Chapter 6 “They Did Their Bit” – British Societies and the Memorialization of War Animals since the Anglo-Boer War

Chelsea A. Medlock

For hundreds of years leading up to the modern era, the memorialization of well-known individuals was not an unusual sight in Britain. With the advent of industrialization and total war, the focal point of societal memory shifted to include national remembrance for the average soldier. As this shift gained national traction, animal welfare organizations across the Empire attempted to push this transformation of imperial memory to also encompass the memo- rialization of the nameless, faceless animals who had been expended during modern conflicts. These efforts by a variety of welfare societies can be seen as a direct outgrowth of the changing memorialization trends that began after the Franco-Prussian War (1870/71) and the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902). Since the war in South Africa, British societies have attempted to refocus the public’s attention on the memorialization of war animals alongside the remembrance of the human cost of total war.1 Beginning with the War Horse Memorial in Port Elizabeth (1905), British societies have pushed for the public remembrance of war animals, especially war horses. The memorials constructed by these soci- eties were a way to draw attention to the need for animal welfare in society and war as well as a way to give animals a public voice and memory. Along with the memorial in Port Elizabeth, British animal welfare societies erected memori- als throughout the Empire, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals’ (RSPCA) Memorial in Kilburn (1920s), the Animals in War Memorial located in Hyde Park (2007), the Animals in War Memorial in Canberra (2009), and the Animals in War Memorial in Ottawa (2012). These memorials, while different in imagery and focus, display a connectivity among the animal societies that transcends imperial and temporal boundaries. This chapter will explore the role of British animal welfare societies in the remembrance and

1 On the role of animals, particularly horses, in that conflict see: Frank Jacob, “Vom kriegsents- cheidenden Faktor zum Sinnbid antiquierter Kriegsführung – Pferde im Burenkrieg und im Russisch-Japanischen Krieg,” in Pferde in der Geschichte: Begleiter in der Schlacht, Nutztier, literarische Inspiration, ed. Frank Jacob (Darmstadt: Büchner, 2016), 198-232.

© Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2019 | doi:10.30965/9783657788224_007 130 Chelsea A. Medlock commemoration of modern war and the establishment of postmodern sites of memory for societies and individuals to remember the animal face of war, duty, and sacrifice. One of the most notable trends in animal war memorials is the diminishing emphasis on displayed utility as the memorials transformed from a public service to a service of memory. Britain’s first debate regarding animals began in 1800 with a bill to outlaw bull-baiting. The proposal was aimed at eliminating the sport and the accom- panying gambling from lower class life.2 The law was laughed at by members of parliament and The Times pronounced it to be a monstrous failure; it would be another twenty-two years before the first British legislation passed thru Parliament. The Martin’s Act of 1822 made it a punishable offense to “wantonly beat, abuse, or ill-treat” horses and other livestock.3 4 Two years later, Reverend Arthur Broome (1779–1837) called a meeting of like-minded humanitarians, including Colonel Richard Martin (1754–1834) and (1759– 1833), to discuss the possible creation of an organization whose sole purpose would be to protect animals from cruelty.5 Broome founded the SPCA in 1824; the society was later renamed the Royal in 1840 when Queen Victoria became the society’s patron.6 Martin’s Act was expanded during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Protection of Animals Act in 1911. This law expanded the protection coverage to all animals, punishing the guilty with a fine, but not imprisonment.7 The 1911 Act remained the guiding force for animal welfare in Britain until it was replaced with the 2006 Animal Welfare Act.8 With its creation the RSPCA opened the door for the establish- ment of other animal welfare societies in the nineteenth and twentieth centu- ries, such as the Blue Cross, the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, and the Brooke. Prior to the Franco-Prussian War, most animal welfare societies rarely com- mented on the wastage of war animals; the societies focused on domestic pros- ecution, education, and legislation. Little was done to better the circumstances

2 , : Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800 (London: Reaktion Books, 1998), 31. 3 Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 125. 4 Kean, Animal Rights, 32-34. 5 Clive Hollands, Compassion is the Bugler: the Struggle for Animal Rights (Edinburgh: MacDonald Publishers, 1980), 15. 6 Kean, Animal Rights, 35. 7 “Protection of Animals Act of 1911,” 18 August 1911. The UK Statute Law Database, accessed December 1, 2010. www.statetuelaw.gov.uk/content.aspz?activeTextDocId=1069356. 8 “Animal Welfare Act of 2006,” 8 November 2006. The UK Statute Law Database. www.state- tuelaw.gov.uk/content.aspz?activeTextDocId=2926439, accessed 1 December 2010.