Page images
PDF
EPUB

PUBLIC LIBRARY

ASTOR, LENOX TILDEN FOUNDATIONS

THE LIVING AGE:

A Weekly Magazine of Contemporary Literature and Chought.

[blocks in formation]

The disorganization of domestic service has so seriously affected home comforts and social life in recent years, that no apology is necessary for dealing again with a subject which has already attracted a considerable amount of attention. Yet in reviewing the domestic situation, the causes of the evil and its possible cure, extremes are to be avoided. The growing unpopularity of domestic service must be taken into account as a new element in the situation by those who maintain that this is but a passing phase of no serious import; while those who foretell in present difficulties the extinction of the servant race, and a further sign of the degeneracy of the English people, will be interested to hear of a domestic crisis of equal magnitude occurring more than a hundred and fifty years ago. Literature of that period abounds with instances of the insolence of English servants, and of their independence of their masters,

whose service they left on the slightest provocation. In some respects the position was worse then than it is now. We are told that "at the entrance of the Law Courts and the Parliament, a host of servants kept up such riotous and licentious confusion that one would think there were no such things as rule or distinction among us," while the custom of sending footmen to keep their masters' places at the play, during the first Act, resulted in such constant disorder in the galleries (where the servants retired and claimed admission free on the arrival of their masters), that they were eventually expelled from Drury Lane Theatre in 1737; not, however, until a riot had taken place in which about twentyfive people were seriously injured, and which the presence of the Prince and Princess of Wales was unable to restrain.

The evil was evidently a national one, of sufficient importance to attract

the attention of foreign travellers. A Portuguese who visited England in 1730, thus reviews the situation:

As to the common and menial servants (of London) they have great wages, are well kept and clothed, but are notwithstanding, the plague of almost every house in town. They form themselves into societies, or rather confederacies, contributing to the maintenance of each other when out of place, and if any of them cannot manage the family where they are entertained as they please, immediately they give notice they will be gone. There is no speaking to them, they are above correction.

In a letter to the Spectator of that time, Philo Britannicus writes:

There is one thing in particular, which I wonder you have not touched upon, and that is the general Corruption of Manners in the Servants of Great Britain. I am a Man that have travelled and seen many Nations, but. have for seven Years past resided constantly in London or within twenty miles of it. In this Time I have contracted a numerous Acquaintance among the best Sort of People, and have hardly Found one of them happy in their Servants. This is a matter of great Astonishment to Foreigners and all such as have visited Foreign Countries, especially since we cannot but observe that there is no Part of the World where Servants have those Privileges and Advantages as in England. They have nowhere else such plentiful Diet, large Wages or indulgent Liberty. There is no Place where they labor less, and yet where they are so little respectful, more wasteful, more negligent, or where they so frequently change their Masters.

The writer concludes the letter by asking for "observations that we may know how to treat these Rogues." The Editor in his reply observes that his correspondent's complaints "run wholly upon Men Servants" and traces the evil to "the Custom of giving Board Wages, which leads them to fre

quent Clubs and Taverns or to eat after their Masters and then reserve their Wages for other Occasions." Hence, he observes, it arises

that they are but in a lower Degree what their Masters are and usually affect an imitation of their Manners. It is a common Humor among the retinue of People of quality when they are in their Revels, that is, when they are out of their Masters' Sight, to assume in a humorous Way the Names and Titles of those whose Liveries they

wear.

In this respect we note a continuity of servant custom to the present day, for in large houses, as we are all aware, the domestics still take precedence in the sacred precincts of the housekeeper's room according to the social position of their masters and mistresses.

But historians of that period attribute the evil then existing to other causes: notably to the attendance of servants upon their mistresses in the great scenes of fashionable dissipation and to the immunity from arrest for debt enjoyed by servants of Peers equally with their masters, and above all to the system of Vales then prevailing in England. This system had in those days reached exaggerated dimensions, and was a severe tax on those of slender means who, as well as the more opulent, were expected to lavish handsome gifts on the servants of their host in attendance upon them at table. It is said that a foreigner of distinction would spend as much as ten guineas in this way in one evening, and that "no feature of English life seemed more revolting to foreigners than an English entertainment, when the guests, often under the eyes of the host, passed from the drawingroom through a double row of servants, each one of them expecting and receiving his fee." It is this custom, abolished about the middle of the eigh

teenth century, which is of special interest to the student of the servant problem, as producing a curious similarity in the position then and now. For, as writers of that time attribute the serious disorganization then existing, partly to social influences, but chiefly to this system of Vales, which rendered servants absolutely independent of their masters, so now it is recognized that apart from various phases of the moment which probably accentuate the evil, the root trouble of the present domestic crisis is found in the unpopularity of domestic service and the consequent deficiency in the required number of servants. These are thus again rendered independent of their masters, and are enabled practically to command the situation and to dictate terms to their employers. The incentive to earn a good character is weakened, the folly of leaving a good situation for insufficient reasons is not clearly perceived, when there is the consciousness that, owing to the fact that the supply does not equal the demand, another situation can always be obtained. And the effects are seen in other ways. Incompetent servants and those with indifferent characters can now command situations not open to them in days of greater competition. A mistress is forced to condone all but the most serious offences, aware that while the servants she parts with for inefficiency will immediately secure other and perhaps better situations, she may herself change considerably for the worse. Here again there is a notable likeness in the position in earlier and later days. Gonzales, the Portuguese traveller previously quoted, writes: "It is a common saying If my servant ben't a thief, or if he be but honest, I can bear with other things, and indeed it is very rare to meet in London with an honest servant."

Few will deny that the present crisis almost equals in magnitude that of

earlier times. The difficulties of well ordering a household are evident when work must be carried out according to servants' theories rather than the mistresses' views, and when servants will leave on the merest pretext not with the legitimate object of bettering their position but because a place is dull or they require a change. The experiences of those wishing to set up an English establishment in these days most clearly illustrates the domestic difficulty. Interviews in which the mistress is far more interviewed than interviewing, and inquiries on the part of applicants for the situation as to numbers in family, servants kept and visitors allowed, clearly show there are more situations to fill than there are servants to fill them. Questions from the lady's maid as to the ultimate destination of the wardrobe; minute inquiries of the housemaid as to Sunday and week-day outings, accompanied by a distinct proviso against opening the door in the butler's absence, prove that the final decision whether the girl enters the situation rests rather with her than with the mistress, while the terms dictated by kitchen maid and footman, where no scullery maid or hall boy is kept, are only credible when it is remembered that this class of servant is almost impossible to procure. Till at length, harassed by cross-examination when any duty not quite congenial to the candidate leads to the frank avowal the situation will not suit, higher wages are given than the mistress can well afford, greater liberty than she considers advisable, and more help than is necessary as the only way of closing the matter. Nor is this always a final settlement. At the expiration of the fortnight, as likely as not the butler wishes to leave, because the place is not quite what he expected; or the lady's maid, because she cannot possibly remain in a place where there is no "room," or the cook

gives warning because she entirely disapproves of dealing at the Stores, or still more serious, the kitchenmaid must depart because that much-vexed question, the responsibility for cleaning the front door steps, was not fully explained to her when she was engaged. The situation would be farcical were it not so extremely inconvenient. Positions are indeed reversed when the size of a family has to be apologized for when engaging new servants, and the subject of the boys' holidays approached with discretion. What is the latest idea now in vogue with country people who keenly dislike changing their servants, but that the six weeks in a London hotel which fulfils their aspirations for town society, or the couple of months abroad-the more appreciated holiday-should be exchanged for three months in a hired house in the London season, for the sole reason that upper servants will not nowadays remain in a country situation unless they spend part of the year in town.

It is obvious there are gradations of troubles in various households. Wise management, no doubt, lessens the tension between mistress and maid, but even those who have been most successful in the ordering of their houses, and have hitherto kept their servants for years, are sensible of changes in the domestic situation. The chief difficulties are for those in medium-sized establishments, where there is more coming and going, and more entertaining than in earlier days, and but the same staff kept. It is almost impossible in these places to get well trained and single-handed servants of a certain age. In the smaller houses where only two or three servants are kept and work more evenly divided, the closer contact between mistress and maid leads to better relations and more sympathetic interest, though in this class of establishment there is more trouble about Sunday and week

day outings and enforced abridgment of comforts on the Sunday. Again, difficulties are considerably lessened in the larger country houses and town establishments where the housekeeper, who has probably lived in the family for years, exercises wise supervision and steady control, and where the servants are often the sons and daughters of farmers and laborers on the estate, whose parents. recipients of many kindnesses from their employers, are not likely to listen to trivial complaints or to encourage changes. And here the larger number of servants kept facilitates matters in days when every boy and girl of nineteen or twenty requires another under them to do the rough work.

But if this is the present domestic position, considerable interest attaches to the question, What are the causes which have led to these results? The unpopularity of domestic service has been already referred to as the allimportant factor, nor are the reasons for this growing prejudice far to seek. The independent spirit of the age which leads to a marked preference for factory and shop life where the evenings are free, and time after certain hours of work at the individual's disposal, must be chiefly held responsible. Again, the fresh fields of employment open of late years to women, the development of industrial enterprise in large co-operative societies, have drawn considerable numbers from the humbler avocation of domestic service. The sub-committee appointed by the Woman's Industrial Commission to inquire into the "Cause of the unpopularity of Domestic Service" in March of this year, received an unusual percentage of replies to the schedule of questions addressed on this subject to mistresses, mothers, club dealers, heads of institutions, and to girls employed, thus showing the interest aroused by the inquiries. The sub-committee concludes

an interesting report in the following words: "As a rough summary, it may be stated that there is practical agreement in all replies that the social status of domestic service, the long hours, and lack of personal liberty are the chief causes of its unpopularity. It is a wellrecognized fact that in the lower classes servant life ranks far lower than that of shop assistants and other professions. This is perhaps more keenly felt in the country, where servants have fewer friends to associate with, and where the petty tradesmen often carry their prejudice so far as to refuse to attend the dances or social evenings which are patronized by the servants of the smaller houses in the neighborhood.

It is also maintained

by many that the education now given in our schools unfits the lower classes for the more homely duties of life. A more suitable training would not only prove of far more use in service or other employments, but would be invaluable in the management of the homes of the poorer classes. Again, the emigration of the rural population (from which class servants were largely recruited) to the towns, has led to an appreciation of a city life other than domestic service, and has in this way reduced the sources of supply.

The important part now played by managers of registry offices, in the domestic situation must also be taken into account. Though doubtless of use in days of constant changes, these intermediaries have not conduced to promote better relations between employers and employed, substituting as they have done a rigid system of "give and take" for the more friendly and sympathetic arrangement when the mistress engaged the servant without the intervention of a third party. Servants recognize that under this régime the good-will of those who procure situations for them is of even more importance than their mistresses' approval, for with the manager

of these agencies in the last resort lies the decision whether they shall be again recommended, while the employer is fully aware that much is now taken out of her own hands, and that a refusal to give a good character must be justified to a self-constituted authority, not always of a competent or impartial character. And there are other obvious disadvantages. The girl who has been provided with a situation on the payment of the usual registry fee, and who is aware that if she leaves at her month another place will be found for her free of charge, is less likely to settle down quietly, and more likely to be exacting in her demands, than the servant who has been recommended by friends or who has procured her situation through an advertisement, and is conscious that if she changes she must incur the expense of advertising again. In the same way there are manifest drawbacks in a system by which managers profit by constant changes. It is difficult for managers of these registry offices to resist the temptation of gaining another fee by recommending a girl of indifferent character, more especially when the clients who are clamoring for servants cannot afford to be too particular and occasionally find it convenient to shut their eyes to what has occurred in the last place. Again, there are contributory causes to the present crisis in the luxurious conditions, the pleasure-seeking tone of modern society. No doubt in all ages the different standpoint of birth, education and position from which servants and employers view the same question, necessarily results in totally opposing views of household management. Notably in the question of lavish expenditure and exaggerated generosity which servants have invariably considered redound to their masters' credit; in the cook's inability to dissociate economy from meanness, and the butler's rooted conviction that

« PreviousContinue »