the 430th page of his "Letters "-thus writes: "Fresh meat, in fact, contains more than three-fourths of its weight of water, which is retained in it as in a sponge. But the power of flesh to absorb and retain brine is far less considerable. In similar circumstances, it only takes up into its pores half as much of saturated brine as of water. Hence it happens, that fresh meat, in contact with dry salt, allows water to flow out, because its water becomes brine. But this expelled water, which is found surrounding the meat is not pure water, but juice of flesh-soup, with all its active ingredients, organic, and inorganic." Also, on page 421 of the "Letters," Liebig further writes: "The juice of flesh contains, beyond a doubt, the conditions necessary for the formation of the whole muscle, and for the production of its peculiar properties. In the albumen of this fluid, we have the substance serving as transition-product to the fibrine of flesh, and in the other substances the matters required for the production of cellular tissue and nerves. The juice of flesh contains the food of the muscles: the blood the food of the juice of flesh. The muscular system is the source of all the manifestations of force in the animal body; and in this sense we may regard the juice of flesh as the proximate condition of the production of force. From this point of view it is easy to explain the effect of soup. Soup is the medicine of the convalescent. No one estimates its value more highly than the hospital physician, for whose patients soup, as a means of restoring the exhausted strength, cannot be replaced by any other article of the pharmacopoeia. Its vivifying and restoring action on the appetite, on the digestive organs, the colour, and the general appearance of the sick, is most striking." On page 418, Liebig says, "The constituents of the juice of flesh and of the soup are very numerous, and only imperfectly known; but what we do know of them is sufficient to excite much interest." That is, that though

much is known of the properties of the soup and extract of flesh, there are discoveries yet to be made why it is so peculiarly valuable as an article of diet.

So far then, we are not disposed to agree with the vegetarian in his classing the soup of flesh with common water. The vegetarian must, if he values the statements of Liebig, alter his tables: classing animal food as the most nutritive, and the cheapest; for this must be so if domestic economists are correct when they say: "That which is the best is always the cheapest." Sixth. The next position of the vegetarian is that land would be more valuable in producing vegetable products, than it is now, used as grazing land for cattle. But how would this be remedied if the inhabitants of the United Kingdom were all to become vegetarians? Would not the evil be increased 15 or 20 per cent? Let it be remembered that there are very few dishes that the vegetarian partakes of in which butter does not form an important ingredient. It will be, therefore, a very moderate calculation to estimate the consumption of butter and cheese at, say, three quarters to one pound each person, and certainly not less than a pint of milk per day. Taking the population of Manchester and Salford, in round numbers at 500,000, how much more land would have to be devoted to feeding cattle in order that 500,000 lbs. of butter, and 500,000 pints of milk might be brought into the city every morning? Seventh. Psychology is next cited in favour of vegetarianism. If it is argued that abstinence from animal food quickens and energizes the soul, then we answer that the vegetarian is theorising-he cannot be said, from his own experience, to know sufficient upon the subject to be able to pronounce an opinion. The vegetarian of our day is a partial animal food eater. Does he not eat eggs, butter, cheese, and drink milk? Are not these animal products? All the experience, therefore, of which he so loudly boasts, is in favour of food in which a moderate por

tion of animal substance enters. If the vegetarian, so called, invites our attention to himself—the subject of mildness and gentleness-the result of the system; we answer-facts do not bear out the proposition. Take an illustration: the comments upon opponents and the criticisms upon the productions of adverse writers, in the Vegetarian Messenger, are generally fine specimens of writing under the influence of gall and spleen. But how does the vegetarian reconcile the fact that in Paris it is computed there is as much crime committed in one month, as in London in one year; and yet the Frenchman does not eat a sixth of the animal food eaten by the Englishman. The Irishman also, is proverbially one of the most excitable of human beings, and yet his chief article of food is the potato! Eighth. The practical testimony of many great and good men, we are told, is in favour of vegetarianism. We answer: we don't know the circumstances under which they lived. We don't know their several peculiarities of constitution. We know little about their habits; at the same time we don't know how much their strength was increased, and their physical systems improved by a liberal indulgence in butter, cheese, eggs, and milk.


this we know; that from Abraham until now, the best of men have eaten animal food. Surely this age is not wanting in truly good and great men, in the best sense of the term, who are ready to peril their lives for the extension of truth and duty? The vegetarian, indeed, will scarcely say that his society, numbering some six or seven hundred persons, includes all the patriots and philanthropists of our time and country? We do not wish to weaken any real position, or the force of any true argument; but the dietetic habits of the entire people cannot be changed upon the assumption that because half a dozen persons, excellent though they be, have found it convenient to abstain partially from animal food, that therefore all, however situated, may by a like course

receive as little injury, or be equally benefited. Certainly it would be no difficult thing to cite the names of fifty persons in our own immediate neighbourhood, who are living in the enjoyment of perfect health, who are truly the "salt of the earth," and yet freely partake of animal food. Ninth. We are further told that vegetarianism is supported by an appeal to the appointment of man's food at the creation. (Gen. i, 29.) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree, yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." But then it is also written: "C Every living thing that moveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things." The admirable manner of getting quit of this difficulty is really a curiosity in literature. The honour of the discovery belongs to Mr. Brotherton, the member for Salford. The subsequent verse to the one we have just read, reads thus: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof shall ye not eat." "Now then," says this second Daniel come to judgment, "how can we take the flesh without taking the blood; and if we are not to take the blood, it is clear we are not to take the flesh?" This is really unique it throws into shade the Eton boy's logic that a horse-chestnut is a chestnut horse. But it is truly lamentable nevertheless. It is simply accusing God of double-dealing, of quibbling in his dealings with man. How the mind instinctively repels the honourable member's reasoning. God must be true-though every man be proved a liar. It is said, in continuation, that we don't eat every moving thing;" and it may be added with equal propriety-neither does the vegetarian eat every "herb bearing seed." When this passage of scripture is brought under the notice of the vegetarian teacher, he presents a theory on the subject of appointment and permission. He says: care must be taken to distinguish between what was appointed and


[ocr errors]

what was permitted. The "herb bearing seed" was appointed; the "moving things" only permitted. This special pleading is scarcely worthy of the presisident of the vegetarian society. Is it possible that God would permit anything to man that was not for his good? Does God pander to the cravings of morbid appetite-and after the manner of Leo. x, grant indulgences? In the one case God says- 'I have given you every herb bearing seed;" in the other case "Every living thing that moveth shall be meat for you." And as if to take away any doubts upon the subject, He adds-" Even as the green herb have I given you all things." If there is any appointment therefore, in the one case, there is precisely the same appointment in the other. Vegetarians, when discussing this subject, are accustomed to speak of departures from principles being permitted. They quote this passage in proof: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so; and then it is added-" Nor was flesh eating from the beginning." Where is the analogy? Moses appointed or permitted a social arrangement. Moses might err-certainly he was not infallible. But when God changed the food, or rather added the animal to the vegetable kingdom as the source from whence man might derive his sustenance, and whether this was done at the beginning, middle, or end of any period, who will have the audacity to say such food was not the best food? A pertinent writer on this subject says: "No Divine Being would sanction anything injurious, even in the slightest degree, to the beings whom he created and loves. Jesus Christ is divine, and not only created man, but loved him to such a degree as to die for him, and sanctioned the eating of animals for food. Therefore, animal food is not injurious, but the best food adapted for man, under the same conditions in which Christ partook of it. For would it not argue a great want of affec

« 上一页继续 »