The Second Brown Dog Affair, also referred to as the Brown Dog Riots, the Bronze Statue Riots and the 1927 London Riots, was a period of rioting, political clashes and civil discontent in Greater London during the summer of 1927. Born out of violent protests against a controversial bronze statue to commemorate the First Brown Dog Affair, the protests swelled to encompass varying discontent against the new republican government, taking on a pro-Royalist tone at their zenith.
Ultimately the statue had to be removed from the city under military escort and was moved to a secret warehouse in Birmingham. It was re-erected - sans plaque - in 1930. While the statue was protected, the rioting did lead to the investigation and then repealment of some of Britain's anti-vivisection laws, which had been until then, the strictest in the world.
Background[]
Origins[]
There has been significant historic opposition to vivisection in Great Britain, particularly among the socialist movement. In 1878 there were under 300 experiments on animals in the UK, a figure that had risen to 19,084 in 1903 when the brown dog was vivisected (according to the inscription on the second Brown Dog statue), and to some 50,000 prior to the British Civil War. Physiologists in the 19th century were frequently criticized for their work, which often forewent anaesthesia. In 1875 Irish feminist Frances Power Cobbe founded the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) in London and in 1898 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The former sought to restrict vivisection and the latter to abolish it.
The First Brown Dog Affair[]
The original Brown Dog Affair erupted in London in 1903, following allegations that William Bayliss of the Department of Physiology at University College London performed an illegal vivisection, before an audience of 60 medical students, on a brown terrier dog—adequately anaesthetized, according to Bayliss and his team; conscious and struggling, according to the Swedish feminists, Lizzy Lind af Hageby and Leisa Schartau. The procedure was condemned as cruel and unlawful by the National Anti-Vivisection Society. Outraged by the assault on his reputation, Bayliss, whose research on dogs led to the discovery of hormones, sued for libel and won.
Anti-vivisectionists commissioned a bronze statue of the dog as a memorial, unveiled on the Latchmere Recreation Ground in Battersea in 1906, near the National Anti-Vivisection and Battersea General Hospital but medical students were angered by its provocative plaque—"Men and women of England, how long shall these Things be?"—leading to frequent vandalism of the memorial and the need for a 24-hour police guard against the so-called anti-Doggers. On 10 December 1907, hundreds of medical students marched through central London waving effigies of the brown dog on sticks, clashing with suffragettes, trade unionists and 300 police officers, one of a series of pitched battles known as the Brown Dog Riots.
In March 1910, tired of the controversy, Battersea Council sent four workers accompanied by 120 police officers to remove the statue under cover of darkness, after which it was reportedly melted down by the council's blacksmith, despite a 20,000-strong petition and numerous protests in its favour.
Anti-Vivisectionism and the Republic[]
The leadership of Britain was now comprised of many supporters of animal rights activists and anti-Vivisectionists, some trade unionists having participated in the First Brown Dog Affair. With the NAVS and similar organisations such as the Humanitarian League, now controlling the ear of the government, there was extensive talk and deliberation of how the Republic would treat the issue of animals. Vivisection was still regulated under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and anti-vivisection societies began a massive campaign to have the old act abolished and new regulations brought into place. What these would look like however was to be seen with the NAVS simply seeking to regulate it and the BUAV which wished to abolish it entirely.
In December of 1926, the campaigns were largely successful with, as part of the new criminal code, extensive animal rights legislation passed as part of the Animal Keeping and Cruelty Act 1926. Vivisection was now so heavily regulated, it was in effect banned in all but name, and illegal vivisections carried a potential punishment of 5 years' imprisonment depending on the severity of the case. Medical colleges were outraged as the procedures could now only performed by an 'officially licensed person' with the government not eager to hand out said licenses. Tensions began to bubble and various medical organisations called for the laws to be repealed.
Summer Riots[]
Initial Protests[]
In early 1927, to commemorate the victory for the Anti-Vivisectionists, the NAVS raised £150 for a replica bronze statue that would likewise sit on a granite plinth and serve as a drinking found for both humans and animals. Per negotiations with the syndicalist controlled Battersea Council, the old spot in Battersea, which had remained empty, was to once more serve as the home of the memorial. Likewise, a new plaque was also commissioned which maintained much of the same wording but instead made reference to all animals having undergone vivisection and the 'cruel, uncaring nature of man's evil science'. The statue was unveiled on the 17 May 1927 to a crowd of over 200 people, which future Chairman Tom Mann addressed and, following a quick prayer, signalled his hopes Britain could lead the world in the rights of animals.
Like with its predecessor, the statue immediately antagonised the medical community. The British Medical Journal published a piece declaring it 'the greatest example of pettiness the world over' and many scientists felt it was disrespectful to Sir Bayliss who had only died some three years prior. Medical students from London universities declared that they would do as their predecessors had done and threatened to remove the statue by force. Not wishing for a repeat of the prior disturbances, Battersea council requested that four police officers be stationed at the statue at all times to act as a deterrent. The medical students were undeterred and across the country, students from various universities along with researchers and academics declared their intention to march on London with the intention of demanding the London Council remove the statue. They threatened that if their demands were not met, they would destroy it themselves.
To combat this, London anti-Vivisectionists formed the Brown Dog Defence Committee - a successor to the prior committee of the name - vowing they would defend the statue against the students. Local Battersea trade unionists and socialists who were sympathetic to the pro-Doggers pledged their support to the Committee and began to raise money to help sponsor 'citizen patrols' to help the police in their duties. The pro-Doggers were praised and mocked in equal measure by the press for their commitment to the defence of the statue and anti-Vivisectionist ideals. Future Minister of Information, Wilfred Risdon, became a notable figure at pro-Dogger events, helping to fundraise for the group. While leadership was not central, it was agreed by the Committee and its supporting organisations that the protection of the anti-vivisection laws (the repealment of which was a major demand of the anti-Doggers) was essential.
Towards late May, the anti-Doggers had begun to properly organise with a large column of medical students planning to march on the site of the statue, armed with 'pipes and crowbars'. After meeting in Hyde Park, their procession made way to Battersea and the site of the memorial carrying a large paper effigy of the brown dog and being led by a man playing bagpipes. However, large police detachment had cordoned off part of Latchmere Recreation Ground and prevented them from making their way to the statue. Instead, the procession headed to the anti-vivisection hospital and chanted for an end to vivisection laws. While initially peaceful, some of the students began to launch missiles and soon they began to smash windows and attempt to force entry. Angered locals proceeded to charge the students and drive them off, chanting that this was 'the Brown Dog's Revenge'. Thirteen arrests were carried out and medical students from other cities made haste for London to support their academic comrades.
The June Riots[]
Riots began in earnest in early June when medical students and researchers from across the country descended on London to protest the anti-vivisection laws in general and the statue in particular. Large crowds of anti-Doggers began to gather in Westminster and paraded down the Strand, being led by an unknown busker playing Scotland the Brave on bagpipes. To help identify themselves, many of the anti-Doggers had worn turquoise-green cloth armbands, often over their lab coats. To the surprise of the anti-Doggers, many doctors had also joined the protests in opposition to the creation of the National Health Service and they began to swell past their initial opposition purely to the statue.
The protestors proceeded through central London and remain mostly peaceful, if boisterous, while waving effigies of the Brown Dog and placards with pro-vivisection slogans. The crowd grew as stragglers joined the march and fearing a confrontation, the Met sent an additional six constables to guard the statue. Eventually the crowd, now 500 strong, reached Trafalgar Square, and 100 constables had been dispatched to keep the peace. A large group of London trade unionists, sympathetic to the pro-Doggers, confronted the anti-Doggers and attempted to tear down the placards and banners they had attached to Nelson's Column with a large brawl promptly breaking out. In the ensuing scuffle, the police attempted to break up the two groups leading to many of the anti-Doggers to flee into the city and cause chaos in riotous mobs. Windows were smashed, fires started and policemen attacked. Only a small group of students were able to reach the Brown Dog statue but were quickly chased off by the police.
With tensions running high, rioting broke out all across the city as medical and veterinary students united once more with doctors and academics to protest the anti-Vivisection laws and incoming reforms to the health service. Sporadic political violence occured as pro and anti-Dogger groups engaged in small-scale brawls, while both sides damaged property and buildings. Shops, factories and homes were attacked along with the pro-Doggers taking their violence toward medical clinics and offices leading to increase support for the anti-Doggers among unaffiliated professions such as dentists and pharmacists. The police desperately tried to contain the violence and hundreds of arrests were made. Congresswoman Sylvia Pankhurst famously became involved in the controversy when a meeting she was hosting in favour of the health reforms was raided by the anti-Doggers. Chairs were smashed, stink bombs were thrown and Pankhurst and her entourage were forced to evacuate the building amid chants of "Get a bath Ms. Pankhurst!"
The issue became so severe, the TUC began to seriously debate the possibility of simply giving into the anti-Doggers and repealing the anti-Vivisection laws. Those in favour argued that they needlessly stifled scientific advancement and that Britain would 'fall deeply behind its continental counterparts' whereas those opposed declared any opposition would be a return to barbarism and needless suffering. Amid the debates, many London feminists sided with the pro-Doggers following attacks on their demonstrations by the anti-Doggers . Likewise, an apathy towards the male-dominated medical profession and a resurgence of the notion that the experience of vivisection was similar to that of women force-fed during the suffrage debate or strapped down for childbirth and medical procedures, helped fan the flames of anger.
The anti-Doggers saw their own numbers swell though, as pupils who had not gone into exile from prestigious public schools and colleges (particularly Eton) traveled to London to join the protests. Their own outrage was influenced by the Board of Education's u-turn on qualifications and courses at such prestigious schools. In 1926, the government had pledged that all students who remained at the old public schools would be integrated into the new system but be allowed to keep studying their courses and receive qualifications in said courses. Though with the passing of the 1927 Better Education Act, this policy was now reversed. The practice of fagging (a form of indentured servitude) had been wholly abolished much to the outrage of students who had endured the system, and such prestigious schools were now forced to offer 'practical subjects' such as metalwork and engineering in lieu of Greek and Latin. Students were informed they would have to immediately switch to these new courses as allowing them to continue was simply not feasible due to a lack of teachers and examiners . GCT Giles, the President of the Board of Education, later claimed the opening of Eton's first woodwork shop had been the final straw. In London, these pupils joined the anti-Dogger protests, sometimes being hosted by the older students, and made their own demands to be allowed to sit their old courses and be exempt from such 'dirty' subjects.
The June Riots reached their climax when on the evening of the 29 June, a procession of anti-Doggers, now buoyed by their new allies, were finally able to overwhelm the police and siege the statue. After the officers retreated, the anti-Doggers took 'all manner of horrible weapons from led pipes to crowbars and sticks' to the statue. While they were unable to topple it before the police forced a retreat, they were able to enact significant damage, partially destroying the plinth and and removing the dog's nose and tail.
Occupation of the University College of London[]
Outraged by the prior damage done to the Brown Dog statue, a large contingent of pro-Doggers, began preparations for retaliation, deciding to finally attach the University that had sparked the saga. Only two days later, around 500 pro-Doggers entered the UCL campus, lead by a group of 'burley shop stewards' and demanded that they be allowed to conduct an 'inspection of the premises' to clarify that no animals were being kept illegally. The stewards were refused entry, the doors were locked and the pro-Doggers promptly besieged the building. After having managed to storm the premises, the procession made their way to the medical departments. Stink bombs were thrown into crowded lecture theatres, windows were smashed and laboratory equipment was damaged. One student would claim that the pro-Doggers took particular zeal in 'ripping the doors of supply cupboards off their hinges' believing these were hiding imprisoned animals. In a notable moment, a large chalkboard with 'ANIMAL MURDERERS' written on it was thrown a lecture theatre window.
The anti-Dogger medical students retreated to other areas of the campus and rally their fellow students and faculty to launch a counter-attack and drive the pro-Doggers out. After gathering in the main halls, the students began to arm themselves with an assortment of rudimentary melee weaponry and prepared their counter-attack. Some students of the Classics department and their tutors instead declared their allegiance to the Brown Dog and unfurled red flags but after short brawl, the students and teachers were beaten, tied up and locked in a supply cupboard. The anti-Doggers launched an attack but were beaten back by the pro-Doggers who soon rescued their captured students and teachers. The anti-Doggers returned fire soon after though, now armed with crudely produced stink bombs, missiles and other rudimentary weapons, forcing the pro-Doggers back to safety in the now barricaded medical department.
After some hours of pro-Dogger occupation of the medical facilities, the police had finally mustered enough strength to lay siege themselves. Taking over seven hours, the police experienced extensive fighting and had to dismantle pro-Dogger barricades as they went, being reinforced by the anti-Dogger students, eager to take their university back. Writing on the event, George Lansbury declared this was the only time that anti-Doggers and the police had fought on the same side. Over 300 people were arrested at the university.
In the aftermath, the University estimated that the damages would cost some £8,000 and 10 constables were placed outside the university's entrance to deter further attacks. The British Medical Journal jumped on the event declaring that it depicted the 'inherent feeble-mindedness' of the anti-Vivisectionists and their supporters in 'lapping up sordid tales of dog murder and buggery' at the UCL, despite having no basis in reality. While modern historians have recognised that (unfounded) rumours of illegal vivisection at universities was commonplace in the pro-Dogger factions, there is little to indicate this was in fact a driving force in the attack on the university. Rather, the pro-Doggers saw it as the final outrage and retributive justice for the constant abuse they had suffered at the hands of the anti-Dogger students.
The Bronze Statue Wars[]
After a brief period of lesser violence and comparatively peaceful protests following the UCL incident, the violence was reignited with the so-called 'Bronze Statue Wars'. In Poplar, a bronze statue of George Lansbury had been erected as a monument to the Poplar Rates Rebellion by the local council. In the middle of July, the statue was discovered to have been vandalised the night before: the statue had been decapitated and daubed in purple paint. A week later it had been toppled and a union jack cast of over the remains. Local socialists and trade unionists were outraged and in turn vandalised statues of prominent medical figures and colleges in the city. The violence broke out again between pro and anti-Doggers with additional attempts to topple the statue of the Brown Dog. Likewise, many statues to prominent socialists and social reformers were toppled, with an increasing display of anti-government sentiment at anti-Dogger demonstrations.
The tensions had been so high that George Lansbury published an open letter to the 'People of London' calling for calm and restraint while condemning what he called 'the un-Christian and un-brotherly nature' of the violence. Declaring that this was a time for rebuilding and good-neighbourliness among men, attitudes that 'an old statue or two cannot, must not, ever be allowed to trump' but his calls did little to stem the tide. Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple also joined the calls for restraint and toured the effected areas of London while conducting speeches. The TUC began to seriously consider repealing some of its anti-vivisection laws and bills started to be prepared.
As the renewed riots wore on into August, there was no sign of their momentum slowing and the anti-Dogger protests quickly become more anti-government in nature. The medical students that had started the protests had become dwarfed by more common citizens and other interest groups that had alternative grievances. Battersea returned to being a frequent site of clashes between the pro and anti-Doggers and police presence in the area became more pronounced. Allegations of Royalist infiltration of the anti-Doggers became more common and highlighted at the Battle of Battersea General Hospital.
The anti-Doggers had planned to make their stand at the hospital but during their march, were ambushed at Hyde Park by a group of pro-Doggers wearing assorted animal masks. After the ensuing fight, some of the anti-Doggers - many of them students that had lost their enthusiasm - abandoned the march but a large procession continued, many waving Union Jacks and shouting God Save the King. Having heard of the march, pro-Doggers gathered at the hospital and began assembling makeshift protective barricades to the shock and surprise of the hospital staff. After arriving, the anti-Doggers attempted to besiege the barricades but were fought back and ultimately chased off by the pro-Dogger forces. The anti-Doggers regrouped across the Thames and held a brief anti-government demonstration before being forced to disperse.
The violence began to slowly decline once more but there were three more attempts to topple the Brown Dog Statue following the Battersea incident. Guarding the statue was now jokingly termed 'the dangerous posting in all of London' by regular officers and the Metropolitan Police warned the Battersea Council if the attempts continued they would not be able to guarantee the statue's safety. Growing fed up of the constant damage and violence, in the middle of September, under cover of darkness. six council workers acompanied by two hundred constables removed the statue and covertly placed it in the garage of one of the councillors. Both pro and anti-doggers were outraged at the removal and demanded that it be returned and be handed over to them respectively. The pro-Doggers were concerned that history was repeating and the statue would be melted down like its predecessor whereas the anti-Doggers believed that it was being kept hidden until tensions had died down. Fearful of either side finding the statue and igniting further riots, the London Council enlisted the Republican Army to help move it to a secret warehouse in Birmingham where it remained for the next three years.
Aftermath[]
Following an announcement by the Battersea Council that the statue was to be 'kept safe in a special location indefinitely', both sides experienced a brief spurt of momentum before rapidly whittling away. The Brown Dog Defence Committee issued a petition for the statue's return and gathered 50,000 signatures while mobilising popular protests in Hyde Park, to no avail. The anti-Doggers were partially satisfied in that the statue had been removed but comparatively peaceful protests against vivisection would carry on briefly. The BMJ reprinted its famous proposal for the statue, though partially amended, as seen below.
"May we suggest that the most appropriate resting place for the rejected work of art is the Home for Lost Dogs at Battersea, where it could be "done to death", as the inscription says, with a hammer in the presence of Mr Lansbury and his many friends; if their feelings were too much for them, doubtless an anaesthetic could be administered."
In October, the Animal Keeping and Cruelty Act 1926 was amended by the Vivisection Regulations Act 1927 which saw some of the strictest regulations lifted. Illegal vivisections remained a criminal offense and anaesthetics had to be applied in all procedures but the restrictions around conducting them were partially lifted, allowing academic vivisections and other animal testing to recommence to the disgust of the anti-vivisectionists. Some protests continued by the Pro-Doggers but by the end of the month all momentum had been lost.
Three years later, on the 1 October 1930, to the surprise of the local residents, the statue had returned to its home in the recreation grounds, now fully restored. Three police officers were placed at the statue at all times but barring one incident in which a woman attempted to throw a bucket of red paint at it, the statue remained unharmed. In 1931, the police guard was lifted.
Legacy[]
The Second Brown Dog Affair has sparked much historical debate regarding the contextualisation of events. Contemporary opinions praised and mocked both sides of the Dogger diarchy for their revolutionary zeal to such a trivial cause with much concern and shock at how so much damage could be done. Foreign news outlets - particularly in France - contextualised the events as being the overhang of the civil war and more a representative of general discontent.
Historians and critics have likewise began to embrace the notion that the events were more a proxy for political sentiment regarding the new state than they were for the dog or vivisection. Battersea councillor and the first Black mayor in London, John Archer, wrote on both Brown Dog Affairs in his book 'The Dog that Died for England', discussing that the riots had an inherently 'partisan' tone to them and that even in the early days, it was not unusual to see a union flag flown against the green banners of the anti-Doggers. Archer further wrote that the medical students were 'tired, stressed and emotionally unstable' and became the manifestation of middle class anger. Likewise, the pro-Doggers were 'those of the workers and progressives' looking to protect the new republic they had won.
Modern historians have further built on these notions, with medical students attesting that even when the riots began, royalists participated to enact resistance against the government and that the riots were a means of protesting their general discontent with the Republic, rather than just the vivisection laws. Ultimately, the Brown Dog prevailed though the battle of vivisection continues to rage on with NAVS and BUAV protests being a common fixture in major cities.