[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR.") Sia,—Your correspondent has
raised a question interesting to most housekeepers at tho present time. In asking for informa- tion, however, as regards a reasonable amount of meat to be used per head, there is not only the question of duty to the State to bo considered, but that of common-sense and necessity. Many house- holders feel it necessary to their scheme of economy greatly to reduce the amount of meat used in their establishments, and would do so to a larger extent were it not that a possible exit of their servants as a result stares them in the face. It is a fact that most servants as a general rule require, or desire, more meat than their employers, and, as they have no housekeeping cares themselves, fail fully to understand its difficulties. In the latter case I do not speak from personal experience, my own cook having herself proposed two meatless days in the week, but from what others have told me. If the Government were to recommend 4111 householders to have a meatless day, I feel that though such a thing could not be enforced, it would influence public opinion and simplify, with regard to their servants, the lives of many people. It may be, as your correspondent points out, a fact that many working people manage on two pounds of meat per head a week, but my experience has been otherwise, especially among those working on the land. I know of a farm, for instance, where the average meals are as follows :-6 a.m., tea and bacon; 8 a.m., bread, meat, cheese, tea, sometimes porridge; 11 a.m., three- course dinner; 2.30 p.m., tea and bread and butter; 5 p.m., "high " tea; 8 p.m., meat and potatoes. Never having worked on the land myself, I am unable to judge whether this is either neces- sary or likely to have a healthy result. To an insider it seems both extravagant and absurd, and, from what I can find out, by no means an isolated case.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
