MUCH has been said (and truthfully) about killing birds for millinery purposes. Of course it is wrong to kill the pretty, innocent creatures just to ornament ladies' hats. But why is the ruthless destruction for this purpose made the leading theme? Is it not true that many more birds are killed to gratify appetite? During the game season, what an army of sportsmen "go gunning" for birds to eat, and to sell in the market! We hear of ladies' societies declaring against wearing birds and wings and feathers on their hats (and their protest is all right, yea, commendable); but why do those same ladies encourage the slaughter by eating the birds? Are not the lives of the birds they eat just as precious as the lives of the birds whose plumage adorns the milliner's goods? Think of the thousands of quail, pigeons, doves, plovers, kildees, snipes, robins, and the "four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie," the ducks, the chickens, the grouse, the pheasants, etc., that are slain to gratify appetite. These rival in number the birds killed to adorn11the ladies' hats. While we indorse proper effort to stop the killing of birds for millinery purposes, why will not the same agitators be consistent, and use their influence, by precept and practise, to spare the birds that are killed for culinary use? The plea of necessity is barred by the fact that the indulgence of such food can only be afforded by those who are able to buy food of a proper kind. There is no such necessity. The eating of these birds is as much of a luxury, and as unnecessary, as the wearing of the plumage of birds as ornaments. The birds were made for God's pleasure and for man's enjoyment; but it never was designed that the lives of the birds should be sacrificed to gratify pride or lust. G.