Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

any individual control." The enthusiasm which gathered round the Queen in her later days was, as he says,

largely the outcome of the new conception of the British monarchy which sprang from the development of the Colonies and dependencies of Great Britain, and the sudden strengthening of the sense of unity between them and the mother-country.

But while we admit this to the full, we must not forget the praise that is due to the Queen for the fostering of this feeling, which entered so deeply into her own heart as to become part of the warp and woof of her being.

Suddenly, with only the shortest warning, in the midst of work, and with the burden of anxiety heavy on her, that quick brain, that sympathetic heart, that unsparing energy sank to rest. On January 19th, 1901, the nation was startled by an ominous report: at half-past six on the evening of the 22nd the Queen was dead. No sovereign ever passed from her people amidst a sorrow so universal and so profound. The successive stages in her obsequies thrilled the heart of the nation like the scenes of a mighty drama, in which not only the spectators themselves, but the whole world seemed to take a part. Each phase of that august ceremonial, as it carried her furThe Quarterly Review.

ther from the home of her own choosing, the scene of domestic joys and of long vicissitudes of sorrow, to her final resting-place beneath the shadow of the mightiest of England's palaces, seemed to drop something of the element of mere personal feeling, and to absorb her into the mighty bosom of her Empire's history.

To the keeping of that solemn record we may commit her memory. Two years have passed since we heard that the name which had become familiar as a household word for two generations was now only a memory; that she, who had so long been an active and ruling force in the world's affairs, had become the typical and dominant figure in a momentous epoch of the past. Our first emotions of personal grief are spent, our natural tears are dried. The great Queen stands now before the august tribunal of History, where the verdict on her work must be passed. Time is already permitting us to see that work more and more in its just proportions, to form a judgment more and more dispassionate as it shakes itself free from the accompaniment of personal feeling. Whatever the final verdict may be, we await it with confidence and pride, sure that it will not diminish the lustre of her many virtues, or detract from the permanent importance of her Imperial work.

[blocks in formation]

MISTRESS AND MAID.

A party of old-fashioned folk were discussing at lunch the other day the ever-bewildering rush of social innovation, and at last they took to wondering what things they would be able to boast of having seen in London if each of them lived to be seventy. "I shall say that I once lived in a whole house of my own," said one; "I shall say that I once drove a carriage drawn by my own horses," said another; "I shall tell how I wrote my own letters with a pen," said a third; "But I shall boast that I was served by my own servants," said the hostess: and all felt that her reminiscences would have a special value.

It seems almost certain that London will go the way of most cities on the Continent, and that its large private houses, those castles so dear to the Englishman, with all their waste of space and extravagant cost, must give way to flats. It seems probable, too, that London will improve upon the Continental practice and combine restaurants with flats. We may see that this plan has already been tried with excellent results in certain flats of the more luxurious order. But the systein is extending rapidly, and there are now flats or sets of rooms, of an entirely unpretentious kind, where lunches and dinners are served in the public diningroom at a cost of from 9d. for lunch to 18. or 18. 3d. for dinner. The food is simple, but well cooked, and can be nicely served at a sum just over cost price. We have all heard, too, of the wonderful traiteur who would seem to have stepped out of the Arabian Nights, and who provides dinner, with table linen, flowers, silver, the whole accompanied by a deft attendant, who waits, washes up, and disappears. The whole for a moderate sum.

The sys

tem appears to work well, and we are assured that it affords infinite relief to the undomestic married couple, to the bachelor, or to the woman with a profession. In any case, these facts would seem to suggest that the domestic difficulty is a real one, and that many people's lives are made a burden to them by their inability to train and to keep their servants, or to make a comfortable home; let us add, by the reluctance of young girls to enter service, and their incapacity very often for domestic duties.

The writer of this paper believes that there are some very serious evils and injustices which might easily be set right in connection with domestic service, and that perhaps, on the whole, though it is a hard saying, we all of us get the servants we deserve.

To begin at the beginning, it is obvious that young people are greatly influenced in the choice of a profession by the opinion of their fellows, and it must be admitted that service is not now in favor. Domesticity, and by that word I wish to mean the care of a house, and of all things appertaining to the comfort of its inmates, is not in fashion even amongst young ladies. We must remember that fashion is not confined to one class. The girl who in London announces her intention of becoming a servant has to go through a perfect hailstorm of chaff and banter; her brothers and their friends call her "Slavey," and suggest all manner of horrors in store for her; her sisters, on the other hand, tell her she will wear a cap, and never get a holiday or an hour out. In truth, it requires no little character and determination to take so unpopular a course. The writer remembers a most interesting debate at a large girls' club on this very ques

tion in which she took part, and how she tried to prove to the meeting that everyone at some time or other employed domestic helps, whether as washerwomen to come and help wash or as charwomen on occasions of sickness or other emergency. The debate clearly showed that it was not a want of liberty that was complained of so much as the loss of social status, and a sort of feeling that domestic work was not of so high and honorable a kind as bookfolding, dressmaking, jammaking, or any of the other trades by which girls earn a starvation wage. The meeting was brought to a close by the reading of Stevenson's verses to his old nurse, and there seemed to be a dawning sense that to be a good nurse to a little child, to cook, and manage the expenditure of a family on food, were, after all, difficult and honorable professions, which perhaps exacted higher qualities than the making one part of a pin, or a life spent on button-holes.

The writer, however, felt that to raise the consideration in which servants were held, and to secure a good start in the profession, were first steps to be taken towards a better state of things. It is the first start which is so difficult and which destroys the chances of so many girls, and disgusts others with their work. The first start is nearly always made in a tradesman's family, where the girl is not expected to have any special knowledge, but is to help a little with everything. Such homes may be, and often are, among the most comfortable in service, if the mistress is a good-hearted, sensible woman who knows how to train her little maid. There is a sense of home, especially if there are children, often sadly wanting in larger establishments. But, on the other hand, the temptation to overwork the young servant, to make her do all, while the mistress does nothing, is a serious one, and

there is often wanting that touch of sympathy which helps a young girl in her first year away from home in a strange family. It is very much like being at school, only there is less playtime. Many girls detest the eating alone, and their meals doubtless become strange affairs of queer and illdigested food; but here, again, in many families the little nurse dines with the children and her mistress, and gets a further sense of being at home.

It would be well if mistresses could realize how very often the beginnings of a young servant have been in such situations as these, and how the change to a well-appointed, well-ordered house is an overwhelming one, and one which the "between girl," the kitchenmaid or young housemaid, does not always find to her advantage.

This brings us to one of the great evils which beset domestic service as it is organized to-day. There can be little doubt that the under servants, the young apprentices we may call them, are not considered as they should be, and have far too much given them to do. They are often ill fed, with insufficient time for meals; their work is never done. The writer believes this evil to exist more especially in the large middle-class house which keeps "between" girls, or young kitchenmaids and under-housemaids. The manners of the servants' hall in very large establishments have become the fashion in numberless houses which were never intended for such artificialities, manners which may be in place in his Grace's establishments, in the counties, but are entirely out of reason in an ordinary London house in a London street. The upper servants practically do no work-they expect to eat and live apart-the whole work of the house is often left to an unfortunate "tweeny" girl who naturally becomes overworked and anæmic. The writer knows of one unfortunate little

maid called home to see a dying father, who, on her return after a three days' absence, found that every plate, dish, cup or saucer, pot or pan which had been used in the kitchen in her absence, had been piled round the scullery in all their malodorous grease for her to wash. She sat up half the night to get through the odious business. Such a girl will probably, besides her own definite work which is hers of right before breakfast, have to make early tea and serve it, for all the upper servants, wherever they may choose to take it; besides laying the fires, she will have to deposit a match box and a few choice sticks of wood before the principal grates, in order to keep up the fiction that the upper servants "see to" the fires in the sittingrooms. The kitchenmaid has often to cook two dinners, for the "Room," for the "Hall," besides very often cooking the lunch for the dining-room, in all cases helping the cook to do so. Such artificial arrangements give double work, and it is obvious that, unless in a very large house with a large staff, they throw a vast amount of unnecessary work upon the youngest members of the household. We may remember Mr. Weller's friend, Mr. Muzzle, and his explanation of why the young servants dined in the "washus"-"the juniors is always so very savage." But Mr. Muzzle had not invented a separate table with different meals for the upper and under servants. Now these habits get known and frighten young servants, who are willing enough to work for their employers, but who resent the arbitrary behavior of the upper servants. It is, of course, asking a great deal of every mistress of a household that she should know what goes on in her own house; but a little good sense and kindly feeling would in the long run be respected by the entire household, and would put an end to a condition of things which bears

very hardly upon the young servant. A very stiff examination paper might be set to mistresses of households thus:

(1) Given three staircases above stairs, one oak, one stone, and one ordinary wood. What servant cleans which staircase? and if there are steps to the cellar who cleans these?

(2) Who lays tea in the housekeeper's room?

(3) Who cleans the cook's boots? The number of conundrums might be indefinitely extended, and few householders could satisfy the examiners. The answers would depend on the number of servants kept, whether there are men servants, whether the house is in town or country. In old days the upper servants took a fair share of the work themselves; now it is all left to the juniors, who have not yet learned their business, are always in a muddle, are too often overworked, and do not get proper leisure for their meals. I say nothing of the overcrowding which the increase of servants in a small house involves. If the mistress will make each servant understand that she will tolerate no injustice, if she will define the duties of each servant after careful consideration, and let every servant feel that all may find in her a friend, and establish personal relations with them individually, she can easily arrange for a comfortable dinner in common, and, without undue interference, can yet see that one and all get a reasonable share of comfort and leisure.

But there is a more serious matter behind. The question of character. Is an employer bound to give a character of a servant, and how should he give it, and how often should he give it? It is commonly assumed that every employer gives a character as a matter of course, but it is not so. One of the best known of the London Registry Offices recently took a test case into

court, with the result that it appears that the employer is not so bound; it is certain that some employers consistently refuse to give characters at all, and that others are exceedingly careless and negligent of the interests of the servant. If we consider the matter, the whole system of charactergiving is a piece of most delicate machinery: the character is usually in the air, and is often lost altogether, or changed and damaged in transference. Characters, as we all know, are most often given by word of mouth from one person to another, in private, and are privileged. Let us suppose a case in which a servant has a satisfactory character of three years; she leaves for no fault, and her employer gives a good character of the three years to another lady, who engages her. The servant leaves her new situation at the end of her month, from no fault very likely; perhaps she does not like new ways; perhaps she does not agree well with the servants, but she leaves. Now there is a tradition of service that the servant carries out of her situation at her month the character she took in. But in the present case where is that character? obviously in the air; she is completely at the mercy of her employer of a month, who if she is vexed may not unlikely allow her vexation to appear in her rehearsal of the character. Nor is that all; the servant might conceivably go back to her old employer and ask for a second character. This she sometimes gets, but one may very often hear employers say that they make it a rule never to give a second character. In such a case, therefore, which is of every-day occurrence, the servant loses a good character and is very seriously injured. Let us take another case. Let us suppose that in the month something serious has taken place, which should be mentioned in any character, yet very often the employer, to save annoyance to

herself, will give the character she received, and say nothing about the just cause of complaint that she may have. In this case the injustice is to the public. Then there are the cases of employers who would gladly befriend their servants, but who have gone abroad, gone to India perhaps, or the colonies, and who have forgotten to leave the character of a servant in some obtainable form. Then do we not all know of the employer who, when written to for a character, answers in the hastiest of notes, answers one question and quietly ignores the others? What conclusion to draw is a constantly recurring puzzle. Now it seems to the writer that in other countries they have a more businesslike and satisfactory system. The young man or woman intending service buys a book-let us call it a "service book," in which his name, birthplace, parentage, are entered. There may then very likely come а recommendation from the schoolmaster, and so he or she gets his first situation. At every change the character is written in the book and visaed by the consul, who affixes a stamp. It is thus possible to see the "ensemble" of some years of service, and if the record is good it ensures work to every industrious man or woman; the characters are more serious and more carefully set down than is commonly the case with us, and the system prevents hasty statements, as "Frau Buchholtz" has told us in her inimitable way. The writer has now one such book before her, and is greatly struck with the simplicity of the plan and the value to employer and employed of such careful testimony. The system is in vogue in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and probably in many other countries.

We know that in all classes in England there is a horror of organization, or interference with the liberty of the subject, and it is possible that objec

« AnteriorContinuar »