^3* Rt^^^tu of ct Treatife on HorfeSy and en the Moral Aug. 



It is clear that no man can be puniflied for cruelty lliown to 

 an animal, unlefs it belongs to another perfon •, and the puniih- 

 ment then inflided proceeds upon the ground, that. the pro- 

 perty of your neighbour is injured, and not becaufe the ani- 

 mal was hurt or deilroyed. indeed, fome of our great ora- 

 tors appear to think, that the true Britilh chara£ler is pre- 

 ferved by encouraging brutal fports. Their theory feems to be, 

 that cruelty and bravery are fynonyraous terms. Therefore, any 

 ftatutory regulations, fuch as propofed by out author, will aKvays 

 be oppofed by people of this unhumanized defcription. 



In volume iirft, p. 322. and again, volume fecond, p. 12 r. 

 our author labours hard for oxen as beafls of flow draughc for 

 farm work, in preference to horfes -, though he previouily ap- 

 prifes his readers, that * he has never ufed oxen for draught. * 

 We cannot help remarking, that this puts us in mind of the 

 monkey in the fable, who perfuaded pufs of the excellence, 

 pleafantnefs, and fafety, of taking chefnuts from the fire with 

 her paws, though he did not choofe to rilk his own. He quotes 

 Mr Culley, already mentioned, with well merited praife, as 

 keeping one hundred and fifty^ draught oxen; uGng them, in 

 pairs, in the plough, with reins, and no driver, and fingle in 

 carts. How this fa6l may be, we know not : But feventy-five 

 ploughs, even fuppofing no horfes kept, would indicate a moft 

 enormous farm, efpscially confidering that Mr Culley is a rnod 

 cxtenfive breeder and feeder of Iheep. It is likewife rather fin- 

 gular, that the Agricultural Report for Northumberland, drawn 

 up by Mr Culley, in conjundlion with Mr Bailey, ihouUl give 3 

 moil decifive opinion in favour of horfes, as beails of farm 

 draught, after a fair difcuflion of their merits and expences, as 

 compared wltli thofe of oxen. Perhap3 our author takes the pall 

 for the prefent, and does not reile£t on the many changes intro- 

 duced into rural practice fince the time that Mr CuUey's book on 

 live ftock was publilhed. If Mr Culley has changed his fenti- 

 ments on the working of oxen, it is the flrongeft proof that can 

 be offered in favour of the fuperiority of horfes. As already 

 faid, we are ignorant how the matter exadly (lands-, but, as the 

 Northumberland Survey more decidedly embraces the caufe of 

 horfes than any publication we have perufed, it is fair to infer, 

 that that moft relpe£lable agriculturift has feen caufe to change 

 his fentiments, and confequcntly his pradice. 



Of the merits of the fyltem of veterinary practice, we have 

 already declined, for good rcafons, to give any opinion. On 

 one fubjetl, however, an old furgeon, not veterinary, has fur- 

 niihed the following hint. Mr Taplin, with great and proper 

 zeal for the fafety and tare of horfes, ftrongly inculcates the 



propriety 



