter?—He must be a very strong man that would efficiently slaughter animals with thick skulls in that manner.

731. He said that in Chicago where they slaughter 600 an hour in one factory, nothing was used but the 4 lb. sledge to stun animals in slaughter houses?— According to American reports I gather that it is the pole-axe, similar to the pole-axe in this country, that is used.

732. Have you any experience of the 4 lb. sledge?—No experience whatsoever, but I know that the ordinary hammer and bolt has been used and the results have not been uniform

733. You said that there should be two considerations in slaughtering and stunning, one to give as little pain as possible, and the other, which is an important consideration, to preserve the quality of the flesh?—Yes.

734. I am in thorough agreement with that. Have you much experience of the electrical method?—I have seen it in a number of places, and it appears to be a very useful instrument.

735. Is there any reason why the electrical method should not be used upon cattle?—It has not yet been found to be practicable for large animals, I presume, because it has not been adopted for their slaughter. The adoption of it for large animals is difficult, such as the fixing of the animal for the application of the electrical apparatus. It may come into operation, of course, in time, but it is for the small animals so far that I approve of it.

736. Would you approve of the captive bolt for the slaughtering of sheep?—Oh, yes.

737. It has been stated here that the captive bolt or any other method except sticking will injure the brain and that consequently it will be a loss to the butcher? —As far as my opinion goes, that is not of very much importance, the injury is so slight.

738. It has been stated that the captive bolt penetrating the brain will cause hæmorrhage of the brain which would make the brain useless. It will disfigure it. and to that extent make it useless?— That is so, to some extent.

739. Would you not think that that would be a consideration?—No, I do not think it is of very great importance at all.

740. A witness stated here that bloodletting was the most humane and painless method of slaughter, would it not be very inhuman to continue that practice of sticking the sheep in that case?—You must incise the skin and the structures of the neck. That is a serious point. I am afraid you will find it difficult to justify sticking when the animal is still conscious.

741. Pigs are excluded from this Bill—in your opinion, should pigs be included —is there any sound reason why pigs should not come under the operation of this Bill?—I feel in rather a quandary in regard to that matter. The objection is a sound one. I have no doubt. There are objections by the bacon curers if the captive bolt is used, but as far as one could make out if the electrical method or the electrical apparatus is used there would be no reason at all why the slaughter of pigs should not come within the scope of this Bill. I notice that in quite a number of places at the other side of the Channel electrical stunning has come generally into use for pigs.

742. Would you recommend that where it is practicable to get that machine— would you recommend it in such places as in pig factories that the Bill should apply and that this method should be put into operation?—I see no reason why it should not.

743. Have you any experience of the Jewish method of slaughter?—No, I have never seen it.

744. Senator O’Farrell asked you about sub-section (7) of Section I with regard to the age limit at which boys should be allowed into slaughterhouses? —He did not ask me with regard to age limit—it was a general question.

745. Well, there is the question of the age limit in the Section. It says that no one under 16 years of age should be admitted into a slaughterhouse. Do you think that no boy should be allowed to start to learn the trade of butchering until he is over 16 years of age?—I do not think that is necessary. I think that the school-leaving age of 14 years would be sufficiently high.

746. You said you had strong objections to certain provisions under Section 5, and I understood that the local Vet was your authority for that view and that you had consulted some others. Mr. Dolan—and I suppose you will admit that he has a great deal of experience in regard to this matter—stated his views in regard to interference by people coming into slaughterhouses. He stated that this Bill would be properly administered by the local authority having complete control. Would you agree with that?—I have a very high opinion of any views that Mr. Dolan would express on the subject. He has undoubtedly great experience in this matter. I would undoubtedly agree with him.

747. Would you agree with that and exclude the Guards?—If he had that view I certainly would.

748. Mr. Wilson.—You have a slight objection to sub-section (4) of Section 1. I understand you say it is desirable to prevent the slaughter of animals in the view of other animals but you would not make that a hard and fast rule because to make the changes would be very difficult. You approve of that in the Bill and you say it is desirable?—Yes, it is desirable. There is one way of dealing with that matter. It is a section of the English Act—in Schedule 2, paragraph 4 where it is stated “as far as is practicable without structural alterations in premises existing after the passage of this Act, slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal in view of another animal.” I think that would meet your point.

749. Would you approve of that?—Yes.

750. How will that be interpreted by the local authority?—You will have to depend on your inspectors for that.

751. And there will be a change according to the views of your inspectors, and the working will not be uniform?— No, only as far as it is practicable.

752. You would not approve at all of the mechanically-propelled instrument and the shooting business?—I think that would be an instrument that one would recommend for the killing or destroying of horses.

Mr. O’Farrell.—In any case it is prohibited in this country.

753. Mr. Wilson.—You prefer the captive bolt?—Yes.

754. As regards the electrical apparatus I think you mentioned 50 volts?—Yes.

755. I saw it only once or twice myself, and it seemed to me that several seconds elapsed before the animal became stunned after the operation of this instrument?— What animals?

756. Pigs?—You did not see sheep killed. It usually takes five or ten seconds in that case. In sheep the effect is more rapid.

757. What is the objection to have a stronger voltage if the operation is quicker?—You do not want to destroy the animal, and you will get convulsions in the animal if the voltage is too strong.

758. Is that not a cause of splashing?— It is not a cause of splashing. I am referring to the length of time that elapses between the stunning and the bleeding.

759. It takes several seconds before the stunning takes place at all?—See what happened in some slaughterhouses. A number of animals were stunned one after the other and then they allowed them to lie for some time after which they were stuck.

760. The proper course would be to bleed the animal immediately after it was stunned?—Yes.

761. You think there is nothing in connection with stunning that would operate against proper bleeding if done immediately after the stunning?—That is my experience.

762. No matter how well it is done there will be a slight haemorrhage?—No, there will be no haemorrhage if the bleeding is carried out immediately after the stunning.

763. You mentioned that the captive bolt instrument required to be properly looked after?—Yes.

764. You know there is a proviso in the Bill in Section 2 whereby it would be a good defence to say “that such instrument went out of repair without any negligence or default on his part or on the part of any servant or agent of his, and that he took immediate and proper steps to have such instrument put into repair and to procure another such instrument for use during the period necessary for such repair.” That means that if the butcher used the pole-axe in that case that it would be a reasonable defence?—Yes.

765. Would you consider it right to have that in the Bill?—Oh, yes.

766. Notwithstanding the fact that if the instruments were properly cared for it would not be necessary?—Well, I do not know. In all human affairs defects will occur in apparatus, and even though the person is most careful about an instrument of this kind it may go wrong

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Professor, for attending.

Professor Craig.—Thank you, gentlemen. I feel it a privilege to be invited.

Mr. Wilson.—Your evidence was very helpful and very sound.

The witness withdrew.

Professor J. Brontë Gatenby, M.A., Ph.D. (Dublin), D. Phil. (Oxon), D.Sc. (Lond.), (Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Dublin University) called and examined.

767. Chairman.—You are a Professor in the Dublin University?—I am Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the Dublin University.

768. You would like to make a statement on the subject matter of this Bill?— I am a New Zealander and I lived for many years of my life close to a freezing factory or abattoir in New Zealand. At that abattoir many thousands of animals were killed a year before being exported to Great Britain in connection with frozen mutton, beef and the pig industry. The abattoir was a wonderful place that thousands of visitors wanted to see and anybody who wished to do so was allowed to go to this abattoir. I visited it very often. The methods used for killing animals were these:—Cattle were driven up ever-narrowing enclosures into a removable square fence put together temporarily. The man got above the fence with the pole-axe and the five or six cattle were brought in. The animals were struck down one at a time and when the five or six were struck down the fence was removed and a bamboo rod was put into the aperture made by the pole-axe and the spinal cord was stirred up. After that the throats of the animals were cut. They were partly skinned and they were put up on a sort of movable arrangement. When these animals were removed another lot were brought in. The whole thing was done very rapidly. The sheep were treated as follows. There were up to 20 sheep put into a fenced arrangement opposite which one butcher stood. The thing was apparently done on a piecework arrangement. Each butcher could do as many as he liked. His sheep were hauled out and their throats were cut with a knife. The pigs were likewise put into an enclosure of that sort. A man with a sledge hammer got over the fence and made a smack at the nearest pig with the sledge. Sometimes the pigs were quick and got away and sometimes they were hit. Later I went as a student to Oxford and eventually I was appointed as Histologist in the Oxford Medical school. I went to English slaughterhouses and got bits of warm organs for the purpose of preparation for the medical students. I saw the English methods for a couple of years and 14 years ago I came to Dublin.

Some years ago I visited one slaughter-house in Dublin. I have been asked to come here primarily to give my opinion on a number of the sections in this Bill. The main one is sub-section (4) of Section 1, which says that no person shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered any animal or dress or cause or suffer to be dressed the carcase of any animal within the view of another animal. Of course, our cattle were somewhat wilder than are the Irish cattle. The first heifer or bullock driven into the enclosure after the others had been killed usually rushed in, slithered around in the blood, smelt the blood, and showed every outward sign, as far as one could interpret, of being terrified. The animals were killed one at a time. During the killing the other animals rushed around the pen, and because of their extra salivation, the loss of control of their sphincter muscles and the glare in their eyes one would conclude that they had the fear of death. That conclusion is one that is shared by practically all biologists. I have a book here written by Romanes, an eminent authority. It is an oldish book, but what it says still stands to-day. He writes: “The animal witnessing the process of killing, flaying, etc., repeated on one after another of its fellows, gets to comprehend to the full extent the dreadful ordeal and, as it mentally grasps the meaning of it all, the increasing horror depicted on its condition can be clearly seen. Of course, some portray it much more vividly than others.” With regard to sheep, the sheep is judged to be a stupid animal because it does not show to such a degree signs of terror that other animals, such as cattle and pigs, show in the presence of death. I think it will be agreed that the sheep is not so intelligent as the cow or the pig. But to our eyes the outward expression of terror in an animal does not necessarily mean that it is not suffering. I can only remind you of the Chinese criminals who sit in a row and have their heads knocked off by an executioner and who apparently, as far as we can see, show very little interest in the performance. That, of course, is very well-known. The question of stunning versus throat-cutting is to my mind very clear. It is obvious stunning is a much quicker method of producing unconsciousness than bleeding. The use of the bolt in the case of sheep causes a laceration of the brain with a little hæmorrhage. That does not seem to have been brought out—that the hæmorrhage is little. When the brains are put up for sale the broken part of the brain can be put together on the butcher’s bench in such a way that there are few signs of the brain having been interfered with. As regards sub-section (3), which sets out that every animal preparatory to being slaughtered shall be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water and wholesome food, that is a matter on which I can give information. Ruminants are a very successful order of animals. Their success is due to the fact that they are able to browse quickly a certain amount of grass, or whatever other food they eat, and they are then able to run away from carnivora. The ruminant can run, after it has eaten grass, for hours and then it can sit down and chew the cud. This sub-section which sets out a period exceeding twelve hours seems to be unnecessary. I think it would be no hardship for a ruminant which had been fed 24 hours before and which had been driven some distance, to go without food for a considerable time. I think the main thing is that the animal should be provided with water and some form of shelter. I do not think there is anything else I have to say with regard to this matter. As regards the other parts of the Bill I do not think I could give information that would be of any value. I listened to the gentleman who first gave evidence—Mr. Dolan, I think he was—and I thought it was extremely good and very clear. I agree with practically everything he said. I thought it was extremely good.

769. Mr. O’Farrell.—I am sure the Committee are grateful to you for the rather exceptional type of evidence you have given, based on your experience. Do you, in the main, favour the use of mechanical methods of stunning?—Yes, certainly; it should be done for all animals.

770. That is the main consideration. I think you said sheep may not display emotions to the same extent as other animals but one must not conclude that they do not feel terror and pain?—I think on humanitarian grounds we should do what we can to despatch these animals in a decent manner which will cause them the least pain.

771. You agree with Professor Craig when you state that the hæmorrhage caused by the bolt is of a minor character?—I agree fully that if you bleed the animal quickly after the bolt has gone into the brain the hæmorrhage would be of a minor character.

772. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You have been very helpful to us on several points upon which it was very difficult to get evidence. Generally speaking, you agree with the main points in the Bill?—Yes, I do.

773. Mr. Counihan.—You stated that the smell and the sight of blood are the main causes of excitement in animals when they are going to be slaughtered? —They are some of the contributory factors.

774. It has been stated by experts who have seen it happening in slaughterhouses that pigs when they come to be slaughtered lick up the blood of animals already killed?—The pig, as Sallust says, is an animal that is prone to its stomach.

775. That would be no indication that it is frightened about being slaughtered? —Apparently, not in the pig; it is a pig in every sense of the word, so to speak.

776. The butcher who has been engaged slaughtering 50 or 60 cattle a week says he has seen cattle licking blood off the ropes which tied animals just killed?—I should think they must have been thirsty.

777. Would not all that go to indicate that it is not exactly blood that excites the animal?—I think in the case of the majority of cattle they smell it and associate it in some way—how intelligently one cannot say—with death.

778. Professor Craig’s statement was that it was not the blood that created excitement but rather the surroundings, the noise, the shots of the captive bolts— that they contributed more to the excitement?—In the case of the cattle I saw killed there was no noise excepting the fall of the animal. The man did his work very skilfully. The axe crashed down and the other animals in the pen got more and more excited as this happened. There is misery in their eyes. There is no question about that.

779. There must be some blood if the pole-axe is used?—Yes.

780. And there must be some excitement?—Yes.

781. You cannot have butchers around the stock yard without making noise, pushing the cattle, and so on?—There is a certain amount of noise.

782. Would you agree with Professor Craig when he stated that he thought that contributed more to the excitement of the animal than the blood, or the sense that they were to be slaughtered?—I have seen them rush in and run out after smelling the blood on the ground. They got very excited at the blood.

783. You would not attribute that to the new surroundings and to the noise and all the other happenings?—It was very strongly one of the contributory factors.

784. The blood?—Yes.

785. You cannot eliminate the noise?— No.

786. It has been said by an expert witness that blood letting was the most humane method of slaughter. Would you agree with that?—I certainly do not. If someone comes behind me and hits me on the back of the head I would know no more about it, but if someone cuts my throat, perhaps unskilfully, for a considerably long time, I would be conscious that I felt pain, and would realise, before a mist came before my eyes, that I had been assaulted in some manner.

787. In the case of a sheep when stuck, how long would the animal remain conscious?—It is very difficult to say. Anything from I suppose half a minute to a minute.

788. It would be instantaneous with the captive bolt?—Most certainly.

789. Do you believe that sheep are conscious of their surroundings and of what is going to happen when slaughtered where cattle and sheep are slaughtered and carcases dressed?—I think that all the outward signs, such as they are, are much less definite in sheep than in other animals. As I mentioned, I think it would be very unjust to the animals to judge from that alone. The sheep has a maternal instinct that is wonderful. I once found a lamb in a stream and I saw the mother standing by. From the size of the udders she must have been there a good many days trying to get the lamb out. You cannot explain a sheep on the second law of thermodynamics. The sheep is a living creature.

790. You stated that a ruminant animal could exist longer than other animals without feeling the pangs of hunger?—I certainly say so.

791. Would you agree that a sufficient quantity of water would meet the point before slaughter within the number of hours you specify?—It depends upon whether the animals had a good feed. What happens in the case of a ruminant like the cow is this: It takes up the grass which goes into the first stomach called the rumen. The animal will not chew the cud if there is not quietness. If it is driven actively along a road it will not do that. It depends upon how long it is driven before it does so.

792. In your opinion, how many hours would a ruminant do without food if it had plenty of water before suffering the pangs of hunger?—That would depend. A cow will eat grass and go and lie under a tree or some place before beginning to chew the cud. After a few hours’ rest it can ruminate to the full. I consider that if an animal is driven for 24 hours on end, and whacked with a stick, or excited, it would not chew the cud until the end of the 24 hours.

793. Then you consider that 24 hours would not be an unreasonable period to leave a ruminant animal without food if it had plenty of water?—My opinion is that if an animal has water and has shelter, I would not consider a certain amount of starvation as cruel as driving a lame animal or maltreating an animal with a stick or something of that sort. That is my own view.

794. Of course, you take into consideration that the giving of food would be very injurious to the flesh?—I do not know; I could not give an expert view on that.

795. It is admitted by experts that it considerably injures the flesh and prevents proper bleeding?—The animals I saw killed in New Zealand were killed under all conditions. They do not bother out there. The meat is not as good as the Irish beef. It does not taste as nicely.

796. You have had experience of sub-section (7) with regard to the age at which people should be admitted to the slaughter yards?—In the abattoirs in New Zealand they do not bother who goes in. They have nothing to hide. They killed the animals as quickly as they could by the means then existing. They let everyone in, including small boys. It was one of the sights for boys of the town.

797. Do you not think that it was injurious to the boys?—I have a small boy of 12 and if he asked me to let him go to see animals slaughtered I would let him go. I would, however, point out to him that it was a terrible thing, but that the animals had to be slaughtered for humanity. That is the way I would put it to my boy. Other people might put it in a most brutal manner. In other words, I think it would be desirable to keep children out of slaughterhouses.

798. The Bill states that no one should be allowed into a slaughterhouse under the age of 16. Do you think that a boy who is going to the butchering business should not be allowed to start before he is 16 years of age?—I think it would be a good thing to keep him out until he is 16. The whole thing depends on the boy and on the butcher.

799. The thing we are concerned with is, that this Bill sets out that a boy must not go into a slaughterhouse until he is 16 years?—In general I think that is a good thing. I can see that there might be a brutal type of butcher that would not do the boy any good. It would be undesirable there.

800. You think that if a boy leaves school at 14 years of age he should be kept walking about two years before starting to learn his trade?—You are an older man than I am, and probably you could give a much better opinion there. I cannot give expert opinion on that. As far as my boy is concerned I would take him and show him, but I should carefully point out the necessity for the whole thing, and present it to him in a different way than would be the case probably with a poor boy.

801. I was asking your opinion as a biologist?—I am sorry I cannot say anything.

802. Mr. Wilson.—Has there ever been an experiment to ascertain how long it takes a ruminant to ruminate the full contents of the stomach?—I am sure there must be information on that point. If I had known that it was required, probably I could find it.

803. You gave it as 24 hours in certain circumstances?—No, what I said was that if a ruminant takes food into the rumen it is kept there until he gets peace.

804. In winter the practice, as you know, is for the producer of fat cattle to get as much food as possible into the animal’s stomach because it may have to be sold by liveweight. It is to the owner’s interest to have weight, and you may take it from me that in winter animals will be stuffed with food. When that animal goes to the market the food will remain there a certain time, probably until it is sent to the abattoir. According to you while the food would remain in the rumen until the animal got peace, there would be no question of pain for a considerable time?—I do not think so.

805. The only thing we want is to decide what should be in the Bill?—It is the evolutionary history of the animal.

806. You agree with 24 hours as in the Bill?—I cannot give the figure. I said it was possible that an animal might be driven for 24 hours without rumination. I can look that up to see if I can get definite information. A veterinary surgeon would give much better information than I could give there. I desire to say that I have no connection with the Anti-Vivisection Society.

807. Is it with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?—They asked me to give evidence and I gave it as well as I could. I think I gave some evidence on your side.

Chairman.—I should like to say that you have given evidence of a very special kind, and that we are very deeply indebted to you.

The witness withdrew.

Dr. B. B. Ferrar, M.D., F.Z.S., M.R. I.A. (Superintendent of the Royal Zoological Society’s Gardens, Dublin), called and examined.

808. Chairman.—Perhaps you could give us some of your views on the subject-matter of the Bill, and pass any comments you wish on it. If you like to make a statement we will be glad to hear it?—I have very little to say on this matter. When we get live horses or donkeys we always employ a professional slaughterer. We telephone for him and he comes up and slaughters. Of course occasionally we have cases of emergency when it is very hard to get him, and then one of our men acts. The man who always slaughtered for us died last year, but one of our men. who has been with us for 17 years, has proved very satisfactory. On occasions I had to do it myself. We always use the humane killer.

809. Would you like to express an opinion as to the methods used previously? —I have seen animals pole-axed in our place and in other places, but certainly there is no doubt, in my opinion, that the gun renders them absolutely unconscious. Of course we bleed the animals immediately afterwards. We never slaughter two animals together. We slaughter them singly and then bleed them at once. I am speaking only of horses and donkeys. We use no cow meat at all, and we do not ever kill a cow there unless in the case of an accident in the gardens or something like that. But on the question of blood, some of the horses coming into the yard will start at the smell of blood. I have had great trouble in getting a horse of my own past a cart of dead pigs on the road. It is smell more than anything else. They do not seem to mind the sight of blood. I think their worry is greatly due to the sense of smell.

810. Are you interested in a general way in this question?—I am very keen on all these things.

811. Apart from your own actual experience and the slaughter of donkeys and horses, you are interested generally in the subject matter of this Bill?—Very much so because I have known such horrible things to happen in the country. I am speaking now, of course, of years ago. Being in charge of animals, my one lookout is to try to see that no pain or suffering is undergone in the matter of slaughtering. It is my duty to see to that always and I am very anxious to keep any animals or humans out of pain if possible.

812. I take it that if you are interested in a general way in the subject matter of the Bill you have looked through the Bill itself, and if there are any sections of it on which you would like to comment we should be very glad to hear you. You did pass comment in regard to sub-section (4), which says: “No person shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered any animal, or dress or cause or suffer to be dressed the carcase of any animal within the view of another animal.” Perhaps you might give us some more detail?—We have had cases once or twice where several goats have been looking on while another is being slaughtered. From curiosity—you could not call it anything else—they come up to see what is happening. I do not think there is very much in that. I do not think that they do suffer from looking on.

813. Have you ever considered the question from the point of view of allowing young people under sixteen years of age to witness slaughtering? What is your viewpoint on that?—I have had to drive them out with iron bars and a whip before now. If we have an accident in the yard, they can see into where we do the slaughtering.

814. Curiosity impelled them, I suppose?—I do not think there is much as between the age of sixteen and fourteen.

815. There is not much point in that?— I do not think there is but I certainly think that in regard to this matter of slaughtering, a boy of fourteen ought to have as much sense as a boy of sixteen. I think, however, that one would want to catch a boy young to break him into butchering.

816. You would be stating something which Senator Counihan was leading to before with the previous witness when he said that if a boy leaves school at fourteen years there is no reason why he should waste some of his years but should go right into the business?—I think so.

817. Looking at these operations does not tend in any way to make boys more callous in their nature?—I do not think it does.

818. Are there any other sections on which you would like to comment?—I think that the licensing provision is very useful because it is a trade to which, like my own original trade, which was slaughtering humans, you have to serve your time.

819. Is “slaughtering” the correct verb?—That is perhaps not the word but you are licensed to sign a death certificate, anyway and I think that people ought to be licensed to do these things.

820. Chairman.—You have looked right through the Bill. Senator O’Farrell is in charge of it in the Seanad and he will perhaps want to ask a few questions.

821. Mr. O’Farrell.—You are in favour of the mechanical killer?—Absolutely.

822. You have studied animals of all kinds. Do you think they have a fairly intelligent premonition of danger if they see another animal in trouble? Do they take a certain amount of alarm as a general rule?—I do not think so. I think it is merely curiosity.

823. Would you say, for instance, that if you slaughtered a cow in front of another in the same enclosure the other animal would take no notice of it?—He will take notice but I do not think there is any fear of impending death.

824. No impending fear of trouble?— No.

825. You are strong on that?—I am.

826. You have heard various authorities quoted absolutely to the contrary?-Yes.

827. Have you had any experiment done or any experience to give you the right to say that?—We have had to use this humane killer in an enclosure with horses in cases where they have met with accidents. The other animals only seem to want to see what is going on.

828. Do you slaughter one horse in the presence of another?—No.

829. What animal do you slaughter in the presence of another?—Perhaps two goats might come in.

830. Is that your experience then? Is it on that experience that you base your statement?—Yes, and from having to do it, as I say, in emergencies in a field or enclosure with other animals.

831. That would be a very wide enclosure?—Yes, but the others will come up to see what you are at.

832. You have said that it is your great interest to save animals from unnecessary suffering or terror?—Yes.

833. And you still suggest that, notwithstanding your desires in that respect, animals might be slaughtered or should be slaughtered in the presence of another? —I do not say that it is desirable but I do not think they understand sufficiently to be caused any suffering.

834. I want to know if you, as head of the Zoological Gardens in Dublin, stand by that evidence that, in your opinion, all animals may be slaughtered for food or other purposes in the presence of each other and experience no terror or mental suffering. Would you like to modify your views?—No, I do not think so. I do not think they have sufficient brain power to understand.

835. So Professor Craig and Professor Gatenby are wrong?—No.

Mr. Counihan.—He does not say that.

836. Mr. O’Farrell.—I want to relate his evidence to your evidence. Do you disagree with Professor Craig and Professor Gatenby in that respect?—I do, to that extent.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I want to have that on record.

837. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You have had a long and close contact with various kinds of animals and you have studied the mentality of the animals?—Yes, I try to.

838. And is it your experience that it is the smell of blood that would excite an animal more than the seeing of another animal being killed?—I certainly do.

839. Therefore, an animal should be saved from all that as far as possible?— Yes, as much as possible. Most animals have a remarkably keen sense of smell— an outstanding sense of smell, you might say.

840. Is it your experience that with the humane killer the animal is rendered unconscious at once?—You may say instantaneously, if it is done properly.

841. Would it require much experience to use the human killer proficiently?-No, not with the ordinary short gun.

842. A person could learn it in a very short time?—Yes.

843. Mr. Counihan.—You agree with Professor Craig that an animal being slaughtered in the sight of others does not make the other animals conscious of impending danger and conscious of being slaughtered—

Mr. O’Farrell.—Professor Craig did not say that at all.

Mr. Counihan.—Is that your opinion?

Mr. Wilson.—He has given his opinion on that already.

844. Mr. Counihan.—And I think Professor Craig’s evidence was to that effect. In proof of that, you state that you have seen goats being slaughtered and other goats coming up and smelling around quite unalarmed?—Yes.

845. You said you knew that horrible things happened in the country. What were those horrible things? Did they happen in relation to the slaughter of animals?—No, but I have seen them trying to pole-axe an animal on the road-side, for instance, when it had met with an accident or in the hunting field.

846. In the hunting field?—Yes.

847. The Committee might get the impression that some of these horrible things happened in slaughterhouses. This Bill has relation only to the slaughter of animals for human food or to their slaughter in slaughterhouses. You know of no instance which you could relate of horrible things happening in slaughterhouses?— Oh, no.

848. Mr. Wilson.—Have you any opinion as to how long an animal should be fasting before slaughter in order to have the best meat?—I could not give any opinion on that.

849. Does it ever happen in the course of your killing in the Zoological Gardens that you have to slaughter an animal in its cage?—Yes, it does.

850. Do you use the humane killer then? —Yes.

851. Chairman.—For the lions and tigers?—No.

852. Mr. Wilson.—Is it a gun?—It is a short gun.

853. It is a bullet?—Yes.

854. And you would have no hesitation in using it although there would only be the bars of the cage separating the animal from its neighbour?—Yes.

855. And that is the practice in the Zoological Gardens?—Yes, but it is only done when some accident occurs.

Rev. Dr. I. Herzog, M.A., D.Litt. (Chief Rabbi), called and examined.

856. Chairman.—You are Chief Rabbi of the Irish Free State?—Yes.

857. You have specialised information with regard to one particular phase of this Bill?—Yes.

858. You have a statement, I take it? —Yes. I shall make that statement now. There is a vast difference between the slaughter of animals for general consumption as food and the slaughter for the consumption by Jews. The Jewish mode of slaughter, shechita, is an essential part of the Jewish religion. Jews are strictly forbidden to eat of meat killed by any other method. It has been universally observed by Jews since time immemorial all over the world and the rules governing this vitally important religious ordinance are believed by us to have been handed down by Moses to whom they were divinely communicated. It is to these rules that the written Divine Law refers (Deuteronomy, XII, 20-24) in permitting the consumption of meat not offered as a sacrifice. “If the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and thy flock, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates after all the desire of thy soul.” (Hullin, 28a). The Jewish method consists of cutting the throat of the animal with a single swift and uninterrupted sweep of the knife, which is of more than surgical sharpness and smoothness, horizontally, across the throat in such a manner that it severs the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins. The knife-edge must be perfect, without the least perceptible unevenness, indentation or roughness. The knife must be minutely examined by a specific method before killing to test its sharpness and smoothness. It must also be examined after killing and if any unevenness, roughness or the minutest indentation is found, the beast is regarded as having been improperly slaughtered and its flesh is nebelah, i.e., is regarded from the standpoint of our Dietary Laws like the flesh of an animal which died of itself (carrion) and may not be consumed by Jews. The knife must be twice as long as the breadth of the neck of the animal; for larger cattle fourteen finger-breadths. The shochet therefore has three different knives, one for birds, one for large cattle, one for small cattle. The following are the five fundamentals of the act of shechitah:—

(1) Shehiya. Delay. There must not be a pause even for an instant. The incision must be continuous until the vital parts are severed. The slightest pause renders the killing improper.

(2) Derasa. Pressing. There must not be the slightest pressing of any kind, nor the slightest hacking of any kind. The knife must be drawn swiftly and gently across the throat without any undue exertion on the part of the shochet.

(3) Haladah. Digging. There must be no burrowing. The knife must not be introduced under the skin, as in stabbing, or covered by the wool of the sheep or hair of the steer. The cut must be free and open and exposed.

(4) Hagrama. Slipping. The cut must be made in a prescribed region of the neck, namely through the trachea below the cricoid, the complete cartilaginous ring immediately below the larynx—but not through the larynx, nor through that part of the neck which is close to the chest, where the muscles are very thick and the trachea is deep-seated. In fact, the cut should preferably be made in the centre of the neck.

(5) Ikkur. There must be no laceration, no tear; hence the knife is examined after the operation as well as before, to make sure that it is perfectly smooth. If the slightest roughness is found the beast, as already said, is declared to have been improperly killed and its flesh is nebelah, strictly forbidden to Jews. The prescribed cut must thus be made by an instrument sufficiently long, broad, exceedingly sharp and perfectly smooth.

From what has been stated it must be clear to every unprejudiced mind that the Jewish mode of slaughter ensures a swift and painless death to the animal. It must be forcibly emphasised that the shechita, or the slaughtering of animals for Jewish consumption, must be carried out by an educated, refined and cultured man, known to be God-fearing, who is appointed an official of the community. properly trained, duly licensed, authorised and supervised by the religious head of the community, whose duty it is in the case of the shochet’s misconduct, or inefficiency to suspend him or even to annul his licence. The maximum effort is thus made to secure efficiency and humaneness in the slaughtering of animals. The charges of in humaneness levelled against shechitah are either due to the lack of a knowledge of physiology, to imperfect information, or to blind anti-Semitic prejudice. Of this I may assure you that in as far as killing by any mode whatever can be humane, shechita is as humane a mode of slaughter as there could possibly be. This is a matter which cannot be decided subjectively by laymen, but is a scientific question which requires study by experts, physiologists, and veterinary surgeons. In a pamphlet published in London by the Jewish Board of Deputies, you will find opinions of 457 Continental scientists and veterinary surgeons, mostly Gentile Christians, decidedly in favour of shechita. They are indexed as follows:—

(1) Opinions of Professors of Physiology, Pathology, Anatomy and Hygiene:

(a) No. 1-68, Germany;

(b) No. 69-89, Austria Hungary;

(c) No. 90-103, Switzerland;

(d) No. 104-113, Holland;

(e) No. 114-115, Denmark;

(f) No. 116-118, Italy.

(2) No. 119-138, Opinions of Heads and Professors of Veterinary Colleges and Institutions.

(3) No. 139-308, Opinions of Government and other official Veterinary Surgeons.

(4) No. 309-400, Opinions of Directors, Inspectors and Veterinary Surgeons of abattoirs.

(5) No. 401-446, Opinions of other Veterinary Surgeons.

(6) No. 447-457, Opinions of Presidents and Inspectors of Butchers’ and other Associations.

The Jewish method has been attested as humane by such world-famed physiologists as Virchow and Dubois Raymond in Germany, Carl Vogt in Geneva, Krogh, the Noble Prizeman (1921), Lord Lister, Sir Michael Foster, and Sir William Bayliss in England.

It would be impossible to quote these hundreds of testimonials of professors of physiology, pathology, anatomy and hygiene, of head and professors of veterinary colleges and institutions, of government and other official veterinary surgeons, of directors, inspectors and veterinary surgeons of abattoirs in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, etc. I have picked out a few at random:—

Hans Virchow, Professor of Anatomy, Berlin University: “Involves no cruelty to animals .. consciousness is almost immediately lost.” R. Dubois Raymond (Director of the Department of Specialised Physiology in the Phys. Inst., Berlin University): “Shechita can only appear cruel to those who have an erroneous conception of the manner in which death ensues in the case of an animal slaughtered by this method.” A lode (Director of the Institute of Hygiene, Innsbruck University): “There can be no question of cruelty to animals. . . . . . Shechita is not only desirable but, from the standpoint of the better lasting properties, well-drained meat is superior to all other methods of slaughter.” P Grassi (Director of the Institute for Comparative Anatomy, Rome University): “Certainly deserves the preference. Attacks on shechita are actuated not so much by sympathy for the animal as by anti-Semitic prejudice.” Hoseman (District Veterinary Surgeon, Diedenhofen): A very rapid death. . . . . . . Meat rendered more lasting. The ritual method is a matter of conscience for thousands of convinced Jews. All honour to the efforts of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. But higher than the protection of animals is the protection of man.” C. H. H. Spronock (Director of the Pathological Institute, Utrecht University): “A humane method of slaughter . . . . . . . The Jewish method is so desirable that it should be universally adopted.” Josef Loti (Professor of General Pathology and Anatomy, Kolossvar): “I should regard that man as lucky who could go to his death with as little pain as an animal killed by the Jewish rite.” As far as concerns more recent expressions of opinions of English authorities I need only refer to the following reports and opinions by most eminent scientific experts, all of them Gentiles:—(1) “A Report on Shechitah.” by T. H. Openshaw, C.M.G., M.S., F.R.C.S.. late Lecturer on Anatomy, London Hospital, 1904: (2) “On the humanity of Methods of Slaughter,” by Leonard Hill, M.B., F.R.S., Director of the Department of Applied Physiology, National Institute of Medical Research, published in the Lancet, 1923; (3) Report by Sir William Bayliss, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of General Physiology, University College, London, 1923; (4) Joint Report by Professor T. B. Wood, C.B.E., M.A., F.R.S., Drapers’ Professor of Agriculture, University of Cambridge; Professor J. Barcroft, C.B.E., M.A., F.R.S., Professor of Physiology, University of Cambridge; L. F. E. Newman, M.A., Director of Agriculture, University of Cambridge, 1924; (5) Opinion of Professor C. A. Lovatt Evans. D.Sc., F.R.S., Professor of Physiology in the University of London, 1929. I shall quote now a few English opinions under appropriate heads:—

(1) The Question of Pain. T. H. Openshaw, C.M.G., M.S., F.R.C.S., London Hospital and Poplar Accident Hospital, late lecturer on Anatomy, London Hospital:—“The head having been extended, the cutter takes hold of a portion of the skin of the neck between the thumb and the forefinger, and with a lightning-like cut, servers all the tissues of the neck down to the vertebral column. This cut never took longer than one second. It was performed so quickly that the eye could not follow it. If any pain at all is felt it must be momentary.” Professor C. A. Lovatt Evans, D.Sc., F.R.S., Professor of Physiology in the University of London:—“My reasons for regarding the method as practically painless are based on two things: (1) common sense; (2) a knowledge of physiology.” Sir William Bayliss, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of General Physiology in the University College, London:— “They (i.e., the shochetim) work under rules devised so as to cause the minimum of pain and discomfort to the animal.” Joint Report of Professor T. B. Wood, C.B.E., M.A., F.R.S., Drapers’ Professor of Agriculture, University of Cambridge; Professor J. Barcroft, C.B.E., M.A., F.R.S., Reader in Physiology, Cambridge, Fullerian Professor, and L. F. Newman, M.A., Director of Agriculture, University of Cambridge:—“The salient feature of the Jewish method is that the fall of blood-pressure is so rapid that sensation can only persist for a fraction of that time.”

(2) The Convulsions after the Cut. (a) Joint Report of Professors Wood, Barcroft and Mr. L. Newman:—“Such movements are quite unconnected with sensation. Nevertheless they may appear so purposeful as to convince the lay observer that sensation continues and that the movements are evidence of pain or consciousness. “Sir William Bayliss, Professor of General Physiology, London University:—“Hence the convulsions which may come on at a stage long after consciousness has ceased. These may include raising of the head and are in no way indicative of consciousness. They occur in an animal whose brain has been removed when its spinal cord is deprived of oxygen. In point of fact, the occurrence of such is rather to be regarded as showing that consciousness has already been absent for some time, since they are the last stage in the death of the cells of the brain. There was not very much in the way of convulsions to be seen in those animals which were slaughtered in my presence.” (b) Professor C. Lovatt Evans:—“The fact that the conjunctive reflex persists is, as everyone knows, absolutely no criterion of the existence of consciousness.” (c) Both Dr. Leonard Hill and Mr. Openshaw, men of the highest rank, the one a physiologist, the other a surgeon, dealt in their reports exhaustively with the tests for unconsciousness which they applied and (a point which is recommended to the attention of all, and particularly of humanitarians who are not trained scientists or surgeons) pointed out that, in regard to movements after death, they carefully distinguished between purposive movements —which may or may not imply consciousness—and those unconscious movements or convulsions which are either merely reflex actions (such as is the case when a decapitated fowl runs round the yard) or are actually the recognised signs of profound anæmia of the nerve centres, proving unconsciousness. Professor Leonard Hill emphasises the fact that the movements of the animal after the cut has been made, which have been continually distorted by the opponents of shechita into evidence of sensibility, are actually due to acute anæmia of the nerve system, i.e., they are actually signs of unconsciousness. (2) The Loss of Consciousness: Sir William Bayliss:—By the cut as made in the Jewish method, the large blood-vessels of the neck, “the carotid arteries, which supply the brain with blood containing oxygen, are completely divided, so that they can no longer send any blood to the brain… The bleeding is extremely rapid. Cutting of the carotid arteries, by depriving the brain of its blood supply, produces practically instantaneous loss of consciousness.” The other authorities make the same affirmation, naturally in somewhat different language. The objection has been raised that although the carotids are severed in shechita, complete cerebral anæmia will not follow because the vertebral arteries are not severed. In answer to this I would direct attention to the following expression of expert opinion: Sir Wm. M. Bayliss:— “The fact that the vertebral arteries enclosed in bone are not severed is of no consequence…. After the neighbouring carotid arteries have been freely opened, the pressure in the vertebrals is reduced nearly to zero. Any slight current of blood in them is far too small to be of any effect in maintaining the life of the brain.” Professor Lovatt Evans states:—“On general principles . . . . . . . it is clear that when such large vessels are severed the arterial blood-pressure falls at once to a very low level and, moreover, the carotid arteries being severed, much of the blood supply to the brain is immediately lost .... the result is, I think, almost immediate loss of consciousness.” Dr. Leonard Hill:—“The vertebral arteries are not, in my opinion, divided by the incision, nor is this necessary, for it is impossible to maintain the cerebral blood pressure when both carotids are cut.”

The Preliminaries, or Casting. Some misunderstanding apparently exists among critics of the Jewish method as to the preliminary operations of casting the animal. This operation is done in various ways for the purpose of presenting the animal’s throat to the Jewish shochet in order that he may apply the knife. Casting is not an essential of the Jewish method, although it is necessary to have some means of presenting the animal’s throat in the correct position. Casting is not effected by the Jewish shochet but by the slaughter man employed by the abattoir authority. In order to ascertain whether any cruelty was attached to casting, in 1905 an eminent surgeon and an equally eminent scientist watched the operation in thirty-three cases and in each case searched the carcases for recent bruises. In no single case was such a bruise found. It is important to state that the scientific authorities (which include the late Professor, Sir William M. Bayliss, F.R.S.) who established the humanity of the method of slaughter itself, also closely examined the preliminary casting and found it to be humanely performed. A mattressed or padded floor or some other soft surface is certainly desirable. A certain mechanical apparatus for casting has been invented. Incidentally, I may also point out that according to expert opinion the effect of shechita on the meat is very wholesome. Professor Sir William M. Bayliss says: “I do not know of any method by which so complete a draining of the blood could be obtained. Incomplete draining must adversely affect the meat and its keeping qualities.” I will not tire you with quoting more authorities on this point. I will just mention the opinion of the eminent surgeon, Sir James Cantlie, K.B.E., M.A., M.B. In a public speech reported in the Daily News of December 20th, 1923, he declared: “Everything that Moses uttered was found on physiological and hygienic fact” and he stated that when patients required a meat diet, he always ordered “kosher” meat, that is, meat killed by a Jewish shochet and passed by him as fit for Jewish consumption. The following words of the famous physiologist, Professor Lovatt Evans, of London University, may fittingly conclude my brief statement about the scientific view of the humaneness of shechita:—“My opinion as a physiologist is that I should think this method is as humane as any other method in use or likely to be brought into use. I should be happy to think, “Professor Lovatt Evans continues, “that my own end were likely to be as swift and painless as the end of these cattle killed in this way undoubtedly is, I should say that it is granted to few human beings to make their exitus in so swift and painless a manner.” To sum up:—(1) Shechitah is prescribed by the Jewish religious law. Jews are strictly forbidden to eat of meat killed by any other mode. (2) The humanity of shechita has been established by the overwhelming testimony of recognised scientific authorities all through the world. (3) Regulations that would prohibit or obstruct shechita would therefore inflict a cruel hardship upon a body of law-abiding citizens, the Jewish community in the Irish Free State, and would be in effect, a dire religious persecution of Irish citizens of the Jewish race and faith. (4) Moreover, the prohibition of shechita would be an infraction of the Minorities Treaties of the League of Nations, the text of which stipulates for the “free exercise whether public or private, of any religion whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals.” Although the Irish Free State is not under Treaty obligations of this kind, yet as a member of the League of Nations this country has a moral obligation in this matter. The following passage occurs among certain measures adopted at the Third Assembly of the League of Nations which met in Geneva in 1922. “The Assembly expresses the hope that the States which are not bound by any legal obligations to the League with respect to minorities will nevertheless observe in the treatment of their own racial, religious, or linguistic minorities at least as high a standard of justice and toleration as is required by any of the Treaties and by the regular action of the Council.” I may mention that in Great Britain the Ministry of Health, on the evidence of scientific authorities as to the humanity of the Jewish method, has, in over 350 local administrative areas in England and Wales, officially sanctioned shechitah on its merits. An Act of Parliament for Scotland and an Act passed later for England, at the instance of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as well as an Act recently passed in the North of Ireland, have all legalised shechitah by statute. Lastly, may I say how painful it is to the Jew to see and hear his religion charged with cruelty to animals. To those anti-shechita humanists, whoever they may be, who charge Judaism with cruelty to dumb creatures, but who are themselves so ominously dumb in the face of the suffering, the cruelty and the agony inflicted upon Jews in Christian lands, I would say that centuries before the Aryans had any idea of humaneness towards human beings, let alone animals, when the Aryans still tore limbs from living animals and ate them, Israel’s Divine law commanded us to help the animal that has fallen down to rise up (Deut.XII. 4). “Even if thou see the as of their enemy lying under its burden. thou shalt forbear to pass it by: thou shalt surely release it with him” (Exodus, xxiii. 5). Alone among all ancient systems of law and morality, Israel’s Divine law commanded: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he is threshing” (Deut. 25. 4). “The righteous man,” says the Book of Proverbs, “regardeth the life of his beast” (Prov.xii. 10). The Sabbath, the law of Moses commanded, must be a day of rest not only for man but also for “thine ox and thine ass and all of thy cattle.” Post-Biblical Judaism emphasised and developed the commandment of kindness to animals. It is Rabbinical Judaism that forbids hunting for sport. It would be impossible to quote the numerous passages enjoining kindness to the dumb creatures. It is typical of Rabbinical Judaism that it commands the Jew to feed first his domestic animals before he sits down to a meal, for the Divine law first says: “And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle” and then it proceeds “and thou shalt eat and be satisfied” (Deut. xi. 15. Berakhoth. 40a. Gittin 62). The ancient Rabbis say that Moses and David were chosen leaders of Israel taken from the fold to feed God’s people because as shepherds they showed themselves kind and faithful to the sheep entrusted to their charge. To be sure, shechita, forming an essential part of Israel’s religion, cannot but be a most humane method. As far as killing of any kind can be humane, shechita is, as I have already stated, as humane a method of slaughter as there could possibly be: I hand in pamphlets containing reports of specialists which I ask the Committee to accept.

859. Chairman.—I should like to say that the community you represent have been fortunate in having a spokesman who put the aspects of the case with such clarity and in such absolute detail. We are much obliged to you for the time you must have given in preparing the statement. You are mainly concerned, of course, with sub-clause (b) of clause 6 of Section 1 of the Bill?—Yes.

860. You see the form in which that exception is set out. Do you find any objection to that? No.

861. Have you any comment to pass on it?—Instead of “licensed for that purpose by the Chief Rabbi,” which means myself. I suggest that it would perhaps be advisable to substitute “the Board of Shechita of the Jewish Community of Dublin.” My reason is that this office is a newly-created one and I am the first incumbent in this office. If I go out it may take some time before this will be filled and in the meantime, the position will be a bit clouded. I therefore suggest the Board of Shechita. That is the official body which contains representatives of the various congregations and which has charge of the arrangements for shechitah.

862. Mr. O’Farrell.—The promoters have excluded the Jewish method of slaughter from the Bill, but we have been subjected to a certain amount of criticism for that action, and we want to be in a position to defend our action in view of possible amendments. You said that the Jewish method is an essential part of the Jewish religion?—Yes.

863. So that, contrary to what was stated in the Seanad, it is a religious rite? —Absolutely. It would be a very grievous sin for a Jew to eat meat killed by any other method.

864. Does that apply to sheep as well as cattle?—Yes, and to birds.

865. To all meat, in fact?—Yes, except fish.

866. Has any change been made in the method from the days of Moses down to the present?—No change whatever.

867. Switzerland forbids the Jewish method?—I have quoted authorities here and I have the authority of the most eminent men in Switzerland who favour the method.

868. I only wanted to draw attention to that?—Thirteen of the most eminent scientific authorities in Switzerland favour this method.

869. I only draw attention to that in view of your statement regarding nations that are members of the League of Nations. Switzerland is a member of the League of Nations?—That prohibition was in Switzerland before there was a League of Nations in existence.

870. It will be argued that all these arguments that have been so ably advanced by you could with equal force be advanced in the case of cattle killed for Christian consumption with the use of either the pole-axe or the mechanical killer. What is there in your method of killing that is not also in the Christian method without the use of the mechanical stunner?—I am not concerned with any other method. I am here only to explain our method. I am interested, of course, in humaneness towards animals, but I am not here to criticise any other method.

871. That is the use of the knife?—As used by us.

872. Is it customary to call in a Christian butcher to dispatch the beast?— Never, it is not true. I often go to the slaughterhouse to examine the knives, etc., and I have never seen a Christian butcher called in to dispatch the beast.

873. It was stated to us that it was done in practically all cases?—It is not true. I have heard that it might happen some time that the Christian workers, being in a great hurry, of their own accord dispatch the beast. If it is done, it would not be before there is a sufficient escape of blood as otherwise we would not eat the meat. There must be a sufficient escape of blood.

874. You quoted eminent authorities to show that it was not cruel?—Yes.

875. Have you read the Report of the Admiralty Committee set up by the British Government?—I have not, but I remember the Report. I remember that Report was condemned in the Jewish Chronicle. That is years ago.

876. The question is a very old one?— That was about 20 years ago.

877. About 1904?—I have quoted you the highest authorities. You could not have higher authorities.

878. This is one paragraph from the findings of that committee:—“That the Jewish system fails in the primary requirements of rapidity, freedom, from unnecessary pain, and instantaneous loss of sensibility”?—You can see the result, that England has exempted this method not only by Act of Parliament but by the bye-laws of the corporations. Over 350 district administrative areas exempted it.

879. I agree that it has been exempted? —You cannot have anything that is not criticised. There is nothing in the world that is not criticised. Even the Irish Free State is criticised.

880. This is one of the objections raised and it is quoted in the Admiralty Committee Report?—I would ignore that completely.

881. I would ask you to direct your attention to it:— “That the preliminary operations of ‘casting’ and of forcing an animal’s head into position for the cut are difficult, painful and objectionable from a humanitarian point of view”?—I have here authorities who state just the contrary. Sir William Bayliss states:— “The animal falls on to a stuffed cushion or mattress, and in most cases lies quietly. It is incorrect to speak of a ’heavy fall.’ I was unable to find any indication of bruising on the skinned carcases.” I could give you more, but it would take too much time to read these pamphlets.

882. You have read quite a number of the most impressive authorities. You quoted an overwhelming list of authorities. I do not want you to quote any more. I am only asking you to reply to certain criticisms from the other point of view?—You will find a number of them in these booklets.

883. It is the amount of abuse the beast gets before it is put into position for killing that objection is taken to?— In the first place that has been grossly exaggerated. I do not suppose an animal is conscious of what is going to be done. It is like one boy trying to throw another on the ground.

884. One of the authorities quoted by you was Professor Lovatt Evans. Provided he was mauled, pushed about and thrown off his balance, what would he think?—If he knew what was going to happen it would be different. Otherwise, he would imagine there was only going to be a bit of a scuffle.

885. But the beast knows that something is wrong?—I do not think so. It is, of course, unpleasant.

886. Would it interfere with the rite in any way if the method of casting were altered?—No. In some places a certain mechanical apparatus has been introduced. The beast is made walk into a little hut. I have not myself seen the arrangement.

887. The essential part of the rite is the use of the knife?—Yes.

889. The method of casting could be improved?—Yes.

890. As time goes on, improvements will likely take place?—It has been improved but it takes time to introduce the improvement. Our trouble is that we have so many different places for killing.

891. Have you many places?—The community has no slaughterhouse of its own. We have six or seven butchers. One finds it convenient to kill in one place and another in another place. It is, therefore, difficult to make an arrangement which would cost some hundreds of pounds. Butchers may change. If all slaughtering were confined to an abattoir, I think it would be a most desirable thing.

892. Are some of your beasts killed in the abattoir?—No.

893. You have separate slaughter-houses?—Only one Jewish butcher has a slaughterhouse. The rest of them kill in different places—non-Jewish places. There may be a difference about price and then the killing may be transferred to another butcher.

894. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You mentioned that the knife was specifically examined?—Yes.

895. How?—Twelve times by the nail and by the flesh of the finger. It is examined very minutely.

896. Does the use of the knife always sever the carotid arteries and the jugular veins?—Yes.

897. It must take a great deal of force? —It does not take much force, the knife is so sharp.

898. Would it be in any way inconsistent with your method of killing to stun the animal first?—Absolutely.

899. That would not be killing the animal. You might use an anaesthetic? —It would result in a lesion of the internal organs.

900. But it is not killing the animal?— I have not stated to you all the laws of kosher. I have dealt only with killing. We have also the laws regarding terefah. If you find the slightest lesion in the brain or in the internal organs—even in the lungs—the meat is declared to be unfit for Jewish consumption.

901. The question of typing up, slinging up and so on is not mentioned in the Scriptures?—No, but there must be a way of doing it.

902. Therefore, it is a detail you have introduced in order to kill the animal more easily?—Yes.

903. How the head should be situate is not mentioned in the Scriptures?—That is for the purpose of carrying out the cutting in the proper way.

904. Would it not be quite consistent with the rite to stun the animal? It would not be against the Scriptures?—I have explained that it would cause a lesion of some of the internal organs.

905. Some anaesthetic might be used before you would stun?—I have here a report about the use of anaesthetics. That was suggested in Germany. It has been found to result in certain lesions and, sometimes, in the death of the animal before the knife is applied.

906. Mr. Counihan.—You have stated that, in your opinion and in the opinion of many eminent Christian scientists, the Jewish method of slaughter is the most humane method that could be adopted?— Yes. I have the evidence here.

907. That method, I take it, is blood-letting?—It is the method I have described. The bleeding is very profuse. There is very little blood left in the carcase.

908. The opinions you gave us would go to prove that blood-letting is very much more humane than the captive bolt method, the pole-axe method or any other method. That is apart from the fact that it is the Jewish method?—Quite so— apart from the religious aspect.

909. Senator O’Farrell asked you some questions, as did also Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger, with regard to giving an anæsthetic before killing. Is it not a fact that in the Jewish rites the animal killed is examined and if any fault is found—if there are any lesions in the flesh—the beast is not kosher?—Yes.

910. That prevents a Jew from eating any meat that is not prefect in every way?—Yes.

911. If stunning was used, it would destroy the brain and that would be sufficient to prevent the meat from being used by Jews?—Yes.

912. Have you any experience of the Mohommedan method of killing?—None whatever.

913. Does it approximate in any way to the Jewish rites?—It must be similar. It is taken from the Jews, I suppose. They do not examine the knife as we do. They are not as careful as we are about the smoothness and sharpness of the knife.

914. Mr. Wilson.—Was the knife in the time of Moses so perfect as it is to-day? —There is no doubt it was. This has been a traditional rite.

915. It was examined and perfectly sharp?—Absolutely.

916. Mr. Quirke.—Is it your opinion that it would be detrimental to allow boys under sixteen to be present at the slaughter of animals?—It is not within my competence to say.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Dr. Herzog, for the assistance you have given us.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until Thursday, at 12 noon.