and fine sense, who amused himself by exposing a canary bird to the action of the fire, in the cage from which it could not possibly escape. Cruelty, for its own sake, exists chiefly among that class that are under little or no restraint from the opinions and habits of those around them. As the highest class are above example, so these, for the most part, are below it. Unhappily, to the hands of persons of this description are intrusted many of the most useful animals. We find multitudes of them at Smithfield, on the roads in their way to market, in butchers' cellars, in slaughter-houses, in carts, omnibuses, and dogcarts; and in our streets, lashing, beating, and maiming the poor, patient, defenceless ass; at the bull-baiting, the cock-fight, and the other haunts of cruel profligacy and if specimens are required of their moral habits, and the influence their barbarous treatment of the animals committed to them exerts in forming their character, listen to their fearful oaths; witness their conflicts among themselves, and especially their amusements in their hours of hilarity and relaxation. Nor would the Newgate Calendar prove an unuseful commentary on the moral results which frequently

follow the unrestrained indulgence of cruelty to the inferior creatures. We have already shown that all these different kinds and degrees of cruelty exist in our own country; and it would be an interesting speculation to mark their operation as they assist, sustain, and aggravate each other; to show how familiarity with cruelty lessens our horror of it, and thus insensibly brings us within the circle of its influence; how every fresh instance chills the heart with indifference, while it does not warm with indignation; how cruel sports are allied with the barbarities that are the effects of unrestrained passion and a malignant disposition; and how with these, the cruelties of self-interest harmonise; while science, by lending its sanction to them all, perpetuates and extends their power.

This, however, is of less importance than the moral view of the subject, as it operates against the well-being of society. The individual characters of which cruelty constitutes an element, are certainly disqualified, in some essential particulars, from discharging many of the duties which they owe to their fellow men; while they are likewise destitute of the grand source of all moral principle, the love and reverence of God. The will of

the Supreme Being, whether considered as the author of nature, or of the holy Scripture, is clearly revealed, and “he who runs may read," that the sphere of human obligation is not confined to our own species-that animals have rights that cannot be violated with impunity. Now, certainly, where there is in any mind the total absence of this conviction, where animals are constantly kept out of all calculations of duty, whatever motives may influence us to act well towards our fellow creatures, they cannot spring from any sense of their claims upon us, or from any just principle of obedience to the will of God. We do right because it suits our purpose, and subserves our present interests; and we should do wrong for the same reasons, were we morally certain that no evil consequences would ensue. He that sinneth in one point, is guilty of the whole. He that is deficient in one great class of moral sentiments, may be in some respects a useful member of the community; he may go the dull round of his own contracted sphere; may pay his debts, and bring up his family in comfort, and perhaps ultimately provide handsomely for them in the world;-but how is he prepared to advance society; to infuse, by his

example and his efforts, the leaven of good principles into the corrupted mass around him; to correct existing abuses, and to improve the laws and institutions of his country? We may go farther, and ask, how he can live for the good of others who is a stranger to the sympathies of a generous nature, and in whose heart the charities of religion have never found an entrance? And as to those whose actual cruelties are every day wounding the feelings of humanity by their treatment of the inferior animals, what security has society against the outbreaks of their ferocity? Its principal safeguard, we are persuaded, is in their cowardice and in their self-interest. But take off these restraints, and let there be any gratification or advantage which cruelty can procure for them; give them the negro's muscle, and bones, and sinews, and even his life-blood, to speculate upon as a source of profit; and can it be imagined that if they had the impunity of the overseer and the slave-driver, they would not ply the whip and the scourge and the collar, with a savageness worthy of that detestable system which the British nation has so nobly and for ever abolished?

The identity of principle between cruelty to

man and cruelty to brute animals, has sometimes been questioned. But we have never been able to discover any very clear distinction between them. The common sense of mankind is certainly on our side. The memorable instance recorded by Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople,* proves at least that this notion was entertained by the Athenians, and, from his succeeding remarks, that he had himself adopted the sentiment. "The senate of the Areopagites being assembled together on a mountain without any roof but heaven, the senators perceived a bird of prey which pursued a little sparrow that came to save itself in the bosom of one of the company. This man, who naturally was harsh, threw it from him so roughly, that he killed it; whereat the court was offended, and a decree was made by which he was condemned and banished from the senate;" whereupon the patriarch observes, "that this company, which was at that time one of the gravest in the world, did it not for the care they had to make a law concerning sparrows, but to show that clemency and merciful inclination were virtues so necessary in a state, that a man destitute of them, was not worthy to