198 MOKAL EESPONSIBILITY. 



short, just as in man, degrees both of responsibility and ir- 

 responsibility. Sportsmen, for example, have to recognise the 

 non-accountability, by reason of mental defect, of particular 

 dogs of a breed, which show unusual characteristics, such as 

 conspicuous want of pluck and sagacity. Their occasional 

 total or partial irresponsibility, the abolition or suspension of 

 responsibility, must be recognised or determined on precisely 

 the same sort of grounds as in man. The absence of the 

 moral sense in many human criminals leads medical jurists, 

 for instance, to regard them as ' morally irresponsible, no 

 matter how great the crime against society.' 1 Equally in 

 man and other animals, then, the presence or absence of 

 this moral sense must determine the measure of responsi- 

 bility or irresponsibility. 



One of the attributes of the Andaman Islanders, accord- 

 ing to travellers, is their moral irresponsibility ; and similar 

 irresponsibility, in the absence of any proper moral feeling, 

 may be said to be attachable to other savage races in a more 

 real sense than that in which certain of the higher animals 

 such as the sheep-stealer's, poacher's, brigand's, smuggler's, 

 or highwayman's dog can be said to be non-responsible. 



In judging, for instance, of the degree of responsibility 

 or irresponsibility that is attachable to animals in a state of 

 rage or fury, created by man, due consideration must be 

 given to the kind and amount of provocation to which they 

 have been subjected, as well as to the natural character of 

 the animals themselves and the kind or amount of their 

 education. In the great majority of instances as has been 

 already stated man is, and ought to be held, responsible for 

 the accidents that arise from the behaviour of the animals 

 subject to his management, or more frequently his mis- 

 management. The master not his instrument should 

 generally be punished for the illegal or punishable offences 

 of the animals in his possession or under his control, 

 though in so far as an animal itself takes part in a proce- 

 dure which it knows to be wrong, or illegal, or forbidden, 

 and gets some share in the benefit is not a mere tool or 

 instrument- it may be held pro tanto responsible. 



1 Reviewer in ' London Medical Record ' of May 1875. 



