Cruelty to Animals Act 1876

United Kingdom legislation

England and Wales
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland

DatesRoyal assent15 August 1876Other legislationRepealed byAnimals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

Status: Repealed

Animal testing

Main articles
Animal testing Alternatives to animal testing Animal testing regulations History of animal testing History of model organisms IACUC Laboratory animal sources Pain and suffering in laboratory animals Testing cosmetics on animals Toxicology testing Vivisection
Testing on
Invertebrates Frogs Primates Rabbits Rodents
Issues
Medical research Animal rights Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International primate trade
Cases
Brown Dog affair Cambridge University primates Pit of despair Silver Spring monkeys UCR 1985 laboratory raid Unnecessary Fuss
Companies
Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories Covance, Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny, Shamrock Farm
Groups/campaigns
AALAS AAAS ALF Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group Cruelty Free International Dr. Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society New England Anti-Vivisection Society PETA Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK campaign SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research
Writers/activists
Tipu Aziz Michael Balls Neal D. Barnard Colin Blakemore Simon Festing Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak Syed Ziaur Rahman
Categories
Animal testing Animal rights Animal welfare
v t e

The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which set limits on the practice of, and instituted a licensing system for animal experimentation, amending the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849. It was a public general Act. The Act was replaced 110 years later by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

The Act

A perception that the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 was weak led to a libel suit, the erection of this monument to a vivisected "brown dog", and riots by medical students in 1907

The Act stipulated that researchers would be prosecuted for cruelty, unless they conformed to its provisions, which required that an experiment involving the infliction of pain upon animals to only be conducted when "the proposed experiments are absolutely necessary for the due instruction of the persons [so they may go on to use the instruction] to save or prolong human life".^[2]

Furthermore, the Act stated that should the experiment occur, the animal must be anaesthetised, used only once (though several procedures regarded as part of the same experiment were permitted), and killed as soon as the study was over.^[2] Prosecutions under the Act could be made only with the approval of the Secretary of State.^[3] The Act was applicable to vertebrate animals only.

History and controversy

Opposition to vivisection had led the government to set up a Royal Commission on Vivisection in July 1875, which recommended that legislation be enacted to control it. This Act was created as a result, but was criticized by National Anti-Vivisection Society – itself founded in December 1875 – as "infamous but well-named," in that it made no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions. The law remained in force for 110 years, until it was replaced by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986,^[4] which is the subject of similar criticism from the modern animal rights movement.

Such was the perceived weakness of the Act, that vivisection opponents chose, on at least one occasion – the Brown Dog affair – to incite a libel suit rather than seek a prosecution under the Act.^{[citation needed]}

Penalties

The Act states, in part:

Any person performing or taking part in performing any experiment calculated to give pain, in contravention of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, if it be the first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, and if it be the second or any subsequent offence, be liable, at the discretion of the court by which he is tried, to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.

References

Halsbury's Statutes of England. (The Complete Statutes of England). First Edition. Butterworth and Co (Publishers) Ltd. 1929. Volume 1: [1] [2] [3]. Page 367. Third Edition. 1968. Volume 2. Page 222. Cumulative Supplement. Part 1. 1985. Paragraph for page 221.
John Mounteney Lely. The Statutes of Practical Utility. (Chitty's Statutes). Fifth Edition. Sweet and Maxwell. Stevens and Sons. London. 1894. Volume 1. Title "Animals". Pages 12 to 17.
Paterson, William. The Practical Statutes of the Session 1876. Pages 245 to 255.
Coleridge, Bernard. Commentary on the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. Victoria Street and International Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection. Victoria Street London. 1896. Google Books. Reprinted from the Zoophillist as chapter 23 of "The Anti-vivisection Question".
Coleridge, Stephen, "The Administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876" (1900) 67 Fortnightly Review 392 (No 399, March)
"The First Conviction under the Vivisection Act" (1876) 61 The Law Times 382 (7 October)

^ The citation of this Act by this short title was authorised by section 1 of this Act. Due to the repeal of this Act, it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
^ ^a ^b Kean, Hilda. "An Exploration of the Sculptures of Greyfriars Bobby, Edinburgh, Scotland, and the Brown Dog, Battersea, South London, England," Society and Animals, Volume 1, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 353–373.
^ Mason, Peter. The Brown Dog Affair. Two Sevens Publishing, 1997, p.10
^ "The history of the NAVS" Archived 18 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine, retrieved 4 December 2007.