The R.S.P.C.A.: A Criticism

THE recent changes in the management of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals marked a fit moment for pressing on the attention of the committee the urgent need of bringing the society more into accord with the modern humanitarian spirit. As a rule, it is an invidious task to suggest that reforms are required in the policy and methods of an old institution like the R.S.P.C.A.; but when an epoch in a society’s career was drawing to its natural close, and a reconsideration of policy was inevitable, there could be no just reason for offence if those who were not directly connected with the work of the society, yet were fellow-workers in the same cause, took the opportunity to appeal to the executive on a matter which concerns all true friends of animals alike. We greatly regret that the appeals thus made have proved to be wholly unsuccessful.

A RIP VAN WINKLE AMONG SOCIETIES.

For, to come to the point at once, it is beyond doubt that there is a very deep dissatisfaction, among the more intelligent and active workers for the welfare of animals, at the stupor (the word is no whit too strong) into which the R.S.P.C.A. has of late fallen with respect to the advancement of the cause and the fuller recognition of animals’ rights. Go where you will among the men and women who are to-day doing the most active work on behalf of animals, you hear the same thing said, the same disappointment expressed at the failure of the wealthiest and most powerful zoophilist society to keep abreast of the times, and you find the same conviction that the R.S.P.C.A. has become not only useless as a fighting force, but by its dead-weight of inactivity a positive obstacle to progress. The wheels of the R.S.P.C.A. have, in fact, for many years been in a rut; the society has been living on the memories of its past, forgetful that it ought rather to be laying up material for the future.

It has to be remembered that more than half a century has passed since those great Acts of Emancipation which first condemned cruelty to animals in English law and prohibited bull and bear baiting, and that since that time no measure of first-class importance has been passed by the instrumentality of the R.S.P.C.A. There has been a great advance in the sense of our obligations towards animals, but the chief cause of the advance must be sought in the humanising spirit of the age, and in that breaking-down of the barriers between human and non-human which was apprehended by our poets and philosophers first and by our scientists afterwards. The work of the R.S.P.C.A. has been chiefly in the maintenance and enforcement of the present law for the prevention of cruelty to animals; the task of showing the utter inadequacy of that law, in view of the rapid growth of humane sentiment, has been mostly undertaken by others. In a word, the R.S.P.C.A. has become a prosecuting organisation and little more.

THE EVILS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTING AGENCIES.

Now the position of such private prosecuting agencies as the R.S.P.C.A. and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is, in our opinion, essentially wrong in principle, and ultimately injurious in practice to the very cause which the societies are intended to promote. It is the legitimate function of a private society to work for the passing of a law; but when once the law is passed, it is the duty not of any private persons, but of the police, to secure its proper enforcement. We do not mean to be pedantical in this matter, and we readily admit that it is better that children and animals should be protected by private agencies than not be protected at all; but we wish to point out that, in the long run, this system of relieving the police of their duties necessarily does more harm than good, for it practically creates a lower grade of laws—i.e., those which are not of sufficiently importance to be carried out by the police themselves, and have, therefore, to be taken up by some private association—and thus lowers in public esteem the very class of beings whose status it is desired to raise. Already signs are not wanting that this view of the matter is beginning to be recognised on the Bench and in the Press. “I think it is wrong,” said a judge in a recent case of cruelty to children, “for the police to leave cases like this in the hands of the officers of this society. They have no right to do that. It should be the duty of the police to take up all such cases as these.” And with regard to the Penruddocke case, a well-known journal remarked that “it is scandalous that the conduct of the prosecution in such a case should be left in the hands of a private society supported by voluntary contributions.” We would draw the attention of all lovers of animals to the fact that by undertaking the work of prosecution—.i.e., the carrying out of the present law—they are greatly crippling their own efforts for the amelioration and strengthening of the law. Why fight our old battles over and over again, when the police could do the work far better and more effectively?

WHERE THE R.S.P.C.A. HAS FAILED.

At any rate, there is urgent need for a forward department of the R.S.P.C.A., which shall work to improve and strengthen the law, not merely to carry it out; for the failure of the society in this respect has of recent years been most lamentable. To show the truth of this statement, it is only necessary to glance at the attitude which the society has taken up towards the following most important questions:

I. Vivisection.—Here we have the spectacle of the R.S.P.C.A. being completely dispossessed of the place which it ought to occupy, in the prevention of scientific cruelty to animals, by the National Anti-Vivisection Society and other such associations. Why is this? Is it that these officious anti-vivisection societies have needlessly run in where good work was already being done, and have robbed the R.S.P.C.A., so to speak, of its pre-eminence? Not at all. The reason is that the R.S.P.C.A. has stood aloof from the anti-vivisection movement because it is unpopular, and has left to others the burden of making protest against the most awful of all cruelties that are inflicted on the lower races. One would think that, in such a matter, noblesse oblige, and that a Royal Society would be in the forefront of the fight. Alas! the case is precisely the reverse; it is the Anti-Vivisection Societies which are bravely battling against this great wrong, while the Royal Society spends its time and money in prosecuting carters and others who ill-treat their horses—that is, in doing the work which the police would otherwise be bound to do! Not only has the R.S.P.C.A. not aided the anti-vivisection movement, but by its timid and hesitating policy it has greatly retarded it.

2. Sport.—Here, again, much the same process has been at work. For the last sixteen years a persistent and vigorous agitation against the more debased and cruel forms of blood-sports has been kept up by the Humanitarian League, which has already resulted in the abolition of the Royal Buckhounds, the introduction and widespread advocacy of the Spurious Sports Bill, and the dissemination of a higher ethical standard on the whole subject of “sport.” Far from helping in this endeavour, the R.S.P.C.A. has throughout damned it with the very faintest of faint praise. Its timidity during the League’s long crusade against the Royal Buckhounds first, and then against the Eton Beagles, has been positively laughable. On one or two occasions it has been nearly driven to take some feeble action, and then such counsels have been overruled by the more timorous and conservative of its members, and it has sunk back into its former apathy and sloth.

THE QUESTION OF CRUEL SPORTS.

We desire to speak more particularly of this question of cruel sports, because it is here that the abdication of the R.S.P.C.A. from the high position which it once held, and which it ought to hold, as foremost champion of the rights of animals, has been most marked. Up to the year 1905 the society did at least give its official support (however feebly translated into action) to the attempts made by the Humanitarian League to obtain further legislation; but the committee, never very progressive in its policy, has now actually retroceded in this respect, and the recent withdrawal of its support from even such a moderate measure as Mr. Luttrell’s Spurious Sports Bill, which would prohibit only the degraded pastimes of tame stag-hunting, rabbit-coursing, and shooting pigeons from traps, lends a new proof to our contention. The importance of the position held by the R.S.P.C.A. is largely owing to its having been entrusted with the work of prosecution; it has thus come to be regarded as an authority, not only in the application of the existing laws, but in the question of further legislation. Here it is that the influence of the R.S.P.C.A. appears to us to be a mischievous one, because the very reason that makes it so powerful in the prevention of what is at present denied as cruelty, makes it equally impotent in extending the legal definition of that offence—viz., the fact that among the subscribers to the society are many devotees of sport and other callous practices, who, while quite willing to comply with the existing law, are extremely anxious to avoid any such strengthening of the law as might affect their own recreations, and who, therefore, resent any forward movement by the organisation to which they belong. Subscriptions given to the R.S.P.C.A. may thus become a sort of investment on the part of the sportsmen—a security that their sport is by so much the less likely to be interfered with. In the oft-quoted words of “Hudibras,” the sporting folk

“Compound for sins they are inclined to,
By damning those they have no mind to.”

Here is the explanation, possibly, of the otherwise incomprehensible attitude of the R.S.P.C.A. towards the Spurious Sports Bill, and its eagerness to play off the Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, of I900, against any more drastic humanitarian measure.

THE WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY ACT.

Now the Act of 1900 was practically the result of a “deal” between the society and the sportsmen, who, while stipulating that the provisions of the Act should not apply to anything done in the sacred name of sport (unless the animal were released in a mutilated condition), were graciously pleased to allow “wild” animals in menageries, etc., to come within the sphere of protection. Even thus it would have been impossible to pass the Bill, had it not been for the strong humanitarian agitation carried on for eight years previously against rabbit-coursing, stag-hunting, and similar sports, which had so thoroughly alarmed the sporting fraternity that they were willing to acquiesce in a small “non-controversial” measure, lest a worse thing might befall them.

So far, well and good; for any useful instalment of reform, however small in itself, should be welcomed by all sensible men; and it is only because an attempt is being made to exaggerate the scope of the Act of 1900, and so depreciate the need for further legislation, that it is necessary to protest. The difficulty of the position of the R.S.P.C.A. would seem to be this—that while, on the one hand, it is afraid of alienating its sporting members if it goes forward, on the other hand, it is afraid of offending its humanitarian members if it hangs back; hence it is driven to take up a dubious attitude between the two, and to pretend that in the glorious Act of 1900 a law has been passed which may well satisfy the ideal of the humanitarian, while the interests of the sportsman are preserved. In a book lately published under the auspices of the society, and described in its annual report as “a guide for humanitarians,” namely, “The Law Relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,” the following poetical account is given of the scope of the Act of 1900:

“Whereas the Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 and 1854, only protected domestic animals, this Act sweeps into its net almost every other act of cruelty to any other animal which it seems possible to conceive of. . . . Section 4 is important as protecting persons preparing animals for food, and also persons engaged in genuine sport.”

Certainly a section which, by exempting sportsmen of every kind, “genuine” or the contrary, from liability to the Act, permits rabbit-coursing, stag-hunting, etc., to be carried on as before (with the single exception above referred to, that relating to maimed or mutilated animals), must be considered “important.” It is more “important,” in truth, than the Act itself! The half, as in the Greek proverb, is “greater than the whole.”

Now, why should the two legal gentlemen who wrote this book (one of them is, we believe, a member of the committee of the R.S.P.C.A.) have so preposterously exaggerated the scope of that useful but narrowly restricted little measure, the Act of 1900? Presumably because the Act is the straw, so to speak, to which a sinking committee must cling—the only result the society has to show, as far as “sport” is concerned, since bull and bear baiting were abolished—for the abolition of the Royal Buckhounds was effected, sad to say, by the bold bad Humanitarian League, whose very name is treated as unmentionable in Jermyn Street!

One might have supposed that an Act which “sweeps into its net” every conceivable act of cruelty to wild animals had left no further work for zoophilists to accomplish; but even since the passing of this all-comprehensive measure the R.S.P.C.A. has not been permitted to sleep the sleep of the just, for the wicked humanitarians not only worried the Jermyn Street Committee into using the Act for the suppression of certain malpractices in rabbit coursing (if there can be said to be any particular malpractice in a sport where all is so infamous), but have continued to promote the Spurious Sports Bill as busily as before, with the result that many of the most influential branches of the R.S.P.C.A., less timid than their central committee, have passed resolutions in favour of the Bill.

LEGISLATION “ NOT DESIRABLE AT PRESENT.”

Finding itself thus “between the devil and the deep sea,” the R.S.P.C.A. felt impelled to make a public statement, and an amazing statement it was! Here it is, as issued by the secretary of the society in the autumn of 1906:

“The committee consider that the promotion of legislation, and especially of controversial legislation, is not desirable at present, and should be undertaken as far as possible by individuals; but they will always readily give information and assistance in any way in their power to those who are attempting to procure legislation for the prevention of cruelty to animals.”

Surely this is the most marvellous announcement ever made by a zoophilist society! We have apparently reached such a pitch of humaneness in our treatment of wild animals that no further legislation is desirable “at present.” Now, seeing that there has been practically no legislation, as far as sport is concerned, since bull and bear baiting were prohibited more than half a century ago, that such hideous barbarities as tame stag-hunting, rabbit-coursing, pigeon-shooting, etc., are in full swing around us, and that the present Parliament is notoriously favourable to humanitarian reforms, it is difficult to understand what the R.S.P.C.A. could precisely mean by its strange reference to “at present.” The reform has been overdue for a generation—there is an excellent chance of accomplishing it now—and we are told that “at present” it is not desirable even to ask for it!

Then there is the not less surprising statement that the promotion of legislation “should be undertaken by individuals.” But if legislation is not desirable “at present,” how does it become more desirable if individuals, rather than societies, promote it? We fear the remark can only mean that the R.S.P.C.A. is afraid that it might lose the subscriptions which it “at present” receives from wealthy sportsmen if it were to take any active part in agitating for a reform.

Finally, why, if legislation is not required, is the society willing to “give assistance” to the misguided individuals who attempt to secure what is so undesirable?

But even this was not the end of the humiliating process, for, after announcing that legislation is “not desirable at present,” the committee of the R.S.P.C.A., alarmed by the strong line taken by many of their branches, and by internal dissensions at Jermyn Street, have themselves introduced legislation, in the form of a new Bill to amend the Act of 1900—evidently in the hope of taking the wind out of the sails of the humanitarian agitation by using it (as in 1900) as a means of passing another uncontroversial measure, and then claiming what credit can be got by the achievement.

A SPURIOUS “SPURIOUS SPORTS BILL.”

And now for the Bill itself. We advise all of our readers who relish a Gilbertian comedy to get a copy of the Animal World for January last, and read the report presented to the R.S.P.C.A. by its farcical sub-committee “appointed to consider the Spurious Sports Bill.” This sub-committee, which appears to have been selected on the principle of setting the cat to watch the cream, contained among its members Mr. H. D. Greene, Sir Howard Vincent, M.P., Sir Frederick Banbury, M.P., three stalwart opponents of reform,* and Mr. Guillum Scott, who, to express it mildly, is not exactly an advocate of progressive measures; and the result of the deliberations of this charming little coterie was that, in their anxiety to prevent Mr. Luttrell’s Bill from becoming law, they deemed it politic to draft another Bill of their own. We would hazard the guess that it was the legal mind of Mr. H. D. Greene that hit upon a specious method of leaving the well-to-do stag-hunter and pigeon-shooter outside the clutch of the law, while making it apply, or seem to apply, to the humble rabbit-courser**—viz., by making the Bill prohibit “the hunting or coursing” (not shooting, mark!) “of any animal which has been liberated in an enclosed place for that purpose.” Now, we frankly admit that the Bill would be a very fair one if it were the practice to hunt or course pigeons instead of shooting them, and to carry on stag-hunting in enclosed places; but, as it happens, the two brutal sports of hunting the carted stag and shooting pigeons from traps would not be touched by this precious piece of legislation!

To crown all, some misguided persons have given the Bill the same heading as that which it is intended to upset, and have called it the “Spurious Sports (No. 2) Bill.” We grant that in one sense it deserves the title, if it be understood that it is the Bill itself, and not the sport only, that is “spurious.”

A QUESTION FOR THE RANK AND FILE.

With the rank and file of the R.S.P.C.A. we have no quarrel whatever, for we believe the large majority of its members to be sincerely anxious for genuine reform in blood sports—as, indeed, was shown by a recent vote at the annual meeting. Our dispute is solely with the little self-elected clique of sportsmen, or friends of sportsmen, who dominate the Jermyn Street committee and dictate the policy of the society. If these men succeed in their present object of thwarting the genuine “Spurious Sports Bill” by the introduction of a counterfeit Bill to safeguard the cruel amusements of their stag-hunting and pigeon-shooting supporters, while condemning the cruel pastime of working men, it will be the R.S.P.C.A. itself that will suffer, for it will have to bear the lasting disgrace of having sided, at an important crisis, with the sportsmen against the humanitarians, only to find that a still stronger agitation has been set on foot. We trust that the branches and active members of the R.S.P.C.A. will give their immediate attention to this matter, and call theJermyn Street committee to strict account.

We appeal, then, to the rank and file of the R.S.P.C.A. to utilise the present opportunity for reorganising the society on a more effective and intelligent basis, even at the risk of losing some of the aristocratic figure-heads and sportsmen who adorn the society’s list of patrons? After all, the active support of live men and women is worth in the long run, than the patronage of wealthy “dead-heads” and Rip Van Winkles

* Sir Frederick Banbury, thus appointed to aid in a judicial examination of the Bill, was actually the person who “talked it out” in 1903!

** We say “seem to apply,” because it is evident that if the Bill passed, the rabbit-coursers would evade it by holding their meetings where there is no enclosure, but where the circle of spectators would as effectually prevent the escape of the quarry.

Henry S. Salt

The Humane Review, 1907-8, pp. 23-33