<h2><SPAN name="ANIMALS_RIGHTS" id="ANIMALS_RIGHTS"></SPAN>ANIMALS' RIGHTS.</h2>
<br/>
<br/>That there is pain and evil, is no rule
<br/>That I should make it greater, like a fool.
<br/>—<i>Leigh Hunt</i>.
<br/>
<br/>Never to blend our pleasure or our pride
<br/>With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels.
<br/>—<i>Wordsworth</i>.
<br/>
<p>A GOOD man," said Plutarch,
"will take care of his Horses
and Dogs, not only while they
are young, but when old and
past service."</p>
<p>The organs of sense, and consequently
feeling itself, are the same as
they are in human creatures. I can't
imagine how a man not hardened in
blood and massacre is able to see a
violent death, and the pangs of it,
without concern.—<i>Bernard de Mandeville,
1723.</i></p>
<p>However we may differ as to speculative
points of religion, justice is a
rule of universal extent and invariable
obligation. See that no brute of any
kind, whether intrusted to thy care or
coming in thy way, suffer through thy
neglect or abuse. Let no views of
profit, no compliance with custom, and
no fear of the ridicule of the world, even
tempt thee to the least act of cruelty
or injustice to any creature whatsoever.
But let this be your invariable rule
everywhere, and at all times, to do
unto others as, in their condition, you
would be done unto.—<i>Humphry Primatt,
D. D., 1776.</i></p>
<p>But a full-grown Horse or Dog is,
beyond comparison, a more rational,
as well as more conversable animal
than an infant of a day, a week, or even
a month old. But suppose the case
were otherwise, what would it avail?
The question is not, Can they <i>reason</i>?
nor, Can they <i>talk</i>? but, Can they <i>suffer</i>?—<i>Jeremy
Bentham, 1780.</i></p>
<p>Animals are endued with a capability
of perceiving pleasure and pain;
and from the abundant provision which
we perceive in the world for the gratification
of their several senses, we must
conclude that the Creator wills the
happiness of these his creatures, and
consequently that humanity towards
them is agreeable to him, and cruelty
the contrary. This, I take it, is the
foundation of the rights of animals, as
far as they can be traced independently
of scripture, and is, even by
itself, decisive on the subject, being the
same sort of argument as that on which
moralists found the Rights of Mankind,
as deduced from the Lights of
Nature.—<i>Thomas Young, 1798.</i></p>
<p>The claims of the lower animals to
humane treatment, or at least to exemption
from abuse, are as good as
any that man can urge upon man.
Although less intelligent, and not immortal,
they are susceptible of pain;
but because they cannot remonstrate,
nor associate with their fellows in defense
of their rights, our best theologians
and philosophers have not condescended
to plead their cause, nor
even to make mention of them; although,
as just asserted, they have as
much right to protection from ill-usage
as the best of their masters have.—<i>W.
Youatt, 1839.</i></p>
<p>There is a moral as well as a physical
character to all animal life, however
humble it may be—enveloped indeed
in obscurity, and with a mysterious
solemnity which must ever belong
to the secrets of the Eternal. Let us
then approach with caution the unknown
character of the brute, as being
an emanation from Himself; and treat
with tenderness and respect the helpless
creatures derived from such a
source.—<i>Ralph Fletcher, 1848.</i></p>
<hr class="chap" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />