Rights of Brute Creatures
Constant Subscriber, Egham
letter to the editor, Sporting Magazine
「1795-Oct」 「Constant Subscriber, Egham」 letter to the editor, “Rights of Brute Creatures,” Sporting Magazine (1795-Oct): 40-2; Google Books: Online Library of Free eBooks.
To the Editors of the Sporting Magazine,
Gentlemen,
Observing, in a late Number of your admirable performance, a few observations on brutal treatment to horses and oxen, it led me into the following train of reflections on the subject, which, if they may be found worthy of insertion, by so doing you will confer a particular obligation on one who is a sincere well-wisher and constant subscriber. Egham, Oct. 20. 1795.
The public mind had been much occupied by the discussion of the rights of man, in which much progress had been made, whilst not the smallest attention has been given to the rights of other animals. It has been said that human liberty consists in one man doing whatever does not injure another man; and it is affirmed that one man has a right to do whatsoever does not injure another man. Were man the only being in this system capable of happiness and misery, this would not only be the truth, but the whole truth; but as there are innumerable beings, besides man in the system, to which we belong, capable of pleasure and pain, these beings must have rights, and those rights must limit the liberty and rights of man. If it be true that one man has not a right to injure another it is also true that man had not right to wantonly to injure or torment any other animal.
There can only e one satisfactory reason given, for the practice of man’s taking way the life of other animals even for food, and this is—the condition of other animals is not made worse by the exercise of this supposed right.—Were man to confine himself for food to simple vegetables, and leave the other animals to the course of nature, it is certain that many would be produced, and as many would perish, and the scarcity of vegetable would cause them to perish, even at a more early age than they are now put to death, and with Lengthened misery. For animals must fare worse, when man ceases to concern himself about their subsistence. Amongst other evils which they would in this case suffer, a most material one would be the loss of the winter’s provision, now collected for them by man, and of so much soil as would then be appropriated to to the grown of additional vegetables for the use of man. Although, then, a real injury would accrue to animals by man’s abstaining from the use of their flesh for food, yet does it not follow, that because benevolence will warrant the taking of their lives, they have no rights to be respected, but may lawfully be used in whatever way man pleases. No, that same benevolence which, under the circumstances stated, warrants the taking away of animal life, imperiously forbids every wanton violence, and every sportive injury.
It may be proved, that animals would gain nothing by being freed from the knife of he butcher, but surely it can never be proved that they can gain nothing by being freed from every violence and injury, not essential to the simply taking away of life. The rights of animals, which ought to be respected and acknowledged by man, consists in “being exempted from ever evil, which is not occasioned by self-defence, or unnecessarily attendant on putting them to death,” or in other words, in general reservation and exemption from voluntary injury.
He who admits these rights of animals, must allow, that whatever lengthens the pains of death, or accompanies them with terror to animals, ought carefully to be avoided.—Some fowls are put to death in a very lingering and cruel manner, because the fashion, forsooth, requires them to be placed with their heads on, upon the table, as turkeys, &c.¹ The baiting of bulls previously to their being put to death, is an atrocity at which a humane man shudders.—The observation of every individual will furnish him with innumerable examples of the wanton violation of the rights of brutes.—To promote benevolent sentiments, and a detestation of every species of cruelty, it is indispensable, that pain, though necessary , should be inflicted with trembling, and life taken with solemnity. I object, therefore, to every institution which makes “killing a pleasure,” as tending to blunt our sensibilities, and to harden our hears; and of this kind appear to be the amusements of hunting, fishing, and shooting; understanding these terms, as descriptive of these occupations only so far as they are followed for amusement of pleasure.²
As I am now attacking general custom, the delights of grave parson, and pious laymen, in which no harm was ever imagined, I expect opposition and contempt. That opposition I invite; and that contempt I brave; convinced that custom sanctions every enormity, from the baiting of bulls, to the merchandize and murder of Africans. I Wish to call attention of your readers on the subject of our treatment of brutes, a class of beings which should be peculiarly guarded from injury of this life, as we allow them no hope of another. Futurity offers no restitution to the brutes which perish. Christians, I plead the cause of suffering creatures, who, cannot appeal to law, whom nature has made dumb, and who therefore, want an advocate!— This is not a subject unconnected with religion—by the treatment we give to brute animals, our future destination may be judged of;—for let us call to mind who it is that says “they shall have judgment without mercy, who have shewed no mercy;” and by whom it is declared, that “a merciful man is merciful to his beast.”
¹ If our sports are destructive, our gluttony is more so, and in a more inhuman manner. Lobsters roasted alive, pigs whipped to death, Fowls sewed up, are testimonies of our outrageous luxury.—I know nothing more shocking or horrid, than the prospect of one of he kitchens of these human savages, covered with blood, and filled with the cries of creatures expiring in tortures.—”If we kill and animal for our provision,” says the excellent Plutarch, ‘let us do it with the meltings of compassion, and without tormenting it.’ Guardian, Vol. 1. No. 61:
² ‘There is great difference between killing for food and for sport. To take pleasure in that by which pain is inflicted, if it is not vicious, is dangerous; and every practice, which if not criminal in itself, yet wears out the sympathizing sensibility for a tender mind, must tender human nature proportionally less fit for society.’ Adventurer, Vol. II. No. 37.
