and this for no reason but that of the unfortunate animals yielding to the irresistible force of appetite, in devouring whatever edible substance they find on the baited hook, or that has fallen by accident overboard. The fisher may think he does an act of justice in torturing the enemy of his trade; and the seaman that he is authorized to inflict on the devourer of his companion, a punishment commensurate to the wrong. But what shall we say of such parsons as him of Pentlow, of whom Lawrence gives the following anecdote :-"The worthy priest had lost a chicken, and soon after taking a poor hawk, the supposed offender, he put the animal to the torture of a slow and lingering death, for doing his duty by following the instinct of his nature. The poor bird was turned adrift, with a label affixed to his neck, containing these quaint and inhuman lines: "The parson of Pentlow he did this, For killing one poor chicken of his ; He put out his eyes, and sewed up *** ***, One would suppose that wretches like this sought to level their impotent revenge against the God of nature himself."-LAWRENCE on the Horse, vol. i. p. 152. White of Selborne presents us with a similar instance of merciless atrocity, but without the stigma of his merited animadversion. "A neighbouring gentleman one summer had lost most of his chickens by a sparrow-hawk. * * The owner, inwardly vexed to see his flock diminishing, hung a setting net adroitly between the pile and the house, into which the caitiff dashed and was entangled. Resentment suggested the law of retaliation; he therefore clipped the hawk's wings, cut off his talons, and fixing a cork on his bill, threw him down among the brood-hens. Imagination cannot paint the scene that ensued; the expressions that fear, rage, and revenge inspired, were new, or at least such as were unnoticed before. The exasperated matrons upbraided-they execrated -they insulted-they triumphed. In a word, they never desisted from buffetting their adversary, till they had torn. him in a hundred pieces."-Letter lxxxv. Thus to injure and destroy animals for obeying the instincts of their nature, is not only a violation of their rights, and a demonstration of ignorance and barbarism, but an act of rebellion against God: and yet there is nothing which causes them to be more frequently visited with vengeance, than their obedience to laws which they have no power to resist. It is as natural for the fox to seize on the poultry of the farm-yard, as for man to eat of the fruits of the earth; and it would be as reasonable and just to break a man's bones for eating partridge, as to torture a bird of prey for partaking of the same fare. In nothing is some men's inconsistency more striking than in their mode of treating animals. They value or abuse bird or beast, just as its instincts happen to accord or disagree with their own wishes or convenience. A cat is prized for vigilance and activity in clearing the house of vermin; but if, in obedience to the same instinct which makes her a good hunter, she seizes on a goldfinch or canary bird, she is in no small danger of being worried to death. FOTHERGILL, in his Philosophy of Natural History, pp. 172, 173, justly observes that "Nothing can be more childish and unphilosophical than to call the tiger cruel, the eagle inexorable, or the crocodile merciless, attaching any peculiar malignity to those terms; since in allaying their imperious appetites, such animals are but fulfilling, in their various capacities, the word of Him who commanded the one to roam the forests, another to haunt the inaccessible heights of craggy mountains, and the third to dwell amidst the solitary waters of a desert land; each to mitigate evils that would soon become fatal and universal without the use of such agency. In the sight of Omnipotence and of unlimited benevolence, the lion is not less innocent in the destruction of his prey, even though that prey should be the proud lord of the creation himself, than the bleating lamb, while browsing on the tender grass allotted for its food: nor is the gaunt wolf, smeared with gore, and warm from the carnage, more guilty than the plaintive dove that picks up the scattered grain of the field. To the God of nature the scream of the vulture, echoing from the awful solitude of the Andes, is not more frightful than the melodious strains of the nightingale, rising in full chorus from the groves of Italy. Man alone is cruel; he alone is oppressive and inexorable; and he alone bears the tremendous responsibility." "The moth that eats into our clothes has something to plead for our pity; for he came, like us, naked into the world, and he has destroyed our garments, not in malice or wantonness, but that he may clothe himself with the same wool which we have stripped from the sheep."— Insect Architecture, p. 2. May not something be pleaded in behalf even of the book-worm? When Parnel hunted and sacrificed this creature, which he denominates a ravening beast of prey," he should have spared it for the services which it sometimes renders to religion, by reducing to powder the worthless tomes of scholastic divinity and theological jargon, which have tended only to cloud the understanding, and obstruct the pure and holy influences of Gospel truth. To a mind accustomed to meditate on the works and ways of God, nothing affords such a subject of admiration as the various arts practised by animals to obtain their food; their stratagems, their contrivances, their labours, patience, perseverance, and courage afford an inexhaustible source of curious and gratifying research. An eminent naturalist, with some of whose observations these pages have already been enriched, after giving a detailed account of the marvellous ingenuity of spiders in capturing their prey, thus proceeds: "Instead of considering them (spiders) as repulsive compounds of cruelty and ferocity, you will henceforward see in their procedures only the ingenious contrivance of patient and industrious hunters, who, while obeying the great law of nature in procuring their sustenance, are actively serviceable to the human race in destroying noxious insects. You will allow the poet to stigmatize them as but you will see that these epithets are in reality as unjustly applied to them, (at least with reference to the mode in which they procure their necessary subsistence) as to the patient sportsman who lays snares for the birds that are to serve for the dinner of his family; and when you hear the fluttering wing And shriller sound declare extreme distress," you will as little think it the part of true mercy to stretch forth" the helping hospitable hand" to the entrapped fly, as to the captive birds. The spider requires his meal as well as the Indian; and however to our weak capacity the great law of creation "eat or be eaten" may seem cruel or unnecessary, knowing, as we do, that it is the ordinance of a beneficent Being who does all things well, and that in fact the sum of happiness is greatly augmented by it, no man who does not let a morbid sensibility get the better of his judgment, will, on account of their subjection to this rale, look upon predaceous animals with abhorrence." —vol. i. pp. 424, 425. CAUSES OF CRUELTY. SECTION FIFTH. ANTIPATHIES. "Some men there are love not a gaping pig; Some that are mad if they behold a cat."-SHAKSPEARE. NATURE has kindly and wisely given certain instinctive feelings to animals, by which they immediately become conscious of the presence of an enemy. Thus a hen recognizes the hawk as the foe of her downy brood, and clucks them under her wing, whenever the bird of prey makes its appearance. The hare flees from the hound; the horse shudders at the growl of a lion; and the cock has more dread of the weasel than of all the wild beasts of Africa. Some animals have a mutual dislike, which we call ANTIPATHY, to each other; as the dog and the cat, the elephant and the rhinoceros, the horse and the ass, until they become reconciled by custom. Man seems to partake of these feelings, as is evident from the dislike which he manifests for certain creatures, and his eagerness to destroy them wherever they are to be found. Many, so far from thinking it an inhuman act, make it their pride and boast to tell how they have killed ear-wigs, spiders, beetles, caterpillars, and rats, not because these creatures are injurious to them or their property, but simply from an unaccountable dislike. Some delicate ladies shout and scream till the welkin rings, at the sight of a mouse or a cock-roach. This may often be imputed to affectation and childish folly; but sometimes, we doubt not, to an unaffected apprehension of a bite or a sting. Why animals that are formidable for their strength and ferocity, their poisonous fangs and retractile claws, should be dreaded, may be easily understood. Few would choose to hug a porcupine or hedgehog, or suffer a scorpion to nestle in their bosom. But wherefore should the most harmless and timid of creatures excite apprehension and disgust? One is frightened from his propriety by a death's-head-moth, and another thrown into convulsions by a fork-tailed reptile. Germanicus, a high-spirited Roman soldier, could not endure the sight or the voice of a cock, an antipathy of which Beattie the poet and philosopher partook, and which he has expressed in the most merciless malediction ever uttered by a " minstrel" on a noble bird. Fell chanticleer! who oft hath reft away Let harmony aye shut her gentle ear; Thy boastful mirth let jealous rivals spill, And ever in thy dreams the ruthless fox appear!" This curse, like the false prophet's, must be reversed : Kind chanticleer! who oft hath scared away The night-mare's horrors with thy clarion shrill; O, to thy jocund voice, harmonious still, May sage and poet lend a grateful ear; Thy gallant breast may love's pure transports thrill; May plenty gloss thy plumes, and joy thy spirit cheer! Man's antipathies are not limited to animals; they extend to various other objects, to fruits, flowers, and various |
