A hundred other examples might be given of the nauseous food upon which men in different countries have been found to subsist; but the above extracts are sufficient to refute the first argument against Bruce's statement, while they also afford a very remarkable exemplification of the effect which the criticism of the day may have on the credulity or incredulity of the public: for it is surely more difficult to believe that human beings should eat raw fish-blubber than that they should eat raw beef, the former being so much more nauseous than the latter; and yet the first statement has never for a moment been doubted, while the other is scarcely yet credited; the fact being that the ruling critics of Bruce's time were opposed to his African discoveries, whereas those of the present day have eagerly supported the Northern discoveries, and whatever relates to them. Parry and Bruce, therefore, although equally honourable men, and equally anxious to contribute to our knowledge of the earth, met with very different fates. The one was justly rewarded, the other most unjustly neglected and condemned. In reply to the second argument against Bruce's account, namely, its cruelty, we may refer, first of all, to the slave-trade, which exists over such a vast portion of the globe, and which indisputably proves that man is cruel even to his fellow-creatures, and, consequently, that it is only to be expected he should be cruel to the beasts of the field; and that it is so, is sufficiently shown by the bullfights of Spain, where animals are subjected to the most horrid torture, merely for the amusement of men, women, and children. In one of Johnson's beautiful allegories, an old eagle is represented as exhorting her brood, whenever they see men assembling together, and fire flashing along the ground, to hurry to the spot, because "the food of eagles is at hand." One of the eaglets, exclaiming against the cruelty of men thus fighting against each other, observes, "I could never kill what I could not eat." But man is less merciful than the young eagle; he will both torture and kill animals merely for amusement; why not suppose him capable, then, of inflicting pain on an animal, by taking a portion of its flesh, when alive, to satisfy his hunger? Having made these general remarks, we now offer the testimony of different individuals to substantiate the truth of Bruce's account.