754 
Modern Cynolatry. 
[December, 
IV. MODERN CYNOLATRY. 
Dedicated to “ Ouida ” and Dr. Lauder Lindsay. 
By Frank Fernseed. 
S PLEA for Dogs ? — and wherefore ? Have they not 
privileges enough ? Has not every one of them the 
indefeasible right by judge-made law to at least one 
bite of human flesh ? Can the reader defend himself or his 
child against a canine aggressor — possibly rabid, without 
the risk, firstly, of assault and battery from its owner, and, 
secondly, of a prosecution by the “ Royal Society for the 
Suppression of Cruelty to Animals,” who, being rich and 
obstinate, may, if the accusation is dismissed by a sensible 
magistrate, “ask for a case” for a superior court? Have 
not^dogs a practically unlimited right of trespass and intru- 
sion everywhere, and of committing damage to property 
animate and inanimate ? Is not the responsibility of the 
do^-fancier for the misdeeds of his pet simply null ? Do we 
not find, in defiance of all regulations to the contrary, dogs 
introduced into railway carriages, tram-cars, and public 
wardens ? What, then, more or further can these creatures 
demand, save, perhaps, the Parliamentary franchise. 
It is fully admitted that in days bye-gone dogs have played 
a very useful part. So long as these islands were infested 
with dangerous beasts of prey, so long as cattle and sheep 
roamed in unenclosed forests and wastes, and so long as the 
criminal classes had not learnt the art of fascinating 
and silencing the fiercest and most vigilant mastiff, there 
was a very obvious reason for the “ friend of man.” But now 
all these conditions have passed away it surely becomes 
questionable how far dogs should be gerally tolerated in a 
populous and civilised country, except where it can be shown 
that they perform some real, definite service. Yet there 
exists a noisy party who, in addition to the privileges already 
mentioned, claim for these animals exemption from taxation, 
the abolition of muzzles and chains, and open, recognised 
admission into all places of public resort. 
The arguments and appeals of these agitators are in their 
way interesting. . f , ...i- i 
What, e. g., must any sober-minded man of the world think 
of the following tissue of passionate fallacy ? I do not say 
