in housekeeping was not overlooked.  The groceries of the different floors never got mixed, though how this separateness of stores was accomplished will for ever remain a mystery to me; but that it was successfully accomplished the smallness of our bill was the best of proof,—­unless, indeed, as we were sometimes almost afraid, we did now and then eat up Dr. A——­’s cheese, or drink the milk belonging to the B’s below us.  We were a party of four; our fare was of the plain, substantial sort, but of sufficient variety and abundance; and yet our living never cost us, including rent, service, fires, and food, over $60 a week.  If we had chosen to practise closer economies, we might have lived on less.  Compare for one instant the comfort of such an arrangement as this, which really gave us every possible advantage to be secured by housekeeping, and with almost none of the trouble, with any boarding or lodging possible in New York.  We had two parlors and two bedrooms; our meals served promptly and neatly, in our own parlor.  The same amount of room, and service, and such a table, for four people, cannot be had in New York for less than $150 or $200 a week; in fact, they cannot be had in New York for any sum of money.  The quiet respectfulness of behavior and faithful interest in work of English servants on English soil are not to be found elsewhere.  We afterward lived for some weeks in another lodging-house in Great Malvern, Worcestershire, at about the same price per week.  This house was even better than the London one in some respects.  The system was precisely the same; but the cooking was almost faultless, and the table appointments were more than satisfactory,—­they were tasteful.  The china was a pleasure, and there were silver and linen and glass which one would be glad to have in one’s own home.

It may be asked, and not unnaturally, how does this lodging-house system work for those who keep the houses?  Can it be possible that all this comfort and economy for lodgers are compatible with profits for landlords?  I can judge only from the results in these two cases which came under my own observation.  In each of these cases the family who kept the house lived comfortably and pleasantly in their own apartment, which was, in the London house, almost as good a suite of rooms as any which they rented.  They certainly had far more apparent quiet, comfort, and privacy than is commonly seen in the arrangements of the keepers of average boarding-houses.  In the Malvern house, one whole floor, which was less pleasant than the others, but still comfortable and well furnished, was occupied by the family.  There were three little boys, under ten years of age, who had their nursery governess, said lessons to her regularly, and were led out decorously to walk by her at appointed seasons, like all the rest of good little English boys in well-regulated families; and yet the mother of these children came to the door of our parlor each morning, with the respectful