What exactly was therefore the relationship between domestic servants and their master or mistress? Branca cites from an essay written in the 1850s:
‘the cry is common and too true that there are “few good servants to be had now-a-days”, and a question naturally follows “Why is it so?” “Is it the fault of the employers or of the servants?” What is wrong? And what is the cause of the wrong? The “Great Servant Question” , as it is called, has been brought forward, opinions have been given, and suggestions made, and with what result?’ [Branca, 1975:30]
As said earlier, very large proportion of working class women were in service to earn their livelihood. Service not only provided young women with their first step of freedom outside the family, and it was also deemed as a respectable form of employment where food and lodging were provided. It was also believed that service would groom these working class women into disciplined hard work and the norms of Victorian femininity. The mistresses had to maintain control over the servants keeping the upper hand and delegating duties. The relationship between the mistress and servant was in middle class homes at least, where the mistress came in close contact with the servant, intense and intimate, and greatly depended on the degree of humane feelings in the relationship. Davidoff quotes from a Yorkshire servant:
‘ “Some places you knew you were maid. Another place you’d go and they were just all right. You didn’t think you were a maid, you just lived with them you see.’
Yorkshire servant, 1890s’ [Davidoff, 1999:158]
Employers expected servants to possess qualities such as honesty, sobriety, respectability and the ability for hard work as well as obedience, meekness and deference. Followers were very much frowned upon. In reality however, servants often could and did resist their employer’s authority. Employers too had reasons to fear their servants because, ‘it was hard to hide the most intimate secrets from those who came into the bedroom every morning to open the curtains.’ [Davidoff, 1999:170] Also many of the young maids belonged to a highly mobile and economically independent group who had their own terms and conditions of service. The relationship between the maids and the mistresses were thus extremely volatile and subject to frequent arguments.
The ideology of the loyal faithful servant had thus been long shattered. But at the same time, the contract between the employer and the servant was often drawn in favour of the employers. They would have no scope for leaves on family problems, ill health etc and, “ grounds for dismissal without wages in lieu of notice included ‘wilful disobedience to the lawful orders of the master’.” [Davidoff, 1999:165] The last stipulation received widespread notoriety when a maidservant was ‘rightfully dismissed’ when going to see her dying mother. Other grievances were of the quantity of food received and its inferior quality, the generalised names by which the servants were called – which were considered degrading. ‘There was resentment too, over the lack of privacy even for older servants whose rooms and belongings were open to inspection, especially if anything appeared to be missing from the house.’ [Davidoff, 1999:173] However, it is wrong to assume that the relationships between the mistresses and the maids had no degree benevolence at all. Some mistresses treated their servants well and the relationship would often go on to become more personal. Servants would be then providing emotional support and remain not just an employee. Besides this, the genteel class in general – both male and female were extremely dependent on servants. They expected to be waited upon and needed the servants. These relationships were therefore a combination of power, fear, and dependence. The dependence however was quite mutual in any servant – master relationship. The servants not just needed the wages paid to them. For many working class women, service was their only means of attaining economic independence, which admittedly was limited, but was independence nevertheless.
Service however, remained a strictly classed and gendered occupation. In the colonies it had racial implications as well. As Davidoff says, ‘It was the physical, intellectual and emotional, work of servants and landladies, as well as wives, sisters, maiden aunts, nieces and daughters which ensured that others (the employing class and many men) could possess and enjoy the benefits pursuing gainful occupations and intellectual enrichment, the refinement of morals, customs and taste.’ [Davidoff, 1995:6] Although in the 18th century, both male and female servants had been in employment, by mid 19th century their numbers had decreased substantially, and even employers were beginning to prefer female. According to historians, this might have had happened not just because of the rising cost of employing male servants, but also because of the changing definition of masculinity left no scope for domestic service. Service indeed consisted of heavy physical drudgery and was thus considered suitable for women. Branca notes that, ‘the amount of daily menial labour involved in keeping the middle class home was overwhelming and physically exhausting.’ [Branca, 1975: 56] Horrible working conditions and minimum wages prevailed as well. Domestic work – which till today is gendered – thus saw the exploitation of one group of women by another.
This then brings in the class implications in the relationship between Victorian employers and servants. The middle and upper classes had the privilege of employing servants. These middle class and aristocratic households were the centres of class dramas, where the working class servants were tutored in the ‘suitable’ demeanour. Working class female servants were provided training in the norms of femininity and middle class virtues. Davidoff gives an example of an ex nursery maid who brought up her children like in the nursery, and whose daughter ‘becoming a nurse maid in her turn, she considered herself middle class, “because we were brought up nicely”.’ [Davidoff, 1999:176/177] In spite of these factors, servants in general worked separately in different households. Of all the working class occupations, service perhaps was the most isolated and disfranchised, as well as being out of all public regulations. Also, as has been said before, the service contracts drawn up only mentioned that the employer was liable for providing food, lodging and wages to the servant. It did not mention holidays or violence or rape and were invariably drawn up in favour of the middle class employers. In the imperial colonies alongside class and gender inequalities, servants had to face the racial inequalities as well. While commenting on the relationship between Victorian middle and upper class children with servants, Davidoff notes that, ‘For children raised in the Indian or the African colonies the expectation of both care and deference was greatly enhanced where the servants were natives, a race apart [...] Within English culture generally, both subliminal and conscious expectations of servants and their childlike status coloured middle and upper class views of the people in the vast domain over which the Mother country held sway.’ [Davidoff, 1999:170] Being from the colonies, these servants had to endure more and much more was expected from them, while their rights were limited. In a way they were not even given the status of individuals and in some cases the master – servant relationships portrayed the master – slave relationship.
These different gender, race and class implications in the Victorian servant/employer relationship is portrayed in the extraordinary relationship between Hannah Cullwick – a domestic servant, and A. J. Munby – a middle class gentleman. The bodies and the work of the working class women of Victorian Britain fascinated Munby. Hannah served him as a maid of all work and later became his wife, but still continued to work as a maid in his household. ‘They started a series of games and play acting in which they used the differences between them to emphasise their love and devotion.’ [ Davidoff, 1995:121] These themes were mostly based on their class and gender differences, but at one point Munby dressed Hannah as a slave, covered her in soot, racialising the body of a working class woman. Munby’s obsession with dirt was another recurrent theme. It actually was the middle class phobia for dirt and grime that formed a part of the working class identity. All these aspects can be clearly seen in Hannah and Munby’s relationship, which was highly personalised, where aspects of class, gender, and race were all intertwined. ‘The pervasiveness of both class and gender categories, which it (the Hannah and Munby collection of diaries) illustrates, stems from the effect of often unconscious, highly charged, emotional expectations laid down in childhood, which in many cases appear in the form of subliminal images. The mutual pre-occupations of both Hannah and Munby with boundaries and their experience of crossing these boundaries in both fantasy and reality can tell us a lot a great deal about the way the fabric of the Victorian society was created and maintained.’ [Davidoff, 1995: 141]
The Victorian period was a time of intensive social and cultural changes. The domestic servant issue was a part of the innumerable issues that arose at this point. The relationship between the employer and servants not just changed during this period, it also established a new occupational group that lasted till the world war. However, we can conclude by saying that though there were class, gender and racial inequalities that this group suffered from, the servant – master relationship at this point was mainly one of interdependence.
--------------------------X--------------------------
