COOKS AND COOKERY.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1270, 13 April 1878, Page 3

COOKS AND COOKERY.

It must be regarded as a hopeful sign that at length public attention is earnestly directed to the subject of our national cookery and dietary; and that the impart? ance of a well-spread knowledge of the laws of nutrition is fully acknowledged. Dr. Lankester well said:—“The question of good feeding is one of national importance. It is vain to expect either brain or muscle to do efficient work when they are not provided with the proper material. Neither intellectual nor physical work can be done with out good food.” With all the magnificent food supplies of the world at our command, with almost superabundant means wherewith to purchase luxuries, the English nation is, for the most part, ill fed, I will not say there is a want of knowledge here to make good use of our raw material; but there certainly is a want of determination to apply the knowledge, and to provide that well cooked food which alone can enable good work to be done. It is not the universal lack of the French genius for cookery which we have to deplore, but that such plain English fare as is commonly served at the tables of the middle classes is so, badly treated. In how many houses is the boiled mutton other than tough, or the cabbage other than underdone or watery ? Is it not rare to find good home-baked bread, a wellboiled potato, a crisp satisfactory piece of dry toast, properly made porridge, or even a good cup of coffee? The simple rules for cooking and making these simple things are generally known. To what then must we attribute such almost universal failure in their observance ? No doubt a certain impatience of detail, a great love of getting over work in a rapid manner, is common to most Englishwomen, apd more especially common to English cooks. Not only does this impatience involve more or less of failure, but it involves much waste. The small remnants of a dinner, the morsel of fish, the cold vegetables, &c., are cast aside by the impatient cook as “not worth bothering about.” Now it is a part of good housekeeping to see that nothing is so treated, and good housekeeping and good cookery invariably go hand in hand. Considering how ill-educated have been the present generation of housewives, it is not surprising that the national style of cookery has deteriorated. Many ladies, indeed, having bitterly sphered from their want of experience in housekeeping, have diligently applied themselves to the study of it, and have in the end acquired considerable skill in it. It is only to those who are thoroughly accomplished housekeepers we can look to work out the reforms which are so urgently needed both in our cooks and cookery. Many people seem to think these reforms should be worked out by the servants themselves, forgetting that it is for the mistress to lay down rules, and for the servants to carry them out. The plan followed in Germany, of sending young ladies who have finished their school course into a private family with a clever housewife at its head, in order that they may be thoroughly instructed in the duties of house-mother, is a good one. In some cases young German ladies pass months in the kitchens of hotels, and so learn all the details of cookery and management. As things now are in England, there might be some difficulty in thus getting a domestic education for ladies ; but other means are at hand, and should be diligently used. No money is spared in educating girls ; no money is grudged for their adornment. Tet we constantly find parents who object to the expense of thorough instruction in domestic economy, and this when their own experience must have shown them that there is, in the whole course of married life, no accomplishment so much needed, or so much missed, as that which enables a lady to rule her own household wisely and well. In many families it is possible for the daughters of the house to get good training at home, and this is, no doubt, the best training. But in any case no mother may neglect to procure domestic education' for her daughter, without grave risk of perpetuating the evils under which Wf groan, and it may be, iu later years, hearing from that daughter’s lips the exceeding bitter reproach, “ Why was I not taught how to perform my duties|?” Housekeeping is a science, and there is no greater mistake than that of supposing'proficiency in it can bo gained otherwise than by patient study and close observation. It is absolutely necessary that a lady who would rule her household well, should have a practical knowledge of all domestic work, that she may be able to judge how much each servant may reasonably be required to do in a given time ; so that no man shall be idle, no one overtaxed. A knowledge of cookery will enable her to point out to inefficient cooks the cause of mistake and failure ; and she should not only know how things should look and taste when sent to table, but be to judge of, and choose well, every kind Of provision. It will not be easy for cooks to impose on a lady who knows exactly how much of every ingredient is requisite for each dish, and who is able to estimate the quantity of food required daily for her household. It may not, under all circumstances, be necessary for a lady to exercise her knowledge in these important matters ; and if she has a cook who has proved herself trustworthy, she will do well to delegate large powers to her. But it is obvious that, to judge trio skill arid honesty of her cook, the lady' must possess the knowledge I have indicated. Nothing, I believe, can be done to make domestic life better, until all women who take the conduct of households are properly educated for their business : nor can any reform in the present sad condition of our cooks and cookery be looked for until ladies courageously determine to fit themselves to wkthe