The mistress of a house must not look for bricks without straw. In other words, she must not demand good work from her maids if they lack the tools with which to achieve it.

When women, in the course of discussions on domestic topics at clubs and elsewhere, declare that housekeeping can be practised on the same principles as those on which men conduct their business, when they affirm that housekeeping may be run like machinery, they sometimes forget what is meant by the management of machinery. The metaphor pleases them so much that they fail to examine it too closely. But any machinist will tell one that an engine does not go of itself. I do not mean only that the fires must be kept up and the water which is to generate steam must be provided. There is more to it than that. The machinery must be watched and oiled and kept in perfect repair. If any bit of it is injured it must at once be replaced. There must be a regular inspection made to see that there is not so much friction on one part as to make too much wear and tear, and that other portions which are temporarily out of use do not become rusty so that they are unmanageable when they come in demand.

But what housekeeper takes such care of her home machinery as this? Here and there one may be found, but the majority, having started the works going, seem to have the impression that the wheels will continue to revolve with no further attention. It is taken for granted that the maid will pursue the even tenor of her way as if she were another piece of clockwork that has been wound up—or, perhaps, as if she were a part of the same big machine which comprises the household and all its appointments.

The difference, of course, between the machinery and the home is that in the conduct of the latter the human equation has to be reckoned with constantly. It is not enough for the mistress to see that all parts of the engine are supplied, if this or that section is to be injured through carelessness as soon as her back is turned. The head machinist would probably drop a man on short notice who had proved himself to be persistently careless of the portion of labor committed to his charge. The fact that he could do other parts of his work well, that he was kindly and good-natured and never spoke an impertinent word, would weigh for little if he did not pay attention to his especial duty and take proper care of that which was committed to his charge. With the domestic servant matters are on a different footing. In counting up her good and bad qualities the mistress must keep a debit-and-credit account and feel that one positive virtue offsets many negative defects.

Yet, even while she does this and puts up with shortcomings because of some one conspicuous merit, the mistress should not relax her effort to approximate, so far as she may, the performance of household duties to the workings of the machinery to which it is so often likened. And to do this she must see that everything necessary is at hand, to make the wheels turn smoothly.

It is a proof of the carelessness with which many homes are managed, and of the slackness which maids take for granted, that the household equipment is so often conspicuously poor. I have been in houses that were well furnished above-stairs where I have seen the maids attempting to do careful cookery with utensils that were utterly inadequate. There were broken vegetable-graters, cream-churns, egg-beaters, flour-sifters, coffee-pots with parts of their mechanism missing, bowls and dishes with large sections gone from them, an insufficient supply of such small items as measuring-cups, mixing-spoons, vegetable-knives, and the like. I have also had a glimpse of the articles provided for keeping a house clean—stubby brooms, worn-out brushes, half-bristled scrubbing-brushes, a stingy provision of the detergents and cleansing fluids manufactured for household use. In the midst of this dearth the maids worked as best they could, accomplishing wonders when one thought of the means they had in hand.

"But," some one will say, "these things were doubtless provided at first, and if they are lacking now it is because of the carelessness of the maids that had them in charge."

Precisely so. But the maids ought not to have been permitted to be careless. If that consummation devoutly to be desired of making the house run like a machine is ever to be brought about, the methods of the shop must be introduced into domestic work. The maid should have given to her the utensils that she will need in order to do her work properly and then she should be held responsible for them—not responsible merely by word either. It will be necessary for the mistress to keep her eyes on these details just as the head machinist makes his inspection. She will have to see for herself that the broom is hung up or stood on the handle instead of on the bristle end, that the brushes and dust-pans not only have their nails or hooks, but are kept on them when not in use instead of being thrown into a corner of the kitchen and kicked about by any one who finds them in the way. She will have to inquire if the dish-towels are washed out after service, boiled once a day, and well dried and aired—not thrown carelessly over a clothes-horse or a line to dry with the grease and stains from carelessly washed dishes still clinging to them. Once in so often the mistress must make an examination of the contents of the pot-closet to ascertain for herself if the double boiler has been left on the fire until the water has cooked away and the bottom has cracked from dryness. She must see that her pans are scoured when they need it, that no utensil is ever put away with part of the contents sticking to the inside.

Do some or all of these admonitions appear uncalled for? I hope they are, but I am afraid that at least five out of every ten housekeepers would find one of these defects in her pantries should she go there seeking perfection.

When the mistress neglects matters in this way the maid-servant is not wholly to blame for her heedlessness. It must always be borne in mind that our domestic service is not recruited from training-schools. The maid comes to us from her own home or from a succession of other persons' homes, where she has been taught to do one thing in half a dozen different ways. From all these she has evolved her own method, which may be good and may be poor. Such as it is, she is likely to follow it, unless she is persuaded of a more excellent way or compelled into it by her new mistress. In the latter case she will probably "go back to the blanket" as soon as she is at liberty.

I have already said that it is a mistake for the mistress to demand that the maid shall change her mode of doing a piece of work, provided the results are good. The mistress should allow time to discover the advantages or disadvantages of the servant's system. But if she feels that her own way is surely better than that the maid follows, she should insist upon a change. She should recognize the possibility of the employÉe's being a reasonable creature, and show her what she considers the merits of the new plan at the same time that she makes it clearly understood that, whether the maid sees these or not, the work is to be done in the manner prescribed by the mistress. She pays for the work and she has a right to say in what way it shall be performed.

Sometimes one finds a maid who rebels against this sort of management. In that case a mistress is wise to discharge her at the end of the month—that is, unless she can be induced to do the work in the right fashion. Of course, it is always upon the cards that the maid may have so many other good qualities that they make up for this defect; but, as a rule, it will be found that the maid who persists in refusing to adopt a method of work ordered by her employer will be hard to manage in other ways. Before giving up such a servant, however, it is well for the mistress to think carefully of the question at issue and be very sure that the way she desires possesses enough advantages to make it worth while to raise an issue upon it.

Sometimes a maid will come around to a new method of her own accord. I knew of a cook whose mistress had purchased one of the admirable bread-making machines. The housekeeper had investigated it thoroughly and become persuaded that it not only saved time and labor, but that the bread made from it was more wholesome than that mixed and kneaded in the ordinary manner. So she installed the machine in her kitchen, explained its workings and its virtues to the cook, and supposed that there would be no trouble about it. But the cook was an obstinate conservative. She had made good bread by the old way, and to the old way she would adhere. She did not absolutely refuse to use the machine, but she calmly went on making bread by hand. Excellent bread it was, too. The mistress could find no fault with it—but that was beside the point. Being a sensible woman, she hesitated to raise an issue and possibly lose a good cook and a trustworthy servant. She herself went into the kitchen and made bread two or three times with the machine. Her daughter did the same. In spite of herself the cook became interested in the new-fangled notion. She saw that it saved time and toil. At last she tried the machine herself. The results were so good and at so small a cost of work that she became an ardent convert.

"Sure, it was wicked I used to be about it," she confessed to the mistress later. "When you and Miss Jane were making bread with it I used to be just prayin' that it would turn out bad."

There are plenty of maids of this kind, although once in a while one finds a specimen of the other sort. Usually the latter kind is found among the older women who have become "set in their ways" and object to experiments of any nature. If the employer wishes to be mistress in her own house she can hardly retain one of this variety in her service. But if there are reasons that make her willing to waive her own authority for the sake of comfort in other directions, she is perhaps prudent to do it. This is a matter each housekeeper must settle for herself.

To return to the first point for a moment. The mistress must give her maids what they need to do their work well before she expects to receive good work from them, and having done this shall demand that they keep their tools in order. At the same time that she makes adequate provision she should not encourage extravagance by overabundance. We all have a tendency to be lavish when we see before us what seems like more than enough. The maid should have what will suffice for the present need, but no more. There is no sense in having half a dozen double boilers, for instance, when the utmost need of the household does not call for more than four. Keep two in reserve until accident or use has disabled one of the others. The maid should not have so large a supply of kitchen and china towels that she feels it makes little difference if she takes proper care of them. Instead, she should have enough to wipe her dishes without having to stint herself, and if extra towels are needed for extra service they should be given for that time and then put away until the next occasion arises for their use. She should not have three or four dust-cloths in commission all the while, but should wash those she has every day or two and use them until they are worn out. Her cleaning-cloths—for lamps, bedroom crockery, and the like—should not be so numerous that she feels it is easier to throw them away than to take the trouble to rinse them after service.

Not only the housekeeper is to be considered in the enforcement of these rules. The maid is being trained in habits of thrift or of wastefulness, and the housekeeper is preparing for her own kitchen or for the kitchen of some other woman a servant who will be valuable or the reverse. I have touched upon the responsibility of the housekeeper for her servants in other respects, and this is another way in which she should appreciate her duty to her neighbor.

In some households the mistresses have slipped into the careless way of permitting the maid to give orders to the butcher and the grocer. This should only be done in unusual circumstances. The maid may be entirely honest and conscientious. At the same time, the mistress is not only putting her in the way of a temptation to extravagance, but is also neglecting one of her own duties. The maid should have a pad and pencil hanging in the kitchen. With these she should keep a list of what is wanted in the line of household supplies. When she takes the last of any kind of provision from its receptacle she should make a note of it on the pad. By this method there is never a discovery at the last moment that a supply of some desired grocery is exhausted. This memorandum the mistress must go over every morning when she makes her daily inspection of the kitchen and pantries. The slip she tears from the pad will serve as her list of purchases when she goes to market. This, too, should not be the work of the maid. Once in a while she can be sent out on an emergency errand, but, as a rule, it is the mistress who should do the buying. By following this plan she knows what is ordered, what delivered, and is able at the end of the week to check intelligently the record in her weekly book from the grocer or the market-man.

In all that has been said there has been no attempt to consider the large establishment where there is a housekeeper who assumes the duties of the mistress of the home in the way of ordering meals, directing servants, and looking after all the details of the household. Such establishments are not plentiful enough to be considered in a book of this scope. It is in the homes where but one servant or at the most two or three are kept that problems of the sort we have touched upon present themselves for solution. In such homes these problems are often matters of daily or weekly consideration. The mistress desires to do all she can to enable the maid to make the best of her place; the maid's intentions are usually as good as those of the mistress, even if they are not quite so clearly formulated.

Something may be said concerning payment for extra work. When a maid is engaged it is with the understanding that she is to do for a fixed wage all the work in her particular line. If hers is the place of a general-housework servant, the duties are, as already said, hard to define, but there may be an approximate idea formed of what they comprise. In other positions in the household it is a simpler matter to lay down with some precision what the avocations of each servant shall be. Except by special arrangement she should not be required to step outside her round. But there are times in nearly every family when some accident or set of unavoidable occurrences renders it necessary to ask one maid to do the work of another. Sudden illness, the departure of one maid before it is possible to engage another, the descent of unexpected guests—any one of these things may make it needful for the housekeeper to request a servant to do something besides her regular work.

When this is the case it should be shown by the mistress that she appreciates the consideration of the servant, and there should be an effort made to compensate for such consideration—not necessarily by a payment of money, but by a gift, the granting of an unusual privilege, or by relieving the maid of a part of her own regular work. It is not a good principle for the mistress to fall into the habit of bestowing tips for any extra service. If matters were conducted on a purely business basis this might be desirable, but, as I have said before, in the relation of mistress and maid there are too many opportunities for mutual accommodation for either to stand upon a point of a kindliness granted by the other side.

When it comes to tips from guests it is another matter. If a visitor feels more comfortable to offer a gift to a servant on leaving, there is no reason why it should not be done. I know of employers who say that they pay their servants adequate wages and do not thank their guests for feeling it obligatory upon them to supplement these by presents. This is not quite the point at issue. The guest does not mean to question the justice or generosity of his host, but he feels that he has caused extra labor and has received services for which he would like to make some return to the domestic. The gift is not taken by the servant as a supplement to her wages, but as an acknowledgment of services given, on her own part, and as a token of appreciation of these by the guest. The matter of tips in this country has never assumed the importance it possesses on the other side of the water, although it is by way of becoming a more serious matter with every year.

At least once a week the maid should go over the list of silver, which the mistress should have put into her hands when she came first to the house, and see that no pieces are missing. In the same way it is well for her to keep track of the china. Whenever a piece is nicked, cracked, or broken she should report it at once. Few mistresses are severe when this is done, although they are rarely so amiable as not to be irritated to discover such damages by accident. There will be mishaps in the best-regulated household, but concealment of these or neglect to mention them is a mistake. It shakes the confidence of the employer and saves the employÉe no trouble, since the injury is bound to be discovered sooner or later, and the reproof is much sharper in those circumstances than it would be if the maid had made a virtue of necessity and told of the breakage when it occurred.

When there has been an accident of this sort there should be judgment exercised on the part of the mistress as to enforcing the rule concerning payment for breakages. If the maid is usually careful and the accident was the result of circumstances she could not avoid, it is better not to deduct the value of the broken article from her wages. If she is habitually careless, she will learn a lesson by having to pay for her fault. If there is a clear understanding on this matter at the time the maid is engaged, there is no room for any feeling of being imposed upon when the rule is put into practice. Justice should be tempered with mercy, however, and allowances made for the first offence. The maid should be asked just how the accident happened, warned against holding wet china in slippery, moist fingers, crowding too many pieces into the dish-pan at once, attempting to carry too large a number at one time, and other methods of provoking casualties of this sort. Should she persist in such habits after the warning has been given, the payment for the broken articles should be insisted upon.