Analysis: The Act against the Plowing by the Tayle, and pulling the Wooll off Living Sheep was the first of its kind in the world
Until March 2014, when the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 commenced, the primary piece of animal welfare legislation in Ireland was the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended). The new act repealed several pieces of legislation, most notably the 1911 Act and the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965. The 2013 Act heralded a more rigorous approach to animal welfare in Ireland as it increased the powers of authorised officials to investigate allegations of animal abuse. It also placed on a statutory basis, for the first time under Irish law, a duty to protect animal welfare.
While it took Ireland over a century to repeal the 1911 Act, it is interesting to note that the very first recorded anti-cruelty statute originated in Ireland in 1635: An Act against the Plowing by the Tayle, and pulling the Wooll off Living Sheep. The motivations of the Lord Deputy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth, in drafting this act were unclear as he was someone more associated with the machinations of politics than the plight of suffering animals. Wentworth wished to increase English power in Ireland and saw the Act as an indirect way of enhancing the Crown's power in Ireland and to increase his own power and wealth.
The Act criminalised the 'barbarous custome of ploughing, harrowing, drawing and working with horses, mares, geldings, garrans and colts, by the taile whereby (besides cruelty used to the beasts) the breed of horses is much impaired in this Kingdome'. It proceeded to make it an offence to pull wool from sheep, who instead were to be sheared or clipped. Anyone found to have contravened the Act faced a fine or imprisonment, with discretion given to the Justices of the Assize at the General Assize to decide the appropriate sanction.
Although there is a dearth of background information on the Act, it was the first act that criminalised certain practices on the grounds of animal cruelty. There are no judicial records of violations of the 1635 Act. Any testimonies that exist may not be trustworthy sources as diaries belonging to those who observed life in the town and countryside may not be relied upon for their accuracy.
Published findings from the State Commissions and other London-appointed official bodies are also not reliable, as they represent, in the words of Piers Beirne, 'the bureaucratic and political indices of English hegemony in a period dominated by the conqueror’s raw cultural prejudice and military power’. The 1635 Act was perhaps more about English oppression than animal welfare. The fines under the Act provided a much-needed source of revenue for the English administration in Ireland.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2014, report on new animal welfare legislation in Ireland
The Ill Treatment of Cattle Act 1822 (also known as Martin’s Act) is the world’s first modern animal welfare statute and it too has an Irish connection. It was drafted by a Galway Member of Parliament, Richard Martin, who was also a barrister and wealthy landowner.
He was heavily influenced by his mother, who kept a menagerie of pets, and one of his headmasters at Harrow, Dr Samuel Parr, who coined the phrase ‘wanton barbarity’, a phrase that Martin (or Humanity Dick as George IV referred to him) adopted. Both his mother and Dr Parr had taught Martin that acts of cruelty to animals would manifest themselves in subsequent cruel acts to humans.
Just a year after Martin’s death, the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 was enacted. This Act extended the 1822 Act to include prohibitions on bull, bear and badger baiting and cockfighting. The Act, also referred to as Pease’s Act, made it a criminal offence to conduct any baiting or cockfighting events within five miles of Temple Bar, London. Offenders faced a fine of up to £5 and in default of the payment; a prison term with hard labour for up to two months. The Act included more animals within its remit, namely dogs, any other cattle or domestic animal. Any person found to have caused injury or harm to an animal faced a fine of five shillings to a maximum of 40 shillings.
Read more: 4 things I learned about the Irish in the British Empire
Both 1822 and 1835 acts were repealed and replaced by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849, which reiterated the offences of beating, ill-treating, over-driving, abusing and torturing animals with a maximum penalty of £5. This Act allowed for the perpetrator and the person responsible for procuring the acts of cruelty to be prosecuted. This was a huge development as it meant that the master and servant could be held criminally liable. Provisions relating to the feeding and giving of water to horses before slaughter were also included, a measure which Martin attempted to introduce some twenty years previously. The 1849 Act was amended by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1854.
From the 1850s onwards there was a change in the type of cruelty. As developments in science began to emerge, animals were now being used to conduct experiments. After protests from animal advocacy groups, the 1849 Act was expanded by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. One provision of the 1876 Act was that animals used for experiments had to be anaesthetised.
The next piece of legislation to be enacted was the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which repealed the 1849 Act to the extent it had not already been repealed and the whole 1854 Act was repealed. The 1965 act repealed two amending Acts, the Act Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment Act 1912, and the Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment Act 1921. The principal act of 1911 (as amended) remained in force until the commencement of the 2013 Act.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2023, Dr Cyril Sullivan from the ISPCA on the increase in the number of animal cruelty cases across the country
We will never know what the true intention behind the 1635 Act and the extent to which it was based on a benevolent concern of protecting animals from cruelty. While the Act was a source of revenue for the King, a secondary consideration was based on criminalising practices which were considered barbaric and cruel. In practice, its effects may have been negligible.
With the motivations behind its promulgation aside, the Act recognised that certain farming practices were cruel and caused unnecessary suffering to the animals concerned. While the 1822 is often heralded as the first ever animal anti-cruelty statute, the 1635 Act marked a critical juncture in the evolution of anti-cruelty legislation. Arguably its existence would have assured Martin that a modern and broader form of animal welfare legislation was possible in the 19th century.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
