SEPTEMBER 9 



given by the responsible Eugenia is that Mrs. Earle 

 protests against economy in butter. On referring to the 

 passage, I find that she suggests instead an economy in 

 meat, and I pointed this out to E.; but the butcher's 

 book shows no proportionate diminution. This has led 

 me to reflect how much more infectious extravagance is 

 than economy.' 



One of my most complimentary letters was from an 

 old friend, Mrs. Roundell, asking me to allow her to 

 quote some of my receipts in a new cookery book she 

 was compiling. This has since appeared under the 

 name of 'A Practical Cookery Book' (Bickers & Son), 

 and is so excellent that it thoroughly convinces me of 

 my wisdom in declining to write one myself. My praise 

 of this book almost suggests a mutual admiration 

 society, as Mrs. Roundell is very complimentary to me. 

 She begins by thanking me for my receipts, and ends 

 by a quotation from 'Pot-Pourri ' on hospitality and 

 housekeeping. It will be many a long year before her 

 own book is superseded. The receipts are clear and 

 economical, and its only fault seems to be that at 

 present it costs seven-and-sixpence. 



A literary friend writes that he has a point of dissent 

 — 'a bit of pedantic purism. You say "chickens." 

 There is no such word: chicken is a plural. Hose, 

 hosen; chick, chicken; and in old days many more — as 

 house, housen; place, pleasen. A farmer's wife, at 

 least in the west, says correctly that she is going to feed 

 her chicken — meaning not one, but many.' It is diffi- 

 cult to know when custom asserts itself sufficiently to 

 change grammar, and my critic himself admits that 

 many of the words he quotes are obsolete. I fear I 

 shall hardly have the courage to say ' truss two fine 

 chicken ' if I come across such a phrase in a receipt. 



I received very few letters on the nurse question. It 



