THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Mr. Edmund T. MacMichael, in your issue of last week, wrote thus :
" Both Mr. Coleridge's Dogs' Protection Bill and Sir Robert Gower's Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill, are spurious, and both for the same reason. They contain provisions which will have to be conceded, leaving a worthless policy which will not stop cruelty but
will deceive the public."
Sir Robert Gower will no doubt answer this attack, as regards his Bill, himself.
The Bill concerning dogs contains this perfectly simple Clause I :
" Notwithstanding anything in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act ') it shall be unlawful to perform any experiment of a nature calculated to give pain or disease to any dog for any purpose whatever, either with or without anaesthetics, and no person or place shall be licensed for the purpose of performing any such experiments, and no dog shall be kept in any place licensed for vivisection."
What is there spurious about this Bill ? Where are the " provisions which will have to be conceded " ? What is there in it calculated to " deceive the public " ?
This Bill was carefully drawn by the National Canine Defence League ; it has the official support of the R.S.P.C.4.
and the National Anti-Vivisection Society ; so all these societies, according to Mr. MacMichael, are supporting some- thing " spurious," and are conspiring together to " deceive the public."
What may be Mr. MacMichael's motive for this fantastic accusation does not appear--anyway I have been working
against all cruelties to animals and children for jialf a century and have never before been told that I am promoting " spurious " measures, and " deceiving the public."—I am,
Previous page
