416 Ammal Depravity. [OGtober, 
But when we attempt to treat of the morals of brutes, in 
order to find whether in that region lies the much talked-of 
but evanescent boundary-line—when we seek to show that 
vice is, after all, not man’s exclusive attribute, we are met at 
once with the objection—“‘ Animals have, and can have, no 
moral life, as is man. ‘They have no perception of right 
and wrong, but simply follow their propensities, and obey the 
laws of their being, from which, indeed, they have no power 
to depart.” * This is, I think, atolerably fair specimen of the 
language which demz-savants habitually use when treating of 
the lower animals. ‘“‘ The kingdoms of freedom and of 
nature” is an antithesis common in their mouths,—the 
‘‘ kingdom of freedom,” forsooth, signifying mankind! Itis, — 
of course, exceedingly convenient to have some imaginary @ 
priori reason which renders any appeal to facts superfluous, 
or rather altogether impertinent. Being neither lunatics, 
metaphysicians, Calvinists, nor fallen angels,t we shall 
not enlarge upon “‘ freedom ;” we will merely declare that if 
men’s vaunted freedom relates to action it is shared by the 
gorilla. He is perfectly free to rise up or sit down, to come 
or go, to crack a nut, or to crush the skull of a “man anda 
brother,” just as he may think proper. ‘That he is ‘‘ free” 
to love or to hate { to fear or hope, to believe or disbelieve, 
or in short to experience any emotion, passion, feeling, senti- 
ment, or frame of mind, we deny, just as we deny it of man. 
Now to the more immediate question. 
In the first place we must judge every animal from what 
may be called its own point of view, not with reference to 
man and his notions of advantage or convenience. He calls 
the wolf and the tiger cruel, the viper malignant, and the 
spider treacherous. This is idle talk. The wolf can only 
subsist upon animal food, and is no more to be censured for 
devouring the lamb,—for which he may further plead man’s 
conduct in precedent—than is the lamb for devouring grass. 
Why, moreover, should the vegetarian,—brute or human— 
presume to denounce the flesh-eater as cruel ? Have plants 
no rights? Are we sure that, if they could be consulted, 
they would consent to be plucked and eaten? They have, it 
is true, no demonstrable nervous system. But in view of 
the manifold ways by which in creation wesee one and the 
same end accomplished,—in view, too, of the facts on 
vegetal sensitiveness now ascertained—can we accept this as 
* “ Animals, as a rule, do no more than follow their natural instinés.” 
Rev. G. Henstow, “ Theory of Evolution of Living Beings.” 
+ Milton most happily represents his devils discussing on free-will. 
t “It Lies not in our Power to Love or Hate.”—MarLoweE. 
