Chapter XXXVI: Nicholson. 1760-1825

Among the least known, but none the less among the most estimable, of the advocates of the rights of the oppressed species and the heralds of the dawn of a better day, the humble Yorkshire printer, who undertook the unpopular and unremunerative work of publishing to the world the sorrows and sufferings of the non-human races, claims our high respect and admiration. He has also another title (second only to his humanitarian merit) to the gratitude of posterity as having been the originator of cheap literature of the best class, and of the most instructive sort, which, alike by the price and form, was adapted for wide circulation.

George Nicholson was born at Bradford. He early set up a printing press, and began the publication of his _Literary Miscellany_, “which is not, as the name might lead one to suppose, a magazine, but a series of choice anthologies, varied by some of the gems of English literature. The size is a small 18mo., scarcely too large for the waistcoat pocket. The printing was a beautiful specimen of the typographic art, and for the illustrations he sought the aid of the best artists. He was one of the patrons of Thomas Bewick, some of whose choicest work is to be found in the pamphlets issued by Nicholson. He also issued 125 cards, on which were printed favourite pieces, afterwards included in the _Literary Miscellany_. This ‘assemblage of classical beauties for the parlour, the closet, the carriage, or the shade,’ became very popular, and extended to twenty volumes. The plan of issuing them in separate numbers enabled individuals to make their own selection, and they are found bound up in every possible variety. Complete sets are now rare, and highly prized by collectors.”

Of his many useful publications may be enumerated--_Stenography: The Mental Friend and Rational Companion, consisting of Maxims and Reflections relating to the Conduct of Life_. 12mo. _The Advocate and Friend of Woman._ 12mo. _Directions for the Improvement of the Mind._ 12mo. _Juvenile Preceptor._ Three vols., 12mo. The books which concern us now are--_On the Conduct of Man to Inferior Animals_ (Manchester, 1797: this was adorned by a woodcut from the hand of Bewick). And his _magnum opus_, which appeared in the year 1801, under the title of _The Primeval Diet of Man: Arguments in Favour of Vegetable Food; with Remarks on Man’s Conduct to [other] Animals_ (Poughnill, near Ludlow).

The value of _The Primeval Diet_ was enhanced by the addition, in a later issue, of a tract _On Food_ (1803), in which are given recipes for the preparation of “one hundred perfectly palatable and nutritious substances, which may easily be procured at an expense much below the price of the limbs of our fellow animals.... Some of the recipes, on account of their simple form, will not be adopted even by those in the middle rank of life. Yet they may be valuable to many of scanty incomes, who desire to avoid the evils of want, or to make a reserve for the purchasing of books and other mental pleasures.” He also published a tract _On Clothing_, which contains much sensible and practical advice on an important subject.

Nicholson resided successively in Manchester, Poughnill, and Stourport, and died at the last-named place in the year 1825. “He possessed,” says a writer in _The Gentleman’s Magazine_ (xcv.), “in an eminent degree, strength of intellect, with universal benevolence and undeviating uprightness of conduct.” The learned bibliographer, to whom we are indebted for this brief notice, thus sums up the character of his labours: “In all his writings the purity and benevolence of his intentions are strikingly manifest. Each subject he took in hand was thought out in an independent manner, and without reference to current views or prejudices.”[214]

In his brief preface the author thus expresses his sad conviction of the probable futility of his protests:--

“The difficulties of removing deep-rooted prejudices, and the
inefficiency of reason and argument, when opposed to habitual
opinions established on general approbation, are fully apprehended.
Hence the cause of humanity, however zealously pleaded, will
not be materially promoted. Unflattered by the hope of exciting
an impression on the public mind, the following compilation is
dedicated to the sympathising and generous Few, whose opinions
have not been founded on implicit belief and common acceptation:
whose habits are not fixed by the influence of false and pernicious
maxims or corrupt examples: who are neither deaf to the cries of
misery, pitiless to suffering innocence, nor unmoved at recitals of
violence, tyranny, and murder.”

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
it is the duty and business of enlightened ages to eradicate. The
various refinements of civil society, the numerous improvements in
the arts and sciences, and the different reformations in the laws,
policy, and government of nations, are proofs of this assertion.
That mankind, in the present stage of _polished_ life, act in
direct violation of the principles of justice, mercy, tenderness,
sympathy, and humanity, in the practice of eating flesh, is
obvious. To take away the life of any happy being, to commit
acts of depredation and outrage, and to abandon every refined
feeling and sensibility, is to degrade the human kind beneath its
professed dignity of character; but to _devour_ or eat any animal
is an additional violation of those principles, because it is the
_extreme_ of brutal ferocity. Such is the conduct of the most
savage of wild beasts, and of the most uncultivated and barbarous
of our own species. Where is the person who, with calmness, can
hear himself compared in disposition to a lion, a hyæna, a tiger or
a wolf? And yet, how exactly similar is his disposition.

“Mankind affect to revolt at murders, at the shedding of blood, and
yet eagerly, and without remorse, feed on the corpse after it has
undergone the culinary process. What mental blindness pervades the
human race, when they do not perceive that every feast of blood
is a _tacit encouragement_ and licence to the very crime their
pretended delicacy abhors! I say _pretended_ delicacy, for that
it is pretended is most evident. The profession of sensibility,
humanity, &c., in such persons, therefore, is egregious folly. And
yet there are respectable persons among everyone’s acquaintance,
amiable in other dispositions, and advocates of what is commonly
termed the cause of humanity, who are weak or prejudiced enough to
be satisfied with such arguments, on which they ground apologies
for their practice! Education, habit, prejudice, fashion, and
interest, have blinded the eyes of men, and seared their hearts.

“Opposers of compassion urge: ‘If we should live on vegetable food,
what shall we do with our _cattle_? What would become of them? They
would grow so numerous they would be prejudicial to us--they would
eat us up if we did not kill and eat them.’ But there is abundance
of animals in the world whom men do not kill and eat; and yet we
hear not of their injuring mankind, and sufficient room is found
for their abode. Horses are not usually killed to be eaten, and yet
we have not heard of any country overstocked with them. The raven
and redbreast are seldom killed, and yet they do not become too
numerous. If a decrease of cows, sheep, and others were required,
mankind would readily find means of reducing them. Cattle are at
present an article of trade, and their numbers are _industriously_
promoted. If cows are kept solely for the sake of milk, and if
their young should become too numerous, let the evil be nipped in
the bud. Scarcely suffer the innocent young to feel the pleasure
of breathing. Let the least pain possible be inflicted; let its
body be deposited entire in the ground, and let a sigh have vent
for the calamitous necessity that induced the painful act....
Self-preservation justifies a man in putting noxious animals to
death, yet cannot warrant the least act of cruelty to any being.
By suddenly despatching one when in extreme misery, we do a kind
office, an office which reason approves, and which accords with our
best and kindest feelings, but which (such is the force of custom)
we are denied to show, though solicited, to our own species. When
they can no longer enjoy happiness, they may perhaps be deprived
of life. Do not suppose that in this reasoning an intention is
included of _perverting_ nature. No! some animals are savage and
unfeeling; but let not _their_ ferocity and brutality be the
standard and pattern of the conduct of _man_. Because _some_ of
them have no compassion, feeling, or reason, are _we_ to possess no
compassion, feeling, or reason?”

In another section of his book Nicholson undertakes to expose the inconsistencies of flesh-eaters, and the strange illogicalness of the position of many protestors against various forms of cruelty, who condone the greatest cruelty of all--the (necessary) savagery of the butchers:--

“The inconsistencies of the conduct and opinions of mankind in
general are evident and notorious; but when ingenious writers fall
into the same glaring errors, our regret and surprise are justly
and strongly excited. Annexed to the impressive remarks by Soame
Jenyns, to be inserted hereafter, in examining the conduct of man
to [other] animals, we meet with the following passage:--

“‘God has been pleased to create numberless animals intended for
our sustenance, and that they are so intended, the agreeable
flavour of their flesh to our palates, and the wholesome nutriment
which it administers to our stomachs, are sufficient proofs; these,
as they are formed for our use, propagated by our culture, and fed
by our care, we have certainly a right to deprive of life, because
it is given and preserved to them on that _condition_.’

“Now, it has already been argued that the bodies of animals are
_not_ intended for the sustenance of man; and the decided opinions
of several eminent medical writers and others sufficiently
disprove assertions in favour of the wholesomeness of the flesh
of animals. The _agreeable taste_ of food is not always a proof
of its _nourishing_ or _wholesome_ properties. This truth is too
frequently experienced in mistakes, ignorantly or accidentally
made, particularly by children, in eating the fruit of the deadly
nightshade, the taste of which resembles black currants, and is
extremely inviting by the beauty of its colour and shape.[215]

“That we have a right to make attacks on the existence of any being
_because_ we have assisted and fed such being, is an assertion
opposed to every established principle of justice and morality. A
‘condition’ cannot be made without the mutual consent of parties,
and, therefore, what this writer terms ‘a condition,’ is nothing
less than an unjust, arbitrary, and deceitful imposition. ‘Such is
the deadly and stupifying influence of habit or custom,’ says Mr.
Lawrence, ‘of so poisonous and brutalising a quality is prejudice,
that men, perhaps no way inclined by nature to acts of barbarity,
may yet live insensible of the constant commission of the most
flagrant deeds.’ ... A cook-maid will weep at a tale of woe, while
she is skinning a living eel; and the devotee will mock the Deity
by asking a blessing on food supplied by murderous outrages against
nature and religion! Even women of education, who readily weep
while reading an affecting moral tale, will clear away clotted
blood, still warm with departed life, cut the flesh, disjoint
the bones, and tear out the intestines of an animal, without
sensibility, without sympathy, without fear, without remorse.
What is more common than to hear this _softer_ sex talk of, and
assist in, the cookery of a deer, a hare, a lamb or a calf (those
acknowledged emblems of innocence) with perfect composure? Thus
the female character, by nature soft, delicate, and susceptible of
tender impressions, is debased and sunk. It will be maintained that
in other respects they still possess the characteristics of their
sex, and are humane and sympathising. The inconsistency then is the
more glaring. To be virtuous in some instances does not constitute
the moral character, but to be uniformly so.”

We can allow ourselves space only for one or two further quotations from this excellent writer. The remarks upon the common usage of language, by which it is vainly thought to conceal the true nature of the dishes served up upon the tables of the rich, are particularly noteworthy, because the inaccurate expression condemned is almost universal, and that even, from force of habit, amongst reformed dietists themselves:--

“There is a natural horror at the shedding of blood, and some
have an aversion to the practice of devouring the carcase of an
innocent sufferer, which bad habits improper education, and silly
prejudices have not overcome. This is proved by their affected and
absurd refinement of calling the dead bodies of animals _meat_. If
the meaning of words is to be regarded, this is a gross mistake;
for the word _meat_ is a universal term, applying equally to all
nutritive and palatable substances. If it be intended to express
that all other kinds of food are comparatively not meat, the
intention is ridiculous. The truth is that the proper expression,
_flesh_, conveys ideas of murder and death. Neither can it easily
be forgotten that, in grinding the body of a fellow animal,
substances which constitute _human_ bodies are masticated. This
reflection comes somewhat home, and is recurred to by eaters of
flesh in spite of themselves, but recurred to _unwillingly_. They
attempt, therefore, to pervert language in order to render it
agreeable to the ear, as they disguise animal flesh by cookery in
order to render it pleasing to the taste.”

His reflections upon the essential injustice (to use no stronger term) of delegating the work of butchering to a particular class of men (to which frequent reference has already been made in these pages) are equally admirable:--

“Among butchers, and those who qualify the different parts of an
animal into food, it would be easy to select persons much further
removed from those virtues which should result from reason,
consciousness, sympathy, and animal sensations, than any savages
on the face of the earth! In order to avoid all the generous and
spontaneous sympathies of compassion, the office of shedding
blood is committed to the hands of a set of men who have been
educated in inhumanity, and whose sensibility has been blunted and
destroyed by early habits of barbarity. Thus men _increase_ misery
in order to avoid the sight of it, and because they cannot endure
being obviously cruel themselves, or commit actions which strike
painfully on their senses, they commission those to commit them who
are formed to delight in cruelty, and to whom misery, torture, and
shedding of blood is an amusement! They appear not once to reflect
that _whatever we do by another we do ourselves_.”

“When a large and gentle Ox, after having resisted a ten times
greater force of blows than would have killed his murderers, falls
stunned at last, and his armed head is fastened to the ground with
cords; as soon as the wide wound is made, and the jugular veins
are cut asunder, what mortal can, without horror and compassion,
hear the painful bellowings, intercepted by his flow of blood,
the bitter sighs that speak the sharpness of his anguish, and the
deep-sounding groans with loud anxiety, fetched from the bottom of
his strong and palpitating heart. Look on the trembling and violent
convulsions of his limbs; see, whilst his reeking gore streams from
him, his eyes become dim and languid, and behold his strugglings,
gasps, and last efforts for life.

“When a being has given such convincing and undeniable proofs of
terror and of pain and agony, is there a disciple of Descartes
so inured to blood, as not to refute, by his commiseration, the
philosophy of that vain reasoner?”[216]

In his previous essay, _On the Conduct of Men to Inferior Animals_, Nicholson has collected from various writers, both humane and inhumane, a fearful catalogue of atrocities of different kinds perpetrated upon his helpless dependants by the being who delights to boast himself (at least in civilised countries) to be made “in the image and likeness of God.” Among these the hellish tortures of the vivisectionists and “pathologists” hold, perhaps, the bad pre-eminence, but the cruel tortures of the Slaughter-House come very near to them in wanton atrocity.