“It seems necessary to bring forward these facts, as M. Soyer’s soup has inspired the public mind with much satisfaction—­a satisfaction which, we venture to say, will never reach the public stomach.

“Marquises and lords and ladies may taste the meagre liquid, and pronounce it agreeable to their gustative inclinations; but something more than an agreeable titilation of the palate is required to keep up that manufactory of blood, bone, and muscle which constitutes the ‘strong healthy man.’”

During M. Soyer’s visit to Ireland, a Dublin chemist read, before the Royal Dublin Society, a paper upon the nutritive and pecuniary value of various kinds of cooked food.  He had previously put himself in communication with M. Soyer, who showed him over his model kitchen, and allowed him to analyze his soups.  The result of this analysis was remarkable, for he found that M. Soyer’s dearest soup was the least nutritive, whilst his cheapest soup was the most so:  a proportion which held through all the soups analyzed; their nutritive qualities being in an inverse ratio to their prices.  In his calculation the chemist takes a child of four stones weight, as the average of persons who required food relief, and he found that—­

     160 gallons of Soyer’s soup No. 2 would give sufficient nutriment
     to 213 such children for one day.  Its price was 2-3/4d. the gallon.

     160 gallons of Soyer’s soup No. 4 would give sufficient nutriment
     to 420 such children for one day.  Its price was 2-1/4d. the gallon.

     160 gallons of his soup No. 5 would give sufficient nutriment to
     385 such children for one day.  Its price was 2-1/2d. the gallon.

     160 gallons of his soup No. 6 (a fish soup) would give sufficient
     nutriment to 700 such children for one day.  Its price was only
     1-3/4d. the gallon.[249]

So that the famous cook of the Reform Club did not know the comparative nutritive qualities of his own soups.

But a still greater came on the scene in the person of Sir Henry Marsh, the Queen’s physician, and long at the head of his profession in this country.  He published a pamphlet of some ten pages, not for the purpose of finding fault with M. Soyer or his soups, but evidently to set the public right on the question of food, as they seemed to have taken up the idea that there resided some hidden power in the cook’s receipt, distinct from the ingredients he used.  Sir Henry thus deals with soup food:—­

“A soft semi-liquid diet will maintain the life and health of children, and in times of scarcity will be sufficient for those adults whose occupations are sedentary, and is best suited to those who are reduced by and recovering from a wasting disease.  Such persons stand in no need of the more abundant and more substantial nutriment which is essential to those who are daily engaged in occupations exacting much muscular labour.  In the preparation and distribution