I should like just to quote to you shortly the law, and 

 the latest judicial dictum upon it. 



Section I. (i) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. 

 ** If any person (a) shall cruelly illtreat any animal 

 ... or being the owner shall by . . . unreason- 

 ably doing or omitting to do any act . . . cause 

 any unnecessary suffering," he shall be guilty of 

 an offence. 

 Mr. Justice Darling, on November 19th last, in the 

 Court of Appeal, said: — 



'* Where unnecessary suffering is caused by some act 

 of an owner, it cannot be justified on the ground 

 of old custom, and of benefit to commercial 

 persons." 

 Ladies and gentlemen, nothing so endangers the fineness 

 of the human heart as the possession of power over 

 others; nothing so corrodes it as the callous or cruel 

 exercise of power ; and the more helpless the creature 

 over whom power is cruelly or callously exercised, the 

 more the human heart is corroded. It is the recognition 

 of this truth which has brought the conscience of our 

 age, and with it the law, to say that we cannot any 

 longer with impunity regard ourselves as licensed tor- 

 turers of the rest of creation ; that we cannot, for our 

 own sakes, afford to admit the infliction of unnecessary 

 suffering on any living thing. 



In all this matter then, of the treatment of dumb 

 animals, it comes to the definition of the words * unneces- 

 sary suffering.' And I say this : All suffering that is 

 inflicted merely for our pleasure, distraction, and even 

 for our convenience, as distinct from our preservation, is 

 unnecessary and an abomination. And the fact that it 



