That servants are the plague of life seems to be an accepted axiom
amongst English ladies of the upper middle class. When I hear them
discussing their grievances over their afternoon tea, I wish them no
worse fate than to have the management of an Australian household for a
week. It is not every Englishwoman whose peace of mind would survive the
trial. Many a young English wife have I seen unhappy in her married life
in the colonies, mainly on account of her domestics. And yet I doubt
whether the colonial mistress makes as much fuss about her real wrongs as
the English one about her imaginary grievances. Of course she can, if
drawn out, tell you enough ridiculous stories about her servants to fill
a number of _Punch_; but if they are only fools she is well content, and
it is only when she is left servantless for two or three days that she
waxes wroth.
Where mistresses are many and servants are few, it goes almost without
saying that large establishments are out of the question. Given equal
incomes, and the English mistress has twice as many servants as the
Australian, and what is more, twice as competent ones. Even our friend
Muttonwool only has six coachman, boy, cook, housemaid, nurse, and
parlourmaid. I don't suppose there are a hundred households in all
Australia which keep a butler pure and simple, though there must be
several thousand with what is generically known as a man-servant, who
gets twenty-five shillings a week, all found. A coachman's wages are on
the average about the same. The 'boy' gets ten shillings. Man-cooks are
rare. A decent female cook, who ranks out here as first-class, earns from
fifteen shillings to a pound a week. For this sum she is supposed to know
something about cooking; yet I have known one in receipt of a weekly
guinea look with astonishment at a hare which had been sent to her master
as a present, and declare that it was 'impossible to make soup out of
that thing.' After a little persuasion she was induced to try to make
hare-soup after Mrs. Beeton's recipe, but the result was such as to try
the politeness of her master's visitors. This lack of decent cooks is
principally due to the lack of establishments large enough to keep
kitchenmaids. Would-be cooks have no opportunity of acquiring their art
by training from their superiors; they gain their knowledge by
experiments on their employers' digestions; never staying long in one
place, they learn to make some new dishes at each house they go to, and
gradually rise in the wages-scale.
Directly you come to incomes below a thousand a year, the number of
servants is often reduced to a maid-of-all-work, more or less competent
according to her wages, which run from seven to fifteen shillings a week.
At the former price she knows absolutely nothing; at the latter something
of everything. She cooks, washes, sweeps, dusts, makes the beds, clears
the baths, and answers the, door. All is grist that comes to her mill;
and if she is Jill-of-all-trades and mistress of none, one must admit
that an English-bred servant would not be one quarter so suitable to
colonial requirements. Of course she is independent, often even cheeky,
but a mistress learns to put up with occasional tantrums, provided the
general behaviour and character are good. When we were first out here we
used to run a-muck with our servants about once a week; but now we find
it better to bear the ills we have than fly to others which we know not
of. Our present Lizzie is impertinent to a degree when reproved; but then
she can cook decently, and she is the first decent cook we have had since
we have been out here. When you have lived on colonial fare for a few
months, a good plain dinner covers a multitude of sins.
Unfortunately, four-fifths of our servants are Irish--liars and dirty.
These Irish are less impertinent than the colonials; but if you do get
hold of a well trained colonial, she is worth her weight in gold on
account of her heterogeneity. Your Irish immigrant at eight and ten
shillings a week has as often as not never been inside any other
household than her native hovel, and stares in astonishment to find that
you don't keep a pig on your drawing-room sofa. On entering your house,
she gapes in awe of what she considers the grandeur around her, and the
whole of her first day's work consists of ejaculating 'Lor' and
'Goodness!' We once had a hopeful of this kind who, after she had been
given full instructions as to how a rice-pudding was to be made, sat down
and wept bitterly for half an hour, till--her mistress having told her to
'bake'--the happy thought struck her to put a dish full of rice in the
oven, _sans_ milk _sans_ eggs, _sans_ everything. Another Biddy, engaged
by a friend of ours, having to make a yeast-cake, put it under her
bed-clothes 'just to plump it a bit.' A third, having been given a
bill-of-fare for the day, put soup, meat, and pudding all into one pot,
and served them up _au pot-pourri_.
But if Biddy is trying to the patience, her stupidity is to a mistress
accustomed to English ways almost more bearable than the
'go-as-you-please'--if I may borrow a phrase from the new American
athletic contests--of the colonial young lady, who comes to be engaged in
the most elegant of dresses, bows as she enters the room, seats herself,
and smilingly remarks, that she has heard that Mrs. So-and-So is wanting
a 'girl.' After a little discussion about the work, privileges, etc., and
upon the production of some written certificates--it is almost impossible
to obtain personal references, and if it were possible you could not rely
upon them--the engagement is made. The mistress requires a solemn promise
that the servant will come on a certain day, and as often as not the day
arrives without her. Our young lady has been round to a number of
mistresses and 'priced' their places; she will not wilfully put you in a
quandary, but if, after having engaged herself to you, she hears of
another situation where there is less work or more wages, she takes it in
preference, and leaves you to manage as best you can. Even when you have
got her and found her suitable, you can never tell at what moment she
will be pleased to be off 'Tuppence more and up goes the donkey!'--an
inconvenience which is felt much more here, where there is probably only
one servant in the house, than it would be in England.
But if it were only higher wages which tempted servants away the remedy
would be easy; a few pounds more a year would be cheerfully paid for the
convenience of a continuity of one's household arrangements. In one year
we have had ten servants. As there were no children, the place was an
easy one; but that seemed to make little difference. At first we kept
two, but they did nothing but quarrel; the cook left us on this account.
We took our new cook simply because she happened to be a friend of the
housemaid; but before long we found that it was out of the frying-pan
into the fire: the first two had quarrelled 'because there wasn't
sufficient work for two to do;' the second pair played together so much
that they never did any work. We banished them both, and tried keeping
only one servant, which many people had assured us would prove more
comfortable. So far they were right. Hitherto my wife's time had chiefly
been taken up with looking after the servants, to see that they did their
work; now peace reigned in the house. We gave our maid-of-all-work
fifteen shillings a week; we thought we had found a real treasure, and
for a month everything went on wheels. But at the end of that time, just
when she was getting accustomed to our ways and we to hers, Sarah gives a
week's notice; she had no fault to find with her mistress, but the place
was too dull. We offered two shillings a week extra but in vain. Our next
stayed six weeks; her reason for leaving was that she did not approve of
the back-yard. Number six stayed for three months; she was very nearly
leaving at the end of the first fortnight, but we won her heart by giving
her young man free access to the kitchen from 9 o'clock to 10.30 every
evening. Even then, however, she found the place too dull. Number eight
stayed two months; she left avowedly because she did not care to stop too
long in one place. The ninth remained only a fortnight. She left because
we objected to her staying out after eleven o'clock at night, although we
gave her three nights out a week after half-past eight.
When there are children in a middle-class family, a nurse-girl is
generally, but by, no means always, kept. Hers is the lowest of all the
branches of service, and is only taken by a young girl just going out
into the world. Trained nurses, such as are common at home, are in great
demand, and almost unobtainable. They can earn a pound a week easily, and
at such wages a man whose income only runs into three figures is forced
to put up with a nurse-girl. She undertakes no responsibility, her duties
being confined to carrying the baby and screaming at the other children
if they attempt to do themselves any bodily harm. If you wish to
understand what the average nurse-girl is like, you have but to walk
through any of the public gardens; you will see babies without number
left in the blazing sun, some hanging half-way out of their
perambulators, others sucking large, painted 'lollies' or green apples.
The elder children, if they are unruly, are slapped and sent off to play
by themselves, while the nurse-girls hold a confab on a neighbouring
bench. Not that these girls are necessarily bad, but they lack the
supervision and training of a head-nurse; they have been taught to look
upon nursing as derogatory, and never stay long enough as nurses to get
an experience in handling children. A few months of this, the lowest
stage of servant-galdom, and then they pass up into the maid-of-all-work
class. Thus it is that many mothers prefer undertaking the duties of
nurse themselves, and devote themselves to their children often at the
expense of their husbands, and certainly of all social relations.
Colonial servants are much too fond of change for change's sake ever to
stay long in one situation. A month's character is a sure guarantee for
another place, and only a week's notice is required on either side before
leaving. Hence servants are engaged and paid by the week; they do not
expect any presents or perquisites, and it is not the custom to make them
any allowance for beer. On the other hand, they will not stand being
allowanced for tea, sugar, butter, or anything of the kind, and as a rule
they fare in exactly the same style as their masters. Every other Sunday
afternoon and evening, one evening every week, and occasional public
holidays, are the customary outings, though we found it expedient to
allow a good many more.
The great redeeming-point about the servant-girl is the power she
acquires, of getting through a large and multifarious quantity of work.
She has frequently to do the whole house-work, cooking, washing, and
ironing for a family of six or seven, and unless the mistress or her
daughters are particularly helpful, it is out of all reason to expect
that any of these things can be well done. Of course there are some good
servants, but, unfortunately for their employers, the butchers and bakers
generally have a keen eye for such, arguing with great justice that a
good servant is likely to make a good wife.
The greater part of the high wages which servants get is spent on dress.
If ever they condescend to wear their mistress's left-off clothes, it is
only for work in the house; but the trouble they take to copy the exact
fashion and cut of their mistress's clothes is very amusing. One girl we
had frankly asked my wife to allow her to take a dress she admired to her
dressmaker, in order that she might have one made up like it. Whilst
girls in the upper and middle classes are very handy with their fingers,
and often make up their own hats and dresses, the servant-class despise
to do this, and almost invariably employ milliners, who often cheat them
dreadfully, knowing that they appreciate a hat or a dress much according
to the price they have paid for it, and the amount of show it makes. In
hats and bonnets this is specially noticeable; I have often seen our
servants with hats or bonnets on, which cannot have cost them less than
three or four pounds.
The shortest and upon the whole the best way to get a servant is by going
to one of the numerous registry offices. Some of these exist merely to
palm off bad servants upon you; but there are always offices of good
reputation, which will not recommend a girl they know absolutely nothing
about.
The needlewoman is little in vogue here; but as nearly everyone washes at
home, washerwomen are plentiful; their wages run from four to five
shillings a day, according to their capabilities, food being of course
included.
In spite of constant shipments from England, servants are always at a
premium, and I need scarcely point out what an excellent opening these
colonies afford for women-servants. Unfortunately, but a very small
proportion of the daughters of the poorer colonial working-class will go
into service. For some inexplicable reason, they turn up their noses at
the high wages and comparatively light work offered, and prefer to
undertake the veriest drudgery in factories for a miserable pittance. At
a recent strike in a large shirt-making factory in Melbourne, it came out
that a competent needlewoman could not make more than eighteen shillings
a week even by working overtime, and that the general average earnings of
a factory girl were only eleven to thirteen shillings a week. But so
great is the love of independence in the colonial girl, that she prefers
hard work and low wages in order to be able to enjoy freedom of an
evening. It is in vain that the press points out that girls whose parents
do not keep servants are accustomed to perform the same household duties
in their own homes that are required of them in service; that work which
is not degrading at home cannot be degrading in service; and that they
will be the better wives for the knowledge of household work which they
acquire in service. They might as well preach to the winds; and there are
more applications for employment in shops and factories than there is
work for, whilst mistresses go begging for lady-helps. There is a sad
side to this picture as regards the social condition of the colonies, in
addition to the inconvenience to people who keep servants. The girls who
go into shops and factories, and have their evenings to themselves,
necessarily undergo a great deal of temptation, and it is undeniable that
they are not at all delivered from evil. The subject is out of keeping
with these letters, but unless some means can be found to reconcile
colonial girls to service, I fear an evil is growing up in our midst
which is likely to be even more baneful in its effects upon the community
than the corresponding tendency to 'larrikinism' amongst colonial youths.
Since writing the above, an article on the subject has appeared in the
Melbourne _Argus_ which is worth quoting in _extenso_:
'We have undertaken to consider whether anything can be done to overcome
the unwillingness which nearly all Australian girls exhibit to enter
domestic service. There is an abundant supply of female labour in the
colony, but unfortunately it is not distributed in the way that would be
most advantageous to the community and beneficial to the women
themselves. While household servants can scarcely be had for love or
money, the clothing factories are crowded with seamstresses, who are
content to work long hours at what are very much like starvation wages.
How is this? We have shown that there is nothing in domestic work which
any true woman need consider degrading; that the most refined and highly
educated ladies have in all ages considered themselves properly employed
when busy about household affairs; that servants have quite as many
opportunities of forming matrimonial connections as factory girls, and
that their training fits them to become much better, and therefore far
happier wives. We have no doubt that all this, or at least the greater
part, would be admitted by the seamstresses themselves: but nevertheless
the fact remains that to domestic service they will not go. There is a
feeling in existence amongst them that in some way or other household
labour is menial occupation, and that to undertake it is to lose caste in
the class to which they belong. We may call this fantastic idea "vanity"
or "false pride," or what we will; but that does not do anything to
banish it, or to render it less potent for mischief. Seeing that so much
is at stake--that employers are clamouring for servants, and that women
are sadly in want of some occupation which would lessen competition and
raise wages in the sewing business--it is evident that society is deeply
interested in getting rid of the ridiculous notion. As a first step
towards that desirable consummation, let us endeavour to analyse the
impression which exists in the minds of those who turn their backs upon
household duties, and with their eyes open devote themselves to a
laborious and underpaid occupation.
'A correspondent ( _The Argus_, December 16) informs us that observation
and the remarks he has heard made by factory girls have led him to think
that there are three serious objections which the seamstresses have to
domestic service. One of these is--"The idea of degradation, attached to
the position of a 'slavey' in the minds of the lower classes themselves."
As we have seen that there is nothing degrading in the work itself which
servants are called upon to do, how comes it that its performance is
considered less honourable than sewing or serving in a shop? The notion
must take its rise in the conditions under which domestic service is
rendered. The sewing girl or the shop-woman has certain business hours,
outside of which she is as independent as her employer, and as little
amenable to control. The household servant, on the other hand, is under
discipline, and liable to be called on to do this, that, or the other
during every hour of the twenty-four. From the time she gets up in the
morning to the moment she goes to bed at night, she has no hour which of
right she can reckon on as her own. If she wishes to go out she must ask
permission; if she wants to receive a friend, she cannot rely on being
left undisturbed. As a matter of fact, servants in this colony enjoy a
very large measure of liberty, and those who are worth their salt very
seldom have to complain of want of consideration or indulgence. If they
do not meet with proper treatment, they can easily find situations where
more regard is had to their feelings and comfort. But the thought that
the leisure and freedom they enjoy is due in a great measure to favour,
and not to right, is the fly in the ointment of the domestic's lot which
renders it distasteful to many women, and which causes it to be looked
down on by those who exist under far less favourable conditions. It seems
to us that it is the want of some definite respite from liability to work
which constitutes the "slavery" of which our correspondent speaks. If we
are right in our supposition, then it is evident that employers have it
in their power to take away the reproach from domestic servitude, by
assimilating the conditions of household employment to those which attach
to industrial occupations. Why should not servants have regular hours of
work, outside which they would be absolutely free to go where, or to do
as they please, without asking permission or fearing interruption? If
such arrangements were to become customary, we can hardly doubt that the
prejudice against domestic service would die out. The attractions of
higher wages, equal freedom, better board, and more comfortable lodging
would soon do their work.
'It may be said that such a change as we propose would entirely alter the
relations between mistresses and their "helps." No doubt it would. But we
may ask why the relations between mistresses and servants should continue
as they were in semi-feudal times, when the relations of other classes of
society to each other have been resettled on an entirely different basis?
Nearly all sorts of service now are matters of simple contract, and we
know of no reason why domestic engagements should not be regulated in the
same way. It would be better for employers to have a plentiful supply of
efficient servants liable to work eight or ten hours per diem, than a
scanty stock of discontented women whose services they can command day
and night. With altered relations, we should soon have a change of
demeanour on both sides. The correspondent we have quoted says that
another of the things which prevents seamstresses from "going into
service," is "the over-anxiety of mistresses that servants should know
their position." In a democratic country like this, where young people
are brought up with the idea that one man or woman is as good as another,
we can easily understand that any assertion of superiority on the part of
employers, or attempt to exact an outward show of deference, is very
galling to undisciplined minds. Those who have been accustomed to be
waited on from childhood upwards, are never very careful to insist on
those forms and modes of address which at one time servants invariably
adopted. As long as they are well served, they are content to sacrifice
something to the modern spirit of equality. It is those who have risen in
the social scale late in life who are always standing on their dignity
and exacting homage. If the latter class would moderate its pretensions,
a stumbling-block would be removed from the entrance to domestic service.
We already have several agencies for training servants; could they not
add to their duties the work of training mistresses in the ideas we have
set forth, and in any others which are likely to diminish the distaste of
Australian girls for household work? If they would take the matter in
hand in a practical way, and familiarise the public mind with the notion
of limited domestic labour, they would, we believe, do much to promote
the comfort of home life in Victoria, and to improve the position of
female labour.'