NNNNN

obtained by the ancient republic; but, previous to the introduction of Christianity, the codes of legislators were filled with regulations of mercy in favour of animals. The code of Triptolemus may be cited as an evidence of the estimation in which animals used for labour were held; and the agricultural Ro. man writers would lead us to think that the laws were more favourable to beasts than to men. We affect at present to look on Spartan manners with contempt; it were well if, in some cases, we studied Spartan humanity. The tribunal which condemned a boy to death for wantonly plucking out the eyes of a bird, pronounced a merciful judgment; animals were no longer mutilated, and infant's sports became less atrocious. If there be any thing in the ordinary occurrences of life which calls loudly for the restraining hand of the legislator, it is the inhumanity with which the animal race is treated."

In the trial of William Parker (July sessions, 1794) for tearing out the tongue of a mare, Mr. Justice Heath said, "In order to convict a man for barbarous treatment of a beast, it was necessary it should appear that he had malice towards the prosecutor." It appears then, that had the mare been the property of this wretch, he had escaped punish

ment.

In November, 1793, two butchers of Manchester were convicted in the penalty of twenty shillings each, for cutting off the feet of living sheep, and driving them through the streets. The sheep were not their own property or, we suppose, they might with impunity have been allowed to dissect them alive.

A butcher in the same town has been frequently seen to hang poor calves up alive, with the gambrik

INNNN

put through their sinews, and hooks stuck through their nostrils, the dismal bleating of the miserable animals continuing till they had slowly bled to death. Such proceedings frequently struck the neighbourhood with horror. Attempts were made to prevent the hellish nuisances caused by this man, but in vain, for he did but torture his own property! Such are the glaring imperfections of the laws of a civilized, a humane, a christian country!

The manners of a people are materially affected by the laws of the government under which they live; an injunction, therefore, from the first authority, in behalf of the innocent and unoffending part of creation would have the happiest influence on the conduct of mankind. But since justice slumbers, why does not universal indignation rise against be. ings, for whom language has no adequate abhorrent name, to drive them from human society?

The abolition of the monstrous custom of Bullbaiting was attempted by a bill, which was read before the Honourable the House of Commons, on the 18th April, 1800, but rejected, by a majority of two votes, altho' petitions in favour of it were signed by long lists of the most respectable names of the nobilitp, gentry, clergy, freeholders, and manufacturers, as well as magistrates, within the circles where it is most practised, namely Shropshire and Staffordshire. It was opposed by the Right Hon. William Windham, secretary at war, in an harangue of an hour and a half. Recourse was had, in this speech, to Pagan games, and to the folly of popish festivals, as laudable examples for English protestants; and even the shocking barbarity of Spanish bull-fights was held up to their imitation, while the driveling disposition of that cowardly people gave the lie to

ΟΝ ΝΑΤΙΟΝΑL PROTECTION,

257

every thing which could be asserted of the bewitching efficacy of cruelty to inspire manliness and martial courage. In this age of superior wisdom it is truly astonishing that bull-baiting should be encouraged by the representatives of a great nation. On the 15th of May 1809, Lord Erskine. addressed the House of Peers, on the second reading of the bill for preventing malicious and wanton cruelty to animals, in an elaborate and excellent speech, in which he gave an impressive view of the most striking arguments in favour of a mild and humane treatment of the inferior creation. "It would be a painful and disgusting detail," said he, "were I to endeavour to bring before you the almost innu. inerable instances of cruelty to animals, which are daily occuring in this country, and which, unfor tunately, only gather strength by any efforts of humanity in individuals to repress them, without the aid of the law. These unmanly and disgusting outrages are most frequently perpetrated by the basest and most worthless; incapable, for the most part, of any reproof which can reach the mind, and who know no more of the law, than that it suffers them to indulge their savage dispositions with impunity.

Nothing is more notorious than that it is not only useless, but dangerous, to poor suffering animals, to reprove their oppressors, or to threaten them with punishment. The general answer, with the addition of bitter oaths and increased cruelty, is, WHAT IS THAT TO YOU? If the offender be a servant, he curses you, and asks, are you my master? and if he be the master himself, he tells you that the animal is his own. The validity of this most infamous and stupid defence, arises from that defect in the

law which I seek to remedy, Animals are consid ered as property only. To destroy or abuse them, from malice to the proprietor, or with an intention in jurious to his interest in them, is criminal, but the animals themselves are without protection; the law re gards them not substantively; they have no RIGHTS.” The whole of this valuable speech was published by R. Phillips, at 9d.

Mr. Windham thought the measure would be pro. ductive of more mischief than advantage; and said, it was beneath the dignity of parliament to legislate on subjects of this kind. Mr. D. Giddy opposed the bill on the ground of Mr. Windham. Mr/Stephen, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Frankland, Mr. Jekyl, and Mr. W. Smith, spoke in favour of the bill. The The bill was rejected by a motion for going into a committee, June 15. For the motion, 27; against it, 31.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.

After the foregoing portion of clear deductions resulting from fact and experience, in favour of a vegetable diet, and distilled water, it will be said. "these men are mad;" yes, verily, Dr. Arbuthnot, Dr. Cheyne, Dr. Elliot, Dr. Buchan, Dr. Percival; nay Hippocrates, Galen, Sydenham and Haller, were all madmen; and Dr. Lambe is a madman; and so is Mr. Abernethy for writing in favour of Dr. Lambe's system; and so are all the adherents of Dr. Lambe; they are all madmen, in the phraseology of the world. Seriously, I am so much accustomed to this slimsy anathema, that I disregard it; for if a man does any thing great, or wise, or good, he is pronounced a madman. Festus accounted St. Paul a madman; Faust, who improved the art of printing,

was held to be in league with satan; Galileo was imprisoned for maintaining the Copernican system; Columbus, Newton, Linnæus, Howard, and Reynolds, have all been called madmen.

I might swell my book enormously, with instan ces of this kind of miscalled madness.

No, the advocates of humanity, of nature, of God, "are not mad, but speak the words of truth and soberness."

It has been asserted, with great emphasis, that "There is no species of hatred greater than that which a man of mediocrity bears to men of genius. Their reach of thought, their successful combinations, their forcible appeals, their strong deductions, are never forgiven. The eagle cannot soar, but the crows are chattering after him."

A man of limited information has long settled his ideas as to every thing, and every person. He thinks no opinion of any importance but his own; and shuts his ears to whatever opposes it. He sees only "himself and the universe," and will "admit no discourse to his beauty." Lavater has said, 66 wise man changes his opinions; a fool never."

A

From men of imperious temper, inflated by wealth, devoted to sensual gratifications, and influenced by fashion, no share of humanity can be expected. He who is capable of enslaving his own species, of treating the inferior ranks of them with contempt or austerity, and who can be unmoved by their misfortunes, is a man formed of the materials of a cannibal, and will exercise his temper on the lower orders of animal life with inflexible obduracy. No arguments of truth or justice can affect such a hardened mind. Even persons of more gentle natures, having been long initiated in corrupt habits, do not readily listen to sen.