LEGISLATION FOR ANIMALS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I trust that before closing this correspondence you will allow me to reply to my critics. Since Mr. Coleridge brings in the personal note I much regret that I have no alternative but to remind him, inter alia, of the R.S.P.C.A. Annual Meeting in 1930, where, when the audience by acclamation agreed with me that there would have to be proper inspection to see that his Bill was carried into effect, he begged me not to press the matter there but in Parliament ! For the past four years, then, he has been promoting something which he knows is worthless, for there is no hint of inspection in his Bill beyond the two inspectors already appointed for the three hundred-odd vivisection laboratories. This fact alone makes his Bill spurious.
But that is not all, alas, for it purports to prohibit : (1) Experiments calculated to cause pain or disease to any dog ; (2) The licensing of persons and places for such experiments ; (3) The keeping of dogs in such places.
The last provision has recently been added, and, I under- stand, as a result of some of my criticisms of the original Bill; but, if no dogs are to be allowed in vivisection laboratories, what is the object of (1) and (2), for experiments are only lawful on licensed premises ? In any case, what is the use of forbidding certain deeds to be done behind closed doors on private property to voiceless and defenceless animals unless there is continuous inspection by trustworthy persons ? Such inspection is obviously not feasible on account of expense. Therefore (1) is useless and (2) does not arise.
Mr. Coleridge quotes the R.S.P.C.A., the National Canine Defence League and his own Society as sponsors of his Bill. My reply is that in view of the Anti-Rodeo and Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bills, both of which I have exposed as spuri- ous, and with no proper reply from the R.S.P.C.A., it is my duty to warn the public that, were the Dogs " Protection " Bill to be presented to Parliament (3) would be conceded and that (1) and (2) would remain and that the public would thereby be deceived. The Chairman of the National Canine Defence League is identical with the Chairman of the R.S.P.C.A. and is on the committee of Mr. Coleridge's Society.
On the constructive side I have already put forwird this policy on which to frame a good Dogs Protection Bill : 1. Prohibit the presence of any dog in any place licensed for vivisection.
Penalty : permanent loss of licence for premises and persons concerned.
2. Right of entry at any hour of day or night (to ensure absence of dogs) to any constable, local authority officer, and accredited representative of any humane society. Penalty for hindering or delaying such inspection : £50 for the first, and £100 for each subsequent offence. If a simple Bill along these straightforward lines fails to be adopted by Parliament, the Movement ought at once to confer as to future policy.
My " motives," then, are obvious. I will not be a party to, or silent about, deceiving the public on this all-important question of shedding responsibility for cruelties allowed by law. This attitude is necessarily unpopular in certain quar- ters, since it sometimes, unfortunately, entails opposing per- sons as well as policies.
I had hoped that Major Procter was going to see what he could do towards having the " Anti-Rodeo " Bill expunged from the Statute Book during the present Session. Instead he denounces " extremist " legislation. To what does he refer ? Surely, any court would differentiate between riding an animal made uncontrollable for the Rodeo and one that might become so on a rare occasion. There was no proof of serious opposition to the original Bill, which would have stopped all those acts of secret cruelty, the effect of which was so obvious at the recent Rodeo. The sight of those animals " bucking " made one feel physically sick. The passing of the " Protection " of Animals Act, 1934, was a pure waste of Parliamentary time ; it brought credit to no one, and no one but a Croesus (or an idiot) would have prosecuted under it.
Finally, if Major Procter will tell me how we can prevent cruel trades, &c., from sending their agents into the Animal Welfare Movement the most fruitful source of divided counsel will disappear. Meanwhile, perhaps, he will put Parliament into working order ?
Something more substantial than abuse of the plaintiff's attorney, seeking cover behind unnamed " eminent parlia- mentary counsel " and " Government's draughtsmen," and self-praise is required from Sir Robert Gower in answer to a reasoned and detailed exposure of two of his spurious Bills.-
I am, Sir, &c., EDMUND T. MacMicusEr...,
Hon. Director,
The Performing and Captive Animals' Defence League, 17 Buckingham Street, Adelphi, W.C. 2.
Previous page
