ON THE RIGHTS OF BEASTS. 1 23 



nate objects of our folicitude, unlefs fome mode 

 of practical remedy can alfo be devifed. On 

 that head I mall venture to deliver my fenti- 

 ments. 



The grand fource of the unmerited and fu- 

 perfluous mifery of beads, exids, in my opi- 

 nion, in a defect, in the conditution of all com- 

 munities. No human government, I believe, 

 has ever recognized the jus animalium, which 

 furely ought to form a part of the jurifprudence 

 of every fydem, founded on the principles of 

 judice and humanity. The fimple right of 

 theie four-legged, and mute citizens, hath al- 

 ready been difcuffed. Experience plainly de- 

 mondrates the inefficacy of mere morality to 

 prevent aggrefiion, and the neceflity of coer- 

 cive laws for the fecuritv of rights. I therefore 

 propofe, that the Rights of Beads be formally 

 acknowledged by the date, and that a law be 

 framed upon that principle, to guard and pro- 

 tecl them from acls of flagrant and wanton 

 cruelty, whether committed by their owners or 

 others. As the law dands at prefent, no man 

 is punifhable for an aft of the mod extreme 

 cruelty to a brute animal, but upon the princi- 

 ple of an injury done to the property of an- 

 other ; of courfe the owner of a bead has the 

 tacit allowance of the law to inflict, upon it, if 

 he fiiall fo pleafe, the mod horrid barbarities. If 

 fuch enormities had never been, or were not 



now 



