Animal Rights History »» Edward Byron Nicholson

The Rights of an Animal, "[Annotated] Extracts from Lawrence, on 'The Animal-Question'"

Extracts from a Chapter on 'The Animal-Question ', § xliii. of 'The Horse in all his Varieties and Uses,' by JOHN LAWRENCE, 1829.

My first essay on the duties of man towards those animals committed by nature to his charge was at the early age of fifteen years ; and, though in the heat of youth, and during the hurry of the affairs of the world, I regret to have made too many breaches of practice, I have yet cherished the innate principle through life, and feel myself urged to pursue my destiny to the end, in however

118

great a degree ungracious and unpopular the theme. From my first contributions to the periodical press, I have embraced as many opportunities as were in my power of introducing the subject, and have never written any book on the care and management of animals wherein that important branch has been neglected. In my two volumes on the Horse, originally published in 1796, together with the additions to the third edition, I have enlarged more than in any other of my publications. Certain critics have made themselves merry with the phrase 'rights of beasts,' the ancient jus anirnalium ; but it is scarcely possible they could be seriously unaware that I could intend nothing further than those natural claims which the brute creation has on the justice and compassion of rational man.

^* Mr. Erskine, subsequently Lord Erskine, somewhat

119

upwards of twenty years since, brought a bill into parliament for the purpose of completing the social and moral system by giving legislative protection to animals, which in their unprotected and helpless state were left exposed to the most wanton and cruel inflictions, even under the idea of sport, not only from the naturally insensible and from inclination actively barbarous, but from that great majority of mankind, the unthinking and the unreflecting, and prejudiced followers of custom ! Notwithstanding the force, eloquence, and pathos of Mr. Erskine's address and the utter insignificance of those arguments, whether logical or practical, which were brought to bear upon him,

120

his bill was thrown out. Ridicule seems to have constituted the ground of the chief argument used against the bill, a too plain indication of that kind of principle with which it was desired to imbue the vulgar and uninformed mind. In spite of the ill success of Mr. Erskine's bill, the attempt conferred infinite moral benefits on the country. From that period men began to think, and the grosser sports and trespasses on the feelings of animals became somewhat on the decline. Many of those dens of torture and horror in which that minion of cruelty, the bearish and surly Broughton, and his myrmidons had used to officiate, under the highest patronage, were shut up and deserted ; although we have yet too many of our modern pits, where the rising generation are initiated in that kind of morality. About the same time also the abomination of throwing at cocks in Shrovetide, with several other antique national barbarisms and fooleries, began to be discontinued, and, it may be hoped, are now nearly forgotten.

In the year 1822 arose another humane and considerate advocate for the claims of animals on our national justice, in the person of Richard Martin, Esq., of Galway, M.P. From the favourable change which had in a certain degree supervened, inducing

121

a somewhat milder tone of national sentiment, Mr. Martin succeeded in obtaining the enactment of a law which invested animals with rights under the social contract. He enjoys the honour with his contemporary philanthropists (for the love of human and brute nature is a congenial sentiment), and will stand recorded to the latest posterity as having arduously laboured for, and first succeeded in, that extraordinary change in our legislation ; but the bill, as might be expected on such a subject and in the face of so much opposition, was necessarily imperfect ; however still great and important the advantage obtained, a considerable number of animals were placed under legal protection, whilst others, having equal claims from their feelings and even greater liability to abuse, were entirely and indefensibly excluded from the pale of mercy. Mr. Martin previously to his second attempt did me the honour to call on and consult me, and my unreserved opinion was that nothing further could be required of the legislature with reason or effect than a general protection of animals and the absolute prohibition and putting down of all baiting and torture, whether of bulls, badgers, bears, or any other beasts. But, contrary to my expectations, the enthusiasm of this philanthropist got the

122

better of him, and he became disposed to expect much more than the legislature could, scarcely even with possibility, grant.

The clergy of the Church of England have exerted themselves most particularly and most meritoriously in this sacred cause. A great number of tracts have been periodically published by them since that excellent one, * Primatt's Duty of Mercy to Brute Animals, which has lately been republished, with notes and illustrations, by the Rev. A. Broome. This gentleman is the humane and zealous founder of the present Society for the Protection of Animals, towards the duties of which no one has contributed with greater zeal, enthusiasm, and assiduity than the honorary secretary, Lewis Gompertz, Esq. The society has the patronage and countenance of noblemen, ladies, and gentlemen, of high rank and influence in the country, among whom may be reckoned some of acknowledged first-rate talent. The † recent bill brought

123

into Parliament by C. N. Pullmer, Esq., M.P. for Surrey, and a worthy patron of the Animal-Society, for the purpose of remedying a defect in Mr, Martin's Act, was thrown out by too large a majority to allow of any present hope. The bill was in course advocated by that constant and never failing friend of liberty and humanity, Mr. William Smith. The adverse arguments were of the usual tenour. The old bugbear abstraction, and the insuperable difficulty of line-drawing, formed the burden of the logical fund. But a late great and since deeply regretted statesman, a late convert however, declared in his place in parliament that all governments ought to be conducted on abstract principles ; there is no doubt of this, as the ground work and foundation of all that is just and right in human affairs. At the same time every experienced political moralist is aware of that discrimination, of those compromises and allowances, independently of which the affairs, of the world could not proceed.

* * * * * *

Is justice a simple and indivisible principle, and. equally due to animals burdened with the same wants as ourselves, and endowed with similar feelings and affections, as it is from rational man to, his fellow man ? is there any force or obligation in

124

the beautiful old Hebrew text 'the merciful man is merciful to his beast' ?

* * *

A man may take the life, such is the compulsive plan of nature and of reason, but no man can have a property in the torture of his beast.

* * *

* Two of the judges have decided that bulls were not intituled to the benefit of Mr. Martin's Act, notwithstanding the comprehensive phrase 'all other cattle' is explicitly and unreservedly used . . . . . two barristers have given an opinion favourable to the bull, and some future judge and jury may entertain a similar opinion.

Footnotes

p118-* This seems to mean that he was Mr. Erskine when he brought in the bill, whereas he was then Lord Erskine. The 1810 edition of the Philosophical and Practical Treatise shows, however, that Lawrence knew this in 1810.

Erskine brought his bill into the House of Lords in 1809. Its second reading was carried unopposed on May 15 after a speech by Erskine which fills nearly 18 columns of the Parliamentary Debates. In committee, May 31, he was obliged to limit its scope to beasts of burden, but thus limited it passed the Lords unopposed (see June 2). On June 12 its second reading was moved in the Commons by Sir Charles Bunbury and carried without a division, but Windham expressed his intention to oppose it at a later stage.

p119^118-*(con't) On June 13 he did so in a speech of 15 columns, followed by Mr. Giddy, Mr. Frankland, Spencer Perceval, and apparently Sir Thomas Plomer : the motion for going into Committee was however supported by Mr. Stephen, Wilberforce, Mr. Jekyll, Sir Robert Williams, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Morris, Lord Porchester, and apparently Mr. William Smith, and was carried by 40 to 27. But two days later, when Sir Charles Bunbury moved to go into Committee, the bill was thrown out by 37 to 27 on an amendment of Windham's.

On April 17, 1810, Erskine brought another bill before the Lords, and it was read a first time, and on May 7 a second time, without opposition. On May 8 it was committed, but a good deal of discussion took place and it was ordered to be recommitted. On May 14, however, Erskine moved to discharge this order, with the view of bringing in another measure—which it does not seem that he ever did. ^{[back 118-*]}

p122-* Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, by Humphrey Primatt, D.D. The only editions given by Allibone are Lon., 1776, 8vo ; 1834, 8vo. ^{[back 122-*]}

p122-† On May 12, 1829, Mr. Pullmer moved for leave to bring in a bill to suppress bull-baiting, and was supported by Mr. William Smith. The motion was opposed by Mr. R. Gordon, Peel, and Lord Milton, and was rejected by 73 to 28. ^{[back 122-†]}

p124-* I have not yet found the case ; but from Hansard's Parliamnentary Debates, N.S. xix. 1121, and xxi. 1319, it appears that after the passing of Martin's Act a clergyman pronounced a conviction for bull-baiting, which was appealed against in the Court of King's Bench on the ground that the word "bull" did not occur in the Act and that bulls were not "cattle ; " and that judgment was given for the appeal, it being held by the two judges present that cows and steers of the age of two years were cattle, but that the adult male did not come within the description. ^{[back 124-*]}