The Continental Monthly, Vol. 6, No 3, September 1864 | Page 5

among the Irish. There seems to be some
mysterious method at work, whereby the troubles and bickerings of
each mistress with her 'help' are made known through the whole realm
of servantdom. It is no uncommon thing for a mistress to have minutely
detailed to her by her hired girl the particulars of some difficulty with a
previous servant, with whom she has no reason to believe the narrator
has had any intercourse. So frequently does this happen that many
housekeepers religiously believe that the Irish servants are banded

together in some sort of a 'society,' in the secret conclaves of which the
experiences of each kitchen are confided to the common ear. This
belief is not confined to American housekeepers, but obtains very
extensively in England also. The arrest and punishment of a woman in
London for giving a good 'character' to a dishonest servant, who
subsequently robbed her employer, naturally caused some excitement
in housekeeping circles in that city, and numerous communications to
The Times evinced the feeling upon the subject. In one of these 'A
Housekeeper' boldly asserts that there are combinations among the
servants, and that housekeepers who refuse to give a certificate of good
character are 'spotted,' and find in consequence the greatest difficulty in
obtaining any servants thereafter. Indeed, she asserts that in some
instances, so rigorously does the system work, offending families have
been compelled to relinquish housekeeping, and go into lodgings or
abroad, until their offence was forgotten! The fundamental principle
which our housekeepers believe to pervade these societies is that
employers are fair game; that the servant has to expect nothing but to
be oppressed, persecuted, overworked, ground down, and taken
advantage of at every opportunity, and that it is her duty, therefore, to
hold the employer at bitter enmity, and to make the best fight she can.
Now such a belief can scarcely be termed absurd, and yet it is
unquestionably groundless. The mysterious 'understanding' of servants,
and their wide knowledge of each other's experiences, may be
explained upon a perfectly simple and rational theory, and I think we
may venture to reject the 'society' hypothesis altogether.
Servant life is as much a world in itself as political, religious, or art life.
Indeed, its inhabitants are even more isolated and self-existent than
those of any other sphere, for while the politician, theologian, and artist
are generally, to some extent, under the influence of interests and
passions other than those which belong exclusively to their special
walk, the dwellers in kitchens have but the one all-embracing sphere,
and its incidents, which seem to us so trivial, are to them as important
as the great events which we think are worthy of being embalmed in
epics or made imperishable in history. To them the reproof of the
mistress or the loss of wages for the careless pulverization of a soup

tureen is lawful theme for the agitation of all servantdom. Martin
Luther had his tussles with pope and devil, Handel and Gluck had their
wars with the hostile cabals, Henry Clay had his John Randolph and
Andrew Jackson--and Bridget and Catharine have their disturbing and
absorbing questions of 'wages,' and 'privileges,' and other matters; and a
wrangle that the mistress forgets in a day, the maid carefully cherishes
in her memory, and makes it the theme of widest discussion. Without
resorting, then, to the improbable notion of the existence of a secret
society among the servants, through which the knowledge of our
difficulties with them is disseminated, I think the theory above outlined
sufficiently explains what seems so mysterious. There can, however, be
no question that the feeling among servants generally is unfortunately
something like that alluded to above as the imaginary inspiration of a
hypothetical society, namely, that employers are oppressive, exacting,
and utterly selfish; and there is certainly a tacit understanding that, as
between servant and mistress, it is 'diamond cut diamond;' and the habit
domestics have of making common cause with a sister in trouble, no
doubt practically works as much evil as if such a society as has been
mentioned really existed. The girl, confronting her adversary, in
military phrase, feels a hundred comrades 'touching her elbow,' and her
lip is wonderfully stiffened thereby. Now it is needless for me to say
that the idea that these poor girls have, that their employers are their
natural enemies, is wrong and absurd, and every housekeeper should
endeavor to make this clear to her servants. If this false idea could be
eradicated, and the true theory established that the interests of the
employer and employé are identical, much will have been
accomplished toward making better servants.
Among the influences which are at work to spoil servants, none are
more baleful than the system, as at present conducted, of 'intelligence
offices.' These agencies