[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Sir James Douglas stresses
an important point about -Animal Welfare legislation. The Statute in question—the Protection of Animals Act, 1934 (the " Anti-Rodeo " Act) was originally a useful Bill, but it was so weakened by amend- ments as to render it absolutely unworthy to be placed, or to remain, upon the Statute Book. It is most important that the public should realize that the amendments were not fought out on the floor of the House of Commons. They were arranged behind the scenes to suit various trade interests, and the Committee stage and third reading were rushed through during ten minutes of the lunch hour on a Friday with very few members present. It was further emasculated, by content, in the Lords.
Having exposed the uselessness of the new Act, section by section, in the Central Hall, I received the unanimous consent of the public meeting to destroy a copy of it as a worthless and hypocritical measure. In view of the fact that this very Act
had received the unanimous blessing of the Press throughout the country (due, doubtless, to ignorance of what had trans- pired behind the scenes) and had only been on the Statute Book for a fortnight, the situation was unique. That my action was reasonable is proved by the fact that the whole audience agreed. I have since been informed by a legal friend that it was treasonable, too.
What the authorities are going to do in the matter remains to be seen. Is it too much to hope that they will do the right thing. namely, expunge the "Protection of Animals" Act, 1934 from the Statute Book ? Precedent for such a move already exists. Since similar public action will be called for regarding the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill, should Parliament pass this even more spurious measure into law, it is to be hoped that the warning voiced by Sir James Douglas will not fall to the ground.—I am, Sir, &c.,
17 Buckingham Street, Adelphi, W.C. 2.
Previous page
