Appendix
If asked their opinion, every good host or hostess would express a strong desire that the animals and birds necessary for food should be spared all possible suffering; to help towards this result I subjoin a few notes by authorities on the subject. I think we may confidently look to the great chefs and to those over whose menus they preside, to permit no such deliberate cruelty as is perpetrated by some caterers - "whose customers insist on it"! - of cooking crayfish and trout (the latter for "truite au bleu") alive. It is only necessary that such things should be made known, to ensure their being put a stop to, and if all great leaders of cookery give their powerful support to the laws of common humanity in these particulars, the thing will be done. The Principal of Marshall's School of Cookery, 32, Mortimer Street, writing to me on the 4th and 15th June, 1909, says: "I consider you are quite right in holding the opinion that there is no possible excuse for torturing any living thing in the process of cooking, in order to develop an imaginary flavour. I have had considerable correspondence in times gone by in reference to the phrases used in recipes for dishes, such as 'take a live sole,' and have had to explain that the phrase is merely a market or technical one for 'absolutely fresh' - and is totally distinct from speaking of the sole as 'alive." As to the special point of cooking trout alive for "truite au bleu," the Principal says the same opinion holds good, and adds "We have never had trout alive in this establishment.... The method adopted here for killing lobsters, crayfish, &c., is that mentioned by you" (see later), "viz.: the immersion in boiling water, thereby effecting an instantaneous death with a minimum of suffering so far as one is able to judge." In defence of defenceless animals we in England have fortunately not only the support of general public sympathy on the subject, but also the backing of the law in many directions, though it is possible its application might be advantageously simplified and extended especially perhaps as regards wild animals and birds. All else must be effected by public opinion very strongly expressed.
Cruelty is often, after all, a question of money (misapplied economy) as the result of ignorance. Much more might be done locally to remove ignorance, by the distribution of reliable information and instruction in the care of animals, to those who work on farms, to drovers, to the "higglers" who collect the live poultry from the cottagers, to railwaymen, and sailors of ships conveying live cattle, and to small tradesmen - such instruction as would be conveyed in simple handbooks giving authoritative teaching in the matter in an interesting form. Those living in the country might, with a small expenditure, do a great deal in this way.
All such information would be welcomed by every humane man, while the careless would be reminded of the penalties resulting from neglect of the law. The leaflets and posters published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prove that they have constantly enforced the application of two Acts of Parliament, formed to protect animals against injury in transit in railway trucks and steamboats, viz. 23 & 33, Vict. c. 70, which ordain the supply of proper refreshment to animals in transit, and 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, which forbid improper conveyance. The Society have also done great good in making public the heavy penalties in money, and in imprisonment without option of a fine, to which drovers or their employers, or both, also farmers and tradesmen, render themselves liable by such offences as "travelling lame oxen" or tying the legs of fowls so as to cause suffering or for cutting up live eels, and so on.* * Extract from one of the posters published by the R.S.P.C.A.: - "All persons in the words of the Act 'carrying or conveying, or causing to be carried or conveyed, any animal in such manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain and suffering,' will be prosecuted by the above Society, when the penalty for such offence may be three months' imprisonment with hard labour. It is hoped that persons having the care of animals will prevent any such prosecutions by considerateness and humane treatment. 105, Jermyn Street, St. James's, London, S.W.
G. L. DERRIMAN, Secretary.
As information of such doings may be given by anyone at any police station, the public themselves are to blame if such offences against the law go unnoticed through neglect to report.
Very much has been done to better things in these directions but people seem hardly yet to have realised the importance of the subject to the health of the consumer - a point directly connected with cookery.
Creatures subjected to privation or ill treatment cannot be wholesome food, and it is no doubt scientifically calculable how much of human disease and suffering may be traced to neglect of our duty to the animal world. That is for scientific men to decide, but as these matters affect public health they are worthy of general consideration. Though the Jewish methods of slaughtering are condemned by the Report of the Admiralty Committee (see list at end of Appendix), we might learn much from our Jewish fellow subjects as to the relation of food to health, for among them the careful inspection of the carcases of animals slaughtered for food has always been a matter of strict rule. The health of the Jewish community is said to contrast very favourably, in many important points, with that of the non-Jewish world, as a consequence, it is believed, of this protection from the consumption of diseased meat - as many as two out of every three carcases being as a rule rejected,* it is said by the Jewish authorities. It is to be wished that some such strict and uniform investigation of the meat supplied to the general public could be instituted throughout the country. Recent discussions in the papers on meat warranty and kindred matters may result, it is to be hoped, in better protection against bad meat being offered for sale. It is said that close on 100 tons of meat was condemned last year in one of the large meat markets alone. *What becomes of such rejections is perhaps a question for the non-Jewish consumer. The following information (marked with their initials) gathered from the Leaflets published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 105, Jermyn Street, London, appeared by their kind permission in "Hilda's Diary of a Cape Housekeeper," by Hildagonda Duckitt (Messrs. Chapman & Hall), which I edited some years ago.
I am glad to have the permission of the Society and of the Publishers to repeat the information here, in an abbreviated form, feeling sure that the Society will have the cordial support of Committees and Chefs at Clubs, Hotels and Restaurants, as well as heads of private houses and their cooks, in its effort to ensure the proper treatment of animals required for food. I add details from other authorities which may also be of use to those who in country places have to kill animals and poultry on farms, &c., for home consumption or otherwise.