250 OUR OBLIGATIONS TO THE LOWER ANIMALS 



ing sunshine and sweets as well as his betters ? and if 

 we do not recognise his claim to a share of them, it is 

 obvious that our sympathy with living creatures is not 

 disinterested. The tiger which waylays an Indian 

 woman returning from the paddy-field is committing 

 an act not one whit more immoral than the kingfisher 

 which picks a minnow out of the brook ; yet we cry 

 Fie ! on the booby who shoots the kingfisher (I do, at 

 least), and say Bravo! to the hunter who lays the 

 tiger low. Do you perceive whither all this is leading 

 us ? Is it not a warning that to talk about the abstract 

 rights of wild animals is futile and misleading ? that 

 the only right which can be recognised is might, and 

 that for guidance in the treatment of such animals we 

 must look elsewhere ? 



Aristotle's doctrine that no consideration may be 

 shown to the lower animals has been re-affirmed of late 

 years under authority of the Church of Rome. The 

 late Pope, Leo xni., lent his official sanction to the rule 

 that it is contrary to the principles of true religion to 

 legislate for the well-being of animals, and an infringe- 

 ment of the rights of Christians. This might be 

 reasonable if mercy were a fixed quantity in the world, 

 and if the measure to be bestowed on human beings 

 were stinted in proportion to the quantity filched from 

 the store for the behoof of beast and bird. It is more 

 agreeable and more in accord with the nature of things 

 to regard mercy as boundless, not to be served out 

 in carefully weighed rations, but drawn from an im- 

 measurable store. The remarkable and perplexing 

 fact, however, remains that neither the Chosen People 



