***
How many people are crying, "How can we save? Where can we retrench?
Shall the lot fall on the house-furnishing, or the garden, or the
toilet, or the breakfast or the dinner table? Shall we do with one
servant less, move into a cheaper neighbourhood, or into a smaller
house? No, we cannot make any such great changes in our way of life.
There are the boys and girls growing up; we must keep up appearances for
their sakes. We remember the old proverb that, 'however bad it may be to
be poor, it is much worse to look poor.'" Yet, although, for many
reasons, it is often most difficult to retrench on a large scale, there
are people who find it easier, for instance, to put down the carriage
than to see that the small outgoings of housekeeping are more duly
regulated. It is seldom, indeed, that a wife can assist her husband save
by lightening his expenses by her prudence and economy. Too many
husbands, nowadays, can vouch for the truth of the old saying, "A woman
can throw out with a spoon faster than a man can throw in with a
shovel." The prosperity of a middle-class home depends very much on what
is saved, and the reason that this branch of a woman's business is so
neglected is that it is very difficult and very troublesome.
"Take care of your pence and the pounds will take care of themselves,"
is a maxim that was much in use when we were young. Nowadays it is more
fashionable to speak of this kind of thing as "penny wise and pound
foolish." Looking to the outgoings of pence is voted slow work, and it
is thought fine to show a languid indifference to small savings. "Such a
fuss over a pennyworth of this or that, it's not worth while." Yes, but
it is not that particular pennyworth which is alone in question, there
is the principle involved--the great principle of thrift--which must
underlie all good government. The heads of households little think of
what evils they perpetuate when they shut their eyes to wasteful
practices, because it is easier to bear the cost than to prevent waste.
The young servant trained under one careless how she uses, or rather
misuses, that which is entrusted to her, carries in her turn the
wasteful habits she has learned into another household, and trains
others in a contempt for thrifty ways, until the knowledge of how to do
things at once well and economically is entirely lost.
We often hear it urged that it is bad for the mind of a lady to be
harassed by the petty details of small savings, and that if she can
afford to let things go easily she should not be so harassed. But under
no circumstances must any mistress of a household permit habitual waste
in such matters. When the establishment is so large as to be to a great
extent removed from the immediate supervision of the mistress, all she
can do is to keep a careful watch over every item of expenditure, and
by every means in her power to let her servants feel that it is to their
interest as well as to her own to keep within due bounds. A good cook is
always a good manager. She makes many a meal of what an inferior cook
would waste. The housekeeper should therefore insist on having good
cooking at a reasonable cost, and never keep a cook who does not make
the most of everything. In a large household a mistress cannot look
after the sifting of cinders, but she can check her coal bills, and by
observation find out in what department the waste is going on. It may
not be possible to pay periodical visits to the gas-meter to see if the
tap is turned on to the full when such force is not necessary, but she
can from quarter to quarter compare notes, or have fixed, where it is
easy for her to get at it, one of the gas-regulators now in use. And
thus, by the exercise of judicious control and supervision, the guiding
mind of the mistress will make itself felt in every department of the
household without any undue worry to herself. The mistress of a small
household who has things more under her immediate control, and whose
income, no less than her sense of moral obligation, obliges her to look
carefully after the outgoings, need not be told what a trial it is to be
constantly on the watch to prevent waste. Probably she is compelled to
leave a certain quantity of stores for general use; indeed, we doubt
very much if there is anything saved by the daily giving out of ounces
and spoonfuls of groceries, for if a servant is disposed to be
wasteful, she will be equally so with the small as the larger quantity.
What perpetual worry is caused by seeing how soap is left in the water
until it is so soft as to have lost half its value! How many pence go in
most households in that way every week, we wonder!
The scrubbing-brush also is left in water with the soap. A fairly good
brush costs at least two shillings, and as one so treated only lasts
half the proper time you may safely calculate that a shilling is soon
wasted in that way. Brushes of all sorts are, as a rule, most carelessly
used, and left about anyhow instead of being hung up. How much loss
there is in a year in the careless use of knives and plate! Whenever
possible both of these get into the hands of the cook. Her own tools
from neglect or misuse have become blunt or worse, and she takes the
best blade and the plated or silver spoon whenever she has a chance.
The plate gets thrown in a heap into an earthenware bowl to be bruised
and scratched. The knives are either put insufficiently wiped through
the cleaner, which is thus spoiled and made fit rather to dirty than
clean knives, or they are left lying in hot water to have the handles
loosened and discoloured.
Probably jars, tin boxes, and canisters are provided in sufficient
quantity to put away and keep stores properly. But for all that, as it
would seem in a most ingenious manner, loss and waste are contrived. Raw
sugar is kept in the paper until it rots through it. Macaroni, rice, and
such things are left a prey to mice or insects. The vinegar and sauce
bottles stand without the corks. Delicate things, which soon lose their
fine aroma, as tea, coffee, and spices, are kept in uncovered canisters:
the lid is first left off, then mislaid. The treacle jar stands open for
stray fingers and flies to disport themselves therein. Capers are put
away uncovered with vinegar, and when next wanted are found to be
mouldy. Perhaps the juice of a lemon has been used; the peel, instead of
being preserved, is thrown away, or left lying about till valueless.
Herbs, which should have been at once dried and sifted, are hid away in
some corner to become flavourless and dirty, and so on with every kind
of store and provision.
It is impossible to calculate how many pennies are lost daily, in a
large number of houses, by the absolute waste of pieces of bread left to
mould or thrown out because trouble to utilise them cannot be taken.
Whoever thinks anything of the small quantities of good beer left in the
jug; it is so much easier to throw it away than put it in a bottle? Or
who will be at the trouble of boiling up that "drop" of milk, which,
nevertheless, cost a penny, and would make, or help to make, a small
pudding for the next day? Then, again, how many bits of fat and suet are
lost because it is too much trouble to melt down the first, and preserve
the other by very simple and effectual means?
Butter in summer is allowed to remain melting in the paper in which it
is sent in, or perhaps it is put on a plate, to which some pennyworths
of the costly stuff will stick and be lost. One would think it would be
as easy at once to put it into cold salted water, if better means of
cooling could not be used.
If we pause here, it is not because we have exhausted the list of things
most woefully wasted, mainly from want of thought, but because we have
not space to enumerate more of them. We can only add that the importance
of small household savings cannot well be overrated, both because of the
principle involved and because of the substantial sum they represent
together. There is no need in any household for even a penny a day to be
wasted; and yet if we look closely into things, how much money value is
lost daily in some one or other of the ways we have mentioned. In the
course of the year, the daily pennies mount up to many pounds, and we
are sure that it is much safer once in a way lavishly to spend the
shillings than to be habitually careless of the outgoings of the pence.
Although it is not necessary that the mistress of a household who can
afford to keep servants should herself do the cooking, or spend much
time in her kitchen, it is absolutely necessary that she should
understand the best methods, and know how everything should be done.
Many people will say that it is unbecoming for women to be _gourmands_;
we agree with them, and that it is equally unbecoming for men to be so.
But to be a _gourmet_ is another thing; and we ought not to lose sight
of the fact that food eaten with real enjoyment and the satisfaction
which accompanies a well-prepared meal, is greatly enhanced in value.
Professor C. Voit has clearly pointed out, in his experiments and
researches into diet, the great value of palatable food as nourishment,
and how indispensable is a certain variety in our meals. "We think," he
says, "we are only tickling the palate, and that it is nothing to the
stomach and digestive organs whether food is agreeable to the palate or
not, since they will digest it, if it is digestible at all. But it is
not so indifferent after all, for the nerves of the tongue are connected
with other nerves and with nerve-centres, so that the pleasure of the
palate, or some pleasure, at any rate, even if it is only imagination,
which can only originate in the central organ--the brain--often has an
active effect on other organs. This is a matter of daily experience.
Without the secretion of gastric juice the assimilation of nourishment
would be impossible. If, therefore, some provocatives induce and
increase certain sensations and useful processes, they are of essential
value to health, and it is no bad economy to spend something on them."
It is surely somewhat singular that Englishwomen, who have excelled in
almost every other craft, should be remarkable for their want of skill
in cookery. They have not been dismayed by any difficulties in
literature, art, or science, and yet how few are there among us who can
make a dish of porridge like a Scotchwoman, or an omelette like a
Frenchwoman! The fact would seem to be, that educated women having
disdained to occupy themselves either theoretically or practically with
cookery, those whose legitimate business it has been have become
indifferent also. The whole aim of the modern British cook seems to be
to save herself trouble, and she will give as much time and thought to
finding out ways of doing things in a slovenly manner as would go to
doing them properly.
No doubt cooks have often so much work of other kinds to do that they
cannot give the necessary time to cooking. In a case of this kind, the
mistress should herself give such help as she can, and bring up her
daughters to help in the kitchen. People in middle-class life often
expect the cook to do all the kitchen work, and frequently some of the
house work. Of course, in small families, this is quite possible to be
done, and it is always best for servants, as for other people, to be
fully employed. But in large families it is impossible the cooking can
be properly done, when the cook is harassed by so many other
occupations. Thus, because it takes less time and attention than cooking
smaller dishes, huge pieces of meat are roasted or boiled daily, and the
leg-of-mutton style of dietary is perpetuated--declared to be the most
economical, and, in short, the best for all the world.
Probably it is because bread and butter can be bought ready made, and
involve no trouble, that they are held to be the chief necessaries of
life in every English household. Some children almost live, if they do
not thrive, on bread and butter. Thoughtless housekeepers think they
have done their duty when they have seen that a sufficient supply of
these articles has been sent in from the shops. When we insist that
everyone should have home-baked bread, at once we shall be met with the
"penny-wise" suggestion that home-baked bread costs more than baker's,
because, being so nice, people eat more of it. Good bread, we need not
say, is far more nourishing than that which is made from inferior
materials or adulterated even with non-injurious substances for wheaten
flour. Then all the other difficulties come to the fore: cook spoils the
bakings, the oven is not suitable, and so on. To all these we answer: A
good housekeeper, one who looks beyond the sum total of her weekly
bills, who thinks no trouble too great to provide such food as will
maintain the health of her family, will have home-baked bread.
There are other points in domestic management which do not receive the
attention they deserve. Of these we may cite the use of labour-saving
machines and of gas for cooking.
How often do we hear it said: "I always have such and such a thing done
in that way, because it was my mother's way!"
This may be very nice and very natural, but it is nevertheless a
sentimental reason. What should we think of a person who insisted on
riding pillion, because her mother rode pillion? Yet, this really is
pretty much the same thing as we see every day, when ladies are so
wedded to old ways that they persist in employing the rough-and-ready
implements of domestic use, the pattern whereof has been handed down
from the Ark, instead of modern and scientific inventions which save
both time and trouble. In no other department of the national life have
the people been so slow to adopt simple machinery as in that of the
household.
It is alleged, in the first place, that labour-saving machines are
expensive; in the next place, that servants do not understand them, and
that they are always getting out of order.
As to the first objection, we would say that as these machines--we speak
only, of course, of really good machines--are made, not only with the
object of saving labour, but material, the original cost of them is in a
short time repaid. As regards the second objection, it seems
incomprehensible that servants should not use with care and
thoughtfulness machines, which not only save time and trouble, but
greatly help in making their work perfect.
There is no doubt that by the more general adoption of machinery
household work would be much lightened, and that if there were a demand
for it, enterprise would be much stimulated, and many more useful helps
would be produced. As it is, manufacturers hesitate to bring out new
inventions at a great expense, when there is a doubt of securing the
appreciation of the public.
Only the other day we were inquiring for a little machine we had seen
years ago, and were told by the maker that, "like many other useful
things, it had been shelved by the public, and ultimately lost."
Let us take the case of making bread at home. By the use of a little
simple dough-mixing machine, supplied by Kent, 199, High Holborn, the
operation is easy, quick, cleanly, and certain. We have had one of these
in use for more than ten years, and during that time have never had a
bad batch of bread. Not only in this machine do we make ten to eleven
pounds of dough in five minutes, but the kneading is most perfectly
done, and there is the great advantage of securing perfect cleanliness,
the hands not being used at all in the process. Yet we do not suppose
that any number of the people who have admired the bread have set up the
machine. It cannot be the cost of the machine, as it is inconsiderable,
which prevents its more general use, since in households where expense
is not an object the primitive process is still in vogue.
Many people imagine that washing machines are only needed in large
families where all the washing is got up at home. But, if ever so small
or only an occasional wash is done, there is no exaggerating the comfort
and advantage of a machine which washes, wrings, and mangles. So far
from injuring linen, machines of the best kind wear it far less than
rough hand labour, and with reasonable care it will be found that
delicate fabrics are not split in the wringing by a good machine, as
they so frequently are by the hand.
Then there is the case of the knife-cleaning machine. There are families
who, instead of using one, employ a boy to ruin their knives by rubbing
them on a board with Bath brick. They do so, they will tell you,
"because machines wear out the knives." The slightest acquaintance with
the mechanism of a good knife-cleaning machine should suffice to show
that the brushes cannot wear out the knives, whereas the action of the
board and brick is the most destructive that can be imagined. The
objection of undue wear being disposed of, we are told that the machines
soon get out of order, and are a constant expense. Of course, with
careless usage anything will come to grief, but the fact remains that
Kent, the leading manufacturer of knife-cleaners, has published a
certificate from a lady who has had in constant use, for thirty years,
one of his machines, which during that time has required no repairs. As
to knives, we know of some which have been cleaned daily for twenty-five
years in a machine, and are very little the worse for wear.
Dressmakers tell us that, but for the sewing machine, an elaborate style
of trimming ladies' dresses would be impossible. We know that many
inexpensive delicacies, which it is not practicable to have now because
of the time and trouble they require, could easily be managed by the use
of little articles of domestic machinery. For instance, take potted
meat. There is the excellent Combination Mincer, also Kent's, by which
this is rapidly and perfectly done, and which enables cooks to use up
many scraps of material in a most acceptable way, and without the labour
of the pestle and mortar. This machine, however, is but little known. It
costs but a sovereign, is useful for all mincing purposes, and makes
the best sausages in the world.
To make sausages properly, a machine must have an adjustment of the
cutters by which the sinews of the meat and bits of skin are retained on
them, as nothing is so unpleasant as to find these when eating the
sausages. Thus it will be seen how necessary it is, in setting up
machinery which should last a lifetime, to have the best inventions in
the market. Not very long ago, a friend asked our opinion on the merits
of the different makers of knife-cleaning machines. We explained to her
the mechanism of the best of them, pointed out the superior workmanship,
and that she should not grudge the money to have one which would do its
work properly and be durable. Probably under the impression that "in the
multitude of counsellors there is wisdom," our friend made further
inquiries, and ended by buying a much-advertised machine which, she was
assured, was better and cheaper than that of Kent, the original
patentee. When she had the machine home, and calculated, together with
the cost of carriage, her own expenses in going to London to choose it,
she found that she had saved exactly eighteenpence, and then that her
bargain would not clean the knives!
The prejudices which for a long time existed against cooking by gas have
gradually cleared away now that improved stoves have been introduced,
and the public have experience of its many advantages. There are yet
some difficulties to be met in bringing gas into more general use, one
of which, the high price charged for it, is beyond the control of the
housekeeper, and another, that of teaching servants to be economical and
careful in its use. When this last can be overcome, even with the first
named drawback, gas will not be found more expensive than coal. The cost
of wood, of sweeping the chimney, and the extra wear and tear occasioned
by the soot, smoke, and dust of a coal fire, must be calculated in
addition to the fuel itself.
It will be seen, when we say that the entire cooking for a small family
having late dinners, bread baked, and much water heated, is done for
something under 2 pounds a quarter, that gas as a fuel is not so great
an extravagance after all. The stove used has the oven lined with a
non-conducting substance, which has the advantage of keeping the heat
within instead of sending it into the kitchen, as stoves made only of
iron plates are apt to do. We have but space to add that the benefit to
health, the cleanliness, the saving of time, labour, and temper, to say
nothing of the superiority of cooking done by gas in such a stove as has
been described, can only be fully appreciated by those who, like the
writer, have had twenty years' experience of all these advantages.