Animal Rights Quotes • Law • Humane Education • Historical Literature eBook Library: Free Full-Text eBooks • Primary Sources
Activists Against Cruelty to Animals: A » B » C » D » E » F » G » H » I » J » K » L » M » N » O » P » Q » R » S » T » U » V » W » X » Y » Z

Animal Rights History Timeline » [1837-1901] Victorian Age » Francis William Newman

Francis William Newman

Rights of Animals

The Index

[1873-Dec-11] Francis William Newman, "Rights of Animals," The Index 2 (1873 Dec 11): 502; Online at FWNewman.org.

It is easy to quote from the Hebrew Scriptures texts which recommend the kind treatment of animals. They are not numerous, but they are decisive. In the Christian books nothing very definite may be found, yet inferentially the duty of gentleness and mercy to animals is contained beyond a doubt in numerous precepts and principles. Notwithstanding this, it is an undeniable fact that the oriental sarcasm which calls Christendom the "Hell of Animals" has a grievous basis of truth. Cruelties are perpetrated on the greatest scale, incessantly and through ages, and no remonstrance arises from any of the churches, as such, though now and then the indignation of individuals swells into an outcry, and some little alleviation follows. But even so, no principles of action are firmly laid down. Cruelty to a living creature is deprecated,—when gratuitous,—but no one utters the maxim that: "living creatures have some rights," much less tries to define what rights. It has long appeared to me that this is among the moral defects of historical Christianity, which a rightly developed Theism ought to correct.

Not science only, nor sport only, but cookery also claims it victims. A wholesome stir has been made in the press of late against the cruelties perpetrated on calves to make their flesh while, for the gratification of the eater's eyes, and for an increase of tenderness, probably imaginary, in consequence; it is reported that a few butchers have changed their practice. But this is only one of the atrocities ever at work against the helpless beings who are placed at our mercy. Man, says Thompson, ought to be lord, but not the tyrant of the world.

If, leaving off to compare one religion with another, we ask, What chiefly perpetuates cruelty to animals, and hinders the attempt to fix any ideas as to their rights?—we must probably answer, The belief that their lives may at any time be taken for our small convenience. Men assume without debate, have no right to life, if their life interfere without our slightest whim. Not only my hunger, or danger of starvation, but the needless gratification of my palate, passes as a sufficient reason for killing a wild bird or beast. The like may be said, not only if I need the hide or won to save me from perishing by cold, but if I covet its feathers as an ornament, or its horns or tusks for the market. Thus the principle is laid down that its life is of less importance than my emptiest pleasures, and this, even if in killing I produce wide-spread distress to the living. Amateur butchers are clumsy; much cruelty arise from wounding without killing. Law cannot forbid cruelties in detail, if it allow indiscriminate slaughter. Hearts are hardened by custom, and thus the evil spreads.

Animals which have feelings as sensitive to ours have a claim upon us to respect those feelings. All warm-blooded creatures at least are here included. To a philosophic slaveholder, who asks "why he may not flog a black fellow" at pleasure, it is impossible to give any valid answer, which will not equally apply against torturing a horse. Those who have equal animal sensitiveness, whether it be two men, or a man and a horse, stand here on the same footing.