Creatures Great and Small: 19th Century Historical Contexts

Rhodes, G. M., compiler. The Nine Circles of the Hell of the Innocent: Described from the Reports of the Presiding Spirits. Preface by Frances Power Cobbe. London: Swan Sonnenschien, 1892. [HV4915 .N794 1892]

Francis Power Cobbe (1822–1904) was an Anglo-Irish journalist, author, and outspoken activist for animal rights. She used her publicity to speak out against vivisection, or scientific experimentation on live animals. Often such experiments were done without any anesthesia or other efforts to prevent suffering, as many doing such experiments insisted animals did not feel pain. In 1875, Cobbe founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection (SPALV) and, in 1898, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Both organizations are still running to this day.

In her preface to The Nine Circles, Cobbe outlines the cruelty of such experiments on live animals. The sections that follow Cobbe’s preface—with such revealing subtitles as “mangling,” “suffocation,” “burning and freezing,” and “starvation”—describe the various kinds of torture allowed under late 19th century vivisection. Citing vivisectionists’ own reports and manuals, The Nine Circles conveys the astonishing number of animals involved in such experiments. Cobbe states that “[Marie Jean Pierre] Flourens in one of his lectures boasted (as Blatin heard him say) that Majendie had sacrificed 4,000 dogs to prove Bell’s theory of the nerves, and 4,000 more to disprove it again; and Flourens had added an enormous number more to prove it once more” (ix). Early readers may have read these numbers and thought of the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, which stipulated that animal experimentation was allowed only insofar as it could be shown to contribute to some greater human good; those who experimented without proof of this greater good could be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

Galsworthy, John. For Love of Beasts. 1893. Animals’ Friend Society, 1912. [PR6013 .A5 F65]

John Galsworthy (1867–1933) was an English novelist, playwright, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, best known for The Forsyte Sage (1906–1921). However, Galsworthy was also active in many social causes—including animal rights and welfare. He was particularly concerned about the conditions of animal slaughter, a social cause of increasing importance due to the rise of industrialization and mass slaughterhouses (the commercialized “processing” of animals). He also spoke out against hunting and cruelty toward animals in “sport,” such as dog fighting. For Love of Beasts (1893) is structured like a three-part conversation between the author-narrator and his friend, who is more notably educated and active in the animal rights issue. As the two men walk to their home destination, they debate this current social cause, with the friends’ discourse falling into roughly three sections: 1) the perhaps unwitting abuse of animals for entertainment and/or education, 2) the abuse of animals for sport, and 3) the selfish abuse of animals for income and/or fashion.

The example of caged raccoons and, later, wild birds kept in captivity are given in the first section. In all cases, the keepers are considered good people who think they are celebrating their captive animals. In the second section, the author discusses the cruelty of sport, from hare-racing to dog- and cock-fighting and sport-hunting. The third section considers those animals who are abused and suffer for the sake of modern fashion. Examples here include docking horses and dogs’ tails because it supposedly looks “smart—neat—efficient” (16), as well as the fashionable practice of wearing aigrettes despite the inherent cruelty of such selective hunting practices (killing breeding birds). The fourth and final section is as much a rejoinder to the author as the reader when, before departing, the friend says to our author-narrator, “before men can be gentle and broad-minded with each other, they are always gentle and broad-minded about beasts. These dumb things, so beautiful—even the plain ones—in their different ways, and so touching in their dumbness, do draw us to magnanimity, and help the wings of our hearts to grow” (20). Hence, the pamphlet ends with the idea that care and compassion toward animals is not only a question of ethics but even humane (or Godly) elevation. Indeed, an underlying assumption regarding the animal’s utility runs throughout Galsworthy’s analysis, redefining this from a relationship of exploitation to a relationship of humane, though still human-serving, cultivation.

---. The Slaughter of Animals for Food. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Council of Justice to Animals, 1912. [TS1966 .G7 G3 1912t]

As stated on its cover, this pamphlet was drafted for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). The one-penny price tag would have made this work accessible to working-class readers as well as a middle- and upper-class audience. The work is comprised of three pieces. The first is reprinted from The Daily Mail and based mainly on Galsworthy’s recommendations for humane slaughter. Galsworthy’s analysis is based on a national survey of abattoirs’ and butchers’ practices; among the national survey’s results was the discovery that most animals (especially pigs and sheep) were not stunned before slaughter; pigs, in particular, were often rounded up en mass into slaughter rooms and then killed in front of each other. Details such as this led Galsworthy to call for more humane slaughter practices such as 1) the “stunning” of all animals before slaughter, 2) the replacement of the poleaxe with more humane tools, 3) not slaughtering animals in front of each other, and 4) the appointment of humane officers in slaughterhouses. Galsworthy also notes that should people not care about the humane conditions of animals, they should care when it comes to food. This point is followed with a note on how it is “probable that an appreciable part of the tuberculosis that affects man is obtained through his food” (12). This appeal to consumers’ interests (where an appeal to ethics or sympathy fails) is a strategy that is still used often by animal rights activists today regarding slaughterhouse reform.

Subsequent essays include a response from the National Federation of Meat Traders Association, which refutes Galsworthy’s assessment of their trade as inflicting undue cruelty. In response to Galsworthy’s recommendations, they insist that 1) butchers are generally experienced, and 2) stunning animals before slaughter would be impractical. Finally, the book contains a response to the Meat Traders’ response: “A Criticism by Mr Arthur Lee, M.P.” This final piece insists Galsworthy’s analysis be taken seriously; Lee insists there is nothing “impractical or sentimental” (22) about Galsworthy’s recommendations—gendered terms that reveal how animal rights activists were often discredited as irrational or unreasonable (i.e., too feminine).

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Band of Mercy. Vol. XXXIV. S. W. Partridge, 1912. [private collection]

The Band of Mercy was a youth-based organization whose main goal was to teach kindness toward animals. The first band was formed in Britain by Catherine Smithies (who was also active in the abolition and temperance movements), but the organization quickly reached North America. By 1882, the first American band was established in Massachusetts by George T. Angell and Rev. Thomas Timmins (Angell would also become President of the American Humane Education Society in 1889). The RSPCA eventually took over the Band of Mercy at the end of the century. However, organizations in the United States continued to work into the twentieth century under Angell’s guidance, promising to “teach and lead every child and older person to seize every opportunity to say a kind word or do a kind act that [would] make some other human being or some dumb creature happier.” We have opened this edition to its title page featuring a photograph ecouraging boys to be kind toward dogs, cats, and horses (their "friends"); the titlepage on the right features a small bookbug (promoting childhood literacy). We include here an example of the Band of Mercy’s promotional publication, not just because of the organization’s important role in the animal rights movement (especially in North America) but also because one of its songs is in part in Marshall Saunders’s Beautiful Joe. Indeed, the title for this exhibition is taken from this Band of Mercy song.

The Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Montreal: Protestant Institution for Deaf-Mutes, 1873. [F5012.1873 C212]

This pamphlet is stamped as an original “contribution/donation” in the Edith and Lorne Pierce Collection of Canadiana. Key figures in forming a Canadian literary canon, the Pierces’ donation to W.D. Jordan Rare Books and Special Collections also displays their personal (and public-facing) interest in Canadian nature and animals, including the emergent “rights movement” associated with the latter. Prefatory material in the pamphlet lists the Ladies Humane Education Committee Members, from President Mrs. Andrew Allen and executives through dozens of standing committee members. The opening pages also state the committee’s mission “for the promotion of the systematic education of the young in the principles of humanity, and early training to inculcate in their minds the duty of kindness and consideration to all dumb creatures.” This mission statement raises questions about nineteenth-century cultural assumptions regarding women’s sentimental feelings for animals and children as well as the connection between the latter two—or the child’s education in rights and responsibilities toward animals.

Kelso, J. J. Protection of Children: Early History of the Humane and Children’s Aid Movement in Ontario, 1886–1893. L. K. Cameron, 1911. [LP HV745 .O5 K3]

John Joseph Kelso (1864–1935) was a Canadian newspaper reporter and founder of the Toronto Humane Society. The Humane Society was, at first, dedicated to advocating for both children’s and animals’ rights, suggesting the overlap in social status (or lack thereof) regarding these two populations. However, the Society quickly leaned toward specializing in animal welfare, with Kelso (among others) working to found organizations dedicated solely to children’s needs and rights, including the Children’s Aid Society in Toronto (which brought him into contact with leading American reformers like Charles Loring Brace). Kelso was upset by the number of homeless and impoverished children he saw daily on the city streets. This pamphlet records much of the Society’s work regarding children’s rights in Canada. Writing on behalf of child migrants (or “Home Children”), Kelso’s writings from 1886 to 1935 debunk eugenic constructions of the “New World” as superior genetic stock. Early History begins with a description of some of Kelso’s “first experiences” and some memorable children (Sammy and Tim) who first entered the Society. Subsequent chapters, like “Old White Horse,” address the formation of the Society as an organization devoted to the prevention of cruelty to animals. As we read in these later pages, “The name’ Humane Society’ was chosen, because its mission was to be broadly educational—better laws, better methods, the development of the humane spirit in all the affairs of life” (16–17). Some of the Society’s key campaigns included the installation of more drinking troughs throughout the city—not just for horses but dogs too (17–18)—campaigns against ill-using animals, and establishing an animal protection officer.

Hodgins, J. George, editor. Aims and Objects of the Toronto Humane Society. Toronto: William Briggs, 1888. [HV4770 .T72]

As suggested by its title, this book records some of the earliest work performed by the Toronto Humane Society on behalf of children’s and animals’ rights. Again, this combination of subjects reveals the relatively equal (lack of) social status held by both children and animals. Further, later pieces in the collection on education and domesticating pets show how children especially have a key part to play in the animal rights cause. Multiple chapters in the collection are dedicated to the importance of teaching children about kindness to animals. Humane treatment of animals starts with children, but animals are also vital in socializing children into responsible (ethical and moral) adults. Note how this latter goal still depends upon—and reinforces—the social hierarchy of humans over animals (or animals as “tools” for humans). It is also worth noting that, in chapters on pets, the book lists several animals one wouldn’t normally consider domestic (like mice), as if attempting to cultivate more and wider sympathy for different animals. Later chapters also discuss the problem of animal abuse among boys specifically, reminding us that attitudes toward animals—kind (feminine) or otherwise—were often described in gendered language.

Hamerton, Philip Gilbert. Chapters on Animals. London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday, 1874. [QL791 .H19]

Philip Gilbert Hamerton (1834–1894) was an English painter, etcher, art critic, and essayist. He was a key figure in the late nineteenth-century etching revival. Chapters on Animals (1874) opens with a preface in which Hamerton explains his love of observing animals, which he enjoys drawing just as much as people. He writes, “Having been in the habit of loving and observing animals, as people do who live in the country, I thought that possibly some of my observations, however trifling in themselves, might interest others whose tastes are similar to my own.” Not only does Hamerton place “love” before “observation” in this brief statement on methodology, but he also places subjective experience over any researched (or scientific) approach to his subject; instead, the following pages are the result of “what [he] had seen rather than what other writers had recorded.” In the chapters that follow, Hamerton goes on to suggest the depth and breadth of Victorians’ love for their pets, including common “dogs and cats,” to the more surprising examples of rabbits, ferrets, pigs, and rodents (including gerbils, hamsters, and rats).

Salt, Henry S. Animals’ Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. 1892. Society for Animal Rights, 1980. [Stauffer Library HV4708 .S17 1980]

Henry S. Salt (1851–1939) was a leading figure in many late-Victorian campaigns for animal rights, including the anti-vivisection movement and the popularization of vegetarianism. He was actively involved in many progressive issues of his day, from prison reform to the Fabian Society’s brand of socialism. He founded the Humanitarian League in 1891, an animal advocacy group which brought him into contact with other animal lovers like Ernest Bell, Edith Carrington, and Harrison Weir. The Humanitarian League was involved in many animal rights and protection issues, from bans on vivisection and hunting (“blood-sport”) to promoting vegetarianism. Indeed, Salt’s first publication was A Plea For Vegetarianism (1886), in which he made an ethical argument for a plant-based diet. His third book (after a biography of Percy Shelley) is titled Flesh or Fruit? An Essay on Food Reform (1888). 

But Salt is probably best known for Animals’ Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress, featured here. As Peter Singer writes in his preface to the 1980 edition, “Animals’ Rights was not the first book to defend the case for the rights of animals, as Salt’s own excellent bibliography makes clear … Animals’ Rights is, I believe, the best of the eighteenth and nineteenth century works on the rights of animals.” As signalled by his choice of title, Salt wanted to portray the animal “rights” issue as distinct from—but of equal ethical importance to—the animal welfare issue. Salt himself explains that he wanted to “set the principle of animals’ rights on a consistent and intelligible footing, [and] to show that this principle underlies the various efforts of humanitarian reformers.” Elsewhere in the text, Salt also writes that “[t]he emancipation of men from cruelty and injustice will bring with it, in due course, the emancipation of animals also, the two reforms are inseparable, and neither can be fully realized alone.”

Galsworthy, John. A Talk on Playing the Game with Animals and Birds. R.S.P.C.A., 1926. [HV4711 .G3]

This piece was initially broadcast from London on Friday, May 27, 1926. Galsworthy’s title is likely an allusion to his earlier play “The Skin Game” (1920), which deals with themes of class difference after WWI. He is certainly building upon the idea of social ranks and prejudices in this pamphlet, specifically humans’ limited sympathy for—if not conscious exploitation of—animals. It is worth noting how, in the opening paragraph, Galsworthy cites the current tendency to brand those seeking rights or humane treatment for animals as “sickly and sentimental” (1), as if caring for animals signals some inherent problem with emotion or reason (or the masculine discipline of the latter over the former). In this pamphlet, Galsworthy organizes the problem of humans’ abuse of animals into roughly three categories: our love of “[1] pocket, [2] our curiosity, [and 3] our vanity.” As with For the Love of Beasts, Galsworthy gives examples of each, from the chained guard dog to the dejected panther in a zoo cage or the blood-cost of fashionable aigrettes (respectively).

Galsworthy’s concluding discussion of the current social fashion for docked tails and caged songbirds is not only passionate in its critique of human cruelty, but it quite deftly turns the tables from a defence of sentiment (per the opening paragraph) to a critique of social morals and (want in) Christian character: “And if we have any religious sense at all, we must feel that every species as well as our own is a fulfillment of the underlying Creative Purpose, and we should have the same sort of regard for and sympathy with other forms of life that we have for our own” (6). The final two pages include a short information sheet on how to join the RSPCA, along with a list of other publications issued by the organization (including works on “How to Train Children to Be Kind to Animals,” “Charles Dickens and Public Abattoirs,” “Humane Education,” and “A Singing Play for Girls”).

Greene, Joseph Morse. Experiments on the Sub-Human: Are They Justifiable? International Ethical Education Society, 1906. [PAMPH Pamphlets 1906 G744]

Joseph Morse Greene’s pamphlet Experiments on the Sub-Human (1906) offers a thorough engagement with the vivisection debate—including references to Francis Power Cobbe, a leading figure in the antivivisection movement. Most importantly, the pamphlet represents a sustained effort to engage and debunk, one by one, many of the arguments used to defend live animal experiments. On the “means justify the ends” argument (per medical testing, for example), Greene explains how live experiments yield false or irrelevant information because the animal’s body is under such undue duress—indeed, “physical pain”: “Moreover, all forms of mental distress—rage, terror, etc.—greatly affect the physical system, and these in vivisection are stimulated to the utmost” (4). The result is a plea for animal rights based on the prevention of both physical and mental (even emotional) suffering. But should that appeal fail, Greene suggests the experiment is pointless because any data gathered is already corrupted by the (unethical) means of collection. It is also worth noting that the International Ethical Education Society published the pamphlet. Many of these pamphlets were printed by the Society into the early twentieth century. Their approach to the animal rights mission was, as suggested by the title, an ethical issue. They grounded arguments in reason and logic instead of emotional (sentimental) appeal.

Massey, Samuel. Dumb Animals: A Plea for Man’s Dumb Friends, Being the Substance of an Address delivered in Salem Church. Montreal: 188-. [F5012.188 .M416]

The Montreal YMCA was the first of its kind in North America, established in 1851. Samuel Massey (b. 1817) would take on the position of city missionary in charge of the organization in 1853. Massey is considered by many to be among Canada’s first grassroots, urban-community service workers—the humane treatment of animals was among many of his social causes. Massey actively promoted the rise of the SPCA in various cities as the number of urban working animals exploded in the nineteenth century. Dumb Animals discusses the abuse of carriage horses, the rise of factory-type slaughterhouses, and the work these societies do to prevent cruelty toward animals in such conditions (the problem of inhumane transport is also discussed [2]). The pamphlet advocates protecting birds from sport-hunting and farmers who consider them “pests” (5), and Dumb Animals also gives us a breakdown of the number of animals slaughtered at stockyards each year (6). The pamphlet describes the problem of abandoned animals and urban strays, claiming there are as many as 5,000 “nobody’s dogs” in the city. This section includes a horrific account of a police officer beating a dog to death in front of children. The implicit message throughout is that caring for animals is a social issue akin to caring for children.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Neglected and Dependent Children of Ontario: Work under the Ontario Children’s Protection Act during the Year 1904. L. K. Cameron, 1905. [HV745 .O6 O58t]

This is the twelfth annual report of the Department of Neglected and Dependent Children of Ontario. Superintendent J. J. Kelso presented it to Hon. W. J. Hanna, Provincial Secretary. The report addresses the “number of children protected from ill-treatment and neglect and the number of destitute children received under guardianship of the Children’s Act, and placed into foster-homes” (7). As part of this history, the report insists upon the social value of rescuing children. Specifically, the opening pages challenge prejudices that some children are simply born delinquent; instead, the report insists that “the power of love and sympathy to save and reclaim has been steadily proclaimed” (7). Part of the report discusses how certain magistrates are reluctant “to commit children to the guardianship of the Children’s Aid Society [CAS], even when the child’s circumstances clearly indicate that there is no hope of its receiving proper care and moral training” (9). The report uses anecdotal evidence of a child whom the courts would not hand over and who, only a month later, was sentenced to “a number of years in a reform school” (9). Using a purely economic analysis (500 dollars on a reform school versus 25 dollars on the CAS), the report insists upon its work as the more effective means of reforming children.