Chapter XVII: Domestic Service in Europe (1)

It is apparently a common belief in America that there are no difficulties in domestic service in Europe, as it is an equally common belief in Europe that the difficulties in domestic service are greater in America than in any other country.[333] The judgment in one case is as extreme as it is in the other. It is indeed as unsafe to make a generalization in regard to all the phases of domestic service in Europe as it is to make similar generalizations concerning all sections of America—different countries have their own peculiar problems to meet, and these vary in details as do the problems in different sections of America. Yet a careful examination of the question may lead to the conclusion that the differences in the condition of domestic service in Europe and in America are those of degree rather than those of fundamental principles; that the situation in Europe is modified rather than radically altered by the social and political conditions existing there; that as these conditions in Europe and in America become more alike even these external differences will disappear, and that an ideal form of domestic service exists as yet only in the castles of Spain.

Any consideration of domestic service as it is found in Europe to-day must frankly recognize at the outset that the social and political conditions that affect the question result on the one hand from tradition and long-established customs, and on the other from the social and political unrest that was born of the French Revolution. The past and the present, the present and the future, stability and unrest, blind obedience and personal freedom, aristocracy and democracy, have been and are perpetually at war with each other. Every political revolution that has widened the circle of democracy, every industrial movement that has affected large classes of workers, every modification of national ideals of education, every social change that has shifted the relations of classes to each other, every barrier between nations that has been broken down or that has been put up, has changed the problem of domestic service. In England the tendencies towards social aristocracy on the one hand and political democracy on the other, in Germany the trend towards the exaction of military obedience in every walk in life and the counter influences of the social democratic party, in France the deadening hand of bureaucracy and the opposing unrestrained passions of the multitude, in Italy the inherited prejudice against manual labor and the necessity of gaining a livelihood by means of it,—all these forces so diametrically opposed to each other, and so inevitably coming into collision, are but illustrations of conflicting forces that have entered and that must enter into the question. Political, industrial, educational, and social changes have made England a manufacturing nation, have made Germany one denominated by a military spirit and a military régime, have made Italy a land given over to petty industries, and have emphasized in France the tendency to seek official positions, no matter how small the salary involved, rather than embark on individual enterprises involving initiative. Some changes that have come within scarcely more than a hundred years have been peculiar to a single country, most of them have been shared by all, while not a few have affected America as well as Europe. The changes have often been wrought silently, but they have been none the less effective because they have come unnoticed and unrecognized alike by the employer and by the employed in domestic service.

On the other hand, domestic service is affected by many external conditions that are apparent to the most casual observer. These often vary in the different countries, and often explain in turn some of the conditions that differentiate domestic service in one European country from that in another, as well as domestic service in Europe as a whole from that in America. One illustration is found in the varying types of domestic architecture which grow out of the varying national ideals of home and of social life. The typical English dwelling, whether it is detached, semi-detached, or one of a series, is complete in itself and cut off from all communication with its neighbors. The huge French apartment house containing half a dozen or a dozen families, without an elevator and dominated by its concierge, has an artery in a common stairway leading from the _loge_ of the concierge to the upper floor occupied by all of the domestics in the building. The small apartment house or detached house of the German is isolated, but it is in close proximity to a garden café. The lofty, cheerless, mediæval palace in which the Italian finds his abode is typical of the hardness of life for those serving and those served. These fundamental differences in the material construction of buildings must have an influence on the question of domestic service. Houses arranged perpendicularly as in England, or horizontally as in France and Germany, or located in the air as in Italy, carry with them their own peculiarities of service and of work. Countries where ice is not freely used, and apartment houses without places for storage, make inevitable the daily marketing and purchasing all supplies in small quantities; the delicatessen shop and the garden café simplify the question of the evening meal in Germany; the elimination of breakfast from the daily meals everywhere on the continent reduces to a minimum that problem in domestic service. The isolation of life in one country, the simplicity of life in another, the entire absence of hospitality in still another, all affect the question, sometimes rendering it more simple, sometimes more complex than in America.

Yet when everything has been said, the fact remains that in all essentials the state of domestic service is the same in Europe as in America. Employers on both sides of the Atlantic meet with the same serious difficulties in their efforts to secure competent household employees, and these difficulties find their explanation in precisely the same conditions. They have already been enumerated in the case of the American employer,[334] and the list tallies in every particular with the enumeration of those met by the employer in Europe. It is hard to secure the services of women in the household because they prefer work in factories where the hours of work are definitely prescribed and evenings and Sundays are free; because they prefer work in shops where their individual life is less under control than it is in the household of an employer; because they prefer service in hotels and in large pensions since these give opportunity for specialized work, a life of variety and excitement, and larger wages in the form of fees; because they prefer short engagements with large fees at summer resorts to permanent engagements with moderate wages in families; because the growing spirit of democracy rebels against the inferior social position accorded household employees, even to those whose work is rightly classed as skilled labor. Obtaining help is difficult in small villages because employees prefer the excitement of city life; on the other hand, employers in large cities must meet the competition of shops and factories.

In every country, it is true, there are districts where something of the old patriarchal relationship between master and servant still exists, where service in a household descends from parent to child, where democratic ideas have not penetrated, where, be it said, the railway, the telegraph, and the automobile are as yet unknown. In such districts the question of household service is a simple one. But each year, as these classes become more and more affected by new social and industrial conditions, the perplexities in domestic service increase. Moreover, it must be remembered that every period and every country has its legend of an antecedent time and of a mythical Utopia where ideal service for every one has always been found. These legends concerning service in Europe are entitled to no more credence than are similar legends in America—the time and the place where difficulties in domestic service are not and have not been known are as vanishing points of the compass.

There are, however, certain variations of the problem in Europe and these must be considered.

The European employer of domestic labor is at a distinct advantage in comparison with the employer of such labor in America in that little or no baking is done in the individual household, and washing as a rule is done out of the house,[335] or if done in it, is often made a serious matter like the semi-annual housecleaning,[336] while the continental breakfast of coffee and rolls practically reduces the first meal of the day to a negative quantity.

It is indeed an open question whether the simplification of household work thus secured is not more than counterbalanced by the lack of modern conveniences for doing housework, by the absence of any system of uniform heating and the consequent necessity of carrying fuel to every room that is to be warmed, by the absence of elevators and the hard work thereby entailed on employer and employee alike, and by the necessity apparently encumbent on every member of many households of crocheting endless yards of trimming, working on canvas, and storing away for future use countless piles of household linen. But these are at least variations from our own problem, and both employer and employee in Europe have certain advantages in their work even if these are counterbalanced by corresponding disadvantages.

The employer in Europe, especially in Germany, is at an advantage in being able, indeed often compelled by law, to make a contract specifying the term of service for which the employee is engaged. In Germany[337] contracts are usually made in the city by the quarter, in the country by the year. If the contract is made by the quarter, notice of a change on either side must be given six weeks in advance; if made by the year, three months’ notice must be given; where the contract is made for only a month, notice must be given fourteen days in advance; in all cases notice must be given before twelve o’clock at noon.[338] If an employee is dismissed without due notice before the expiration of the contract, the employer must pay wages and board for the remainder of the time.[339] If an employee leaves without giving the legal notice, he can be brought back by the police and be also subject to fine and imprisonment.[340] Again, it is impossible for a person to engage a servant while in the employ of another without the knowledge and consent of the latter, while any one who entices a servant away from his place is subject to fine and imprisonment.[341]

It must be said, however, that there is another side to the contract. If it protects the employer in reducing to a minimum the chances of his being left without a servant, it also makes his life a burden during the long period that intervenes between the notice and the time when it takes effect. The service given by a servant during this time becomes absolutely perfunctory, while the personal relations become so strained as to render the situation almost intolerable. The temptation besets the housekeeper to “rather bear those ills she has than fly to others that she knows not of,” and thus she often encourages poor work by tolerating it, because she is unwilling to give the necessary notice, endure the still poorer service after it has been given, and in the end incur the risk of getting another servant no more efficient than her predecessor.

Yet undoubtedly this extreme form of government supervision in Germany is successful there. The police officials administer many a wholesome rebuke to both parties to the contract. If an employer is in the habit of changing servants often, that fact is known to the police through the service books and the notifications of change that every employer must make. When, therefore, such an one complains to the police that his servant is impertinent or remiss in some way where he wishes legal redress, the officer will probably advise him not to make the attempt. “You had better not say anything about this, every one knows that you cannot keep a servant long.”[342] If an employee makes too frequent complaint of ill usage at the hands of his employer, he will probably be dismissed with a reprimand for his own shortcomings.

One form of government supervision that has been specially commended in other countries is the German service book. This represents the most complete safeguard that has been devised to protect employers from imposition on the one hand and, on the other, to assist employees in securing places. Every person before going into domestic service must obtain from the police one of these books. A blank page is filled out by the police, giving a description of the person about to enter service. When the first engagement is made, the name of the employer and the date of beginning service are entered in the book and it receives the official stamp. When an employee leaves a place, the date with the reason for leaving and a statement in regard to the character and efficiency of the servant must be entered in the book by the employer and the book then returned to the police. No domestic employee can secure a position in Germany without one of these service books—it is a passport that must be viséd by the government officials and previous employers before he can enter or leave a position, and no passport regulations in any country are more stringent than are these service-book requirements in Germany. It would seem, therefore, that this public statement concerning an employee and the official recognition of it by the police authorities ought to be an unimpeachable recommendation. That this is not the case, however, seems to be the all but universal testimony. The service book is of value in weeding out inefficient employees, whose inefficiency, however, would often be self-evident without the aid of a service book. It is not only true that in this, as in every other form of recommendation, the mistress is anxious to say the best thing possible for a maid to help her in securing another place, but the law compels an employer to go still farther and to say nothing that will prevent an employee from finding employment. If an employer suspects the honesty of an employee, he is not free to state that suspicion in the service book; if he has positive proof of his dishonesty, he must enter legal complaint against the employee; if he has no such evidence, he must not even hint at his suspicions. Moreover, the law goes yet one step farther and compels every employer to believe an employee innocent in every respect until he is proved guilty. Not only is he not free to say that he suspects the honesty of an employee, or to leave out the word “honest,” but he must state positively that the employee _is_ honest.[343] This policy is justified on the ground that it is a necessary protection to the weaker class, but it of necessity impairs the absolute reliability of the testimonials given, and it lessens materially the value of the service book as far as it concerns the employer. Even in Germany with the aid of the strong arm of the law it seems as impossible as it is in other countries to devise any system of recommendations that will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that will at the same time satisfy the desire of an employer to secure a place for an employee he can himself no longer tolerate and also the claims of an employee to the right to turn a fresh page and try once more to give satisfaction to a new employer. The recommendations of the previous employers of would-be employees must be discounted in Germany as well as in America.

This government regulation of domestic service in Germany is acquiesced in because government regulation extends to other industries and because obedience is man’s first law throughout the empire. In so far as the conditions can be reached by law this regulation seems to be successful. But there are many factors in the problem that cannot be so reached,—infirmities of temper, the visiting soldier, the preference for an easy place, the desire for city life. Here the German housekeeper must depend on her own resources, and her problem is the same as that in every other country.

Another advantage domestic service in Europe has over service in America lies in the large number of men engaged in the employment.[344] The reasons for this are not indeed perhaps directly apparent. But domestic service as an occupation for men must command a higher respect in Europe than in America for two reasons: first, the competition with those belonging to a foreign, or to a so-called inferior race is reduced to a minimum.[345] Household service is performed in France by Frenchmen, in Italy by Italians, and in Germany by Germans. In England it is given in part by Englishmen, but also to a great extent by foreigners, and the invasion of the occupation by those not English by birth may be one explanation why the occupation is falling into ill repute among native-born Englishmen. That the service is better performed by the foreigner than it is by the Englishman explains why employers seek the services of the former rather than those of the latter,[346] and perhaps incidentally why the native-born servant so readily leaves the field to his rival.

Another explanation why domestic service as an occupation for men commands a higher respect in Europe lies in the relatively higher qualifications that men must have. Not only must a man in domestic service have the same qualifications as would be demanded of him in the same occupation here, but he must be able to speak from one to half a dozen languages in addition to his own.[347] Domestic service is for men an occupation, and they make preparation for it as for any other technical trade. They must spend from one to two years in other countries learning the language[348] in order to increase their market value; the position they can command and the wages they can earn depend, other things being equal, on the amount of capital they have invested in themselves. The social restrictions placed on women prevent their going from one country to another in a similar way, and thus men, for this and other reasons, command everywhere the best places, and they probably occupy a relatively higher social position than do men in the same occupation in America.

From the standpoint of the employer one advantage domestic service in Europe has, is that it apparently costs less than it does in America. The money wages paid domestic employees are nominally much lower than in America, apparently ranging from about three dollars a month for an ordinary housemaid to eight dollars a month for an excellent cook,[349] in addition to board and lodging.[350] But these wages are supplemented in a score of ways. A present in money of from five to eight dollars is often given at Christmas or New Year’s, another is given at Easter, and a third on birthdays,[351] while at all times the temper of the cook must be propitiated with gifts of clothing and the housemaid remembered in a similar way.[352] Not only are members of the family expected to make these additions to the nominal wages given, but guests and transient visitors pay similar tribute.[353] Moreover, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestickmaker all increase the monthly stipend of servants by frequent fees given in return for trade secured through them,[354] while no inconsiderable part of the wages received—or taken—comes in the form of profits,[355] perquisites and “gratifications.”[356] Still another factor must be added, the daily allowance for wine or beer, or its money equivalent.[357] In France, according to Weber, men-servants are paid while performing military service,—“it is an act of patriotism and of social solidarity.”[358] In Germany girls in the country sometimes receive part of their wages in the use granted of a small piece of land where they can raise flax. This they spin, weave, and sell, adding thus something to their wages. Compulsory insurance in Germany and in Belgium materially increases the cash wages paid by the employer.[359] It is thus extremely difficult to state with even approximate exactness the amount of wages received by domestics in Europe, since the total amount is affected to such an extent by the variable factors of fees and outside perquisites.[360] It is still more difficult to compute the variations that wages have undergone from a past to the present time.[361]

That the cost of domestic service is in many places in excess of what it should be is indicated by the growing custom among certain classes of employers of demanding as their right a percentage of the fees received,[362] and the protests, as yet unavailing, on the part of the public against the exactions of these fees by either employer or employee.[363] It seems not unreasonable to conclude, in view of all the various ways by which wages are augmented, that they are in reality much greater than their face value indicates, and in many parts of the service greatly in advance of wages in other corresponding occupations.

The question naturally arises whether the value of the service rendered is commensurate with its cost, but it is a question that must remain unanswered in default of any common standard by which service can be gauged.[364] Figaro has answered the question theoretically in the other question put to Count Almaviva, “Measured by the virtues demanded of a servant, does your excellency know many masters worthy of being valets?”[365]

But the wage received sums up as little in Europe as it does in America the subject of domestic service. Even good wages do not altogether compensate for long hours of service,[366] hardness of work[367] and of life,[368] and entire lack of social intercourse.

It is undeniable that the social conditions that surround domestic servants in Europe are harder than in America. They are the survivals of the condition of serfdom, as this was in turn the survival of a preëxisting state of slavery.[369] Literature everywhere testifies to the social chasm that has at all times existed between master and slave, master and servant, mistress and maid, and employer and employee, as it also does to the manifold imperfections of both parties to the domestic contract,[370] while on the stage as well as in the daily press it has been the domestic servant who has always been made the butt of jest and ridicule.[371] “Now, as before and during the Revolution,” says M. Salomon, tersely, “it (the occupation) remains under the ban of society; customs are not changed with laws.”[372] It is true that the domestic servant is often apparently unconscious of the existence of this social ban, and that even when he is conscious of it, he acquiesces in it and accepts it as a part of the social order that he cannot and perhaps would not change, yet this unconsciousness of it does not alter the fact of its existence.

The social disadvantages of domestic service show themselves under the same guise as in America, though often in a much more exaggerated form. In England the existence of a tax on men-servants puts at once a social chasm between the master who pays a tax on luxuries and the servant who is an outward manifestation of that luxury, while the servility of manner that an American finds so exasperating in an English servant is encouraged and even demanded as the birthright inheritance of a well-born Englishman.[373] The servants in their turn enforce among themselves similar social distinctions and the recognition by their fellows of the various grades of social superiority or inferiority[374]—a condition that has its origin partly in a desire to imitate the customs and manners of those above them in the social scale,[375] and partly in the extreme specialization of every form of household work and the resulting inflexibility of all parts of it.[376] It follows that in England “domestic service provides no general bond—perhaps, indeed, rather accentuates class indifferences,” and that, as an occupation, for this and other reasons, “domestic service, though lucrative and in many ways luxurious, is not popular.”[377]

In France, while the relations between employer and employee are much more democratic than in England, the social stigma is put on the household servant, in part because of the traditional character given servants in French literature, in part because the construction of the French apartment house places the rooms of all the servants in the mansard story and thus draws a line of social demarkation between those served and those serving, in part because of the bureaucratic character of society.

In Italy, domestic servants have apparently no social life whatever. This is partially explained by the long hours of work that leave them no opportunity for it; it is in part because women servants never go out in the evening, receive no callers, and are, as it is often explained, “really servants,” in the sense of having no social ambitions; and it is also because manual work in every form is considered degrading, and those who engage in it are under the social ban—a condition that is apparently accepted without outward protest.

Yet much is done to mitigate some of the hard features in the lot of the domestic servant. One of the interesting features in the condition of domestic service in Germany is the large number of benefactions organized for the benefit of domestic employees. There are everywhere homes for aged servants,[378] homes for servants out of work,[379] unions for providing servants with recreation,[380] and schools and homes where they are taught household employments.[381]

Yet when all has been said the fact remains that even in Germany the lot of a household employee is a hard one. “Servants hate a dull place worse than a hard one,” and when a place is both dull and hard it has indeed little to commend it. Women in Europe as in America enter domestic service by the line of least resistance, and this explains why in both countries so many are found in the occupation and why so many of these are incompetent in their work and unhappy in their lives.

In one important respect the condition of domestic service in Europe is immeasurably behind that in America. Even more than here domestic service and domestic servants are the targets at which are aimed the satire and the ridicule of literature and the press, and this is not counterbalanced by earnest study of the subject as is the case with us. The question is everywhere discussed in America, not because the difficulties here are greater than they are elsewhere, but because it is coming to be recognized as a part of the great labor problem of the day. If the future holds for us a solution of the problem, it is because we believe it is worthy of historical study and of scientific investigation, and in giving it this recognition we have put it on a higher plane than the one it as yet occupies in Europe.[382]

FOOTNOTES

[1] These schedules are given in Appendix I.

[2] Partial discussions of the subject can be found in the _First Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Minnesota_, pp. 131-196; _First Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Colorado_, pp. 344-362; _Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics of Kansas_, pp. 281-326; _Third Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of California_, pp. 91-94; _Fifth Biennial Report of the Department of Statistics, State of Indiana_, pp. 173-229. The last is especially full and excellent.

[3] The total number of domestic servants is given as 1,454,791. This does not include launderers and laundresses, paid housekeepers in private families and hotels, or stewards and stewardesses. It excludes also the very large number of persons performing the same duties as domestic servants, but without receiving a fixed compensation.

[4] This estimate is based on the supposition that the average wages paid are $3.00 per week, and that two weeks’ vacation is given with loss of wages. Both of these are probably underestimates, as will be seen farther on. If the wages paid launderers and laundresses are included, and also the fees paid for hotel and restaurant service, $300,000,000 seems a fair estimate for the annual cash wages paid for domestic service.

[5] This estimate supposes the actual cost of board for each employee to be $3.00 per week, which is probably less than would be paid by each employee for table-board of the quality furnished by the employer. It excludes the cost of house-rent furnished, and also fuel and light, all of which are factors to be considered in computing the cost of service received.

[6] It is difficult to estimate the value of the materials of which domestic employees have the almost exclusive control. If the number of domestic servants and launderers and laundresses in private families, hotels, and restaurants is placed at 1,700,000, the number of employees in each family as two, and the number of persons in each family, including servants, as seven, it will be seen that at a rough estimate the food and laundried articles of clothing of six million persons pass through the hands of this class of employees. It was formerly a common saying, “a servant eats her wages, breaks her wages, and wastes her wages.” If this verdict of experience is taken as approximately true rather than as scientifically exact, it will be seen that the actual expense involved in domestic service is probably double that included under the items of wages and support.

[7] _The Factory System_, Tenth Census, II., 533-537.

[8] A. E. Kennelly, “Electricity in the Household,” _Scribner’s Magazine_, January, 1890; E. M. H. Merrill, “Electricity in the Kitchen,” _American Kitchen Magazine_, November, 1895.

[9] In Massachusetts, in 1885, the number of women employed in manufacturing industries exceeded the number of men in eight towns. These were Dalton, Dudley, Easthampton, Hingham, Ipswich, Lowell, Tisbury, and Upton. _Census of Massachusetts_, II., 176-187.

A weaver in Lawrence, Massachusetts, reported in 1882: “One of the evils existing in this city is the gradual extinction of the male operative.” _Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence_, p. 10. Reprinted from _Thirteenth Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor_, p. 202.

In Massachusetts, in 1875, women predominated in fifteen occupations, eleven of them manufacturing industries. In 1885 there were also fifteen occupations in which women exceeded men in numbers, twelve of them manufacturing. These were manufacturers of buttons and dress-trimmings, carpetings, clothing, cotton goods, fancy articles, hair work, hosiery and knit goods, linen, mixed textiles, silk and silk goods, straw and palm-leaf goods, and worsted goods. _Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor_, 1889, pp. 556-557.

[10] George Eliot in _Felix Holt_ speaks of Mrs. Transome as engaged in “a little daily embroidery—that soothing occupation of taking stitches to produce what neither she nor any one else wanted was then the resource of many a well-born and unhappy woman.”

[11] Eddis, p. 63.

[12] DeFoe, _Moll Flanders_, _Colonel Jack_; Mrs. Alpha Behn, _The Widow Ranter_.

[13] Sir Joshua Child, pp. 183-184.

[14] Charles Davenant, II., 3. Velasco, the minister of Spain to England, writes to Philip III. from London, March 22, 1611: “Their principal reason for colonizing these parts is to give an outlet to so many idle and wretched people as they have in England, and thus to prevent the dangers that might be feared from them.” Brown, p. 456.

[15] Force, _Tracts_, I., 19.

[16] _Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1661-1668._ Abstracts 101, 772, 791, 858. An admirable discussion of “British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies,” by James D. Butler, is found in _The American Historical Review_, October, 1896.

[17] Eddis says, p. 66, that Maryland was the only colony where convicts were freely imported; but Virginia seems to have shared equally in the importation.

[18] In Pennsylvania and Virginia transported criminals were so numerous that laws were passed to prevent their importation.

[19] William Smith, _History of the Province of New York from its Discovery to the Appointment of Governor Colden in 1762_, pp. 207-210. John Watson, pp. 485-486, quotes from contemporaneous writers in opposition to the practice in Pennsylvania, _circa_ 1750; Hening, II., 509-511.

[20] “It is a shameful and unblessed thing to take the scum of people and wicked, condemned men, to be the people with whom you plant; and not only so, but it spoileth the plantation; for they ever live like rogues, and not fall to work; but be lazy, and do mischief, and spend victuals, and be quickly weary, and then certify over to their country to the discredit of the plantation.” Bacon, _Essays_, _Of Plantations_.

[21] Bruce, I., 606, says that the order of the General Court of Virginia prohibiting the introduction of English criminals after January 20, 1671 (Hening, II., 509-511), was confirmed by a royal order announcing that the importation of Newgate criminals was to cease, and that this rule was to apply to all the Colonies. But the frequent protests against the practice found in other Colonies at a much later date would seem to show that it could not have been generally observed.

[22] Eddis, pp. 71-75.

[23] _Ibid._, pp. 69-71.

[24] Berkeley’s Report, Hening, II., 515. Brantly, in Winsor, III., 545.

[25] “In the year 1730 ... Colonel Josiah Willard was invited to view some transports who had just landed from Ireland. My uncle spied a boy of some vivacity, of about ten years of age, and who was the only one in the crew who spoke English. He bargained for him.”—“Mrs. Johnson’s Captivity” in _Indian Narratives_, p. 130.

[26] Hildreth, III., 395.

[27] Samuel Breck writes under date of August 1, 1817, “I went on board the ship John from Amsterdam, ... and I purchased one German Swiss for Mrs. Ross and two French Swiss for myself.” _Recollections_, pp. 296-297.

[28] _Winthrop Papers_, Pt. VI., p. 387, note.

[29] Barber, _Connecticut Collections_, p. 166.

[30] Scharf, p. 209.

[31] Some improvement was soon seen in Virginia. “There haue beene sent thither this last yeare, and are now presently in going, twelue hundred persons and vpward, and there are neere one thousand more remaining of those that were gone before. The men lately sent, haue beene most of them choise men, borne and bred vp to labour and industry.” _Declaration of the State of the Colonie and Affairs in Virginia_, 1620. Force, III., 5. Hammond in _Leah and Rachel_, p. 7, also speaks of the improvement.

[32] A well-known case was that of Thomas, son of Sir Edward Verney, who at the age of nineteen wished to marry some one of lower rank than himself. He was sent to Virginia to prevent the marriage, not, however, as himself a servant. _Verney Papers, Camden Society Publications_, vol. 56, pp. 160-162.

A niece of Daniel DeFoe is said to have been sent to America as a redemptioner for the same reason.

The Sot-Weed Factor says of a maid in a Maryland inn,

“Kidnap’d and Fool’d, I hither fled,
To shun a hated Nuptial Bed,
And to my cost already find,
Worse Plagues than those I left behind.

These are the general Excuses made by _English_ Women, which are sold or sell themselves to _Mary-land_.” p. 7.

[33] James Annesley when twelve years old was transported to Pennsylvania. His father died soon after, and his uncle succeeded to the peerage. The boy was sold to a planter in Newcastle County, but his title to the peerage was subsequently proved. Anglesea Peerage Trial, Howell, _State Trials_, XVII., 1443-1454.

[34] Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, p. 108; _The Verney Papers, Camden Society Publications_, vol. 56, pp. 160-162, give a long and detailed account of the method of obtaining and transporting servants.

[35] Neill, _Terra Mariæ_, pp. 201, 202,

“In better Times, e’re to this Land,
I was unhappily Trapann’d.”

_Sot-Weed Factor_, p. 6.

A young woman in search of employment was told that by going on board ship she would find it in Virginia, a few miles below on the Thames. Another young woman was persuaded to enter the ship, and was then sold into service. Cited by Bruce, I., 614, from _Interregnum Entry Book_, vol. 106, p. 84, and _British State Papers, Colonial_, vol. XIII., No. 29, 1.

The evil of “spiriting away” both children and adults became so great that in 1664 the Committee for Foreign Plantations interposed, and the Council created the office of Register, charged with the duty of keeping a record of all persons going to America as servants, and the statement that they had voluntarily left England. This act was soon followed by another fixing the penalty of death, without benefit of clergy, in every case where persons were found guilty of kidnapping children or adults. But even these extreme measures did not put an end to the evil; and it is stated that ten thousand persons were annually kidnapped after the passage of the act. Bruce, I., 614-619.

[36] “The Forme of Binding a Servant” is given in _A Relation of Maryland_, pp. 62-63, and reads as follows:

This Indenture _made the ____ day of ____ in the yeere of our
Soveraigne Lord King_ Charles, _&c. betweene ____ of the one
party, and ____ on the other party_, Witnesseth, _that the
said ____ doth hereby covenant promise, and grant to, and with
the said ____ his Executors and Assignes, to serve him from
the day of the date hereof, untill his first and next arrivall
in_ Maryland; _and after for and during the tearme of ____
yeeres, in such service and imployment as the said ____ or his
assignes shall there imploy him, according to the custome of
the countrey in the like kind. In consideration whereof, the
said ____ doth promise and grant, to and with the said ____
to pay for his passing, and to find him with Meat, Drinke,
Apparell and Lodging, with other necessaries during the said
terme; and at the end of the said terme, to give him one whole
yeeres provision of Corne, and fifty acres of Land, according
to the order of the countrey. In witnesse whereof, the said
____ hath hereunto put his hand and scale, the day and yeere
above written._

_Sealed and delivered in the presence of _____

Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, pp. 5-7, gives a similar copy. Bruce, II., 2, gives the indenture of one Mary Polly whose master was to “maintain ye sᵈ Mary noe other ways than he doth his own in all things as dyett, cloathing and lodging, the sᵈ Mary to obey the sᵈ John Porter in all his lawful commands within ye sᵈ term of years.”

[37] Hening, I., 257, 1642.

[38] Hening, I., 411, 1655.

[39] _Ibid._, I., 441-442, 1657.

[40] _Ibid._, I., 538-539, 1659.

[41] _Ibid._, II., 113-114, 1661.

[42] _Ibid._, II., 240, 1666.

[43] _Ibid._, 1705, 1748, 1753.

In North Carolina no “imported Christian” was to be considered a servant unless the person importing him could procure an indenture. Iredell, 1741, chap. 24.

In West New Jersey servants over twenty-one without indenture were to serve four years, and all under twenty-one to serve at the discretion of the Court. Leaming and Spicer, 1682, chap. XI.

In Maryland servants without indenture of over twenty-one years of age were to serve five years; if between eighteen and twenty-two, six years; if between fifteen and eighteen, seven years; if under fifteen, until twenty-two years old. Browne, 1692.

[44] Alsop, pp. 57-58.

[45] _Leah and Rachel_, pp. 12, 14.

[46] Neill, _Terra Mariæ_, pp. 201-202.

[47] Howell, _State Trials_, XVII., 1443-1454.

[48] Eddis, pp. 69-70.

[49] Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, p. 58. Neill adds: “While some of these servants were treated with kindness, others received no more consideration than dumb, driven cattle.”

[50] P. 7.

[51] A negro servant in the family of Judge Sewall died in 1729, and the latter writing of the funeral says: “I made a good Fire, set Chairs, and gave Sack.” _Diary_, III., 394. _The New England Weekly Journal_, February 24, 1729, has a detailed account of the funeral: “A long train followed him to the grave, it’s said about 150 black, and about 50 whites, several magistrates, ministers, gentlemen, etc. His funeral was attended with uncommon respect and his death much lamented.”

[52] She complains of the great familiarity in permitting the slaves to sit at table with their masters “as they say to save time” and adds, “into the dish goes the black hoof, as freely as the white hand.” She relates a difficulty between a master and a slave which was referred to arbitration, each party binding himself to accept the decision. The arbitrators ordered the master to pay 40 shillings to the slave and to acknowledge his fault. “And so the matter ended: the poor master very honestly standing to the award.”—_The Journal of Madame Knight._

[53] John Winter writes from Maine, “I Can not Conceaue which way their masters Can pay yt, but yf yt Continue this rates the servants will be masters & the masters servants.” _Trelawny Papers_, p. 164. John Winthrop makes a similar comment in narrating “a passage between one Rowley and his servant. The master, being forced to sell a pair of oxen to pay his servant his wages, told his servant he could keep him no longer, not knowing how to pay him the next year. The servant answered, he would serve him for more of his cattle. But how shall I do (saith the master) when all my cattle are gone? The servant replied, you shall then serve me, and so you may have your cattle again.” Winthrop gives as a reason for high wages the fact that “the wars in England kept servants from coming to us, so as those we had could not be hired, when their times were out, but upon unreasonable terms, and we found it very difficult to pay their wages to their content, (for money was very scarce).”—_History of New England_, II., 219-220.

[54] Lechford, _Note-book_, p. 107.

[55] Lechford, _Note-book_, p. 81.

[56] Bruce, II., 2.

[57] _Travels_, I., 303-304.

[58] _Recollections_, p. 297.

“Before the Revolution no hired man or woman wore any shoes so fine as calf-skins; course neats leather was their every day wear. Men and women then hired by the year,—men got 16 to 20_l._, and a servant woman 8 to 10_l._ Out of that it was their custom to lay up money, to buy before their marriage a bed and bedding, silver teaspoons, and a spinning-wheel, &c.”—Watson, _Annals_, p. 165.

[59] Hening, III., 451.

[60] _Ibid._, V., 550.

[61] _Ibid._, VI., 359.

[62] Trott, 1736.

[63] Purdon, Act of 1700; Carey and Bioren.

[64] _Body of Liberties_, chap. 88, Laws of 1672; _Laws of the Duke of York_.

[65] Iredell, Acts of 1741, chap. XXIV.

[66] Leaming and Spicer, Acts of 1682, chap. VIII.

[67] _Ibid._, chap. X.

[68] Browne, 1692.

[69] Bacon, 1715.

[70] Force, _Tracts_, III.: “Articles, Lavves, and Orders, Diuine, Politique, and Martiall, for the Colony in Virginea Brittania.”

[71] “All such Bakers as are appointed to bake bread, or what else, either for the store to be giuen out in generall, or for any one in particular, shall not steale nor imbezell, loose, or defraud any man of his due and proper weight and measure, nor vse any dishonest and deceiptfull tricke to make the bread weigh heauier, or make it courser vpon purpose to keepe backe any part or measure of the flower or meale committed vnto him, nor aske, take, or detaine any one loafe more or lesse for his hire or paines for so baking, since whilest he who deliuered vnto him such meale or flower, being to attend the businesse of the Colonie, such baker or bakers are imposed vpon no other seruice or duties, but onely so to bake for such as do worke, and this shall hee take notice of, vpon paine for the first time offending herein of losing his eares, and for the second time to be condemned a yeare to the Gallies, and for the third time offending to be condemned to the Gallies for three yeares.” The same penalties are attached in case cooks or those who dress fish withhold any part of the provision given them. Every minister was to read these laws publicly every Sunday before catechising. Force, _Tracts_, III.: “Articles ... for the Colony in Virginea.”

[72] _Trelawny Papers_, _Collections of Maine Historical Society_, III., 166-168.

[73] _Ibid._, 169.

[74] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, Fifth Series, I., 64-67.

[75] _Ibid._, 68.

[76] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, Fifth Series, VIII., 427.

[77] _Winthrop Papers_, Pt. VI., 353-354, note.

[78] Trumbull, _Blue Laws_, p. 155.

[79] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, Sixth Series, II., 112.

[80] Purdon, _Digest_.

[81] Purdon, _Digest_, Act of 1700. In East New Jersey the privilege was restricted to white servants. Leaming and Spicer, _Acts of East New Jersey, 1682_. In Massachusetts no servant was to be put off for more than a year to another master without the consent of the Court. _Body of Liberties_, § 86, Act of 1672. In New York no servant, except one bound for life, could be assigned to another master for more than one year, except for good reason.—_Laws of the Duke of York._

[82] Iredell, Acts of 1741, chap. XXIV., § 4; Leaming and Spicer, _Acts of East New Jersey, 1682_, chap. XXVI. Any white servant burdened beyond his strength, or deprived of necessary rest and sleep, could complain to the justice of the peace. This officer was empowered, first, to admonish the offending master; second, to levy on his goods to an amount not exceeding ten pounds; and third, to sell the servant’s time. Trott, Act of 1717. In New York and Massachusetts servants were to have convenient time for food and rest.—_Laws of the Duke of York_; Massachusetts, Act of 1672. In Maryland the penalty for insufficient meat, drink, lodging, and clothing, burdens beyond their strength, or more than ten lashes for one offence, was for the first and second offence a fine of not more than a thousand pounds of tobacco, and on the third offence the servant recovered his liberty. Permission to exceed ten lashes could be obtained from the Court, but the master could not inflict more than thirty-nine lashes.—Dorsey, _Laws of 1715_, chap. LXIV.

[83] Trumbull, _Public Records_, p. 263; Massachusetts, Act of 1700; Iredell, Acts of 1741, chap. XXIV. In North Carolina if a master did not use means for the recovery of a servant when ill, and turned him away, he forfeited five pounds for each servant so turned away, and if this was not sufficient the Court was empowered to levy an additional amount. Such servants on their recovery were to have their freedom, provided they had not brought the illness on themselves. In Connecticut if the injury came at the hands of the master or any member of his family, the master was obliged to provide for the maintenance of the servant, even after the expiration of his term of service, according to the judgment of the Court. But if the injury “came by any providence of God without the default of the family of the governor,” the master was released from the obligation of providing for him after his term of service expired. In South Carolina masters turning away sick or infirm servants were to forfeit twenty pounds.

[84] Leaming and Spicer, _East New Jersey_, 1682; _Body of Liberties_, § 87, Act of 1672; _Laws of the Duke of York_. In Maryland the Act of 1692 freed a mulatto girl whose master had cut off both her ears.

[85] _Body of Liberties_, § 85, Act of 1672; _Laws of Connecticut_, 1673.

[86] _Laws of the Duke of York._

[87] Iredell, 1741, chap. XXIV.

[88] Leaming and Spicer, _East New Jersey, 1682_, chap. VIII.

[89] _Instructions of the Crown_, November 16, 1702.

[90] Iredell, 1741, chap. XXIV.

[91] Carey and Bioren, chap. 635.

[92] Trott, Act of 1717.

[93] Act of 1673.

[94] Leaming and Spicer, Act of 1682. This is practically the re-enactment of a similar law in Carteret’s time, 1668, and of the law of 1675.

[95] Iredell, Act of 1741.

[96] Trott, Act of 1717.

[97] Browne, 1692; Dorsey, 1715, chap. XLIV.

[98] Leaming and Spicer, Act of 1682. The Acts of 1682 and 1675 had similar provisions.

[99] Act _circa_ 1784; Trumbull, _Public Records_, 1665-1678.

[100] Trott, Act of 1717.

[101] _Laws of the Duke of York._

[102] Purdon, _Digest_, Act of 1700.

[103] Act of 1704.

[104] Browne, 1692; Dorsey, 1715.

[105] Bacon, 1748.

[106] Browne, 1692; Dorsey, 1715.

[107] Bacon, 1748.

[108] Iredell, Act of 1741.

[109] Carey and Bioren, Act of 1700.

[110] Trumbull, _Public Records_.

[111] Acts of 1692 and 1715.

[112] Act of 1692.

[113] Connecticut, _circa_ 1784; New York, Act of 1672; Maryland, Acts of 1692, 1715.

[114] Iredell, Act of 1741.

[115] Act _circa_ 1784.

[116] Act of 1646.

[117] Trott, 1717; Massachusetts, Act of 1698.

[118] Act of 1646.

[119] Act of 1728.

[120] Iredell, Act of 1741. But corporal punishment was not to deprive the master of such other satisfaction as he might be entitled to by the Act.

[121] Act of 1717.

[122] _Body of Liberties_, § 88, Act of 1672; _Laws of the Duke of York_.

[123] Iredell, 1741.

[124] Leaming and Spicer, Act of 1682.

[125] Purdon, _Digest_, 1700.

[126] Act _circa_ 1784.

[127] Laws of 1672.

[128] Act governing white servants, 1717.

[129] _Laws of the Duke of York._

[130] Browne, 1692; Dorsey, 1715.

[131] Leaming and Spicer, Acts of 1668, 1675; Trott, Act of 1717.

[132] Massachusetts Bay, Act of 1636.

[133] Carey and Bioren, Act of 1721.

[134] Iredell, 1741.

[135] _Ibid._

[136] Laws of 1672.

[137] _Ibid._

[138] Iredell, 1741.

[139] Act of 1636.

[140] Act of 1784.

[141] Neill, _Founders of Maryland_, pp. 77-79, gives the names of eighty servants brought over by Cornwallis between 1634 and 1651; and of these, five became members of the Assembly, one became a sheriff, and two were signers of the Protestant Declaration. Other noteworthy instances are found in Virginia. Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, p. 297. Sometimes, however, the trail of the serpent remained. R. G., in a treatise published about 1661, says of the burgesses that they “were usually such as went over servants thither, and though by time, and industry, they may have attained competent estates, yet by reason of their poor and mean condition, were unskilful in judging of a good estate, either of church or Commonwealth, or by the means of procuring it.”—_Virginia Carolorum_, p. 290. George Taylor, a Pennsylvania redemptioner, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

[142] The Sot-Weed Factor describes a quarrel in which one says:

“... tho’ now so brave,
I knew you late a Four-Years Slave;
What if for Planter’s Wife you go,
Nature designed you for the Hoe.”—P. 21.

DeFoe says: “When their Time is expir’d, sometimes before it, (they) get marri’d and settl’d; turn Planters, and by Industry grow rich; or get to be Yearly Servants in good Families upon Terms.”—_Behaviour of Servants_, p. 140.

[143] Elkanah Watson, writing from London in 1782, compares the silent attention given by English servants with the volubility of those in France, and then adds: “In America, our domestic feels the consciousness, that he may in turn become a master. This feeling may, perhaps, impair his usefulness as a servant, but cannot be deprecated, whilst it adds to his self-respect as a man.”—_Men and Times of the Revolution_, pp. 169-170.

[144] Numberless advertisements are found like the following: “An Indian maid about 19 years of Age, brought up from a Child to all sorts of Household work, can handle her Needle very well and Sew or Flower and ingenious about her Work: To be sold on reasonable terms.”—_Boston News Letter_, June 8, 1719.

“An Indian Woman Aged about 30 Years fit for all manner of Household work either for Town or Country, can Sew, Wash, Brew, Bake, Spin, and Milk Cows, to be sold by Mr. Henry Hill.”—_Ibid._, January 4, 1720.

“A Very likely Indian Womans Time for Eleven Years and Five Months to be disposed of; she’s a very good Servant, and can do any Household work, either for Town or Country.”—_Ibid._, March 21, 1720.

“An Indian Woman aged Sixteen Years, that speaks good English; to be sold.”—_Ibid._, February 20, 1715.

“A Stray Spanish Indian Woman named Sarah, Aged about 40 Years taken up, which the Owner may have paying the Charges.”—_Ibid._, January 4, 1720.