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 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.