462 
BIRD-LIFE. 
not suffered to go free ? Why is not the catching and 
keeping of birds in captivity made punishable by law,” &c., 
ad infinitum. 
It is true that, in times gone by, many people were 
cruel enough to blind their song birds; and it is equally 
true that the birds sought, later, to dispel the never- 
ending darkness by the inspired light of song exerted to 
its utmost: the assertion, however, that a bird ever sings 
a song indicative of pain is utterly incorrect; the song is, 
on the contrary, the most infallible sign of good health. 
When sick, hungry, or sad, a bird never sings! Far be 
it from me in any way to excuse the horrible and utterly 
useless cruelty of depriving the poor animal of sight; but, 
at the same time, I must positively deny the assertion 
made by some, that a bird accustomed to captivity ever 
feels, when singing, in any way depressed by its detention. 
The song bird is perfectly happy even in its cage : it is no 
opera singer, but gives utterance, in liquid melody, to the 
most genuine feeling of happiness, to the sad or joyous 
alike, giving comfort to the one and pleasure to the 
other. Would that one could as easily deny the charge 
of cruelty where domestic birds are concerned (who are 
infamously treated for epicurean reasons), as in the case 
of cage birds, and then there would be little cause to 
speak of brutality. I do not know a solitary reason 
against keeping cage birds, but rather a hundred in favour 
of the custom. 
People make no outcry against the “ Titmouse trap,”* 
by which so many thousands of useful birds perish; they 
do not object to the catching of Larks, and such other 
worthy institutions which tend to the pampering of 
* It is the custom in Germany to catch numbers of these useful little creatures 
and sell them for food.—-JV. J. 
