In the whole literature of humanitarianism, nothing can be more impressive for the sympathising reader than this putting on record by these nobler spirits their profound consciousness of the moral torpor of the world around them, and their sad conviction of the prematureness of their attempt to regenerate it. In both his principal works, he judiciously chooses, for the most part, the method of compilation, and of presenting in a concise and comprehensive form the opinions of his humane predecessors, of various minds and times, rather than the presentation of his own individual sentiments. He justly believed that the large majority of men are influenced more by the authority of great names than by arguments addressed simply to their conscience and reason. He intersperses, however, philosophic reflections of his own, whenever the occasion for them arises. Thus, under the head of “Remarks on Defences of Flesh-eating,” he well disposes of the common excuses:-- “The reflecting reader will not expect a formal refutation of common-place objections, which _mean nothing_, as, ‘There would be more unhappiness and slaughter among animals did we not keep them under proper regulations and government. Where would they find pasture did we not manure and enclose the land for them? &c.’ The following objection, however, may deserve notice:--‘Animals must die, and is it not better for them to live a short time in plenty and ease, than be exposed to their enemies, and suffered in old age to drag on a miserable life?’ The lives of animals in _a state of nature_ are very rarely miserable, and it argues a barbarous and savage disposition to cut them _prematurely_ off in the midst of an agreeable and happy existence; especially when we reflect on the _motives_ which induce it. Instead of a friendly concern for promoting their happiness, your aim is the gratification of your own sensual appetites. How inconsistent is your conduct with the fundamental principle of pure morality and true goodness (which some of you ridiculously profess)--_whatsoever you would that others should do to you, do you even so to them_. No man would willingly become the food of other animals; he ought not therefore to prey on _them_. Men who consider themselves members of universal nature, and links in the great chain of Being, ought not to usurp power and tyranny over others, beings naturally free and independent, however such beings may be inferior in intellect or strength.... It is argued that ‘man has a permission, proved by the practice of mankind, to eat the flesh of other animals, and consequently to kill them; and as there are many animals which subsist wholly on the bodies of other animals, the practice is sanctioned among mankind.’ By reason of the at present very low state of morality of the human race, there are many evils which