We can now apply ourselves with some degree of confidence to a brief consideration of some of the problems associated with vegetarianism. It may be said at once that it has now been established beyond the possibility of doubt that many people in this and every country of the world can safely and with advantage abstain from flesh foods in every form. This is, however, a very different thing from saying that the ordinary mixed diet of this and every civilised country in the world is disease-producing and dangerous to a degree, and that the only rational, and indeed the natural, diet of man is that which can be obtained without circumventing the death of any animal.

This is unquestionably the proposition which was enunciated when first the propagandism was mooted. There have probably indeed existed in all ages of the world's history, as there exist to-day, whole communities and nations which have contrived to five without animal food of any kind, but in the main these people solved their dietetic problem very much as civilised people have done, viz. by evolution and experience. This is essentially different to the attitude of the classical vegetarian who, not content with having discovered the diet which has peculiar virtues in his own case, stoutly asseverates that because it suits him, it must therefore, and for a similar reason, suit every other person. Unquestionably his position would be incontestable were he able to demonstrate that in any particular respect his diet was superior to the mixed one. If, for instance, he could prove that it produced less disease, was more conducive to longevity, more agreeable, or more economical, built up more powerful bodies or contained less poison-producing substances than a diet containing flesh food, then he would have powerful reasons for his contention that a fleshless regimen is the only suitable and correct one.

It has been my privilege to be closely associated with vegetarians for many years, and I have hence been able to make a most careful investigation into their claims, but I am bound to admit I have not yet been satisfied that in any of the points above-mentioned they have been able to establish their position on a firm basis. On those points which are merely matters of opinion they have a perfect right to their own views, but where they appeal to science or experience they must not be offended if one is able to bring forward evidence which clearly refutes their arguments.

So far as I have been able to judge, there is no irrefutable argument in favour of adopting a fleshless diet excepting that of its suitability for the individual, and with this I have no quarrel. I have the highest respect for the man who having adopted a vegetarian diet is able to build up a strong and powerful body therefrom, and he himself is in possession of an absolutely infallible argument in favour of vegetarianism in his own body. I am perfectly satisfied that many such individuals exist in this and other countries, because we have indisputable evidence of their prowess in the athletic world, in the business world, and in the domain of literature. I am equally satisfied that many who now adhere to the mixed diet would be infinitely improved in health and vigour were they to adopt a reasonable fleshless regimen. But I cannot agree with the statement of those who assert that it would be advantageous for all to adopt a fleshless diet, because my experience of vegetarians of all classes has not convinced me that they are stronger, healthier, longer lived, better tempered, or in any degree better than the average mixed feeder, who makes moderation and regularity the watchwords of his whole life.

I would earnestly counsel any who may be desirous of experimenting with a fleshless regimen to reject without hesitation the suggestion that they should restrict themselves to a pure vegetarian system. In India it has been abundantly proved that "pure vegetarianism as practised by the Bengalis and Beharis was totally un-suited to their nutritive requirements, detrimental to their health, annihilated every spark of ambitious desire, and degraded huge masses of the people almost to the level of the brutes."1 This is the observation of one whose investigations were made with a view to discovering the most suitable diet for the prisoners confined in Bengal gaols.

I am quite prepared to admit that given a careful and proper selection of food, with careful and appropriate preparation thereof, it is possible to attain a degree of health and vigour quite up to the average. But amongst the pure vegetarians, or fruitarians as they are called in this country, such a result is exceptional, and in too many instances disastrous consequences ensue upon an attempt to live on such a regimen.

It is quite otherwise, however, with those who are not averse to the admission of animal protein in the shape of eggs and milk and its products into their diet. I am personally acquainted with many who have adopted such a regimen, and I frankly confess that in the main their health and vigour is quite up to that of the average mixed feeder, although, except in a few isolated cases, they are not conspicuous for vitality, "energy" in the fullest sense of the word, initiative, or outstanding merit in the ordinary affairs of life. I hope I may not be misunderstood in this connection, for I have every reason to be grateful to many amongst the ranks of the vegetarians. I confess also that I admire and rather envy them for their ability to live on a fleshless diet, and I suspect this is the outcome of my sympathy with one strong argument in favour of vegetarianism, viz. the "humanitarian" plea.

I deplore the necessity for the killing of animals to obtain their flesh as food, although I am convinced that I am somewhat guilty of sentimentalism in thus proclaiming my sympathy. I feel, however, that I am no whit worse than the lacto-vegetarian, because by including eggs and milk in his diet he has deprived himself of what in my estimation is the most powerful reason for advocating the fleshless regimen. I have no wish to emphasise this anomaly too strongly, for doubtless he consoles himself with the view that in any case his senses are not shocked with painful evidences of the death of the animals which must be sacrificed to gratify his nutritive requirements.

1See Modern Theories of Diet.