THE HUMANITARIAN LEAGUE’S PUBLICATIONS. No. 14. LITER HUMANIORES: to Wtacijtts, BY H. S. SALT. LONDON ; WILLIAM EEEVES, 185, FLEET 8TEEET, E.O. 1894. UBRM! U. OF 1. m These Publications are issued under the auspices and with the general approval of the Humanitarian League ; hut for all particular views expressed on matters of detail the individual writers are alone responsible. nf,30HI Sq37X. LITEE^ HUMANIOEES: AN APPEAL TO TBAOHEES. Among the noblest in the land, Though he may count himself the least, That man I honour and revere Who, without favour, without fear, In the great city dares to stand. The friend of every friendless beast.*’ The Need of Humane Education. Hommes, soyez humains ! C’est votre premier devoir. Quelle sagesse y a-t-il pour vous, hors de I’humanite ? (‘‘Humans, be humane I It is your first duty. What wisdom is there for you, apart from humanity ? ”) It would be well if this admirable precept of Eousseau’s could be engraved in golden letters on the walls of every school and college in the kingdom. One would think that the futility of mere book-learning, when divorced from the deeper instincts of humaneness, would be apparent to all those who are entrusted with the education of the young ; but alas, in how many English schools, public or private, can it be truly said that the duty of humanity to animals, or even of humanity to men, is taught with any approach to thoroughness or consistency? In the large majority, we fear, it is simply not taught at all; it has no place whatever, directly or indirectly, in the school curriculum. Oblivious of the fact that cruelty is every- where one and the same vice, and that cruelty to animals cannot in the long run be dissociated from cruelty to men. 4 our teachers appear to have accepted, with a sort of placidi indifference or resignation, a disposition in their pupils^ which ought to be combated and mitigated with all possible energy. ‘‘ Boys are cruel, they say ; and pro- ceed to treat their charges, as far as this particular fault is concerned, with that not uncommon form of education which George Eliot styled the ‘‘undivided neglect” of the teacher. But we have no right whatever to assume, in this wholesale way, that “ boys are cruel.” Of course they are cruel, as long as the example is everywhere set them by their elders, and as long as those who are respon- sible for their religious and moral welfare, are content, or compelled, to leave them without instruction on the most important of ethical subjects. It is nothing short of scandalous that members of school-boards who will attempt to force a disputable theology on children should take no measures at all for the inculcation of the broadest and simplest precepts of humanity. In this matter the chief public schools and colleges are the more deserving of blame, in proportion as their means and opportunities are greater. It is necessary to draw a sharp distinction between that surface “humanism,” a culture of the gentlemanly qualities of scholarship and refinement^ much in vogue in academic and fashionable circles, and the sense of sympathetic “humanity ” which springs from the profounder culture of the heart. It would be difficult to find a more suggestive comment on the anomalous state of our civilised society than in the fact that it is the former, the superficial kind of culture, which is honoured with the title of literm humanioreSy “humane letters.” A “Professor of Humanity” is a teacher of Latin grammar — such is the bathos to which our academic pedantry has conducted us ! There is, we 5 may well believe, no ultimate antagonism between culture and nature, between humanism and humanity (both Tightly understood) ; but we must be sure that we are 'Cultivating the true natural instincts, the living germs of thought, and not the mere husks and superficialities and refinements of some cut-and-dried intellectual formula. Let those who think of education and literature as studies to be pursued above and apart from humanitarianism, remember what was said of John Brown, the great hero of American abolitionism. ‘‘ Such were his humanities, and not any study of grammar. He would have left a ‘Greek accent slanting the wrong way, and righted up a falling man.” We do not wish to suggest to English teachers anything so alarming as that Greek accents should be left slanting the wrong way. But we do insist that the ‘‘ righting up ” of falling men, and of falling animals also, is a duty which is worth far more consideration that is now ac- corded to it. It is astonishing that our educational authorities should so wholly neglect the wise advice of Locke, as given in his famous treatise on education. “ This [a tendency in children to cruelty] should be watched in them, and if they incline to any such cruelty, they should be taught the contrary usage. For the custom of tormenting and killing of beasts will by degrees harden their hearts even towards men ; and they who dehght in the suffering and destruction of inferior creatures will not be apt to be very com- passionate or benign to those of their own kind. Children should from the beginning be bred up in an abhorrence of killing or tormenting any living creature In another notable passage of the same work he describes the destructive propensity as ‘‘a foreign and ^ Some Thoughts concerning Education ,' Section xv. 6 introduced disposition, a habit borrowed from custom and conversation/^ “ People teach children to strike, and laugh when they hurt, or see harm come to others ; and they have the example of most about them to confirm them in it. All the entertainment and talk of history is of nothing but fighting and killing, and the honour and renown that is bestowed on conquerors (who for the most part are but the great butchers of mankind) farther mislead the youth.” The present appeal is addressed to teachers of every class and denomination, in the hope of inducing them to recognise the humane treatment of animals as a necessary part of any moral ‘‘education” worthy of the name. Some attention, however insufficient it may be, is now paid in English schools and lecture-rooms to the great social questions where the well-being of our human fellow- workers is concerned ; but the rights of animals, and the duty of justice and humanity to animals, remain practi- cally untaught, with the result that, as far as the authorised teachers are concerned, a horde of young savages is yearly turned loose into society, devoid alike of knowledge, of sympathy, and of humaneness, in regard to whole races of sensitive and higHy- organised beings who are placed in large measure in their power. Were it not for three private agencies, the “Bands of Mercy” which have been organised in many places to provide the instruction that should have been provided elsewhere, the essay- competition encouraged among London middle- class schools by the Eoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and thirdly the “Children’s Column ” which is now being adopted by a good many newspapers, it would be no exaggeration to say that English children are left entirely without instruction in this most vital 7 ethical question, which can hardly fail to have a lifelong influence on their habits and character.^ That there are great and serious obstacles in the way of this humane reform, and that progress can only be slow, cautious, and indirect, will be admitted by all who know anything of the conservatism of school methods. A school is in many ways a microcosm — a miniature reflection of the greater world that is around and before it — and it is difficult or impossible for the most liberal- minded teacher to counteract successfully the example (in so many cases an evil example) which is set by society. The tone of society, even of cultured and aesthetic society, towards the lower animals is deplorable, as shown in the general indiflerence or hostility to the most elementary animal rights ; and this tone spreads inevitably and im- perceptibly from parent to child, from home-circle to school-circle, beyond the power of repression by any individual remonstrance. No wonder, then, that even humane teachers, themselves sensible of the mischief, have despaired of the possibility of improvement, and ^ The only official reference ;to the subject is contained in one of the latest Instructions to Inspectors, which deals with the text of Reading- books in Government schools. The words are as follows : ‘‘Passages impressing on the children the duty of gentleness and consideration for others, and that of the humane treatment of animals, may also be wisely introduced.” This is not very definite. I am informed by one who has exceptional knowledge of the work of the Bands of Mercy that the schools have been hardly at aU permeated or infiuenced by this humane movement. There is no time in schools to carry out this teaching ; and although there are cases where a zealous master introduces humanity into an object lesson, or chooses (if he is allowed the choice) a humane reading-book, teachers usually look askance at the Bands of Mercy as causing them extra work and trouble. The Mercy classes have to be held precariously, at odd times, and are altogether at a disadvantage in comparison with any other teaching. 8 have shrunk from undertaking what would often have proved to be a thankless and unprofitable task. There is, moreover, another consideration which gives us pause at the outset. It is most undesirable, as all true humanitarians will be ready to admit, that the details of horrible and revolting subjects should be forced on the minds of the yoimg, whose humanity, in a proper state of society, would be instinctive and unconscious, the result of pure and beautiful surroundings rather than an acquired ethical creed. If any class have a right to be exempt from the debasing aspects of the seamy side of civilization, it is those of tender years, who, whether their birth be high or lowly, should be brought up in affluence and gentleness, and protected from all contact with what is mean and repellent and foul. As wiU be made more evident in a later section of this pamphlet, we humani- tarians do not wish, as is sometimes wrongly supposed, to take undue advantage of the natural sentiment of the young. Yet, while the reality of these difficulties is fully acknowledged, it is equally certain that something can and must be done by the responsible authorities to remedy the present state of affairs. It is not a question of introducing children’s minds to horrors with which they are happily unfamiliar, for these barbarities already throw a shadow on their daily lives. When cruelty is everywhere, and when children are themselves tainted by it, it is surely the merest hypocrisy to affect to be un- aware of its existence; it is wiser to recognise the mischief, and do what can be done to lessen it, than to let it work its work unreproved. And it is obvious, that without obtruding humanitarian doctrines in a formal manner, or exercising any undue pressure on their pupils’ 9 consciences, teachers may indirectly avail themselves of numberless opportunities for suggesting thoughts which will be of priceless value to the mind which assimilates them. Shall the rising generation of Englishmen and Englishwomen grow up as callous and indifferent to the enormous sum of unnecessary animal suffering, as are (with a few exceptions) the Englishmen and English- women of to-day ? Or shall the spread of education bring with it not only a more brotherly regard for the interests of human fellow- creatures, but also, and by a precisely similar process of enlightenment, a more humane con- sideration for the ‘‘lower animals’’ who hold their lives by the same tenure as mankind. That is the question which is put to all teachers who may happen to read this appeal; and the result will depend very largely on the spirit in which an answer is given. Let me now proceed to a discussion of some of the particular instances where there appears to be need of a human er and more rational education. Petting. The domestic animals are necessarily the first with which children are brought in contact ; hence such attempts as are made by parents and teachers to inculcate the duty of kindness are directed in most instances to animals of this class. And here, at the very outset, it seems to me that a mistake, however natural and pardon- able in itself, is often made by zoophilists in trying to teach humanity by the system of “petting.” In face of the shocking ill-usage to which animals are so generally subjected, it is of course extremely difficult to know where and how to begin the lesson of humaneness ; and the 10 practice of encouraging children to keep pets, and to keep them properly, has the advantage of being the readiest and most obvious method, and up to a certain point a fairly successful one. In the long run, I believe it to be wrong and disastrous, and for this reason, that petting, like persecuting, draws away the attention from the very fact which it is most urgently necessary to emphasise — the fact that animals are not mere ‘‘things,’’ not mere chattels and automata to be used (however kindly) for the amusement and recreation of man, but intelligent and highly-developed personalities, whose in- numerable services to human kind, faithfully performed through the centuries, have rendered them an integral and important element of civilised society. It is the individuality of animals that needs to be impressed on children, and for that matter, on adults also, who for the most part treat animals as if they were utterly devoid of individuality or intelligence. What we should aim at is to make animals our friends, not our pets; for a pet, however carefully it is petted, can hardly be respected and it is precisely this lack of respect for animals as intelligent beings that is at the root of so much brutality and roughness. For the same reason great care should be exercised in. appealing to the humane sentiment of children by meana of poetry and fiction, as is frequently done in zoophilist pamphlets and journals. There is no more precious gift than the innate sense of humanity, when it is balanced and safeguarded by consistency and judgment ; but it should be remembered that, without these qualities, it is- apt to degenerate into that false sentiment, or “ senti- mentality,” from which it is most important that genuine humanitarianism should be kept free. It is so easy to- 11 produce a temporary influence on young minds by litera- ture of an emotional order, that there is a danger of using this power unwisely and indiscriminately by the dissemination of writings which, though excellent in intention, are intellectually feeble and commonplace. Trashy poems and vapid flowery tales do no permanent good. In the long run children see through the pious artifices that are spread for them, and detect the cant that (unconsciously perhaps, but none the less surely) is at the bottom of all such mediocrity. Be certain that false sentiment will eventually produce either hypocrisy or contempt, and that in either case the cause of real humaneness will be retarded, not advanced, by it. Let us use poetry and anecdote by all means ; but let us be most careful that we use good material only, and not the first frothy stuff that comes to hand. I would further remark, though I do not wish to do more than briefly allude to this subject, that the competi- tive prize- system appears to be a very hazardous and questionable expedient for inculcating humanity. Prizes have become so much a part and parcel of our educational methods that it is no doubt difficult to dispense with them altogether in any branch of study ; but surely if there is any virtue which brings its own reward, humaneness is that virtue ; and to offer a prize for what should be the simplest of human instincts, is to show a lack of faith in the sincerity of the student, and in many cases to put a premium upon priggishness and self-seeking. I suggest, then, that the first object of the teacher — and in this case the parent and the teacher will often be identical — should be to diminish, rather than encourage, the practice of keeping ‘‘ pets,” and to lead their pupils to regard animals seriously as intelligent friends, and not 12 to sentimentalise over them as puppets and playthings. There is no more miserable being than a lap-dog ; and the lap-dog is the sign and symbol of that spurious humanity which is the final outcome of ‘‘ petting.’’ The false pity must be eliminated before the true pity can take root. Neither the domestic animals nor the wild animals are unhappy, unless through the mismanagement of man. ‘‘An impartiality that pets nothing and perse- ♦ cutes nothing,” says the naturalist, Mr. W. H. Hudson, “is doubtless man’s proper attitude towards the inferior animals ; a god-like benevolent neutrality ; a keen and kindly interest in every form of life, with indifference as to its ultimate destiny ; the softness which does no wrong, with the hardness that sees no wrong done.” These are wise words, and deserve to be carefully pondered by teachers. Collecting. Still more objectionable than the practice of petting is the practice of collecting, for if the “ pet ” is a doubtful incentive to humanity, the “ specimen,” in nine cases out of ten is a positive obstacle to it. And here we are brought face to face with the vitally important choice between two divergent ways of teaching Natural History — a science which, according to the spirit in which it is handled, will inevitably influence the youthful student’s mind, in one or the other direction, with regard to the treatment of animals. These two divergent methods may be called the anatomical and the natural. Under the former, the prevalent method, which is in accord with the materialistic tendencies of the age, we recklessly foster the curiosity of children — a perilous quality which, 13 perhaps above all others, needs to be wisely guided and tempered — by permitting or even encouraging them to indulge their fancy to the utmost in the pursuit and collection of ‘‘ specimens.’^ It is accepted by most parents and masters as quite a matter of course that boys should hunt down, kill, and preserve ” in a cabinet as many of our beautiful English moths and butterflies as happen to come within their reach ; that in the process of “bird’s-nesting,’^ they should commit the most wanton havoc in order to gratify the idlest whim of the collector ; or that they should sacrifice any amount of gold and silver fish, minnows, sticklebacks, and other small fry, for the scientific purposes of the “ aquarium.” It is quite inevitable that much callousness and actual cruelty of disposition should result from these practices. Instead of teaching our children the lesson of the in- finite beauty and sacredness of natural life, we deliber- ately send them out into the wild places of Nature, as youthful marauders and murderers, and then wonder that they grow up brutal, stupid, and unfeeling. If anyone thinks that there is exaggeration in the statement that the unbridled mania for “ collecting ” breeds a positive love of slaughter for slaughter’s sake, let me refer him to a passage in pamphlet No. 15 of the Society for the Protection of Birds. ‘‘ Last spring,’’ says one of the contributors, Colonel W. L. Coulson, “ I spoke to some boys about the birds’ -nesting prevalent in the neighbourhood where I was staying. I asked them what they did with the young birds after they had taken the nest. ‘ Oh,’ said one of the boys, ‘ we sHts ’em.’ I said ‘ What do you mean by slitting them ? ’ He rephed, ‘ We pulls off their legs and wings, and then chucks them into the water.’ A few days afterwards I met some more boys 14 apparently engaged in a similar amusement, when I put the same question to them, and received a like answer.’^ There you have a fair typical result of the anatomical method of teaching Natural History to children. We slits ’em ” might appropriately stand as the motto of that science. Is it surprising that a nation which allows its rising generation to be depraved in this manner, should tolerate or even sanction, as the fine fiower and ne 'plus ultra of scientific curiosity, the unspeakable vileness of vivi- section ? Collecting and dissecting easily become identi- cal and interchangeable terms ; and the youthful ruffian- ism which slits” young birds byway of recreation in the springtime may develop, in the maturity of years, into the more polished fiendishness of the laboratory. We have recently seen in this country in one of the publications of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,’” how experiments on animals may even be recommended to the young (by a religious and educational organisation!) as a worthy means of self-instruction ; and in America the case appears to be even worse. In a recent circular sent out by the American Humane Associa- tion attention is drawn to those methods of instruction obtaining to some extent in public schools, whereby the facts of physiology are set forth by means of actual experiments upon living animals, etherized for that pur- pose. Animals such as frogs, pigeons, dogs, and particularly cats, are dissected before mixed classes of boys and girls — sometimes the teacher operating, some- times the pupils.” Could anything be more horrible and demoralising ? ^ ** Our Secret Friends and Foes,” by Dr. Percy Frankland. 15 But it is not only by its cruelty that the anatomical method stands condemned; viewed from an intellectual standpoint also, it is radically unsatisfactory and unsound. Our whole system of studying and collecting animals, as so many ‘^subjects’’ for the museum and menagerie, the laboratory or dissecting-room, is barbarous and un- scientific, and yields a miserable result. Take as an example, the Zoological Gardens, perhaps the best in- stitution of its kind. The popularity of the Zoo, as a place of recreation and instruction for young people is undoubted; nor is there any reason to deny that this popularity is well deserved, so long as we do not look beyond the present limited conception of man’s moral duty to the lower animals, and the equally limited scientific notion of the right method of studying them. The accepted system, then, is to cram the largest possible variety of animal life into a certain given space, where, for the payment of a small sum, the spectator may have the satisfaction of seeing an immense number of ‘ ‘ speci- mens” in the course of a single afternoon. Here for instance is a ^‘Prairie Fox,” confined in a small kennel which does duty for the prairies. It is assumed that it is amusing and instructive to see a Prairie Fox under such conditions ; and it is quite unrecognised that in the first place there is much cruelty in the infliction of this sort of life-imprisonment, and secondly that an animal thus exhibited without a single characteristic feature of its natural environment is, from the true scientific standpoint, a very sorry spectacle indeed. Both for humane reasons and scientific, it would be a better shillingsworth to see a single animal under conditions of space where it might in some degree exercise its natural faculties, than to see a hundred poor creatures reduced to a state not much more 16 vital than that of stuffed specimens in a museum. Add to this the possibility of laying out the Gardens with a view to a proper grouping of the animals, in accordance with geographical distribution— artic district, tropical district etc., — instead of the present indiscriminate juxtaposition of the most alien species, and it will be seen how much room there is for improvement in the scientific no less than the humane management of a great national collection. This criticism holds good of the whole system of ‘‘collecting,’’ to which children, on a small scale, are so commonly devoted, and which frequently results, through the ignorance or neglect of the keepers, in the miserable death or deterioration of the specimens concerned. How different might it be if teachers could be persuaded and empowered to substitute the contrary, the natural^ method of studying the open book of Nature, and to instruct their charges to observe the free and living animals, instead of brooding over stuffed corpses in a museum or dead-alive prisoners in a menagerie. “ The most important requisite in describing an animal,” says Thoreau, “ is to be sure that you give its character and spirit, for in that you have, without error, the sum and effect of all its parts known and unknown. Surely the most important part of an animal is its anima^ its vital spirit, on which is based its character and all the particulars by which it most concerns us. Yet most scientific books which treat of animals leave this out altogether, and what they describe are, as it were, phenomena of dead matter.” Let me again refer to an example (and a contrast) which is familiar to Londoners. The “ aviaries,” with one or two exceptions, are perhaps the most dismal parts of the Zoological Gardens ; for what can be more depressing, or less instructive, than an exhibition of winged creatures 17 who cannot exercise their wings? On the other hand, there is a very real interest to be enjoyed in the London Parks, where wild free birds, such as the wood-pigeon and moor-hen, are seen dwelling fearlessly in the very heart of civilisation, simply because they have learnt that they will not there be wronged by man. Here is a suggestion of the lines on which a new and nobler study of Natural History may be pursued. The old anatomical method has no doubt done good service in its time ; it represented a certain phase of science which had to be realised and worked out. But it is over now, for all higher educational purposes, and will soon itself be no more than a shelved specimen in the great museum of the Past — to be taken down, perhaps, as occasion requires, for reference and re-examination, but no longer to dominate our school-rooms and lecture-halls. We have collected and dissected the fauna and flora of our native islands till our books are full to repletion of the descrip- tions and illustrations. Is it not time that we began to apply and utilise this knowledge, such as it is, towards the acquisition of a better and more natural knowledge, in the direction which the great humane naturalists, such as Michelet and Thoreau, have so wisely indicated ? For children, at any rate, there can be no doubt which should be the prevalent method of instruction. They should be taught to cage and imprison no animal or bird, but to respect the freedom and self-development of all other sentient beings, even as they claim the like privilege for themselves. Quite lately there was an ad- vertisement in the papers of a cheap bird trap, with the recommendation that ‘‘ every boy should possess one.” This is precisely the sort of implement that no boy should possess. Boys and girls should be early initiated into 18 those habits of quiet, observant, and loving watchfulness, by which the true nature-lover, as distinguished from the collecting scientist, is always able to win the confidence of nature, and to learn the secrets of field and forest with far more penetrating eye. They should feed the wild birds that flock to the gardens in winter-time, and then in summer they would have the full enjoyment of their song. The catapult, the air-gun, bird-lime, and, worst of all, the abominable steel-trap, should be unknown and unused by children. The wantonly destructive habit of stringing birds’ eggs in hundreds should be discontinued. It has been suggested by Mr. W. H. Hudson, and the idea has been elaborated by another humane writer,^ that by encouraging the manufacture of artificial coloured wax eggs for collections Can imitative art which can be carried to great perfection with care and skill) much might be done to prevent the cruel and mischievous destruction of nests, and at the same time increase rather than diminish the interest in Natural History which children properly feel. Numerous such expedients, in all branches of study ^ will suggest themselves to wise teachers, and enough has now been said to make the principle clear. Blood-Sports. There is no more demoralising influence on the minds of the young than so-called ‘‘sport,” the chasing and killing of animals, in many cases harmless animals, for mere pastime and amusement — “for fun,” as the saying goes. Sport is so common, so universal, that habit blinds ^ Miss E. Carrington, in her pamphlet on ‘‘ The Extermination of Birds,” Humanitarian League Series, No. 10. See especially the sections on Birds’ Nesting ” and The Caging of Birds ”. 19 our eyes to the essential horror of the thing, for it is nothing less than horrible that children should be thus accustomed to inflict suffering and death, or to watch others inflict them, in the quest of pleasure and recreation. Yet so it is; and few indeed are the boys, at any rate among the well-to-do classes, who have not this example of amateur butchery ”, as sport has well been called, set before their eyes by parent or friend or teacher. To hunt something, to shoot something, to worry something — this is the schoolboy’s idea of a meritorious occupation. A rat-catcher is almost a demi-god to him. A gamekeeper, whose profession consists in about equal proportions of skulking and killing, is an object of intense and idolatrous reverence. How should it be otherwise, when the influ- ence of ‘‘ Society,” that horde of overgrown schoolboys, is all in the same direction ? At the root of the evil lies the false notion of “ manli- ness,” a notion handed down generation by generation, and accepted by unthinking people without the least criti- cism or inquiry. It was once manly to hunt dangerous beasts under natural conditions of peril, hardihood, and wild life. Therefore (so runs by implication the strange argument) it is now manly to hunt or shoot harmless creatures, under entirely artiflcial conditions, and without the smallest show of necessity or need. Such an obvious fallacy could not have survived to the present time, were it not for the extraordinary power of habit and associa- tion. For unluckily the same false glamour which is con- nected in the popular mind with the name of soldier, is connected in no small degree with the name of^sportsman ; and in either case a scarlet coat is responsible for much of the mischief. ‘‘ Dress a man in a particular^garment,” says Bentham, call him by a particular name, and he 20 shall have authority on divers occasions to commit every species of offence — to pillage, to murder, to destroy.’’’ These words are applicable to the hunting man as well as to the military. Now it ought not to be difficult to explain successfully to children the flagrant ^^wmanline8S of sport, for boys, whatever their shortcomings may be, have a strong sense of fair play,” and modern sport, in which a multitude of armed or mounted heroes go forth to do to death, with tho least inconvenience to themselves, some terrified little fugitive, is about as unfair and one-sided a confiict as could possibly be imagined. Blood -sports, moreover, should always be carefully distinguished from the honourable and really manly sports of the gymnasium or playing-field; and it may be pointed out that the Greeks, who brought the culture of physical perfection to its highest pitch, were as a nation comparatively free from the practice of inflicting pain on sentient beings. Again, ridicule^ that most formidable weapon, which is so commonly employed to throw discredit on humani- tarians, may be very easily, and very effectively, turned to exactly the contrary use. Children are now often pre- vented from showing gentleness and mercy for fear of being called milksops ” by their companions ; but a wise teacher might soon bring the laugh to the other side by showing the inherent silliness and folly of sport, as pur- sued under its present contemptible conditions, and the glaring fallacies of the excuses put forth by sportsmen for the continuance of their pastime. I am aware that many schoolmasters are themselves sportsmen in their holidays, and that therefore it is use- less to ask them to teach a humanity which they have themselves yet to learn. But even sportsmen are begin- 21 ning to recognise that some further reform of their blood- sports will soon be inevitable, inasmuch as there has been no legislative action since the abolition of bull and bear baiting over fifty years back, though humane feeling has largely increased among the public during that time. At least it must be admitted that the young ought not to be thus early initiated into the art of killing, and that as long as children are taught to take pleasure in the death of any creature — even of the lowest ‘Wermin” — it will be quite futile to preach to them about the duty of “ kindness to animals.” At present the morality of English schools, and especially the great public schools, in this respect, is exceedingly low. At Eton the boys are even permitted to keep a pack of Beagles, and the school journal, written by boys for boys, contains periodic reports, worded in the disgusting jargon that sportsmen afiect, of the ‘‘ breaking-up,” etc., of the hunted hares. Truly a strange education for the future “ gentlemen” of England ! But the idea of gentleness has always been dissociated from gentility, I have spoken so far of practices in which boys are chiefiy concerned. But that girls are also demoralised by these sordid sights may be judged from the sanction which many women give to blood- sports by their presence on the hunting-field and at the battue. The effects of the same cause are seen in the utter indifference of the majority of the female sex to the horrors of the feather trade, and the callousness with which they wear the barbarous trophies which ‘^murderous millinery” extorts from many beautiful but rapidly perishing species of birds.’ Such fashions are nothing less than blood- sports ^ See ^^The Extermination of Birds,” Humanitarian League’s Publications, No. 10. 22 at one remove ’’ ; and the women who indulge in the- fashions are exactly as responsible as the men who indulgo in the sports. It would be impossible that women should be so cruel, if they received any sort of humane instruc- tion in their girlhood. At present they receive none. Lady superintendents and principals of so many ‘‘superior training schools for girls, might not this matter be worth just a trifle of your attention ? Even humanity may have its uses as an “ accomplishment’’ in polite education. Elesh-Food. It is quite possible that some of my readers may a little resent the introduction of the diet question in thie appeal. Until recently this question has been usually passed over by zoophilists, perhaps because they felt a sort of latent despair at the enormous mass of suffering inflicted by the work of the butcher, and because at tho same time they regarded the use of flesh- food as perma- nently necessary and indispensable. Children, in par- ticular, have been left almost uninstructed as to the origin of the food which they were taught to consider as the chief support of life ; so that in many cases, perhaps in the majority of cases, there has been complete ignor- ance or indifference as to the connection between the ox or sheep in the fields and the “beef” or “mutton” on the table. The whole subject is a dark and disagreeablo one; and teachers (from their point of view not un- naturally) have been content to shirk it as much as possible, and to trust to the powers of custom and usage^ to gloss over its unpleasantness. But of late the question has received increasing attention, and it will not be possible for it to bo 23 mucli longer evaded. And surely, if we are to think at all honestly and conscientiously about a just treat- ment of the lower races, and if we are to teach an intelligible humaneness to our children, we cannot refuse to subject to the light of critical examination a system by which, for the sake of a necessity, real or supposed, we devote countless multitudes of harmless animals to a most painful death. Anyone who is willing to know the facts — and it is a plain duty to know them — can now obtain reliable information about Cattle-ships and Slaughter- houses,' and the various methods that have been proposed for their supervision and reform; moreover, anyone can learn what progress vegetarianism has made in this country during the past ten or twenty years. So that there is positively no excuse for the further omission of this all-important subject from humanitarian consideration. No judicious person would for a moment suggest that children’s minds should be wantonly invaded and troubled by morbid or unwholesome reflections. No child ought to see or even hear of the intolerable scenes of the shambles. But what I wish to point out is that the mischief is already done; for even as things now are it is not possible to prevent more sensitive boys and girls from speculating on these matters. Nor is it only specu- lation; for it not unfrequently happens, in the poorer quarters of large towns, that mere children are actual eye-witnesses of the demoralising spectacle of slaughter- ing. Among the children of the well-to-do classes, who are spared such experiences, there is often much half- awakened curiosity and repressed (unwisely repressed) ' See “Beliind the Scenes in Slaughterhouses.’’ Humanitarian Ijeague’s Publications, No. 5. 24 sensibility on this ghastly subject. What have our teachers to say about it ? If they are to be teachers in anything but the name, they must be prepared to give some guidance and instruction to those who look to them for advice. It cannot be a right course to parry by denials or subterfuges the natural questions which children ask of their instructors. The responsibility of man can no more be evaded in the case of animals slaughtered for food than in that of the so-called ‘‘beasts of burden;” in either case there is, at the very least, a moral obligation that no unneces- sary suffering be inflicted. If we wish to educate our children humanely, we cannot do less than inform them of this duty ; and if we are honest we shall be compelled to add that at present the duty is very insufficiently per- formed. Further, a word as to the actual diet of children. In face of the facts above mentioned, it seems, to say the very least, a terrible error of judgment on the part of parents and guardians to force children, as is often done, against their natural inclination, to eat flesh. There is abundant evidence to show that children in almost all cases thrive well on a diet of fruit, vegetables, and milk. Let me quote the authority of Sir B. W. Richardson in his “ Foods for Man ” : “ The food which is most enjoyed is the food we call bread and fruit. In all my long medical career, extending over forty years, I have rarely known an instance in which a child has not preferred fruit to animal food. I have many times been called upon to treat children for stomachic disorders induced by pressing upon them animal to the exclusion of fruit diet, and have seen the best results occur from the practice of reverting to the use of fruit in the dietary. I say it without the least prejudice, as a lesson learned from simple experience, 25 tliat the most natural diet for the young, after the natural milk diet, is fruit and whole-meal bread, with milk and water for drink. The desire for this same mode of sustenance is often continued into after years, as if the resort to flesh were a forced and artificial feeding, which required long and persistent habit to establish its permanency as a part of the system of everyday life.’’ The instinctive loathing of flesh-food, which is so often io be observed in the young, is a sign which no wise teacher will disregard. It is the petition of Nature that, if grown men and women still think it necessary (in spite of accumulating proofs to the contrary) to eat the flesh of animals, they will at least allow their children to subsist awhile on a more healthful and innocent food. At present the common practice of cramming children with “meat is simply the hygienic counterpart of that moral negligence which permits them to “experiment’’ at the cost of so much suffering, and make a “sport” of the death and torture of animals. Much of the vice and immorality now prevalent in large schools may be traced to the same cause — a failure to recognise the importance of a simple and natural diet. “One of the proofs,” says Rousseau, “that the taste of flesh is not natural to man is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat, and the preference they give to vegetable foods, milk- porridge, pastry, fruits, etc. It is of the last importance not to denaturalise this primitive taste, and not to render them carnivorous, if not for health reasons, at least for the sahe of their character. For, however the experience may be explained, it is certain that great eaters of flesh are in general more cruel and ferocious than other men Let us preserve to the child as long as possible its primitive taste; let its nourishment be common and simple; let not its palate 26 be familiarised to any but natural flavours ; and let na exclusive taste be formed.’’ What Teachebs Caic Do. This appeal is addressed especially to teachers, because until they as a class are brought to feel the need of humane education, there is not the slightest hope of such education being granted. It is a case of Quis docelit doctor es ? We must convert the guardians flrst, in order to gain the desired access to the pupils. It may be objected, perhaps, that the humanitarian program set forth in this essay is too drastic to be practical, and that more might be gained from those to whom the appeal is addressed if less were required of them. Well, of course it would be the easier and pleasanter plan to make no severe demands upon anyone’s conscience, and, instead of telling disagreeable truths of the causes of juvenile cruelty, to be content with the usual pious platitudes about the ‘‘ thoughtlessness ” of children, ending with a general recommendation to preach and practise ‘‘ kindness to animals ” — under conditions where consistent kindness is impossible. But what would be the profit of once more repeating what has already been so often preached in vain ? Let it be freely admitted. that the reforms here advocated can at present be only partially carried out ; stiU it is better and more practical to face the problem fairly, even with no immediate result, than to potter benevolently over mere formulas and trivialities, which, however they are treated, must still. leave the essential issues untouched. And as a matter of fact, a good deal can be done, even at the present time, by the small minority who feel the truth of what has been said. Individual teachers, hy 27 personal example and precept, can appreciably influence for the better the general tone and attitude of their pupils towards the lower animals ; and by more and more intro- ducing such subjects into the course of instruction, can help to give a definiteness and reality to the departmental notice above quoted. We have already the Government permission that such teaching may be given; what is needed is the insistence that no education shall be con- sidered sufficient without it. Still easier would it be for the principals and assistant-masters of public and private schools to do something towards a reform, by making the treatment of animals a subject of frequent reference in the pulpit and elsewhere. Hundreds of addresses and exhortations are annually given to schoolboys, by those who have charge of their moral and spiritual welfare ; yet it is rare indeed to hear a word spoken in protest against the worst of all human vices — inhumanity. Although, for reasons already stated, the inculcation of gentleness by means of prizes is to be regarded with some suspicion, there is no doubt that the system of essay- writing out of school hours has certain distinct advantages. It sets boys and girls thinking on subjects which perhaps would otherwise be overlooked; and not unfrequently when the competitors are day- scholars and write the essays at home, the whole family becomes interested in the work, and the awakening of one mind to humane ideas causes the awakening of many. Thus the “ mercy ’’ writing, like the quality of mercy itself, “ is twice blest ; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.’’ That still more excellent results might be obt^-ined from a systematic instruction of children in the duty of humanity to animals, may be judged from the success 28 which, has attended the efforts of the few pioneers in this cause, as for example M. de Sailly, a French school- master in Algiers. I quote a portion of his own record of the experiment."* “ I have long been convinced that kindness to animals is productive of great results, and that it is not only the most powerful cause of material prosperity, but also the beginning of moral perfection. I therefore began my work in 1851, and at the same time introduced agriculture into my school ; for I saw the close connection between the doctrine of kindness to animals and the important science of agriculture, since there can be no profitable farming unless animals are well kept, well fed, and well treated. And, besides, how can children better learn the pleasures of country life than by understanding the importance of agriculture, the methods in use in their own country and the profit which may be derived from intelligent farming and kind treatment of animals ? Do they not become attached to country life ? Do they not feel kindly towards all dumb creatures ? Do they not receive ideas of order and domestic economy? Do they not love Mother Earth, who pays us so freely and so generously for our work ? And does not this love tend to check the growing evil of emigration from the coimtry to the city. “ My method of teaching kindness to animals has the advan- tage of in no way interfering with the regular routine of my school. Two days in the week all our lessons are conducted with reference to this subject. For instance, in the reading class, I choose a book upon animals, and always find time for useful instruction and good advice. My “ copies” for writing are facts in natural history, and impress upon the pupils ideas of justice and kindness towards useful animals. “ In written exercises, in spelling and composition, I teach the good care which should be taken of domestic animals, and the kindness which should be shown them. I prove that by not overworking them, and by keeping them in clean and roomy stables, feeding them well, and treating them kindly and gently, a greater profit and larger crops may be obtained ^ From Our Dumb Animals^ the organ of the Massachusetts S.P.O. A. 29 than by abusing them. I also speak, in this connection, of certain small animals which, although in a wild state, are very useful to farmers. ^ “ The results of my instruction have been, and are, exceed- ingly satisfactory. My ideas have deeply impressed my pupils, and have exercised the best influence upon their lives and characters. Ever since I introduced the subject into my school I have found the children less disorderly, but, instead, more gentle and affectionate towards each other. They feel more and more kindly towards animals, and have entirely given up the cruel practice of robbing nests and killing small birds. They are touched by the suffering and misery of animals, and the pain which they feel when they see them cruelly used has been the means of exciting other persons to pity and compassion.” The central principle which should be steadily kept in view in all humane education is that which the Humani- ^ tarian League has made the basis of its Manifesto — that “it is iniquitous to inflict suffering on any sentient being, except when self-defence or absolute necessity can be justly pleaded.’’ It cannot be difficult to teach children to distinguish between necessary suffering and unnecessary ; yet in this distinction (so often forgotten by our oppo- nents), and in its practical application to the details of life, lies the whole ethic of humanitarianism. The idea that humanitarians are “sentimentalists” is the very reverse of the truth. We fully recognise that it is often a stern necessity to inflict pain or death. Let us do so, when we are satisfled that the necessity exists, with as few words as possible, and not shrink from any action that is rightly incumbent on us. But to hurt or kill for mere caprice, or fashion, or amusement ; to cage animals when they need not be caged ; to hunt them when there is no necessity for such hunting ; to torture them in the supposed interests of a barren and futile “science”; to treat them, when domesticated, with an insensate rough- 30 ness which, defeats its own ends — these are inhumanities which every boy and girl should learn to regard with loathing and detestation. The question of nomenclature is an important one, to which a brief mention must be given. It was remarked by Jeremy Bentham that whereas human beings are styled persons, other animals, on account of their in- terests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded to the class of things ^ The German philosopher, Schopenhauer, has also com- mented on the inappropriateness of the English neuter pronoun it,’’ when applied to highly intelligent beings. The common use of such contemptuous terms as ^‘brute- beasts,” “live-stock,” etc., is undoubtedly an obstacle to the humaner treatment of the lower races ; and children should be taught that it is absurd for man, himself an animal, to ignore his natural kinship with the “other” animals, as Bentham correctly calls them. “Without perfect sympathy with the animals around them, no gentleman’s education, no Christian education, could be of any possible use.” So said Mr. Euskin in 1877 ; and one of the rules of his Society of St. George runs as follows : I will not kill nor hurt any living creature needlessly, nor destroy any beautiful thing ; but will strive to save and com- fort all gentle life, and guard and perfect all natural beauty upon the earth.” I would put it to those who may chance to read this pamphlet — how is it possible to make any progress to- wards a “perfect sympathy” with the animals, or to strive towards the high ideal of the Society of St. George, unless on the humanitarian lines which I have here advocated? It is useless to think of “comforting all 31 gentle life until we deliberately set ourselves to eradi- cate tbe evils by which social life is at present brutalised and degraded. I have already admitted that this educa- tional process must perforce be a slow and laborious one ; it is all the more desirable, therefore, that it should at once be taken in hand. Moreover, we shall do wisely to remember that no great social improvement can come alone ^ and that the humanising of our school system can only be fully effected side by side with the general and gradual spread of justice and enlightenment. For as there is undoubtedly a natural connection and interdependence between the various wrongs by which society is at present afflicted, so is it also evident that no great progress can be made on any isolated line of reform ; there may for a time be a rapid advance in some particular direction, but such advance will then be succeeded by a halt until the other lines are brought up. There is nothing discouraging to humanitarians in this solidarity of progress ; on the con- trary, we see in it the only true assurance of ultimate and permanent success. Much has been done in recent years for the better instruction and the better protection of English children. We have recognised that it is a national duty to give a sound intellectual education to every child in the kingdom, and a national duty to safeguard every child from cruelty and violence, even if its own parent be the aggressor. We have now to realise that there is one thing yet lacking — the education not of the intellect only, but of the heart. It is useless to teach the young to become clever^ if we permit them to remain cruel ; it is useless to pass laws to repress parental tyranny, if we encourage children in in their turn to indulge the most tyrannous propensities 32 towards beings yet more defenceless than themselves. It is a mockery to talk of religion, and art, and educa- tion, and “ humane letters ; ’’ if we allow the gentleness which can alone give vitality to these accomplishments to be poisoned at its source by the festering plague of cruelty. There can be no liter