i88o.l 
Modern Cynolatry. 
755 
sophism, for the writer, wild as are her statements, is evi- 
dently sincere: — , , 
“ The mischief, which, is ever done by our four-footed 
friends, is, after all, very small in its sum. All the dogs in 
great Britain and Ireland never slew in ten years as many 
human beings as one lead mine, one lucifer match manufac- 
tory, one railway company, or one refuse-choked river slays 
in a year. When human life is held so cheap that capi- 
talists are allowed to pursue manufactures which are calmly 
shown by statistics to kill all employed in them before they 
can reach middle age, and whilst such manufattures are 
deemed quite honest and justifiable, though destroying human 
bodies with a frightful celerity and a mathematical certainty, 
it it is unutterably absurd to see the whole hue-and-cry of a 
nation out against dumb* animals, whose uttermost possible 
average of crime is that one in a million may bite one out of 
Who can fail to draw the obvious distinction that in a 
settled country like England dogs are, to say the least, use- 
less and exist merely for the caprice or amusement of their 
owners? On the contrary, the industries to which Ouida 
takes exception are useful, if not absolutely necessary, and 
could not be dispened with except at a great loss. A country 
without dogs would neither be the poorer nor the less happy. 
T country wXut railways would suffer far greater evils 
than the loss of the few lives which they sacrifice and which, 
in proportion to the number of travellers, is smaller than was 
the case in the old days of coaching. 
A refuse-choked river is certainly neither pleasant nor pro- 
fitable, but, as all municipal authorities know, it cannot be 
got rid of except at the cost of a heavy outlay. 
But “ Ouida ” overlooks a further distinction which is by no 
means to the advantage of her clients. No one is compelled 
tTwork at any unhealthy employment ; those who do so aft 
of he r own free choice, and usually receive higher wages in 
consideration of the risk. Those who reside near a lead- 
mine can, if they dislike the neighbourhood, remove else- 
where A riparian proprietor, if injured m his health, his 
nodcet or his aesthetic sense by a refuse-choked river, can 
obtain an injunction against those who pollute the waters. 
But how when or where, can we avoid the dog nuisance ? 
« GeS* shepherdess tell me where ? » Nay, is not the very 
gist of “ Ouida’s ” plea to demand the removal of all the 
present nominal restriftions on their movements and actions ? 
What is the exadt relevance of the term 
dumb” in this connexion ? 
