tem of extreme fenfibility; and in order to carry it to full perfection, it would become neceffary to build hospitals for lice and fleas. It is true, every cuftom, however ancient or universally established, ought to be subject to the tribunal of reason; and this, of killing and feeding upon the flesh of animals will, I apprehend, abide the feverest scrutiny. Nature herfelf, by rendering it neceffary, has established the legality of putting a period to harmful or useless existence; fhe has alfo established the carnivorous fyftem upon the fame foundation; and the pretended superior falubrity to man, of feeding entirely upon the fruits of the earth, is warranted by neither reafon nor experience. By the scheme of universal providence, the services between man and beast are intended to be reciprocal; and the greater part of the latter can by no other means requite human labour and care, than by the forfeiture of life. Were it not permitted to man to destroy animals, it is evident they would overstock the earth; and in numberless cafes, it is an act of mercy to take their lives.

Thus much for the theory of right, in animals; which, I truft, will not be controverted by those of found minds, and feeling hearts, to whom this chapter is more particularly addressed. But the bare acknowledgment of the right, will be but of fmall avail to the unfortu

nate

nate objects of our folicitude, unless fome mode of practical remedy can also be devised. On that head I fhall venture to deliver my fenti

ments.

The grand fource of the unmerited and fuperfluous mifery of beasts, exists, in my opinion, in a defect in the conflitution of all communities. No human government, I believe, has ever recognized the jus animalium, which furely ought to form a part of the jurisprudence of every fyftem, founded on the principles of justice and humanity. The fimple right of these four-legged, and mute citizens, hath already been difcuffed. Experience plainly demonftrates the inefficacy of mere morality to prevent aggreffion, and the neceffity of coercive laws for the fecurity of rights. I therefore propose, that the Rights of Beasts be formally acknowledged by the state, and that a law be framed upon that principle, to guard and protect them from acts of flagrant and wanton cruelty, whether committed by their owners or others. As the law ftands at present, no man is punishable for an act of the most extreme cruelty to a brute animal, but upon the principle of an injury done to the property of another; of courfe the owner of a beaft has the tacit allowance of the law to inflict upon it, if he fhall so please, the moft horrid barbarities. If fuch enormities had never been, or were not

now

now too frequently perpetrated, these speculations had never seen the light.

66

In the trial of William Parker (July feffions, 1794) for tearing out the tongue of a mare, Mr. Juftice Heath faid, " In order to convict a man for barbarous treatment of a beaft, it was neceffary it should appear, that he had malice towards the prosecutor." Thus we fee, had the mare been the property of this fiend, he had escaped punishment. In November, 1793, two Manchester butchers were convicted in the penalty of twenty fhillings each, for cutting off the feet of living fheep, and driving them through the streets. Had the fheep been their own property, they might, with impunity, either have diffected them alive, or burned them alive; particularly, if in imitation of certain examples, they could have made any allegation of profit. A butcher, in **** ftreet, has been more than once feen to hang a poor calf up alive, with the gambrill stuck through its finews, and the rope thruft through its noftrils, until the bleating of the tortured animal has disturbed the neighbourhood. But who shall prevent this this man, seeing he does but torture his own property, for his own amufement and fatisfaction? Whilft I am writing this, I have received information of a poor horse's tongue having been cut out, and of several cattle hav

ing been hamftrung, and otherwise treated with the most diabolical cruelty.

It results from fuch premises, that unless you make legal and formal recognition of the Rights of Beasts, you cannot punish cruelty and aggreffion, without trespaffing upon right of property. Divest property of the ufurped and fictitious addition to its right, and you have the means of protecting animals, and fecuring the dearest interests of morality.

A law of this nature would effectually fweep

away

all those hellish nuisances, mifcalled sports; such as the baiting and torturing animals to death, throwing at cocks, hunting tame ducks, fometimes with a wretched owl fastened to their backs, eating live cats, and the like; in which favage exercitations, the unnatural and prepofterous idea is fostered and encouraged, that one animal can derive fportive and pleafing fenfations, from witneffing the lingering tortures and excruciated fenfibility of another. An idea in which human reafon is totally overset by barbarous custom; and a fignal one, among innumerable proofs, of the necessity of a perpetual recourse to first principles.

No true and lawful, that is to fay, rational, useful, and delightful sports, would be interrupted by this regulation, but rather confirmed, illuftrated, and improved. No right of property would be infringed in the smallest degree.

The

The manners of a people are neceffarily formed by the government under which they live; and an injunction proceeding from fuch high authority, in fupport of natural justice, and in favour of the helplefs and unoffending part of the creation, would, in process of time, have the happiest influence upon the feelings and moral conduct of men. It would be the first ftep towards thofe auxiliary measures necessary to render the fyftem of humanity effectual and complete; which are, to make the rights of beafts a material branch of education, and to afford a fanction to thofe who are emulous to ftand forward volunteers in the noble cause of juftice and mercy.

It is now necessary to attend to the practical part of the subject, to adduce fuch examples as experience and recollection may suggest, and to afford fuch hints, as I hope, I may flatter myfelf will produce fome fmall tendency towards the defired reformation. I have been by no means unmindful, from the beginning of this chapter, of the cenfure and ridicule to which I am expofing myfelf from the indolent, the prejudiced, and the naturally hard-hearted; and it is pleasant to reflect, that without doubt, such have already in their ideas, provided me, with a fnug corner in the holy temple of Methodism. But I affure myself, that the humane and philofophic will support, with their countenance,

the