Timeline: Antiquity » Medieval » Renaissance » Age of Enlightenment: Restoration » Augustan » Sensibility » Romantic Age » Victorian Age » Early 20thc.

Literary Panorama

1809-Oct | P. [New Kent Road], letter to the editor, "Animals' Friend" Literary Panorama (1809-Oct):83-7; Online at Google Books.

Animals' Friend

Letter to the Editor, Literary Panarama

PROPOSITA PHILANTHROPICA.

—Homo sum:
Humani nihil a me alienum puto.

Animals' Friend.

Where tender feelings are wanting, genuine Christianity will never be found. Cruelty to dumb animals, in spite of all those high pretensions to civilisation we boast, is, it is to be feared, one of the crying sins of this nation. Cruelty to dumb animals betrays an unfeeling heart and a depraved mind, and should never pass without punishment. When the Creator subjected the beasts of the field to man's use, he never intended to render them the objects of man's cruelty!"

Archdeacon Daubeney's Sermon on Cruelty to Animals.

To the Editor of the Literary Panorama.

Sir,—When I addressed you some lime ago* on the subject of the Animals' Friend Society, I ventured to anticipate the propriety of commencing that institution immediately, as the most appropriate prelude to Lord Erskine's humane bill, not only as evincing the public feeling on a subject of such importance, but also as a practical illustration of the advantage and necessity of the measure, and as collecting daily proofs of the atrocious offences, which demand so imperiously the restraining hand of exemplary justice. The event of that noble lord's merciful bill, has abundantly evinced the advantages that might have been derived from having begun the society, and the facility which in every instance I have experienced from the magistrates† in their zealous co-operation to punish cruelty, leaves no room to doubt of the success which would have attended its establishment and promotion for the furtherance of its views.

I would, therefore, now most zealously call upon those friends of humanity who signified their intention to join the general cause, and were willing to aid in the formation of the ANIMALS' FRIEND SOCIETY, whenever it was begun. We have waited sufficiently long, without gaining any advantage from the delay, and at the certain loss of what might have been done in the meantime; and I am the more anxious for this beginning to be made now, because in a company, not many days since, I heard it asserted, with general satisfaction, that the ANIMALS' FRIEND was began. Surely, then, there can want no encouragement in the public mind, and surely none in the minds of philanthropic individuals who have already volunteered their services for this highly exalted purpose. Never should it be said with impunity, that the English nation is wanting in its grand characteristic mark of humanity, when such an opportunity is afforded them to exemplify it so fully; unless we prefer to fix the stigma ofRousseau, who says, "the ENGLISH BARBARITY it well known!" and ironically adds, that "no person calls us humane', but—ourselves!"* I cannot better enforce the necessity for an immediate formation of this society, than by stating, in conclusion, a case of cruelty which has recently occurred, and being one of those which, upon the only ground of plausible pretence, was urged against the necessity for the bill, as what "could not even be supposed to happen"† (though it occurs every day), and which "had a remedy already afforded by the laws;" although the want of such law was the only reason why the bill was proposed, will most amply prove the wisdom and humanity of the objection!

Not more than three weeks ago, the attention of the passengers in Thames-street was arrested by the cruelty of a man endeavouring to force two poor, lean, emaciated horses, in a cart (on which was written, Samuel Quinton, White's Grounds, to draw a very heavy load up St. Mary's Hill. The poor animals laboured in vain, exerted all the little strength of their weakness, fell, arose, and tried again, endured the punishment of their brutal young driver, repeated their falls, useless efforts, and endurance, &c. to no purpose. The surrounding passengers interceded, and implored for pity on the sufferers; and were answered, as usual, with (punishable) imprecations on them and the cattle. The surrounding carmen of Thames street joined in these intreaties, declaring that such horses were unable to draw up the load, which was stated to be (as the driver acknowledged) above 14 hundred weight! They offered to lend him their horses; told him he deserved to be put in their places, and to be treated as he was treating them; all this was of no avail; and when the person who saw this, unable to witness such unpunished atrocity, was leaving the spot, they inquired whether such a barbarian could not be punished, as he deserved? The carmen—the Thames-street carmen themselves—replied, d—n—g it, the more was the pity he could not be punished, for they belonged to him. Was he then the master's son?—believe it who can!!—This, therefore, Mr. Editor, is one of those cases which the objecting M.P. thought "could not happen"— a man to ill use his own cattle; or, if it did, that the law provided a remedy for others doing so. Both these cases are here combined; and what remedy is there? Do not such hellish deeds, as they truly are, call for the most prompt and exemplary one? What must we think of such a young man? Is he not an hopeful member of society!!—a fit companion for the M.P. alluded to? Would they not be a fit pair to take the place of the suffering animals. Who would regret to see them there?—who would refuse to drive them?—What must we think of a father who permits his son to act thus? Ought not such men to be excluded, by general consent, from the common concerns of men, as they exclude the common feelings of humanity? What English merchant, with the feelings of his native country, would willingly encourage such men, by employing them, when others can be had? If such principles are to encouraged, as they are by want of punishment, at what atrocity will they stop? For these things, indeed, we may well say the land mourns, and cries for vengeance, for, as it is stated by an author, alike remarkable for his elegance and humanity, "If the enjoining to man humanity towards animals be a part of the merciful and benevolent dispensation of Providence, on the fulfilling of that injunction depends a part of the righteousness which is imputed to man for the exercise of that Christian virtue, mercy; and without fulfilling it, our mercifulness will be found wanting, and our charity be less imperfect."*—As a contrast to the above case (where the expression of the countenance by no means gives the lie to Lavater's theory), I will mention the conduct of a gentleman, who I know, towards his horses. He had used a pair of them in his carriage fro some years: when advanced in age, he had them kept in the stable, with a man employed on purpose to take care of them; they had no other employment than to eat, drink, sleep, and be exercised in fine weather, to keep them in health. A noble friend of this humane master offered him the use of his park for his infirm servants; the gentleman thanked him, but replied, no; "they never have yet been exposed to the weather, and they shall not now they are old; they have always had a good stable, and now they shall have their own as long as they live." These animals thus lived happy pensioners on their master's bounty many years! They died regretted by him, and he always rejoices in the recollection of having thus compensated their services, and performed his duty, by following the natural dictates of his heart† Shall we not rejoice in the retrospect of every act of mercy, when that day approaches, in which every act of mercy will be remembered! when even the crumbs that would have fallen from our table, having been given to the birds of the air, will plead for us, with him who is the Father of Mercies, and whose Son, our merciful Saviour, has enjoined us to shew mercy to others (in every part of his creation), as we desire, and shall need it ourselves! I am, Sir, yours's, &c. P. New Kent-road Aug. 1809

We beg leave to add the instances of humanity adduced by our benevolent correspondent, that we know several masters of stage-coaches, particularly on the Essex road, who, when their stage horses are past labour, let them run in the pastures, or frequent the stables, as they had been used to do when in service: they come regularly to see the others set out to their journey, and when they are off, they return to their straw yards. We remember some such instances living or years in that condition, and other after having received incurable hurts. If any doubt this humanity, let them enquire of CRACKLIN of Brentwood.

* In a letter announcing the notice of Lord Erskine's bill, Panorama, Vol. V. p. 1150.

† Acknowledgements are due to all those magistrates who have so readily lent their aid in punishing cruelty to animals, but especially to Alderman Newnham, who was not only pleased to express himself obliged by the opportunity to punish the crime, but wished to join the society when it was begun.

* Emilius, vol. i. p. 286, and note.

†One of the member said: "it was impossible to know the extent of a man's benevolence." Of some men, this surely cannot be doubted. "That it must depend on feelings; and that if individuals were left to themselves, there was reason to suppose they would be as humane as if a law was passed to compel them to be so." One would think only a blind man could say this, and that indeed he must be deaf and dumb also, not to know better from some other source. But we may ask, why are laws necessary to compel persons to be honest, but because they are not so without? And are they more humane? "The effect of the bill would be endless prosceutions." So it was intended, against all such as deserved it. "It was beneath the dignity of Parliament to legislate on such subjets." A statesman should know, that other parliaments and kingdoms both thought and acted otherwise. Is it beneath a parliament to do its duty—to imitate the paramount authority of God? who does legislate for animals, and commands us to do so, placing much of our duty in this obedience.—"Besides, if men did treat animals in a cruel manner, there were remedies already afforded by the laws."—Where? which of them are sufficient? Was not their insufficiency the very cause of the present bill?—"It was not to be supposed that the owner of any beast, who had an interest in its preservation, would inflict any heavy injury on such animal."—This, one would think, could only be asserted by some man unfortunately deprived of his faculties, especially those of sight, speech, and hearing; for his eyes must behold it every day, and every hour of the day. His speech, if "the individual" had "any feelings" would let his "natural humanity" ask, why such things were? or his hearing would be informed by some other humane individual, that all these things disgraced our country (emphatically called the hell of horses), because there were no adequate laws to punish such demons;—"and if servants injured them (animals), the master had a remedy against the servants." What! whether they know it or not? This is excellent logic! Who does not know the villainies of cruel, malicious, or drunken servants to thier masters' cattle? The objection is too foolish to be answered; it is self refuted! See The News, for June 18, 1809. "Cruelty to Animals." But to all such very humane objections, "the extent of whose benevolence" it does not, indeed, "seem possible to know," as Mr. Windham truly says, Lord Erskine has given this very admirable, cutting, and unanswerable reply, on the tendancy of cruelty to animals:—"As to the tendency of barbarous sports of any kind or description whatever, to nourish the national characteristics of manliness and courage, the only shadow of argument I ever heard upon such occasions, all I can say is this: that from the mercenary battles of the lowest of beasts (viz. human boxers), up to those of the highest and noblest that are tormented by man, for his degrading pastime, I enter this public protest against it. I never knew a man remarkable for heroic bravery, whose very aspect was not lighted up by gentleness and humanity; nor a kill-him-and-eat-him countenance, that did not cover the heart of a bully and a poltron!"—See Lord Erskine's Speech, p. 11, published by Phillips.

* An Essay on Humanity to Animals, by Thomas Young, A.M. abridged by permission of the author, Arch and Hatchard, p.9.

† The same practice was followed by the late excellent Jones Hanway, Esq.