THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR. ] SIR,—In your issue of June 15th Sir James Douglas suggests that no Animal Welfare Bill should be treated as satisfactory for discussion in Parliament unless it is stated to have received approval after consideration by an Animal Welfare Conference. This would mean, and I expect -is meant to mean, that the R.S.P.C.A. is not to present any Bill to Parliament without the permission of a conference of persons outside that society, some of whom have not been permitted to remain members of the R.S.P.C.A.
Such a course is not likely to be adopted by the R.S.P.C.A. It would prevent the R.S.P.C.A. from continuing to support in Parliament Bills such as the Dogs' Protection Bill and the Bill to prohibit stag-hunting.
There are plenty of persons interested in " animal welfare" who oppose all measures dealing with experiments upon - animals unless the measures prohibit all such experiments whether painful or painless ; and there are others who oppoSe the Stag Bill because it does not protect " all other animals liable to be hunted. The suggestion of Sir James Douglas therefore would enable extremists to veto all Bills for the amelioration of the lot of cruelly-treated animals, unless those Bills included every form of existing cruelty not at present illegal.
Such tactics are not likely to be endorsed by the R.S.P.C.A. The humane movement unfortunately is continually thwarted by such people, whose undoubted enthusiasm outruns their judgement. Such people would have opposed Clarkson and Wilberforce when they introduced their Bill to prohibit the slave trade because it did not prohibit slavery.—I am, Sir, &e.,
Previous page
