A century ago the law extended no protection to the dumb creation; "an animal had no rights." Bear-baiting and cock-fighting were perfectly legal, though prize-fighting was always, in the view of the law, illegal -a rule which was inoperative in practice. And acts of scandalous cruelty were constantly practised on animals of all kinds. In 1822 was passed the first measure restraining cruelty to cattle and beasts of burden -a measure due to the direct advocacy of Jeremy Bentham. In 1833 bear-baiting and cock-fighting were prohibited within five miles of Temple Bar-not, be it observed, out of any pity for those animals, but because such sports collected crowds of noisy and riotous persons, which interfered with the comfort of orderly citizens.2 So to set animals to fight in any thoroughfare or public place within the metropolis was in 1839 declared to be a public nuisance and made punishable with a fine. In 1835 it was enacted that whoever put an animal in the pound must supply it with food; he must not leave it there to starve. In 1849 was passed a general Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It extended the Act of 1822 to all tame animals; it also dealt with slaughterhouses, and insisted on more merciful methods of slaughtering animals.7 It was in its turn extended and amended by the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1854; and both these Acts are now repealed by the Act of 1911.

It was not until 1900 that any protection was afforded to wild animals in captivity, such as rabbits in a hutch or lions in a menagerie. It was held in two cases that neither the Act of 1849 nor that of 1854 protected wild animals in captivity. Hence it was necessary to pass in 1900 an Act10 which made it an offence punishable with fine or imprisonment for any person wantonly or unreasonably to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal that is confined, maimed or pinioned, or to cruelly abuse, infuriate, tease or terrify it.

The following are the main provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which applies to captive as well as to domestic animals."

By section 1 any person, who

(a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive,

over-load, torture, infuriate or terrify any animal,

or shall cause or procure any animal to be so used,

13 Geo. IV. c. 71.

23 & 4 Will. IV. c. 19, s. 29.

32 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54 (2).

45 & 6 Will. IV. c. 59.

512 & 13 Vict. c. 92.

S. 29; and see 17 & 18 Vict. c. 60, s. 3.

↑ Ss. 7-12.

9

817 & 18 Vict. c. 60.

Aplin v. Porritt, [1893] 2 Q. B. 57; Harper v. Marcks, [1894] 2 Q. B. 319.

10 Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act (63 & 64 Vict. c. 33), now repealed by

the Act of 1911.

11 1 & 2 Geo. V. c, 27, s. 15.

or shall wantonly or unreasonably do any act which causes unnecessary suffering to any animal; or (b) shall convey or carry any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering; or

(c) shall cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal, or shall keep, use or manage any

premises for the purpose of fighting or baiting any animal; or

(d) shall wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administer, or cause to be administered, any

poisonous or injurious drug or substance to any animal; or

(e) shall subject, or cause or procure to be subjected, any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity;

shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.

The owner of any animal so ill-treated-although he has not himself been guilty of any cruelty-can be convicted under the above section if he has permitted any such act of cruelty or not taken reasonable care to protect the animal therefrom, but in the latter case he can only be fined.

Where the owner of an animal is convicted of an offence of cruelty, the Court can order the animal to be destroyed without his consent if the Court is satisfied that it would be cruel to keep it alive; or the Court may deprive him of the ownership of the animal and make any order they think fit as to the disposal of the animal.1

The hunting or coursing of any animal in the way of sport and the slaughter of an animal for human food are not within the Act if there be no unnecessary cruelty. Regulations as to the management of knackers' yards and slaughterhouses

1 Sɛ, 2 and 3,

2 S. 1 (3).

are contained in sections 5 and 6 and in the first Schedule to the Act.

Section 7 requires any one who impounds an animal to "supply it with a sufficient quantity of wholesome and suitable food and water."

Section 9 prohibits the use of dogs as draught animals, and imposes a maximum penalty of 40s. for the first offence and of £5 for any subsequent offence.

If a policeman finds an animal which is so diseased or so severely injured that it would be cruel to keep it alive, it is his duty under section 11 of this Act to take steps to have it put to death in such manner as to inflict as little suffering as practicable.

Sea birds and their eggs are protected by the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1908.1

Grave doubts existed as to the morality of permitting dissection of living animals; but it was urged that such operations were necessary for the advancement of science and that much benefit to the human race had accrued from such researches when properly conducted by medical men of skill and learning. Hence the Legislature, while forbidding vivisection in general, permits it only under the following conditions:

(i.) The person performing the experiments must hold a licence from the Home Office, and in some cases the place used for the experiments must be registered.

(ii.) The experiments must be performed with the object of advancing knowledge, which will be useful for saving or prolonging life, or for alleviating suffering, and not for the purpose of attaining manual skill, nor as illustrations to accompany lectures, unless it is certified that the illustrations are absolutely necessary for due instruction.

(iii.) The animal must, during the whole of the experiment, be under the influence of some anaesthetic, sufficiently strong

1 See the 43 & 44 Vict. c. 35; 44 & 45 Vict. c. 51; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 24; c. 56; 2 Edw. VII. c. 6; 4 Edw. VII. c. 4 and 10; 8 Edw. VII. c. 11. Young, [1909] 1 K. B. 629.

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77), ss. 1, 22.

59 & 60 Vict. See Hollis v.

to prevent it from feeling pain. In some cases the animal must be killed before recovering consciousness.1

Experiments, which are necessary for some criminal proceedings, may be performed under a written order of a judge of the High Court.2

Moreover any person, who subjects an animal, or being the owner of it permits it to be subjected, to an operation which is conducted contrary to the regulations in force, commits an offence against the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919.

CHAPTER IX.

NUISANCE.

ANY unlawful act, which without any direct physical contact or interference endangers the lives, safety, health, comfort or property of any portion of the public, outrages public decency, or obstructs the public exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all His Majesty's subjects, is a common or public nuisance. So is any omission to discharge a legal duty which produces the like results.1

Any one who commits a public nuisance is guilty of a misdemeanour at common law, for which he may be tried on indictment or criminal information. If convicted he may be sentenced to imprisonment for two years without hard labour, or the Court may impose such fine as it deems suitable, and may also as part of its judgment order the nuisance to be abated. Sentence is frequently suspended in order to give the defendant an opportunity of abating the nuisance. When the nuisance has been satisfactorily abated, either before or after verdict, a nominal fine, with or without costs, is often considered sufficient. But where the nuisance has been continued and has caused serious injury, a heavy penalty may be imposed. The offence is triable at Quarter Sessions.

Statutes have at different times been passed containing provisions which impose severer punishment on certain kinds of public nuisance.

It is necessary in the first place to distinguish between a public and a private nuisance.

Any act, which without any direct physical interference materially impairs the use and enjoyment by another of his

1 The instance which occurs most frequently in practice, of a public nuisance caused by the defendant's omission to perform a legal duty, is the non-repair of a highway, which is dealt with post, pp. 249, 250.

1 Hawk. P. C., c. 32, 4. Nuisances, s. 14.