The political economist and reformer finds on investigation, that the adoption of vegetarianism would be a solution of many of the complex and baffling questions connected with the material prosperity of the nation. Here is a remedy for unemployment, drink, slums, disease, and many forms of vice; a remedy that is within the reach of everyone, and that costs only the relinquishing of a foolish prejudice and the adoption of a natural mode of living plus the effort to overcome a vicious habit and the denial of pleasure derived from the gratification of corrupted appetite. Nature will soon create a dislike for that which once was a pleasure, and in compensation will confer a wholesome and beneficent enjoyment in the partaking of pure and salutary foods. Whether or no the meat-eating nations will awake to these facts in time to save themselves from ruin and extinction remains to be seen. Meat-eating has grown side by side with disease in England during the past seventy years, but there are now, fortunately, some signs of abatement. The doctors, owing perhaps to some prescience in the air, some psychical foreboding, are recommending that less meat be eaten. But whatever the future has in store, there is nothing more certain than this--that in the adoption of the vegetable regimen is to be found, if not a complete panacea, at least a partial remedy, for the political and social ills that our nation at the present time is afflicted with, and that those of us who would be true patriots are in duty bound to practise and preach vegetarianism wheresoever and whensoever we can. VI THE EXCLUSION OF DAIRY PRODUCE It is unfortunate that many flesh-abstainers who agree with the general trend of the foregoing arguments do not realise that these same arguments also apply to abstinence from those animal foods known as dairy produce. In considering this further aspect it is necessary for reasons already given, to place hygienic considerations first. Is it reasonable to suppose that Nature ever intended the milk of the cow or the egg of the fowl for the use of man as food? Can anyone deny that Nature intended the cow's milk for the nourishment of her calf and the hen's egg for the propagation of her species? It is begging the question to say that the cow furnishes more milk than her calf requires, or that it does not injure the hen to steal her eggs. Besides, it is not true.