Humanity Against Cruelty to Animals in Historical Literature, Timeline of Animal Rights History

Animal Rights History »»Humphrey Primatt

The bulk of the book is occupied with references to scriptural texts on the duty of humaneness. The concluding moral is as follows: "See that no brute of any kind, whether intrusted to thy care, or coming in thy way, suffer through thy neglect or abuse. Let no views of profit, no compliance with custom, and no fear of the ridicule of the world, ever tempt thee to the least act of cruelty or injustice to any creature whatsoever. But let this be your invariable rule, everywhere, and at all times, to do unto others as, in their condition, you would be done unto." (Henry Salt, Animals' Rights, "Bibliography of the Rights of Animals")

1776 | A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals

However men may differ as to speculative points of Religion, JUSTICE is a rule of universal extent and invariable obligation. We acknowledge this important truth in all matters in which MAN is concerned, but then we limit it to our own species only.…To rectify this mistaken notion is the design of this treatise, in which I have endeavored to prove, that as the Love and Mercy of God are over all of his works, from the highest rational to the lowest sensitive, our Love and Mercy are not to be confined within the circle of our own friends, acquaintance, and neighbours; nor limited to the more enlarged sphere of human nature, to creatures of our own rank, shape, and capacity; but are to be extended to every object of the Love and Mercy of GOD the universal Parent; who, as he is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works, will undoubtedly require of Man, superior Man, a strict account of his conduct to every creature entrusted to his care, or coming in his way; and who will avenge every instance of wanton cruely and oppression, in the day in which he wil judge the world in RICHTEOUSNESS. (Humphrey Primatt, A Dissertaiton on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals [1776])

From Henry Salt's Bibliography on the Rights of Animals

"However men may differ," says the author of this quaint but excellent book, "as to speculative points of religion, justice is a rule of universal extent and invariable obligation. We acknowledge this important truth in all matters in which Man is concerned, but then we limit it to our own species only. And though we are able to trace the most evident marks of the Creator's wisdom and goodness, in the formation and appointment of the various classes of animals that are inferior to men, yet the consciousness of our own dignity and excellence is apt to suggest to us that Man alone of all terrestrial animals is the only proper object of mercy and compassion, because he is the most highly favoured and distinguished. Misled with this prejudice in our own favour, we overlook some of the Brutes as if they were mere excrescences of Nature, beneath our notice and infinitely unworthy the care and cognizance of the Almighty; and we consider others of them as made only for our service; and so long as we can apply them to our use we are careless and indifferent as to their happiness or misery, and can hardly bring ourselves to suppose that there is any kind of duty incumbent upon us toward them. To rectify this mistaken notion is the design of this treatise."

With much force he applies to the animal question the precept of doing to others as we would be done unto. "If, in brutal shape, we had been endued with the same degree of reason and reflection which we now enjoy; and other beings, in human shape, should take upon them to torment, abuse, and barbarously ill—treat us, because we were not made in their shape; the injustice and cruelty of their behaviour to us would be self-evident; and we should naturally infer that, whether we walk upon two legs or four ; whether our heads are prone or erect; whether we are naked or covered with hair; whether we have tails or no tails, horn or no horns, long ears or round ears ; or, whether we bray like an ass, speak like a man, whistle like a bird, or are mute as a fish—Nature never intended these distinctions as foundations for right of tyranny and oppression."

He exposes the fallacy of the argument drawn from the cruelty of animals to animals. "For us to infer that men may be cruel to brutes in general, because some brutes are naturally fierce and bloodthirsty, is tantamount to saying, Cruelty in Britain is no sin, because there are wild tigers in India. But is their ferocity and brutality to be the standard and pattern of our humanity? And because they have no compassion, are we to have no compassion? Because they have little or no reason, are we to have no reason? Or are we to become as very brutes as they? However, we need not go as far as India; for even in England dogs will worry and cocks will fight (though not so often, if we did not set them on, and prepare them for the battle). Yet what is that to us? Are we dogs? are we fighting-cocks? Are they to be our tutors and instructors, that we appeal to them for arguments to justify and palliate our inhumanity? No. Let tigers roar, let dogs worry, and cocks fight; but it is astonishing that men, who boast so much of the dignity of their nature, the superior excellence of their understanding, and the immortality of their souls (which, by-the-by, is a circumstance which cruel men above all others have the least reason to glory in), should disgrace their dignity and understanding by recurring to the practice of the low and confessedly irrational part of the creation in vindication of their own conduct."

Reviews

1776-Feb, London Review | The laudable design of the present treatise in which the very humane and pious author endeavours to prove [is] that…"our love and mercy are not be be confined within the circle of our own friends, acquanitances, and neighbours; nor limited to the more enlarged sphere of human nature…but are to be extended to every object of the love and mercy of God, the universal parent."…Nor does our author represent mercy to brutes merely as a doctrihe of divine revelation, but also as in itself reasonable, aminable, useful and just.…On the last instance of mercy to the brute our reverend author cites…we think, as moralists as moralists, the point will admit of dispute. A causist might, on our author's and Dr. Priestley's own principles, very justly make a doubt on whether we are the proper judges of the happiness or unhappiness of brute animals. There may, for ough we know, nay we have reason to think there is, a satisfaction, arising from simple perception and the mere consciousness of existence; of which we have no right nor reason to deprive any animal, on the presumption of its being incapable of enjoyment. As men cannot judge the resources of satifation, and pleasure which frequently remain to each other, under distress and debility; how then can they judge of those resources in brutes? Add to this that there is a strange inconsistency in the argument, which maintains a right to destroy an animal, to who it would be unjust in us to give the slightest pain.—As to the design of providence in creating beasts of prey to do the office of undertakers, as our author supposes, it is fanciful enough; but we conceive the Great Creator might have superior views in the formation of the brutes: of which while we are ignorant, it becomes us to be silent. In the mean time, we cannot help thinking, however justifiable mankind may politically be in rearing beast for their convenience and destroying them for food, the animals thus treated may with justice complain of men, in the words of Jacques, "As mere usurpers, tyrants and wah's worse, "To kill the animals and eat them up "In their assign'd and native dwelling place." On the whole, however, we recommend this dissertation as an humane and religious performance, written in proper stile, and well calculated to answer the laudable purpose, for which it appears practically designed. (London Review,A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, by Humphry Primatt, (London, 1776)," London Review of English and Foreign Literature 3 (1776-Feb): 133-9.)

A well-intended sermon on this subject was published about two years since, by the late Mr. Granger, vicar of Shiplake in Oxfordshire; and though sentiments of this humane kind cannot be too forcibly inculcated, yet it may be hinted, that a sixpenny serom is more likely to be read by offenders against the dictates of humanity, than more bulky dissertations. The cruel are generally ignorant vulgar, whose feelings ought rather to be artfully addressed, than their understanding complimented, by such learned and laboured deductions as this Gentleman has framed. The subject of humantiy to animals lies in small compass. (Monthly Review review of and extracts from "A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, by Humphry Primatt, (London, 1776)," Monthy Review 54 (1776-May): 415 )

The Country Clergyman's Shrovetide Gift to his Parishioners, taken chiefly from Dr. Primatt's Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy, and Sin of Cruelty to Brutes

Reviews

1782-Jan, Critical Review | This tract is designed to shew the base and destestable nature of cruelty to brutes, and to recommend a principle of humanity and benevolence towards every creature, endued with life ans sensation. In this view it is a valuable present to young people, but more particularly to those unfeeling savages, who are accustomed to torture and destroy the most inoffencive animals for thier diversion. (Critical Review, reveiw of "The Country Clergyman's Shrovetide Gift to his Parishioners, taken cheifly from Dr. Primatt's Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy, and Sin of Cruelty to Brutes," Critical Review, or Annals, of Literature 55 (1782-Jan): 76.)

This worthy country clergyman seems possessed of a degree of benevolence, which soars even beyond the boundaries of philanthropy: and we heartily with that a portion of the same generous, disinterested kindness, might induce every reverend pastor to disseminate such benoficent monitions throughout every parish in these dominions. The young, the ignorant, and the thoughtless, constitue a large part of the bulk of mankind; and this small tract is very properly calculated for their perusal: or, rather, (as they never read,) for the perusal of those who have some influence over them. The Shrove-tide amusements of our common people are monstrously and basely cruel; and we have often expressed our abhorrence of the unmanly, and worse than brutal custom of cock-throwing; a custom (by the way) which, we hope, is now declining, in every part of the kingdom. It is to be wished also, that our preachers would charitably extend their admonitions to the unfeeeling savages of the cock-pit, who delight in stimulating those noble yet inoffensive birds to tear each other in pieces, for the diversion 9or from still worse motives) of idle fellows:—Some of who, for their education, their rank in life, and theri age, ought to be ashamed of the cruelties they wantonly exercise upon more innocent, more useful, and (we wll add) more rational creatures than themselves. (Month Review 68 (1783-0:90

1805-Apr, Orthodox Churchman's Magazine | Though this little treatise is written very much in the manner in which we think it ought to be, we do not invite the attention of our readers to is so much from consideration of a literary nature, as on account of the importance of the subject. It cannot be doubted, that cruelty to brutes is, in the strictest sense of the word, a sin; hateful in itself, and displeasing to God. We think too, with this benevolent author, that it is one of the crying sins of our nation; and that, though it may not draw down upon us any national punishment, it is highly disgraceful to the national character, and that it cannot fail, eventually, of bringing a heavy punishment on the individuals who are quilty of it.…If, indeed, our wishes were gratified, this admonition against cruelty would find its way into every family in the kingdom. We will go further, and say, that we think it would be highly beneficial to the interests of humanity, if every clergyman in the kingdom would preach an annual sermon on the subject. (Orthodox Churchman's Magazine, reveiw of "Thoughts on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to the Brute Creation," Orthodox Churchman's Magazine; or, A Treasury of Divine and Useful Knowledge 4 (1803-Apr): 241-2).

Links to the Primary Source
document the authenticity of quotations while providing more in-depth insight into the ideologies of humanity against cruelty to animals and additional historical perspective on the continuing struggle for animal rights, animal welfare and the protection of animals.

1776 | Humphrey Primatt, A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals (London, 1776; Digitized by Google, 2008)

1803 | Orthodox Churchman's Magazine, reveiw of "Thoughts on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to the Brute Creation," Orthodox Churchman's Magazine; or, A Treasury of Divine and Useful Knowledge 4 (1803-Apr): 241-2.

1892 | Henry Salt, Animals' Rights Considered in Relation to Social Progress, with a Bibliographical Appendix [First Edition: London & New York, 1892] (London & New York, 1894; Online at Animal Rights History, 2003).

Quotes briefly introduce animal rights activists, animal welfare advocates and authors; the history of animal rights, animal welfare and animal protection; and the literature of the humane movement against cruelty to animals.

These pages are part of an ongoing effort to provide free online access to historical literature on animal rights, animal welfare and humanity against cruelty to animals.