The Work Of The Humanitarian League

THE name of the Humanitarian League has of late been a good deal before the public in connexion with such questions as the reform of our prison system, cruel sports, and the rights of animals; yet (such is fame!) it is no uncommon thing to hear people ask, What is the Humanitarian League? To satisfy any doubt that our readers may feel on the subject, we present them with the following information, the result of inquiries addressed to the honorary secretary of the League at its office in Chancery Lane.

What are the objects of the League?

The objects of the League are to humanise, as far as may be, the conditions of modern society, not merely by making protest against the many barbarous practices that have come down to us from the past, but by inducing people to recognise humanitarianism as a serious branch of ethics, instead of a spasmodic exercise of the instinct of compassion.

Is there no other society that does this?

There are other humane societies which devote themselves to some special task—the protection of children, for example, or of aboriginal races, or of the lower animals—and such specialisation has the advantage of enlisting a number of persons who, however much they may differ on other subjects, are at least united on one point. But, together with this great advantage, there is a corresponding disadvantage—that those who are thus intent on one particular end are apt to forget the general principle which underlies all humanitarian effort, and to neglect, or even oppose, other important reforms, which are, in fact, closely akin to the one which they themselves are advocating. It is the object of the Humanitarian League to correct such inconsistency, and to show that all the various forms of humanitarian work—such as that of the peace and arbitration societies, the prison reform societies, the vegetarian societies, and the numerous associations for the prevention of cruelty to animals-are inspired by one common principle, which underlies and interknits them all.

You are charged with “sentimentality,” no doubt?

There is no charge more frequently made against humanitarians than that they are “sentimentalists.” Well, then, we invite those who make this charge to consider the subject rationally, and starting from the principle in which we are all agreed—the avoidance of the infliction of unnecessary suffering on any sentient being—to see how the principle works out when applied to a number of customs which are prevalent to-day. There is, as every reader of a newspaper must be aware, a vast amount of humane feeling in the public mind, the outcome of the great growth of social sympathy during the century that is past; but it is at present scattered, unorganised, inarticulate; and it is our desire to give voice and guidance to this growing sympathy—to transform it, in short, from a mere sentiment into a principle, and to show that it must apply not to mankind only, but to all sentient creatures.

Then the Humanitarian League upholds the rights both of men and of animals?

Yes; but there is this difference, that, whereas the rights of animals are still a subject of controversy, the rights of men are in theory admitted, though often violated in practice. For this reason, and because the whole field of right and wrong is far too wide for us to deal with, we have mainly confined our efforts, as far as human rights are concerned, to the issues involved in the criminal law and prison system, a subject which, unlike that of peace and arbitration, the poor law, the sweating system, and many others that might be named, is not being adequately treated by any other society.

And what is the attitude of the League on that question?

It is sometimes urged against us that we have “more sympathy with the criminal than with his victim”; from which charge we infer that there is still, in a certain portion of the public mind, a bitter and blinding animosity against those who transgress the laws, and that no department of the Humanitarian League is more sorely needed than that which is concerned with prisons. What we really contend is, of course, this—that, while the public must be fully protected against crime, no atom of undue severity should be used in the punishment of offenders; it is not severity, but useless, aimless, unnecessary severity that we deprecate, the severity that degrades without deterring, and renders the criminal worse without rendering any member of society the better. It is for this reason that we have successfully striven for a mitigation of prison discipline, and have defeated more than one attempt to extend the use of the lash.

And what of the animal question? Is not the whole ground there covered by other societies?

No; there is not a single society, except the League, which is maintaining the rights of animals as a whole. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is occupied chiefly in the enforcement of the present (very imperfect) laws for the protection of animals; the vegetarian and the antivivisection societies deal only with their special subjects; and there is no society at all for the reformation of sport. This being so, the work or the Humanitarian League on behalf of animals is most onerous and important, comprising as it does (I) the vindication of the principle of animals’ rights as an essential part of social reform; (2) a practical agitation for the suppression of the more degraded forms of sport, such as stag-hunting, rabbit-coursing, and pigeon-shooting. By the abolition of the Royal Buckhounds, and the introduction of a Bill for the suppression of spurious sports, the Sports Department of the Humanitarian League has now opened the way to a much-needed reform.

Is it true, as is sometimes stated, that the League is a vegetarian society?

Only in the sense that we recognise food-reform as an integral part of zoophily. Some of us are personally vegetarians, others are not; but all are agreed as to the need of amending the present cruel methods of transport and butchery. Our Humane Diet and Dress Department concerns itself with the barbarities of food and fashion—e.g., in the cattle-traffic, private slaughterhouses, the fur-trade, and “murderous millinery,” a term which was first used in the League’s publications.

And what do you consider the most important feature of the League’s work?

Undoubtedly its presentment of the humane principle as a whole. It is only by recognising that justice to animals is part of the great democratic movement that we can hope to attain it; and, conversely, the rights of men will never be fully realised until we have due regard to the just claims of all sentient life.

Henry S. Salt

The Humane Review, 1907-8, pp. 125-128