1997-] Improved Spelling....Law againf? Cruelty to Animals, 
gone, month, iz an improovment, mut 
allfo acnollege dhe riting ov helth, breth, 
rong, munth, to’ be an improoyment. 
Dher iz no alternativ, eyvery rezon dhat 
cood evver be offered for altering dhe 
fpelling ov wurds, ftil exifis in» fool 
foarce ; and, if a graddual reform fhood 
not be made in our language, it wil proov 
dhat we ar les under dhe influence ov 
rezon dhan our anceftors.”’ 
It may, perhaps, be neceffary to ‘ex- 
plain to thofe who have not confidered 
the fubjeét, that the letters dh are intro- 
duced inftead of th, in thofe words where 
the found is hard, as in that, them, this, 
thou, thus ; and th is preferved only in 
thofe words in which they are pro- 
nounced foft, as thank, theme, thin, 
thought, thumb, &c. exaétly as the let- 
ters d and t have merely a different found 
of hardnefs and foftnefs. This is not an 
original idea of Mr. ELpHinsTon, as 
this combination of letters had been be- 
fore ufed to exprefs the fame found by 
bifhop WILKINS, and one or two more, 
The to’ is ufled to diftinguith it from too, 
the number and adverb. 
I pretend not to fay that Mr. Er. 
PHINSTON’s is the beft orthography 
that can be adopted; it undoubtedly may 
b2, in fome parts, defective ; but it is very 
much fuperior to any thing of the kind 
‘that has yet appeared, and moft certainly 
deferves much greater attention from the 
learned than it has received. Itis tobe 
regretted, that the language in which his 
ideas on the fubjeét are conveyed, is 
very far from. perfpicuous ; and to this, 
I believe, is folely to be attributed the 
negleét which it has experienced. 
A general and complete revolution in 
orthography is not to be expected in the 
prefent courfe of things, particularly as 
the reviewers, in general, who muft be 
allowed to poflefs great influence over 
the public opinion, feem to receive every 
attempt of the kind with coldnefs. 
Should any reform hereafter be adopted, 
it will, very probably, be on Mr. EL; 
PHINSTONE’s principle ; meanwhile, we 
muft reft fatisfied with what has already 
been performed, and, as we have dif- 
carded fome fuperfluous letters in labor, 
honor, college, &c. we may hope that the 
time will foon arrive when we may be 
-perfuaded of the propriety of writing 
onnor, cood, wood, goold, obleege, &c. 
&c. and thus, by degrees, creep onwards, 
nill.we arrive at fomething like perfec- 
tion. 
| September 43 1797. Ss” M. 
Montuiy Mac. No. XXII. 
197 
To. the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
STR,* 
A QUERY ~<has been put in your 
Magazine, whether there exifts any 
STATUTE which punifhes crvelty to ani- 
mals, fimply as fuch; and without taking in 
the confideration of it as an éwjury to 
properly 2? 
Iam forry to confefs that I believe the 
anfwer muft be in the nezative. 
Accordingly feveral cafes appear. in 
Leacu’s Crown Law*. 
Thus in Kran’s cafe, indifed at the 
Old Bailey, Sept. 1789, for felonioufly 
maiming a hore, the property of THE 
KING: the jury was inftructed by Mr. 
Juft. HEATH ao acquit the prifoner, it 
appearing the aét was done in paflion 
againft the animal, and not from malice 
againft the owner+. 
The fame point was determined in a 
cafe of moft atrocious cruelty againft a 
horfet, by cutting out his songue, tried by 
Mr. Baron HorHam onthe fame ftatute, 
g Geo. I, c. 22, at’ Old Bailey Sefifions, 
O&. 1790: : 
And there was the fame determinatioi 
ina moft fhocking cafe§, fummer affizes, 
Glouceftér, 1789, before Mr: Juftice 
HEATH. 
But I have been long convinced, and 
have not altered my opinion, that cruelty 
to all animals, committed by man (their 
fellow-creature, though in a different 
{phere, and not then their fuperior when 
fo debafed and depraved) is, when pub- 
licly committed in a town, or high 
road, an offence indiétable at COMMON 
Law, as a nuifance, where the cruelty 
is manifeft and extreme; it being an 
evident violence againft{ human feelings, 
and, at the fame time, of pernicious 
tendency ; 
And, if I miftake not, that it is 
fo indi€table has been determined, 
though I do not find the cafe. 
Bull-baiting and cock-throwing jaaly 
come under the confideration, at Common. 
Law, of diforderly and dangerous {ports ; 
and, therefore, unlawful from their 
mifchievous tendency. Accordingly, on 
this principle, when a perfon had miffed 
his aim in cock-throwing at Shrove-tide, 
and a child who was looking on received’ 
a ftroke from the ftaff, of which ftroke he 
died, .the excellent Sir Micsaart 
Foster | ruled it manflaughter. 

* Ed. 2—=1792. + P. 424, note. .- 
tf Shepherd’s Cafe, p. 436. § Pearce’s, 422. 
|| Fofter’s Cr. Law, Tit. Homic. ch. 2, p.- 
261, Ed. 2, Anno 177¢. 
By 
