THE CHEMISTRY OF COOKERY. 85 



inquirers, and encouraged some sneerers at this work of the great 

 scientific philanthropist, viz., that he found that less than five ounces 

 of solids was sufficient for each man's dinner. He was supplying far 

 more nutritious material than beef and potatoes, and therefore his 

 five ounces was more satisfactory than a pound of beef and potatoes, 

 three fourths of which is water, for which water John Bull pays a 

 shilling or more per pound when he buys his prime steak. 



Rumford added the water at pump-cost, and, by long boiling, 

 caused some of it to unite with the solid materials (by the hydration I 

 have described), and then served the combination in the form of por- 

 ridge, raising each portion to nineteen and three quarters ounces. 



I might multiply such examples to prove the fallacy of the prevail- 

 ing notions concerning the nutritive value of the " mixed diet," a fal- 

 lacy which is merely an inherited epidemic, a baseless physical super- 

 stition. 



I will, however, just add one more example for comparison viz., 

 the Highlander's porridge. The following is the composition of oat- 

 meal also from Pavy's table : 



Sugar 5"40 



Fat 5-60 



Water 15"00 



Albumen 12-60 



Starch 58"40 



Salts 3-00 



Compare this with the beef and potatoes above, and it will be seen 

 that it is superior hi every item excepting the water. This deficiency 

 is readily supplied in the cookery. 



These figures explain a puzzle that may have suggested itself to 

 some of my thoughtful readers viz., the smallness of the quantity of 

 dry oatmeal that is used in making a large portion of porridge. If we 

 could, in like manner, see our portion of beef or mutton and potatoes 

 reduced to dryness, the smallness of the quantity of actually solid food 

 required for a meal would be similarly manifest. An alderman's ban- 

 quet in this condition would barely fill a breakfast-cup. 



I can not at all agree with those of my vegetarian friends who de- 

 nounce flesh-meat as a prolific source of disease, as inflaming the passions, 

 and generally demoralizing. Neither am I at all disposed to make a 

 religion of either eating or drinking, or abstaining. There are certain 

 albuminoids, certain carbo-hydrates, certain hydrocarbons, and certain 

 salts demanded for our sustenance. Excepting in fruit, these are not 

 supplied by Nature in a fit condition for our use. They must be pre- 

 pared. "Whether we do all the preparation in the kitchen by bringing 

 the produce of the earth directly there, or whether, on account of our 

 ignorance and incapacity as cooks, we pass our food through the stom- 

 ach, intestines, blood-vessels, etc., of sheep and oxen, as a substitute 

 for the first stages of scientific cookery, the result is about the same as 

 regards the dietetic result. Flesh-feeding is a nasty practice, but I 

 see no grounds for denouncing it as physiologically injurious. 



In my youthful days I was on friendly terms with a sheep that be- 



