570 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



enjoin a kind treatment of animals. If we see an 

 ass fall which belongs to some one with whom we 

 have a cause of difference, we are to throw aside 

 private feelings, and hasten to help the animal. 

 We are not to take a bird when sitting on its 

 eggs, or on its young ; a most humane injunction. 

 In various texts the Hebrews were enjoined to 

 have due regard for the comfort of the ox, the 

 ass, or any other animal which labored for them. 

 In these venerable records mercy is enjoined 

 toward all living creatures. 



The modern world, with all its pompous 

 claims to civilization, strangely drifted into an 

 entire neglect of these beneficent obligations. 

 Throughout Christendom, any laws enforcing a 

 kind treatment of animals are few in number, 

 and of very recent date. Even within our re- 

 membrance, clergymen were not usually in the 

 habit of inculcating that species of kindness to 

 domesticated creatures which we read of in the 

 Old Testament ; nor were children ordinarily 

 taught lessons of humanity within the family 

 circle. The oldest statutory laws concerning 

 animals are those for the protection of game ; 

 but these laws proceeded on no principle of kind- 

 ness. They were intended only to protect certain 

 birds and quadrupeds during the breeding-season, 

 with a view to what is called " sport," the pleas- 

 ure of killing them by licensed individuals — the 

 license for indulging in this species of luxury 

 being, as is well known, pretty costly. It is not 

 our wish to hold up "sport" of a legitimate 

 kind to ridicule. The chief matter of regret is 

 the coarse way in which game is sometimes pur- 

 sued and killed even by licensed sportsmen : their 

 operations in what is known as a battue, when 

 vast numbers of animals are driven into narrow 

 spaces, and shot down and maimed without mercy, 

 being, as we think, no better than wholesale 

 butchery ; and not what might be expected from 

 persons of taste and education. 



Although in the early years of the present 

 century there were no laws for the specific pur- 

 pose of preventing cruelty to animals, thoughtful 

 and humane persons were beginning to give at- 

 tention to the subject. In 1809 Sir Charles 

 Bunbury brought into the House of Commons a 

 bill for the " prevention of wanton and malicious 

 cruelty to animals." Mr. Windham, a cabinet 

 minister, little to his credit, opposed the bill, and 

 it failed to pass. The next attempt at legisla- 

 tion on the subject was made by Lord Erskine in 

 the House of Lords in 1810. His measure was 

 opposed by Lord Ellenborough, and had to be 

 withdrawn. There the matter rested until 1821, 



when Mr. Richard Martin, member of Parliament 

 for Galway, brought a bill into the House of 

 Commons for the " prevention of cruelty to 

 horses." It encountered torrents of ridicule, 

 and, after passing a second reading in a thin 

 House, was no further proceeded with. Mr. Mar- 

 tin, however, was not discouraged. He felt he 

 was right, and returned to the encounter. In 

 1822 he introduced a new and more comprehen- 

 sive bill. Instead of horses, he used the word 

 " cattle ; " this bill passed through all its stages, 

 and became an act of Parliament. This act of 

 1822 was the first ever enacted against cruel and 

 improper treatment of animals. Let there be 

 every honor to the memory of Richard Martin 

 for his noble struggle on behalf of defenseless 

 creatures. In 1825 he brought in a bill for the 

 suppression of bear-baiting and other cruel sports. 

 Not without surprise do we learn that Sir Robert 

 Peel met the bill with determined opposition, and 

 that it was thrown out. To think that so emi- 

 nent a statesman as Peel should have been a sup- 

 porter of bear-baiting ! No fact could better 

 present an idea of what was still the backward 

 state of feeling among educated persons on the 

 subject of cruelty to animals. 



The year 1826 found Mr. Martin still at his 

 post. He framed a bill to extend protection to 

 dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals, from 

 cruelty. In this it might have been expected he 

 would have been successful. But no. His argu. 

 ments to move* the House of Commons were 

 unavailing. Mr. Martin died in 1834. Not until 

 1835, when more enlarged ideas prevailed, was 

 there an act to throw a protecting shield over 

 cattle in the market, on the way to the slaughter- 

 house, and in the roads and streets generally ; 

 over all such animals as dogs, bulls, bears, or 

 cocks, kept for purposes of baiting or fighting ; 

 over all animals kept in pounds or inclosures 

 without a sufficiency of food or drink ; and over 

 all worn-out horses, compelled to work w<hen 

 broken down with weakness or disease. 



It was reserved for the beneficent reign of 

 the present queen to see a comprehensive act of 

 Parliament for the prevention of cruelty to ani- 

 mals. This was the act of 1849 (which was ex- 

 tended to Scotland in 1850), that now forms the 

 basis for prosecuting cases of cruelty, and may 

 be called the charter which conferred on domesti- 

 cated animals a right to protection. Lamenting 

 the backwardness of England in establishing such 

 a charter, it is not without pride that one knows 

 that England was, after all, the first country in 

 modern times to enforce the principle that the 



