Tag: cock fighting

Lessons from history : we don’t want your Chlorinated chicken America

Cock fighting

The crowd that had gathered around Thomas Masters on Houndsditch one early evening in August 1867 looked angry. Angry enough at least to worry one passerby who took it upon himself to find out what was going on.

As he pushed his way through he saw an old man holding a cockerel. The bird was dripping blood and had lost a lot of its feathers along with its claws and spurs, but was alive. The man seemed drunk and the crowd was berating him.

The ‘good Samaritan’ (a Mr Moore) decided to act quickly lest the crowd used violence against their quarry. He called a policeman over and had the elderly man arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty.

The next day the man was brought before the Lord Mayor at Mansion House police court. He gave his name and admitted being a little drunk that day. He said he had clipped the bird’s spurs and claws, and removed some feathers ‘to improve his appearance and make him look younger’. One wonders why he would go to such drastic lengths, was trying to use the bird for cock fighting (illegal by the 1860s having been banned in 1835) or was he hoping to sell him?

The Lord Mayor fined him 5s for the cruelty but Masters had no money so was sent to prison for three days in default.

I think this story tells us that the British have a low tolerance for animal cruelty, at least when it is flaunted in front of us. The RSPCA was founded quite early in the nineteenth century, in 1824, and long before a charity to protect children from cruelty. We have been a nation of animal lovers for a very long time and pets are much more closely integrated into out way of life than they are in many other countries.

I think that the Americans might do well to remember this as they make sweeping statements about post-Brexit trade deals. When it comes to animal welfare the States do not have standards that are anything like as rigorous as ours or the European Union’s. Chlorinated chicken may be safe but that is to miss the point. British consumers want to know that their food is both safe and – to a large degree at least – ethically sourced. We may not ask too many questions about where our meat comes from at first, especially if it cheaper. But campaigners will soon let the public know if animals were being abused to put cheap food on our tables and then, I believe, a very British sense of fair play will demand that our supermarkets source produce elsewhere.

So the Americans can demand whatever they like in terms of access to UK markets for their agriculture, it doesn’t mean we are going to buy it. We’ve had consumer boycotts before (in the Apartheid years for example) and the US might soon learn that we are capable of saying ‘no thank you’ to a vast range of American goods.

[from The Morning Post, Thursday, August 22, 1867]

Bull-baiting and bullock-hunting in late Georgian London

The nineteenth century saw the gradual growth of intolerance of cruelty towards animals; the SPCA (Society for the Protection of Animals, later the Royal Society) was set up in 1824, the first of its kind anywhere in the world. In addition the growth of urban areas and a move towards order within them led to a concomitant move towards ending pastimes and traditions that disrupted the flow of traffic and disturbed commerce.

So I am not surprised to see a prosecution at Bow Street for bull-baiting. This might have been the ancient cruel sport shown in the illustration below or a wider reference to ‘bullock-hunting’.

bull_baiting

Baiting bulls involved tethering one in a yard or market square and setting dogs on them. Bets were taken on the dogs’ abilities to attack and bite the bulls and to avoid being thrown or gored by them. In the eighteenth century other animals were treated with equal cruelty. For example, cocks were set to fight each other while men gambled on the outcome, fireworks were attacked to the horns of cattle or cats’ tails, and birds were imprisoned in cages for stones to be thrown at them.

The bullock hunt was an urban pastime that occurred frequently on market days in and around Smithfield (in central London) or out in the east at Whitechapel (where there were very many slaughterhouses). A bullock would be ‘yahoo’d’ out of a herd, enraged, and chased through the streets by screaming apprentice boys and other local youths.

By the 1820s there were concerted attempts to stamp out all of these ‘cruel’ sports, especially those that took place on the streets. In July 1825 the sitting justice at Bow Street, exasperated by the local officers’ inability to deter bull-baiting, issued a warrant to arrest two men who had been identified as the key culprits. We don’t know whether they were caught but it probably sent them to ground at least.

Such overt animal cruelty was largely eradicated from London’s streets in the later 1800s but this did not necessarily herald a new dawn for its animal population; cruelty continued, just not for ‘sport’. Outside of the capital of course wealthier traditions of animal cruelty continued (and still continue albeit less brazenly) because they were legitimized as the pursuit of gentlemen ‘hunters’, not ‘Smithfield yahoos’.

[from The Morning Chronicle, Thursday, July 7, 1825]