THE CHEMISTRY OF COOKERY. 93 



This reduces the cost to a little above one farthing per dinner — 

 IjL- exactly. 



In the essay from which the above is quoted, there is another ac- 

 count, reducing all the items to what they would cost in London in 

 November, 1795, which raises the amount to 2f farthings per portion 

 for No. 1, and 2|- farthings for No. 2. In this estimate the expenses 

 for fuel, servants, kitchen furniture, etc., are three times as much as 

 the cost at Munich, and the other items at the prices stated in the 

 printed report of the Board of Agriculture of November 10, 1795. 



But since 1795 we have made great progress in the right direction. 

 Bread then cost one shilling per loaf, barley and peas about fifty per 

 cent more than at present, salt is set down by Rumford at \^d. per 

 pound (now about one farthing) . Fuel was also dearer. But wages have 

 risen greatly. As stated in money, they are about doubled (in pur- 

 chasing power, i. e., real wages, they are threefold). Making all these 

 allowances, charging wages at six times those paid by him, I find that 

 the present cost of Rumford's No. 1 soup would be a little over one 

 halfpenny per portion, and No. 2 just about one halfpenny. I here 

 assume that Rumford's directions for the construction of kitchen fire- 

 places and economy of fuel are carried out. We are in these matters 

 still a century behind his arrangements of 1790, and nothing short of 

 a coal-famine will punish and cure our criminal extravagance. 



The cookery of the above-named ingredients is conducted as fol- 

 lows : " The water and pearl-barley first put together in the boiler 

 and made to boil, the peas are then added, and the boiling is contin- 

 ued over a gentle fire about two hours ; the potatoes are then added 

 (peeled), and the boiling is continued for about one hour more, during 

 which time the contents of the boiler are frequently stirred about 

 with a large wooden spoon or ladle, in order to destroy the texture of 

 the potatoes, and to reduce the soup to one uniform mass. When 

 this is done, the vinegar and salt are added ; and, last of all, at the 

 moment that it is to be served up, the cuttings of bread." No. 1 is to 

 be cooked for three hours without the potatoes. 



As already stated, I have found, in carrying out these instructions, 

 that I obtain a puree or porridge rather than a soup. I found the 

 No. 1 to be excellent. No. 2 inferior. It was better when very 

 small potatoes were used ; they became more jellied, and the puree 

 altogether had less of the granular texture of mashed potatoes. I 

 found it necessary to conduct the whole of the cooking myself ; the 

 inveterate kitchen superstition concerning simmering and boiling, the 

 belief that anything rapidly boiling is hotter than when it simmers, 

 and is therefore cooking more quickly, compels the non-scientific cook 

 to shorten the tedious three-hour process by boiling. This boiling 

 drives the water from below, bakes the lower stratum of the porridge, 

 and spoils the whole. The ordinary cook, were she " at the strappado, 

 or all the racks in the world," would not keep anything barely boiling 



