220 
reward of the exercise of the vocal pow- 
ers he possesses of conveying pleasure to 
others, is his personal misery and perpe- 
tual imprisonment. Hence I could not 
peruse without pain a letter in your 
Magazine, of February last, requesting 
information on the food inost proper for 
birds under confinement, under the sig- 
nature of J. M. Flindall, 
Engagements prevented me from im- 
mediately noticing it; and indeed I was 
less anxious to do so, under the- hope 
that some abler pen would have been ex- 
ercised in the cause of humanity. In 
No. 168 of your Magazine, a Cor respon- 
dent, indeed, under the signature of Y.Z. 
has offered his remarks on“ the barbari ity 
of confining nightungales and other birds,” 
as an answer to the preceding writer; 
which, I confess, is not quite adequate to 
my views of the subject ; for the senti- 
ment of barbanty as pressed by him, is 
referable to the frequent occurrence of 
death from the act of confinement, ra- 
ther than ¥ the principle itself of. can- 
finement; 7and hence, as the 
the imprisoned lark is longer than the 
nightingale’s, in that ratio the cruelty be- 
comes less; or, 10 other words, prolonged 
confinement-is mitigated barbanty, 
So little does this sentiment corre- 
spond with mine, that from the same fact 
I could deduce an opposite conclusion ; 
for if there really be cruelty in the in- 
prisonment of birds, the longevity of the 
prisoner, in my opinion, only , entails 
greater, because of the longer protracted 
misery. It has been suggested, as before 
intimated, that, as the prisoner warbles 
his notes ‘under confinement, he sufters 
no misery from the deprivation of liberty. 
‘This however, constitutes no proof of his 
real feelings, for it 1s not uncommon with 
bird-farciers, and bird-catchers, to blind 
the miserable tenant of a cage, contract- 
ed to the size of about four inches square, 
jn order to improve his song, and to em- 
ploy him as a decoy-bird. I believe this 
is eifected by means of a needle, perhaps 
heated, with which the eye is punctured, 
and the organs of vision destroyed. It 
is a refinement on the barbarous pi ractice 
in Asia, of blinding the individuals who 
are entitled by birth to a chance of the 
imperial crown, by passing an heated 
plate of metal, over the eye, near enough 
to sear, or to produce an opacity of the 
cor nea, Poe thus for ever inducing blind- 
ness, by preventing the rays of hgbt from 
passing to the retina. As well miglit it 
be argued, that,as Richard Ceeur de Lions 
afforded that pathetic song, “ O ion roi” 
~ 
On ihe Confinement of Song Birds. 
lite of 
(April 1, 
in prison, it must have been occasioned by 
his happiness in the loss of liberty; bue 
how often has 1 been observed, that 
Spem vultu simulat, premit.altum corde do. 
lorem! Virg. in 
As well might be deduced the happt- 
ness of the African, from his dancing im 
chains on the deck of a slave-ship, but 
Ce n’est pas etre bien-aise que de rire. 
q 
St. E Evwremoned. 
The species of song-bird least objecti- 
onable to the practice of confinement, at 
least im this country, is perbaps the 
canary bird, in consequence of its never 
having enjoyed freedom, added to its in- 
capacity of sustaining life under the ri- 
gour of our climate: but even this bird, 
who was never initiated into the pleasures 
of liberty aud the unrestrained enjoyment 
of the air; whenever allowed, merely to 
fly about ‘and enjoy the expanse of a 
room, evinces his gratification in every 
attitude, He pranes his plumage, 
that plumage that seems to dictate to 
hun his birthright to hberty; he flirts 
about in lively expressions of pleasure, 
and in ‘unbounded vivacity, in this h- 
mited indulgence-of that aérial power, 
with which nature endowed him; bur 
which man bas denied him the enjoyment 
of, for his own personal gratification. 
That the feeling and sentiment of birds, | 
by whatever name we may designate 
them, are tender and sympathetic, their 
conjugal and parental conduct amply tes= 
tiftes. 
Twellremember that, whena schoolboy . 
there was not one among us. without his 
bird. 
preserved during their hes, which were 
pes for some years, tle most invia- 
lable attachment and friendship. These 
linnets were named Robert and Henry ; 
they had not been brought up together, nor 
did they both belong to the same persone 
it was early observed, that whenever one 
of the birds sang, the other bird joined it ; 
and at night, each slept on that side of 
the cage next its friend’s, At length 
their attachment was more fully ascer- 
tained by this incident, Tt was customary 
to allow the birds to fy abont the cham- 
ber in which they were kept, on cleaning 
thecages. Onone of these occasions, one 
of these linnets being at liberty, flew to 
the cage of the other; and they were ‘af= 
ter wards, now and then, wdulged with the 
privilege of being together 1 Wm one cage, 
when they uniformly expressed their high 
pee by fluttering towards cach 
other ,joininy their bills together, and ake 
ternately 
There were two is linnets, wha. 
