THE 
VETERINARIAN. 
VOL. XIII, No. 154.] OCTOBER 1840. [New Series, No. 94. 
MR. W. KARKEEK’S REPLY TO MR. W. C. SPOONER 
ON THE NON-IMMORTALITY OF ANIMALS. 
My dear Sir,—I PERFECTLY agree with you that “ the 
subject of metaphysics abounds with so many ramifications and 
sinuosities, that, unless we carefully avoid those paths not imme¬ 
diately essential to our argument, there will be danger of losing 
our way, and, perhaps, misleading our readers.” And fearing, 
from this gentle hint of your’s, that I may have wandered from 
the proper track (for we are all liable to such errors occasionally), 
“ Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus.” 
I have carefully read over the controversy between us; and the 
conclusion to which I have arrived is, that we are just in the same 
place from whence we started, inasmuch as (and you must excuse 
my modesty in saying so) the different positions which I attempted 
to establish in my “ Essay” have proved impregnable to your 
attack. 
My first position was, that animals are endowed with reason, 
and, like man, are susceptible of friendship and of love; are influ¬ 
enced by the feelings of hatred and revenge; that they possess 
the faculties of attention and memory, and of the association of ideas. 
—This position you allowed. 
My second position was, that animals not only feel, will, and 
act with discernment, but they possess the faculty of conscientious- 
ness, inasmuch as they are capable of acquiring knowledge from 
experience*. This faculty in brutes has not been noticed by any 
author that I am acquainted with, but it is particularly observable 
in all our domesticated animals. 
I believe. Sir, that you consider this faculty to be innate in man, 
and “ to form one of the strongest lines of demarcation between 
* See Veterinarian, vol. xii, pp. 662,664. 
VOL. XIII. 4 N 
