CHAPTER XXII.

LAW AND PUNISHMENT.

THOUGH they have not the means that man possesses of giving them form in print or writing, or even of giving them expression orally, certain animals, nevertheless, have laws that regulate their conduct, rules established by authority and custom-sometimes of a very definite kind-that guide their procedure under given circumstances. Authors have described even the existence of systems or codes of laws or of rules among various animals, and have professed their ability to understand or interpret them. Thus Mrs. Burton says of the pariah dogs of Damascus, "Their habits are regulated by laws of their own. I have grown, in the solitude of Salahiyeh, to learn them.' Animals assert or maintain, defend and transgress, their own laws, and they suffer the penalties of such transgression.

The following are illustrations of the kinds of law or rule that guide the actions, individual or corporate, of certain of the lower animals: viz. those relating to

1. The administration of public affairs in the villages or communities of the prairie dog (Houzeau).

2. Territorial or district government-including frontier laws in the street dogs of Constantinople, Damascus, or other Eastern towns (Burton, Low, Watson).

3. The common laws for the common good that characterise wasps (Rendu).

4. The laws of battle among various belligerent species or genera.

5. The law or rule of might-of the strong over the weak.

6. The law or rule of right.

7. That of constituted authority, which may or may not involve that of might and right, either or both.

8. Laws of etiquette-including those regulating precedence.

9. Lynch law-the administration of punishment for offences without any form of trial.

10. Possession.

Hence some animals may be described as possessing what are virtually national, provincial, territorial, proprietary, public, domestic, communal, military, civil, criminal, social, conjugal, moral, or other laws.

What may well be called the law of might, the rule of the strongest, prevails throughout the animal kingdom-including man. The dominance of the powerful over the weak, of tyranny or bullyism, is everywhere common. But mere physical or corporeal strength does not necessarily or always prevail per se. In animals that occupy positions of command or authority, physical is usually associated with mental superiority; and mental acumen in the weak-the ingenious expedients to which superior sagacity gives rise -may, and frequently do, outmatch mere physical force. Thus the huge Newfoundland dog succumbs sometimes to the address and adroitness of the puny ape, which makes a beast of burden of it, and rides on its back commandingly, as man does on the horse (Houzeau).

Right, however, is respected as well as might, though it is also invaded, and has to be defended. The following are illustrations of the vested rights of animals as recognised by each other, viz. those relating to

1. Property of all kinds, including

a. Food, prey, booty.

b. Nests or other forms of abode.

c. Young or eggs.

d. Marriageable or married females.

e. Beats, districts, hunting-grounds, quarters, or boundaries.

f. Trappings or insignia of office.

g. Slaves or servants.

h. Other forms or kinds of property.

2. Rank or status, with its accompanying respect or deference.

They may therefore be said to have rights conjugal, territorial, proprietary, parental, filial, which they are called upon to assert and maintain, and which they also usurp or infringe. Such rights, as in man, are individual or corporate; they form the subject of dispute and struggle.

Wrongs are equally admitted and redressed in certain cases, whether they relate to individuals or communities.

For all kinds of constituted authority various animals have respect, and they show it by their obedience in certain cases, while they mutiny or rebel against it in others. Some of them have systems or forms of government—including the 1. Monarchical in the bee.

2. Republican, communal, or communistic in ants.

3. Patriarchal-that of leaders or chiefs in the wild horse, ass, and elephant.

4. Parental-in dogs, cats, monkeys and apes, and many other animals.

5. Domestic-in monogamous animals.

6. Social.

The dog and other animals may be trained to respect the authority or supremacy of man, to obey his laws-that is, the rules, unwritten, unprinted, even unspoken frequently, that he lays down nevertheless for their guidance. These laws are understood, and evaded or infringed, when they are not obeyed. To the dog, horse, elephant, and other tame or domestic animals, indeed, man's will may be said to be their law. They recognise him as their lawgiver, and soon learn to distinguish what is forbidden from what is permitted by him. Not only so, but certain animals are trained to act efficiently as administrators of man's laws, as his police, or his executioners. Thus elephant and dog police or executioners have been taught to capture runaways or deserters, whether these are ponies, sheep, or men, and to punish them summarily-in the case of man by crushing to death or throttling (Watson).

Wood asserts that the laws of precedence and etiquette

among cows are 'as clearly defined as those of any European Court. Every cow knows her own place and keeps it. She will not condescend to take a lower, and would not be allowed to take a higher.' We know, moreover, that military horses and elephants are great sticklers for rank, insisting on occupying that place in processions or pageants to which they believe their own rank or that of their riders entitles them.

One of the evidences commonly adduced of the reign of law among the lower animals, as in man, is the fact that certain birds at least have what are, or what appear to be, regular judicial proceedings, regular trials by judge and before jury of culprits against law. Illustrations of such trials are to be found in the absurdly so-called 'parliaments' of rooks, crows, or other birds.

The various authors who have described them, and who profess to be able to interpret the curious phenomena, speak of the vast assemblages of birds of the same species at some given point and at some given time, the birds coming from all points of the compass. In the centre is placed a prisoner; his aspect, look, attitude, point him out frequently as, in his own estimation, a culprit. Advocates address the audience; there are even pleadings, consultations, and deliberations. At last a judgment is come to, sentence is passed, and popular as well as judicial vengeance is inflicted with wonderful unanimity and co-operation. The whole stages of the procedure, in fact, resemble in miniature and in pantomime those of our own law courts. Hence some authors speak of such assemblies as courts,' and the natives of India describe certain gatherings of the Indian crow as of this character.

In these courts or parliaments of the Indian crow the birds form a ring around one individual, who appears to have been an offender against some of the rules of their society.' Then he is attacked suddenly by five or six of his fellows, 'pecking at him and striking at him with their wings' (Wood).

Crow parliaments in Shetland have been described by Edmonstone and Saxby, who, however, differently interpret the facts observed, while the facts themselves are not the

same as noted by these competent naturalists. In all such narratives it may be difficult, but it is necessary, to separate Fact from inference or interpretation. According to Edmonstone, the facts are that there is an assemblage of large numbers of the same species; that there are certain noisy proceedings; that one or two individuals are put to death by the mass of their fellows; and that then there is a quiet breaking up of the congregation. The conclusions, which may or may not be correct, are, that there is trial by jury of a criminal, characterised by formal legal procedure, and followed directly by what is considered suitable—that is usually capital-punishment.

Dr. Saxby, on the other hand, also of Shetland, the brother-in-law of Dr. Edmonstone, and the author, moreover, of a volume on the Birds of Shetland,' takes quite a different view of the character of the craa's court' of the hooded crow, in spring, in these northern islands. He professes to have seen nothing particularly worthy of mention, with the exception of occasional shortlived squabble, such as is constantly occurring in any large flock of birds.' And he adds, "I believe, however, that a considerable amount of courting takes place at these meetings, having noticed that pairing takes place very soon after the dispersal of the flock.'

The probability is that Edmonstone and Saxby, Houzeau, Wood, and the other authors who have described such courts or parliaments, have in some cases described very different kinds of assemblies. There is every reason for believing a few to be judicial, others to be amatory or nuptial, while, as regards the character of some, it has been shown in the chapter on Unexplained Phenomena,' that at present we know nothing satisfactory.

Wood describes rook parliaments. In the middle' of the assemblage in one case was one bird looking very downcast and wretched. Two more rooks took their place at its side, and then a vast amount of chattering went on.' Ultimately, the unfortunate central bird was pecked nearly to pieces and left mangled and helpless on the ground. In such a case we are led to infer, though our conclusion may