One puts off the evil moment as long as possible, and meditates in the night watches as to the most feasible plan of getting it done. And very often the point is weakly abandoned. We cannot risk exposing ourselves to the "tongue-thrashing" in which some of the bas.e.m.e.nt ladies are such gifted performers. The safest way is always to mingle praise with blame, just as we hide a powder in jam. "You are always so very neat, Mary, that I am sure this cannot be neglect, but just a little bit of forgetfulness."

Or, "Your soups are generally so excellent, cook, that," &c. This is a good recipe for fault-finding, and it works well, too, with our equals, though, of course, one has to be doubly careful in dealing courteously with so sensitive a cla.s.s as servants.

[Sidenote: Cowards all!]

The fact is, we are cowards all, in face of any duty that threatens to affect the sunshiny atmosphere of home. We dread the clouds with a mortal fear, and are p.r.o.ne to sacrifice far more than we ought on the altar of Peace and Love. They are good and beautiful things, but they may be too dearly bought. And, above all, we must beware of indulging ourselves in them to the detriment of the best interests of others.

The d.u.c.h.ess of Teck, with all her _bonhomie_ and graciousness of manner, was one of the most dignified of women. She could administer a rebuke, too, without uttering a word. I shall never forget her look when, on a semi-public, outdoor occasion, an individual of the civic kind approached her with his hat on his head. He had taken it off on his approach, but calmly replaced it as he stood before the d.u.c.h.ess and her husband. A gleam of fun shone in the Duke's eyes as he watched the episode. The d.u.c.h.ess, meanwhile, in dead silence, simply looked at the hat. The look was enough. Those large grey eyes of hers were eloquent. They said, as plainly as if the words had been spoken, "My good man, you are guilty of a very flagrant breach of etiquette. What a very ignorant person you must be!"

The wearer of the hat looked puzzled for a single instant as he marked the eyes of the d.u.c.h.ess fixed firmly on his head-gear. In another moment his hat was in his hand, and his face, ears, and neck were suffused with a most painful scarlet. He was all one abject apology. The d.u.c.h.ess, then, with a significant glance, quietly proceeded with the matter in hand.

_A GLa.s.s OF WINE._

[Sidenote: Manly abstention.]

I am no advocate of total abstinence. Quite the contrary! I am sorry for the man who has to bind himself down by oaths and vows to refrain from drink, because he knows that he cannot leave off when he has had enough.

But if he abstains, not from any knowledge of inward weakness, but from the same motive that urged St. Paul to say: "I would not eat meat while the world lasts, lest I make my brother to offend," then I honour him with all my heart. And this is honestly the principle on which many become total abstainers, women as well as men.

[Sidenote: Why should we have wine?]

But what I want to get at is the ordinary everyday practice of drinking wine, which most of us follow in some degree or other. I do not refer to excessive drinking, inebriety, or anything of that kind, but merely the customary gla.s.s or two of wine at lunch, and two or three gla.s.ses at dinner. This can in no possible way be regarded as a bad habit. It is, in fact, the usual thing in polite society, and girls are brought up to it, and when they marry, and perhaps find that among other expensive habits this one has to be given up, they miss their gla.s.s of wine rather badly at first. Why should we have wine? That is the real question. There is no very particular reason why those who can afford it should _not_ drink wine; but why should they do it? I think I could give a better set of reasons _contra_ than _pro_ in this matter.

[Sidenote: Reasons against the habits.]

First comes the one already referred to: that circ.u.mstances may not always admit of their indulging themselves in this rather expensive habit. Good wine costs money, and cheap wine is often highly injurious.

Another good reason for not drinking wine habitually at table is that when the health is impaired by illness or low vitality arising from any cause, the invigorating effect of good wine is quite lost, owing to the system having become accustomed to it. This prevents it from acting upon the nerves and tissues as it would do most beneficially if there were any novelty about it.

A third reason for not doing it is that for patients who have made a continual practice of wine-drinking at meals, doctors are obliged, in quite nine cases out of ten, to forbid it, especially to women. And almost always they order whiskey instead. How often one hears people say nowadays--both men and women--"My doctor won't let me drink wine. He says I must have whiskey and water, _if I drink anything_."

[Sidenote: Sir Henry Thompson's verdict.]

[Sidenote: "A dietetic error."]

No doubt the doctor would generally prefer that his patients should not drink even the whiskey, but he knows very well that the habit of a lifetime is not to be overcome without an amount of resolution which is by no means always forthcoming. Sir Henry Thompson, in his admirable book, "Food and Feeding," gives it as his opinion that "the _habitual_ use of wine, beer, or spirits is a dietetic error." He adds to this very straight and direct p.r.o.nouncement: "In other words, the great majority of people, at any age or of either s.e.x, will enjoy better health, both of body and mind, and will live longer, without alcoholic drinks whatever than with habitual indulgence in their use, even though such use be what is popularly understood as moderate. But I do not aver that any particular harm results from the habit of now and then enjoying a gla.s.s of really fine, pure wine, just as one may occasionally enjoy a particularly choice dish; neither the one nor the other, perhaps, being sufficiently innocuous or digestible for frequent, much less habitual, use." And there is much more to practically the same effect. So that this eminent authority regards the habit of daily drinking wine as one that is likely to produce more or less injurious results upon the body, and possibly upon the mind as well.

[Sidenote: The greatest danger.]

And I have kept to the last another reason, and perhaps the strongest of any, against it. That is, the ever-present danger of learning to like wine too well, and of falling into the awful fault of drunkenness. I will add no word to this argument, for the miseries, degradation, and horrors of this kind of thing are only too well known.

[Sidenote: A telling example.]

Madame Sarah Bernhardt, who is as healthy, vigorous, and charming a woman of her age (I won't mention what it is!) as it would be possible to find, and who has preserved in a marvellous manner her dramatic powers, attributes her condition of blithe well-being to her life-long habit of abstinence from drinking wine or alcoholic beverages of any kind. It is not that she never touches them. Not at all! The _Grande Sarah_ can enjoy a gla.s.s of champagne or Burgundy as well as any one--better, in fact, than most, since she has never accustomed herself to their constant use. She likes milk, and if any woman wants to keep her complexion at its best she should take to this unsophisticated beverage at once and abide by it.

[Sidenote: The habitual use only deprecated.]

There is no reason whatever that we should not enjoy wine at dinner-parties. I am so afraid of being misunderstood that I must run some risk of repeating myself. It is only with the habitual daily use of wine at lunch and dinner that I am finding fault. It serves no good end.

But, on occasion, let it be enjoyed like other good gifts of a kindly Providence. Because some misuse it and abuse it there is no compulsion to avoid it upon those who do neither. If every one of the moderate drinkers in England were to become teetotallers there would be just the same number of drunkards left in the land, pursuing their own courses. They would not be affected by the abstinence of others.

[Sidenote: A mournful dinner-party.]

A dinner-party without wine is rather a mournful business. I was at one once. It was several years ago, but I have never forgotten it. It was the first occasion on which I ever tasted a frightful temperance drink called "gooseberry champagne." It is also likely to be the last! Oh, no! Do not let us have wineless dinner-parties! The very point of my argument is that if we refrain from the habit of drinking it daily our enjoyment of it on such social occasions is very greatly enhanced. But what are we to drink?

I fully admit that the perfect drink has yet to be invented. Water would be good enough for most of us if we could only get it pure. But this is difficult indeed. And even if our water supply were to be immaculate we should lack faith in its perfection! Could we have our gla.s.s jugs filled at some far-off mountain rill, miles away from London smoke and its infected atmosphere, we should have to look no further for a delicious drink, pure, invigorating, and of so simple a character as leaves the flavours of food unimpaired for the palate.

[Sidenote: A subst.i.tute.]

Sweet drinks are not recommended as accompaniments to solid food. But there is no lack of good aerated waters, sparkling and most inviting of aspect, as well as pleasant to the palate for those who have not spoiled it by the constant use of wine.

Now, I wonder if any single reader of this will give up even one gla.s.s of wine daily, or keep her young sons and daughters from falling into the habit of constantly taking it at meals? I can a.s.sure the doubtful that there is nothing unusual in dispensing with it. The question asked by one's host or hostess at a restaurant: "What wine do you like?" is often, and more especially at luncheon, answered by: "None, thanks; I like apollinaris, distilled water," &c. The experiment of doing without wine is worth trying.

_SOME OLD PROVERBS._

[Sidenote: "Discreet women have neither eyes nor ears."]

In an old book that is one of my treasures, having been published in the year 1737, I find much wisdom that is applicable to our conduct in everyday life. It purports to be a "Compleat Collection of English Proverbs; also the most celebrated Proverbs of the Scotch, Italian, French, and Other Languages." Very early in the volume comes the saying that "Discreet women have neither eyes nor ears." Have we not all to practise this kind of discretion in our home dealings? In vulgar parlance, we "wink at" much that goes on in the kitchen, and profit largely in the matter of peace and quiet by doing so. Should we hear the servants disagree, a convenient deafness seizes us; for we know very well that if we were to inquire into the bearings of the business a slightly boisterous wind would very soon develop into a hurricane. And does not the exercise of tact in many cases compel us to shut our eyes to the traces of tears on dear faces when we know that any reference to the cause would upset composure and bring with it the feeling of humiliation that follows loss of self-control before others. The happiest homes are those in which "discreet women have neither eyes nor ears," except when vigilance is thoroughly in season.

[Sidenote: "A great dowry is a bed of brambles."]

From the Spanish comes the proverb, "A great dowry is a bed full of brabbles." Was there ever an heiress yet who did not find it so? Who did not, at least once in her life, long to be rid of the riches that made life so difficult for her, obscuring true love, and making the parting of the ways so impossibly difficult of choice? And even when the disinterested lover is chosen there are many, many unhappy hours caused by the miserable money. A man loves his pride far more than he loves any woman, and often sacrifices home happiness to it. There is no lack of "brabbles" (brambles) in any woman's life who possesses wealth. Riches might be supposed to be a great eas.e.m.e.nt to existence, but if the poorly endowed could but realise their immunity from cares of a heavy kind they would, like the psalmist, choose "neither riches nor poverty." Even a small dowry serves to bring the sharks round a girl, and she is far safer without more than the merest competence. To have to do some work in the world is good for her, and many a devoted parent who works hard to leave his girls well provided for would have done far better for them if he had equipped them with the means of earning their own living. There would be fewer "brabbles" in their path. There are thousands and thousands of discontented women in England now who are weighted with their own idle and selfish lives, and owe it all to the selfless affection of a father who worked himself into his grave in order to place them beyond the reach of want.

Oh! The waste of beautiful things in this weary world! The bootless love that blindly strives for the welfare of the loved ones! The endless pains and self-denial that elicit nothing but ingrat.i.tude! Who has not read "Pere Goriot"? Have any of us forgotten King Lear? Fathers, do not burden your daughters with great dowries. Life is hard enough on women without adding the penalty of great riches to the weird they have to dree.

[Sidenote: "The best mirror is an old friend."]

"The best mirror is an old friend." Most truly 'tis so. There are we safe from flattery. We sometimes see in our looking-gla.s.ses rather what we wish to see than what is really reflected. Du Maurier had once in _Punch_ a portrait of Mrs. Somebody as she really was, another sketch of the lady as she appeared to herself, and a third as her husband saw her. The husband represented the "old friend" in this instance, and his idea of his wife was far from flattering. It is so with many husbands; but not with all.

Quite recently there was published a sonnet, written by an eminent man on seeing his wife's portrait when she was well on into middle age. The expression of surprise in discovering that any one could see an elderly woman in the wife of his youth, in whom he saw always, when he looked at her, her own young face, was exquisitely put, and the whole sonnet most touchingly conveyed the truth that some "old friends" see dear but faded faces through a glamour of affection, that equals that of even vanity itself.

[Sidenote: "An hungry man is an angry man."]

"An hungry man an angry man." Well! Here is good guidance for us.

_Punch's_ immortal "Feed the brute!" endorses it with a note of modernity, and the far-off echo from the early days of the eighteenth century proves that human nature is not much altered in this respect. Is it not a good recommendation for punctuality with meals? But how many men will approve of the following: "Dry bread at home is better than roast meat abroad." In these days of restaurant lunches and dinners all that kind of thing might be supposed to have altered; but, even now, many a man prefers a chop at home to mock turtle in the city. Home food does him more good, he thinks.

Is there anything in it beyond imaginings?

[Sidenote: "Life is half spent before we know what it is."]

[Sidenote: "G.o.d has His plan for every man."]

"Life is half spent before we know what it is." How often we wish we could have our time over again, and how differently we should spend it, with the light of experience to guide us! It was our tragic ignorance that misled us, we think. We had no chart to show us where the quicksands lay.

We could so easily have avoided them, or so we believe. If we had only taken the other turning, we say. It was at that parting of the roads that we lost our way. There were no finger-posts for our understanding, and the experience of friends we rejected as unsuitable to our own case. And, oh!

how "full of brabbles" have we found the path. We missed the smooth, broad highway, and met many an ugly fence and trudged many a weary foot in muddy lanes and across ploughed fields. If we had only known! The sweetness of the might-have-been smiles upon us from its infinite distance, far, far beyond our reach, with the light upon it that never was on land or sea.

_Si jeunesse savait!_ But, then, if it did, it would no longer be youth.

And, after all, we were not meant to walk firmly and safely and wisely at the first trial, any more than the baby who totters and sways and balances himself, only to totter again, and suddenly collapse with the deep and solemn gravity of babyhood, under the laughing, tender eyes of the watchful mother. Are there not wise and loving eyes watching our wanderings and noting our sad mistakes? And cannot good come out of evil?