268 VORACITY OP THE W00D-PIOE0N. 



extermination of such birds must be highly desirable on the part of the 

 farmer." — Inverness Courier: copied into The Times, October 22nd., 1857. 



The above broaches a wide and difficult subject, which I had occasion 

 some months since to consider with reference to the feline race. Every 

 person of humanity must be anxious to avoid the unnecessary destruction 

 of any living thing, and with such only would I discuss the subject. We are 

 all the work of the same Almighty Power, and we know very well that "not 

 a sparrow shall fall to the ground without God's knowledge :" — St. Matthew, 

 x. 29. At the same time it is declared in the earliest passages of 

 Scripture, first in the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, 

 and in other verses, that man should have dominion over every living 

 thing, and that all fruits should be for him for meat; and then in the 

 third verse of the ninth chapter, that every moving thing that liveth 

 should be meat for him, Noah and his family then representing the whole 

 human race. 



It is needless to say how this has been, and is acted upon, until, as 

 Mr. Wood in his pretty little book of "Common Objects of the Sea-shore," 

 expresses it, there are some people who would fry a rainbow if it were 

 possible. Meantime reason must be our guide, although of course it is 

 difficult always to know where to draw the line. We must admit that 

 butchers' meat, poultry, and game are legitimate articles of consumption, 

 and the rationale is, that whatever is wholesome food was, primd facie, 

 made to be eaten, for when we come to animals of prey they are uneat- 

 able. There is therefore one class of beings made fit for human food, 

 and therefore it is lawful to deprive them of life (under the sanction of 

 Scripture) for that purpose. 



Then comes the question in dispute — how far is it lawful to destroy 

 animal life for any other object? Being in an artificial state of existence, 

 as contra-distinguished from animals, man often finds that, for his own 

 preservation, those animals which infringe on his support or his safety must 

 be sacrificed, and, I think, we must conclude that he is justified so far. 

 Then follows a refinement on this necessity, namely, their destruction for 

 the purposes of science; and this, I must say, I think stands upon a some- 

 what doubtful footing, although the importance of the subject has erected 

 it into a received practice, and I do not in the least question that in 

 some instances it is perfectly justifiable; but I beg most distinctly to enter 

 my protest against any species of cruelty, that is, giving pain, and not at 

 once killing, which is too often resorted to under colour of this pretext. 



There is still one other branch left to consider, which is a greater re- 

 finement still, namely, the taking away life for the purposes of luxury. 

 Now surely, to say the least of it, this is quite unnecessary, and is, on 

 a smaller scale, like the feast of nightingales' tongues in ancient times, 



