1 882c] Besiiarianism v. Common Sense. 459 
cariously for a number of objedts, — i.e., for food, or for such 
commercial products as hides, horns, hair, furs, oils, &c ; 
in compelling animals to serve their purposes for labour ; in 
rendering them more submissive by emasculation, for amuse- 
ment, and for self-defence. As regards the last head all 
mankind are agreed, save a portion of the Hindoos and cer- 
tain of their imitators at home. Concerning the former 
objedts, which in the aggregate cause the inflidtion of a 
millionfold the torment which results from physiological ex- 
perimentation, we ask how are our opponents to get over this 
difficulty ? To do them justice they rarely make the at- 
tempt ; they meet our argument with the conspiracy of 
silence. They go on ranting about the “ cruelties ” of phy- 
siology, but ignore the greater cruelties of gourmandism, of 
luxury, of ostentation, and of sport. The “Zoophilist,” the 
organ of the Vidtoria Street clique, as Prof. Owen well says, 
“ offers no protest against the skinning alive of eels, or the 
boiling alive of lobsters, shrimps, and winkles.” Elsewhere 
he writes — “ The tender-hearted, who howl down the in- 
flidtion of a slight wound on a single deer, have no remon- 
strances in favour of the hundreds of the dappled herd which 
undergo the terrors of the chase, the wounds of the stalker’s 
bullet, and the cutting of the throat to supply the appetite 
and please the palate of the gourmand.” They say sub- 
stantially “ Venison we must have; we can do without 
information.” 
The common plea of our opponents, when they condescend 
to justify their inconsistency, is that of necessity. We ut- 
terly rejedt this plea. “ Sport ” in all its varied meanings, 
wherever the word applies to the inflidtion of pain, terror, 
coercion, and death upon animals, for the sake of man’s 
recreation, is not necessary. Furs, feathers, silk, even 
leather, can be dispensed with. Animal food, however 
agreeable and wholesome, is not essential to man’s existence. 
Millions of our species live in health and vigour without its 
use. Beasts of burden and of draught might probably be 
superseded in this age of mechanical invention, at least in 
settled countries where the roads are good. However this 
may be, that large proportion of horses which serve merely 
for sport, for luxury, ostentation, and convenience might be 
dispensed with. Nor, again, is castration a necessity. Dr. 
Wilks well says — “ One might ask in these sentimental and 
aesthetic days whether one sigh of pity has ever been raised 
for these poor maimed creatures ? ” We understand that 
but for an accident the Vivisedtion Adt would have been so 
worded as to include this piece of unscientific vivisedtion. 
2 H 2 
