Library of Animal Rights History » Animal Welfare-Animal Rights Laws-Acts, Legislation Against Cruelty to Animals, Animal Protection Law

Animal Rights Law - Age of Enlightenment

Early Pleas for Animal Protection Law

Law-Renaissance « Law-Age of Enlightenment » Law-Romantic Age

1664 [16 Charles II. c. 7. Gaming Act 1664] An Act Against Deceitful, Disorderly, and Excessive Gaming: Prohibited "…Cock-fighings, Horse-races, Dog-matches…or Games whatsoever" to "win, obtain or acquire…any Sum or Sums of Money, or other Thing.…"

1670 [22 & 23 Charles II. c. 7. Burning of Houses Act 1670] An Act to Prevent the Malicious Burning of Houses, Stacks of Corm and Hay, and Killing or Maiming of Cattle: "…Penalty of death, or to avoid death, transportation beyond the seas, to any of his Majesty's plantations…for any persons who shall in the night-time maliciously, unlawfully, and willingly burn or destroy any stacks of corn, hay, or grain, barns, or other houses or buildings, kill, or destroy any horses, sheep or other cattle. Prescribed treble damages for any persons who "unlawfully, and willingly maim, wound, or otherwise hurt any horses, sheep, or other cattle...or destroy any plantations of trees.…"

1722 [9 George I. c. 22. Black Act 1722] An Act of the More Effectual Punishing Wicked and Evil Disposed Persons going Armed in Disguise, and doing Injuries and Violences to the Persons and Properties of His Majesty's Subjects, and for the more Speedy bringing the Offenders to Justice: "…Persons being armed with swords and fire-arms, or other offensive weapons, and having his or their faces blacked, or being otherwise disguised…who shall unlawfully and wilfully hunt, wound, kill, destroy, or steal any red or fallow deer, or unlawfully rob any warren or place where conies or hares are usually kept, or shall unlawfully steal or take away any fish out of any river or pond; or shall unlawfully and maliciously break down the head or mound of any fish-pond, whereby the fish shall be lost or destroyed; or shall unlawfully and maliciously kill, maim or wound any cattle, or cut down or otherwise destroy any trees…being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall suffer death as in cases of felony, without benefit of clergy.…"

1737-1799 | Early Pleas for Anit-Cruelty Legislation: Anonymous articles on cock-throwing in the Gentleman's Magazine as early as 1737 pleaded for "governors and magistrates to exert their authority utterly to abolish so dishounourable, so mischievous, so barbarous and Immoral a custom"{ and hoped that "the legislature may not think it beneath them to take their sad case into consideration." "But that [cock-fighting and bull-baiting] should not have entirely yielded to the improved state of manners, or the interference of the laws," Samuel Argent Bardsleyobserved in 1781, is a subject of just reproach to us by foreigners, and of deserved reprobation by the humane and reflecting of our countrymen." Jeremy Bentham in 1789 asked "Why ought they not?…be given those rights which could never have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny". Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence declared he would "find it difficult to restrain my idolatry for that legislature that shall first establish a system of laws, to defend [animals] from outrage and oppression. John Lawrence, proposed in 1796, "that the Rights of Beasts be formally acknowledged by the state, and that a law be framed upon that principle, to guard and protect them from acts of flagrant and wanton cruelty, whether committed by their owners or others," while Mr. J. Feltham wrote in an article to the European Magazine "Humanity demands that the brute creation should be protected by the Legislature." Thomas Young, observed in 1798 that "the law labours under some imperfection, which may deserve the notice of those able to apply a remedy and the Rev. Charles Daubeny, in 1799 despaired, "for alas! there is no human law to prevent such sav age practices."

1774 [14 George III. c. 87. Driving of Cattle, Metropolis Act 1774] An Act to Prevent the Mischiefs that Arise from Driving Cattle Within the Cities of London and Westminster, and Liberties Thereof, and the Bills of Mortality: "…Whereas the improper and cruel manner in which cattle are driven from Smithfield market, within the city of London…has occasioned great mischief, and endangered the lives of many of his Majesty's liege subject inhabiting therein;…if any person or persons, who shall be hired or employed to drive any cattle within the said cities…shall, by negligence, or ill usage, in the driving such cattle, be the means that any mischief shall be done by such cattle…[shall] be kept to hard labour for any time not exceeding one month, or shall be publickly whipped."

1781 | [21 George III. c. 67. Driving Cattle, Metropolis Act 1781] An Act to Prevent the Mischiefs that Arise from Driving Cattle Within the Cities of London and Westminster, and LIberties Thereof, and Bills of Mortality: "…Whereas the improper and cruel Mannerin which Cattle are driven from Smithfield Market…has occasioned great Mischief, and endangers the Lives of many…if any Person…shall, by Negligence…be the Means that any Mischief shall be done by such Cattle…by the improper driving, treating, or using of such Cattle…or any Persons, not being hired or employed to drive Cattle within the said Cities of London or Westminster, or Liberties thereof, or the Bills of Mortality, shall pelt with Stones, Brickbats, or by any other Means drive or hunt away, or shall set any Dog or Dogs at any Ox, Heifer, Cow, Steer, or other Cattle, without the Consent of the Owner…or his Servant…shall forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding twenty Shillings, nor less than five Shillings…if any Persons [who] shall refuse, or not be able forthwith to pay the Sum forfeited…[shall] be committed to the House of Correction or some other Prison…there to be kept to hard Labour for any Time not exceeding one Calendar Month."