Report relative to the question of humane slaughtering of animals / Sanitary Committee.

  • City of London (England). Corporation. Public Health Department. Sanitary Committee.
Date:
1925
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report relative to the question of humane slaughtering of animals / Sanitary Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    10/20 (page 8)
    ‘“ Provided that this requirement shall not be deemed to apply to any member of the Jewish Faith, duly licensed by the Chief Rabbi and the London Board of Shechita as a slaughterer, when engaged in the slaughtering of cattle intended for the food of Jews according to the Jewish method of slaughtering, if no unnecessary suffering is inflicted.”’ There is an obvious difference between the Bye-laws which are operative to-day in the City and at Islington and Model Bye-law 9 (8). The present Bye-laws are similar to the old Model Bye-law 9 (A). The reason why the Ministry of Health introduced the alternative 9 (B) in the Model Series is stated in the quotation from the Memorandum given above. On March 6th, 1923, the London County Council made a new Bye-law dealing with the same subject, and which is now operative. It is in the following terms :— ‘4 person shall not in a slaughterhouse proceed to slaughter any animal until the same shall have been effectually stunned, and such stunning shall, except as hereinatter provided, be effected with a mechanically operated instrument suitable and sufficient for the purpose. ‘* Provided that this Bye-law, so far as it would require the stunning of sheep and the use of a mechanically operated instrument, shall not apply until the expiration of three months from and after the date of the confirmation of this Bye-law. ‘‘ Provided, further, that this Bye-law shall not be deemed to apply to any member of the Jewish Faith, duly licensed by the Chief Rabbi as a slaughterer, when engaged in slaughtering of cattle intended for the food of Jews according to the Jewish method of slaughtering, if no unnecessary suffering is inflicted.”’ There are a few variations in the above from the Model Series, and these are (a) that the requirements in respect of sheep shall not apply for three months, and (b) a rider which affects the Jewish method, and which was appended to the Bye-laws in the following terms :— ‘The foregoing Bye-law, except in so far as it may apply to the slaughter of animals, without unnecessary suffering, for the food of Jews according to the Jewish method, by a person certified by the President for the time being of the London Committee of the Deputies of the British Jews as holding a licence from the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities to act as a slaughterer, is hereby allowed by the Minister of Health this 7th day of December, 1923.” Lrcauity or Moprn Byz-Law 9 (8). Many Local Authorities have given consideration to this subject, and some have adopted Model Bye-law 9 (8). Among these may be mentioned the Corporation of Reading, since in that town the validity of the Bye-law has been challenged. The case before the Magistrates resulted in a decision adverse to the Corporation, who appealed to the High Court. The Magistrates’ decision was in the following terms :— ‘“* Having given this matter careful consideration, and weighed all the evidence put before us, we have come to the conclusion that the summonses against the four defendants should be dismissed. We find that the Bye-law is unreasonable, because it is partial and unequal in its operation as between different classes of the community. Further, we are of opinion that the Bye-law is unreasonable because it applies to all animals without distinction, and we find as a fact, after hearing the evidence submitted to us, that killing pigs by hoisting and sticking is not less humane than by shooting. We also find as a fact that the meat of pigs killed for bacon purposes by a mechanically operated instrument is more likely to deteriorate for curing than is the meat of pigs killed by hoisting and sticking. We also find that there is no material danger from a mechanically operated instrument, if properly used with ordinary care. In dismissing the summonses, we order the informant to pay ten cuineas costs in each case.”’ The Judgment of the High Court, which is quoted from the ‘‘ Times ’’ of June 15th, 1922, was as follows :— ; ‘The Lord Chief Justice, in giving Judgment, said that there was imposed upon the Corporation of Reading the statutory duty of making Bye-laws for the licensing, registration and inspection of slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards, and for preventing cruelty therein. A prosecution was instituted under Bye-law 9, and in the result the Justices came to the conclusion that the Bye-law was unreasonable on various grounds, which were set out in the special case. It had been suggested that the Bye-law was bad in itself (1) because it prescribed a particular method of slaughter when various other methods were equally open to, or equally free from, objection, and (2) because on religious grounds, if that was the right expression to use, an exception had been made /