discover the reason of an antagonism which we must necessarily deplore.
Vegetarians are generally well able to hold their own in argument against flesh-eaters, when the diet question is discussed in ordinary conversation. But there is certainly something a trifl embarrassing in the position of a Food Reformer who, being as ignorant as most people of the details of physiology. may chance to find himself landed in unequal controversy with a medical man full of technical knowledge and scientific precision. Can he venture to adhere to his own unprofessional opinions, in spite of the distinct assurance of his learned antagonist that he has specially studied this subject and satisfied himself beyond a doubt that flesh-food is necessary for mankind ? Can he doggedly maintain that he lives in the best of health without meat, in opposition to one who blandly but firmly assures him (with perfect knowledge of his internal construction), that he is entirely mistaken ? In short, can he rely on his own native common-sense, when it is apparently in conflict with the professional knowledge of a specialist?
I think that he can. For it should be obser-
