INTELLECTUALITY OF ANIMALS.--Father Bougeant, a Jesuit, was placed in confinement by his superior in the College of La Fleche, near Paris, for what he had written on the subject of the intellectuality of animals. His views, if not orthodox, were certainly curious and amusing, and there is a sprightliness in his mode of treating the subject, graceful at least in the Frenchman, if not conformable to the divine. The following observations, extracted from that section of his work which treats of the language of beasts, may amuse the reader:--“Our first observation upon the language of beasts is, that it does not extend beyond the necessaries of life. However, let us not impose upon ourselves with regard to this point. To take things right, the language of beasts appears so limited to us only with relation to our own; however, it is sufficient to beasts, and more would be of no service to them. Were it not to be wished that ours, at least in some respects, were limited too? If beasts should hear us converse, prate, lie, slander, and rave, would they have cause to envy us the use we make of speech? They have not our privileges, but in recompense they have not our failings. Birds sing, they say; but this is a mistake. Birds do not sing, but speak. What we take for singing is no more than their natural language. Do the magpie, the jay, the raven, the owl, and the duck, sing? What makes us believe that they sing is their beautiful voice. Thus, the Hottentots in Africa seem to cluck like turkey-cocks, though it be the natural accent of their language; and thus several nations seem to us to sing, when they indeed speak. Birds, if you will, sing in the same sense, but they sing not for singing’s sake, as we fancy they do. Their singing is always an intended speech; and it is comical enough that there should be thus in the world so numerous a nation which never speak otherwise but tunably and musically. But, in short, what do those birds say? The question should be proposed to Apollonius Tyaneus, who boasted of understanding their language. As for me, who am no diviner, I can give you no more than probable conjectures. Let us take for our example the magpie, which is so great a chatterer. It is easy to perceive that her discourses or songs are varied. She lowers or raises her voice, hastens or protracts the measure, lengthens or shortens her chit-chat; and these evidently are so many different sentences. Now, following the rule I have laid down, that the knowledge, desires, wants, and of course the expressions of beasts, are confined to what is useful or necessary for their preservation, methinks nothing is more easy than at first, and in general, to understand the meaning of these different phrases.”--_Dublin University Magazine._