ECONOMY AND DOMESTIC SERVANTS. [TO THE EDITOR OF THE "
SPECTATOR1
Six,—May I point out several inaccuracies in the " Statement " attached to " J. M.'s " letter in your issue of May 13th ? With the object of imbuing his servants with a proper sense of economy, he wrote a state- ment for their perusal, in which the following appears, viz. :— " There are over 4,000,000 people in London alone. Suppose that one-half of these are regular meat-eaters (a very low estimate) ; if those 2,000,000 were to agree to eat one pound less of meat every week (about lf oz. per day), this would amount to over 7,000 tons per week in relief of our shipping. If the same argument be applied to the whole country, it would mean 70,000 tons less for our ships to carry every week."
Unless this paragraph has been misprinted in a wholesale manner, " J. 1.1.'s " arithmetic appears to be somewhat shaky. Surely one pound of meat per week is equivalent to more than 1* oz. per day, while 2,000,000 lb. per week equal not 7,000 tons, but only 893 tons. Applying the argument to the whole country, " J. M.'s " figure of 70,000 tons less meat for our ships to carry every week would amount to 3,640,000 tons per annum, whereas the importation of dead meat of all kinds into the United Kingdom last year amounted to only 1,265,635 tons altogether, of which only 667,000 tons are what is called " butcher's meat." " J. M.'s " idea of educating his servants as to the benefits of economy is a very laudable one, but it was hardly fair o have misled them to such an extent I—I am, Sir, &o.,
Previous page
