for the table, is offensive both to the eye and the touch ; and
thus it is, that all undepraved by the practice feel an instinc-
tive dislike to handle it, unjustly condemning the butcher and
the cook to do that which would be most repulsive to their own
feelings. In our large cities, in many cases, we even inflict
fines for the caiTying of butchers’ meat through the streets un-
covered ; and whilst our “ Smithlields,” “ Leadenhalls,” and
“ Billingsgates ” are notorious as public nuisances, our “ Covent
Gardens,” and exhibitions of fruits and flowers, are ever asso-
ciated ■with grateful sensations, presenting a contrast in favour
of the latter, which all the instinctive feelings of our nature
powerfully unite to confirm.
The instincts of children, more than those of adults, speak
clearly upon this subject ; and it is obvious, notwthstanding
the force of custom from one generation to another, that the
preferences of children are for the fruits and farinaceous sub-
stances of the table ; and where, as in Scotland and some parts
of the continent, they are trained to the age of eight or ten
years 'without any kind of flesh as food, when first partaken of,
it is with loathing ; and when they learn to identify it with
the living animals familiar to them (with that instinct which
adults even frequently demonstrate in not being able to consume
the flesh of classes of animals with which they have had some
peculiar friendly relationship), it is mth the greatest difficulty
that this natural repugnance to flesh is overcome.
We contend, then, that it is vain to say that the instinctive
feelings of man are supplanted by the force of custom : and om'
faith in the humanities of existence leads us strenuously to con-
tend for the position, that the slaughter of animals is opposed
to the moral nature of man, and that the practice of consuming
the bodies of animals but obtains for want of reflection, and
through that pell-mell state of existence which keeps the true
facts of the case from being reasoned upon. We consider it would
be a libel upon the tenderest portion of our nature, to suppose
that the fl<'sh and blood of animals could continue to be the food
of any but the degraded of society, were it not for the keeping out of
sight of the true incidents and accompaniments of slaughter ;
and there is no resisting the force of the fact, that the beuevo-
INTUODUCTION.
39
lence of man’s nature is shocked by an examination of the
deformities of the system. A talented writer, in a beautiful
article on Human Progress, in the Westminster Review,* forcibly
remarks : — “ The practice of feeding upon the flesh of animals,
entombing their bodies within our own, has something in
it repugnant to refinement.” “To get rid of the distaste-
ful operation of killing we employ butchers — helots of the
modern world, whose very name wo employ as a term of vit-
uperation. This is not Christian, to say the least of it. We
have no right to degrade any human beings, or regard as inferior
those who prepare the materials that enter into the most
intimate combination with our own persons. There is some-
thing humiliating in the sight of a delicate person who faints at
the sight of blood or a butcher’s shop, and then sits doivn
to eat of the carcasses that have there been cut up.” “All
the animal food artificially bred by farmers or others, is with
little exception, unwholesome.
Page 27
Presented as published in 1891. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
for the table, is offensive both to the eye and the touch ; and thus it is, that all undepraved by the practice feel an instinctive dislike to handle it, unjustly condemning the butcher and the cook to do that which would be most repulsive to their own feelings. In our large cities, in many cases, we even inflict fines for the carrying of butchers’ meat through the streets uncovered ; and whilst our “ Smithlields,” “ Leadenhalls,” and “ Billingsgates ” are notorious as public nuisances, our “ Covent Gardens,” and exhibitions of fruits and flowers, are ever associated ■with grateful sensations, presenting a contrast in favour of the latter, which all the instinctive feelings of our nature powerfully unite to confirm.
The instincts of children, more than those of adults, speak clearly upon this subject ; and it is obvious, notwithstanding the force of custom from one generation to another, that the preferences of children are for the fruits and farinaceous substances of the table ; and where, as in Scotland and some parts of the continent, they are trained to the age of eight or ten years 'without any kind of flesh as food, when first partaken of, it is with loathing ; and when they learn to identify it with the living animals familiar to them (with that instinct which adults even frequently demonstrate in not being able to consume the flesh of classes of animals with which they have had some peculiar friendly relationship), it is mth the greatest difficulty that this natural repugnance to flesh is overcome.
We contend, then, that it is vain to say that the instinctive feelings of man are supplanted by the force of custom : and om' faith in the humanities of existence leads us strenuously to contend for the position, that the slaughter of animals is opposed to the moral nature of man, and that the practice of consuming the bodies of animals but obtains for want of reflection, and through that pell-mell state of existence which keeps the true facts of the case from being reasoned upon. We consider it would be a libel upon the tenderest portion of our nature, to suppose that the flesh and blood of animals could continue to be the food of any but the degraded of society, were it not for the keeping out of sight of the true incidents and accompaniments of slaughter ; and there is no resisting the force of the fact, that the benevolence of man’s nature is shocked by an examination of the deformities of the system. A talented writer, in a beautiful article on Human Progress, in the Westminster Review,* forcibly remarks : — “ The practice of feeding upon the flesh of animals, entombing their bodies within our own, has something in it repugnant to refinement.” “To get rid of the distasteful operation of killing we employ butchers — helots of the modern world, whose very name wo employ as a term of vituperation. This is not Christian, to say the least of it. We have no right to degrade any human beings, or regard as inferior those who prepare the materials that enter into the most intimate combination with our own persons. There is something humiliating in the sight of a delicate person who faints at the sight of blood or a butcher’s shop, and then sits down to eat of the carcasses that have there been cut up.” “All the animal food artificially bred by farmers or others, is with little exception, unwholesome.