The first enactment bearing on this subject, commonly known as “Martin’s Act,” was passed in 1822. It applied only to the cruel and improper treatment of beasts of burden and cattle. In 1833 an Act was passed for prohibiting bear-baiting, cockfighting, etc., but only within five miles of Temple Bar, London, and it was put solely on the ground of the tendency of these amusements to produce idleness, disorder, and annoyance to the public.
In 1835 an Act was passed which reduced the penalty for the ill-treatment of cattle, but prohibited bear-baiting and similar pastimes throughout the country, and also contained provisions against the starving of impounded animals and for the regulation of slaughterhouses.
N.B.—This was the first Act which clearly asserted in its preamble the duty of preventing cruelty as such, reciting that ‘many and great cruelties are practised to the great and needless increase of the sufferings of dumb animals, and to the demoralisation of the people,’—though it adds, lest those should not be thought adequate grounds for legislation—‘and whereby the lives and property of His Majesty’s subjects are greatly endangered and injured.’
In 1849 the protection of the law was extended to all domestic animals, and it was made penal to use any animals, wild or domestic, for baiting.
In 1854 an enactment was applied to the whole kingdom which had already been fifteen years in force in London prohibiting the use of dogs for purposes of draught dogs.
It also enlarged the definition of the term “domestic animal”— which has since been held in court to mean any animal “sufficiently tame to serve some purpose for the use of man’’—and birds such as fowls and pigeons are also included. The same Act contains provisions with regard to the impounding of animals and the slaughter.
In prosecuting under this Act it must be borne in mind that evidence of suffering, even severe suffering, is not necessarily enough to secure a conviction. It must be shown that the pain is caused intentionally, or through some negligence or carelessness.
Prosecutions have also failed on the ground that the cruel acts are customary in the trade, or necessary to the object in view.
Thus in a case with reference to the branding of sheep on the nose with a hot iron, on the Welsh mountains, while the cruelty was admitted, the prosecution failed because no other effectual means of marking the sheep was considered feasible.
Similarly the flogging and spurring of horses on the racecourse is legally permissible, though the same treatment in an adjoining paddock would be punishable, as in the former case it is held to be necessary to the object in view.
In 1876 the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed to regulate vivisection or the practice of making experiments on living animals for scientific purposes.
In 1894 the Injured Animals Act was passed to enable police constables to cause horses and certain other animals when seriously injured to be slaughtered.
Various Orders by the Board of Agriculture have been issued subsequently from time to time dealing with diseases of animals, transit by land and sea, exportation of horses, and control of dogs, less in the interests of animals than from trade and sanitary motives.
In 1900 was passed the “Wild Animals in Captivity Act,” the object of which is to include in the same protection as domestic animals any wild animals kept in captivity.
In 1906 was passed the Dog Act, consolidating several previous Acts, which was not designed mainly in the interests of dogs. It empowers the Board of Agriculture to make regulations with regard to muzzling, etc., and deals with the seizure of stray dogs and the liability of dog-owners for injury done to cattle, etc.
It contains, however, the important provision that no stray dog shall be given or sold for the purposes of vivisection.
THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS.
In 1880 the first Wild Bird Protection Act was passed. By it the shooting and snaring of wild birds during a close time is prohibited, and in the case of certain scheduled birds special and fuller protection is granted. Provision is also made for the extension or variation of close time.
In 1881 this law was amended with respect to the sale of wild birds recently killed, if killed in foreign countries.
In 1894 the law was strengthened to give further protection on the application of the County Councils to the eggs of certain birds and to add birds to the schedule of the Act of 1880.
In 1896 and 1902 County Councils were empowered to prohibit the taking and killing of any wild bird beyond close time, and power was given to the Court to forfeit traps, decoy birds, etc., and birds and eggs unlawfully taken.
In 1904 an Act was passed to prohibit steel spring-traps with teeth generally fastened on the top of a pole and commonly known as pole traps.
In the same year the provisions of the various Acts were extended to the Island of St. Kilda (hitherto exempted), excepting as regards certain birds used as food.
The main object of this was to protect the St. Kilda Wren, a species not found elsewhere.
In 1908 it was enacted that any person who should take any wild bird by means of a baited hook is guilty of an offence.
Captive birds are also included in the “Wild Animals in Captivity Act of 1900.” A number of prosecutions have taken place 336 under this Act, especially with regard to cruelty to decoy birds, and also some cases of caged birds kept in overcrowded and filthy conditions.
SUMMARY.
All Domestic Animals in England are protected from cruel treatment, but what is to be regarded as “cruelty” is left largely to the discretion of the magistrates, whose views often vary a good deal. Thus, much harsh treatment is still allowed which all humane-minded persons would unite in condemning. To obtain a conviction with regard to street traffic, it is generally necessary to show some definite, outward sign of cruelty, as a cut, bruise, weal, or lameness.
Also in many common practices considered useful or necessary in trade or fashion, from the traffic in worn-out horses to the use of the bearing-rein, or the carrying of poultry head downwards, while the suffering caused is not denied, the law does not interfere.
Wild Animals in captivity, including birds, are protected in the same way and to the same extent as domestic animals; but the fact of keeping them in captivity, as in menageries and cages, or for purposes of public performance, is not regarded as cruel in itself.
Wild Animals in natural conditions receive no protection at all. For instance, it is not illegal to throw a living rat on the fire, to pull a frog limb from limb, or other similar barbarous acts. The countless cruelties perpetrated in blood sports, even to “corkscrewing’’ foxes, are also permitted by the law.
Any Animal, domestic or wild, may be used for vivisection, in any of the places registered for that purpose, and the vivisector who has obtained a licence and the further certificate allowing him to dispense with the use of anaesthetics, can do anything he may please with the animal, if he considers it necessary for the object he has in view.
All Wild Birds are protected throughout the United Kingdom during the breeding season (March 1 to August 1), but landowners and occupiers may catch or destroy them on their own lands, or may authorise others to do so. Certain scheduled birds, however, are protected absolutely. County Councils have the power to add to this list, to alter and extend the close time, to protect birds throughout the year (except in Ireland, where the Act of 1896 is not operative), to protect eggs, and to make other modifications.
LEGISLATION NEEDED.
Legislation is now needed most pressingly for the following objects.
With Regard to Animals.
1. To enable County and Borough Councils to close private slaughterhouses and erect public abattoirs.
2. To prohibit the so-called sports of Tame Stag-hunting, Pigeon Shooting from traps, and Rabbit Coursing in enclosures. These pastimes partake less of the nature of hunting than of the baiting of animals, which was prohibited as long ago as 1835.
3. To replace the present Vivisection Act, which protects the vivisector, by granting him a licence to vivisect, by one which shall protect animals from vivisection.
4. To prohibit the use of the steel trap for rabbits and other ground animals. This trap is no less cruel, but is possibly even more so, and is much more widely used, than the pole-trap for birds which was prohibited in 1904.
5. To regulate, or stop entirely, the trade with foreign countries in worn-out horses.
With Regard to Birds.
6. To prohibit the importation of plumage and skins of foreign birds for purposes of dress.
7. To prohibit the export of English song birds for caging purposes, and to regulate, or entirely prohibit, the catching and keeping of native birds in cages. Legislation on both these points already exists in the United States of America.
There are signs that the feeling of the country is ready for legislation in all these particulars. In most of them it is the trade interests mainly which are standing in the way of progress. While it is reasonable that the interests of traders should be considered in any readjustment of matters which affect them, it must be quite evident to all humane-minded persons that any trade which cannot be carried on without a callous disregard of the rights and feelings of sensitive creatures is in itself immoral, and in the interests of men as well as animals should be controlled and directed into other channels which are innocuous. No reform ever was or ever can be made without some trade or trades suffering thereby, whether it be the abolition of slavery or of war, the reform of our prison system or the encouragement of temperance, and those who live by means which are hurtful to the community must take the risks of their trades, and should not be too tenderly dealt with in common justice to those who are suffering wrong through their means.
Ernest Bell
The Animals’ Cause, Vol. 1, 1909, pp. 335-338