THE APOLOGISTS FOR CANNIBALISM.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:]
Sin,—In your article last week, "The Apologists for Can- nibalism," you appear to me to have entirely overlooked a point
• This 14 the true division of sesoolambseets, not classics, mathematics, and "modern-side."
of, I think, some importance. In your third paragraph you say : —"Nor, when starvation occurs on land, do we make any such excuses" as those which have been advanced for the survivors of the Mignonette.' I think we want a better definition of starvation; for if this case be taken as typical, it appears to me that starvation on land and starvation at sea do not mean the same thing. I believe that practically the first means hunger only, the other hunger and thirst. The sufferings in the two cases, it is generally admitted, are not to be compared. From what I have read of the Mignonette ' case, I think there can be little doubt of its having been thirst, much more than hunger, which led to the murder of the boy. Many persons can and do starve themselves to death—by abstinence from solid food ; but is there any authentic record of any one of them having been able to resist water P Why should not ships' boats carry hermetically sealed vessels of water as part of their permanent equipment under a Board of Trade Regulation P—I am, Sir, &c., C. F. W. [Brooks was thirsty too.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
