DECEMBER 245 



it must be rigidly defined. If it is not, in discussing 

 it we drift straight into the mist of sentiment and pre- 

 possession. There may be many persons who maintain 

 that dogs and cats have rights ; but who would refuse 

 consideration to rats or centipedes. Is there, indeed, 

 any such thing as an abstract right, independent of 

 human law ? Claims, if you like, plenty of them, are 

 recognised in Common Law, and such claims as can be 

 proved to be just or expedient can be established as 

 rights by the legislature ; but they remain no more 

 than claims until so established. 



But the claims of men and women rest upon grounds 

 which cannot be made to support those made on behalf 

 of the lower animals. The attempt to do so must lead 

 to endless confusion, tending to defeat merciful purpose. 

 The rights of civilised man have been established upon 

 ethical principles of equity which cannot be applied to 

 the lower animals. For instance, the right of every 

 citizen to his private property implies and contains the 

 legal obligation to respect the property of others. 

 Failing that obligation, which of us would agree to 

 recognise the right ? It would be difficult to imagine 

 a stronger inherent right to property in an egg than 

 that of the hen which laid it; but whereas it is not 

 possible to imbue the hen with respect for the difference 

 between meum and tuum, we do not scruple to apply 

 the egg to our own advantage. Nor, I fancy, will any 

 sane conscience be rufiied if plunder is preceded by 

 fraud, perpetrated by the device of a nest egg, which 

 may deceive the hen into laying more eggs than can be 

 good for her constitution. 



