fess that—although we do not like it, and we grudge the money (for you know how parsimonious our sex are in the gratification of their appetites), the dinners are generally better cooked and served at a good restaurant than they are at home. Even in the simple matter of beef steak, roast turkey, or round of beef, there is a marked superiority. Now, as the raw material is the same in both cases, it is plain to us that the fault is in the cook and the parlor-maid—chiefly the former. We hint this meekly to the wife of our bosom, and her reply is brief: Man cooks, man waiters. At which, knowing the superiority of the female sex, we wonder. We find, however, that the man animal is far from being an inhabitant of every kitchen down town, and we therefore creep timidly to the conclusion, in our man's way, that, although the spousal logic is irrefragible, as ladies' logic always is, the premises in this case—they not being perfectly well established—do not bear out the conclusion. But, looking further, we do find that the head of these establishments is always a man, and that his principal assistant, if he has one—the superintendent—is also always a man. We also find that the superintendent of these establishments, whether he be the principal or no, really superintends the working of the whole concern—that is, he looks after it personally, and himself sees that it goes on as it should go—that the cooks do their cooking well and the waiters their serving. These men are not content with ordering a thing done thus or so, and, if it should not be done rightly, wondering why, and ordering again. They make it their business to know how it should be done, and then see that it is done. This, we are informed, is the way in which matters are managed in the army, the navy, in hospitals. Men find it necessary to conduct their affairs in this way. They know that it is necessary that a superintendent should see that things are done—that is, that he should superintend. Now, we have been led to suspect that, with women generally, this is not the case. Perhaps a consciousness of their superiority to men in matters of detail may account for this; perhaps a lofty indifference to the trivialities of detail. But in either case, however just the self-appreciation, the results are not very brilliant or encouraging. Are we wrong, sir, in supposing that, in the direction of the club which you are about giving us, you will regard it as absolutely necessary to the smooth working of the establishment that you should supervise your subordinates, and, at least until they are all well broken into routine, yourself see that they do their work as it should be done? You will not cook every dish yourself, or serve every dinner, or set every table; you will, perhaps, not do so in a single instance: but you will see that it is done. Are we not right in this assumption? We therefore humbly submit a question to you for consideration and for treatment in your future endeavors on our behalf. According to your experience and observation, is the superiority which the human female has over the male, in the management of matters of detail, as in all other matters, so great as to enable her to dispense with that supervision which we poor bearded creatures are obliged to exercise over each other, if we would have things done day by day well and thoroughly? If it is necessary to inspect and to supervise soldiers and sailors, and for you to keep an eye upon your cooks, they being men, to what degree may this inspection be dispensed with where both the head of the establishment and the servants are women? Do you think that it is enough for the mistress of a household, who has no assistant housekeeper, to say to an uninstructed Irish
