'57 
OUR OMRS TIC SERVICE. 
OUR DOMESTIC SERVICE. 
I DO not propose to sing the woes of the 
American housekeeper. If aught needs to 
be added to the body of recent literature on 
that theme, the impulse to write must come 
from fuller hearts than mine. Let those 
who suffer relate how slatternly is Dinah, 
how impudent Bridget, how stupid Wilhel- 
mina, and, alas ! how fleeting were the delu- 
sive joys of Chang- Wang, son of the Sun. 
Propria qucB maribus. Because women in- 
vade the forum, and crowd us from our 
places on the public platform, shall we, 
therefore, take refuge in the kitchen, or be so 
base as seem to know what passes in that 
realm of blackness and smoke ? Perish the 
thought! The object of this paper is to 
present facts that are not of personal expe- 
rience, are authenticated by the testimony of 
no single witness, and are of no private 
interpretation; facts which pertain to the 
life, not of individuals and families, but of 
communities and States; facts gathered by 
thousands of men, who had as little notion 
what should be the aggregate purport of 
their contributions as my postman has of 
the tale of joy, of sorrow,- pr of debt, which 
lies snugly folded in the brown paper envel- 
ope he is leaving this moment at my door. 
No momentary fretfulness of a mistress 
overburdened with cares; no freak of inso- 
lence in a maid elated by a sudden access of 
lovers ; no outbreak of marital indignation 
at underdone bread, or overdone steak, can 
disturb the serenity of this impersonal and 
unconscious testimony of the Census. The 
many millions of rays that fall confusedly 
upon the lens which every tenth year is held 
up before the nation, are cast upon the 
screen in one broad, unbroken beam of light, 
truth pure, dispassionate, uncolored. 
The English Census discriminates many 
varieties of domestic service. There are, 
besides “ the domestic servant in general,” 
male or female, the “ coachman,” the 
“ groom,” the “ gardener,” all of the sterner 
sex ; while gentle woman contributes to the 
list the housekeeper,” the “ cook,” the 
“ housemaid,” the “ nurse,” the “ laundry- 
maid,” and the “ char-woman.” All these 
titles are respectably filled in the Census, as 
might be expected in a country where the 
distinctions of wealth are so marked, and 
where the household among the upper 
classes is organized with a completeness 
VoL. XL— 17. 
approaching that of the Roman familia 
under the Empire. 
In the United States, however, the dis- 
tinctions of domestic service have not pro- 
ceeded far enough to make it worth while 
to maintain such a classification of rank and 
work ; nor are the agencies provided for our 
Census adequate to collect facts in any 
direction where discrimination is required. 
It was, indeed, attempted in the publication 
of the Eighth Census (i860) to preserve a 
few of the simpler forms. Thus “ cooks ” 
were separately reported; but the number 
of the class was disappointing, being but 
353 for the United States; of whom 10 were 
found in Arkansas, 24 in Delaware, 6 in 
Florida, 3 in Georgia, 18 in Kansas, 14 in 
Kentucky, 237 in Louisiana, and 41 in 
Michigan. The considerable States of New 
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, 
Missouri, and Massachusetts, had, if we 
may trust this account, no cooks in i860. 
The universal consumption of raw food by 
such large communities cannot fail to excite 
the astonishment of the future historian. 
The attempt to preserve the class “ house- 
keeper” resulted in the report of a larger 
aggregate number than of cooks; but the 
distribution of that number was hardly 
more reasonable. Alabama, Maine, Ohio, 
Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vir- 
ginia had none, individually or collectively. 
Think of several thousand “first families ” of. 
Virginia^ — of the Rhetts and Barnwells, the 
Ruffins and Pettigrews of South Carolina 
without a housekeeper among them 1 The 
remaining States of the Union were, indeed, 
allowed to boast their housekeepers ; but the 
figures were such as to excite incredulity. 
New Hampshire had 1,245; Connecticut, 
25; Pennsylvania, 2,795; New York, 940; 
Massachusetts, 4,092; Michigan, 20. Still 
another distinction was attempted, the pre- 
cise idea of which is not at this date mani- 
fest, between “ domestics ” and “ servants.” 
Alabama had no domestics, any more than 
it had cooks; Arkansas had 797 ; California 
and Connecticut, none; Delaware, 1,688; 
Florida, 631 ; Georgia, Illinois and Indiana, 
none; Iowa, 358; Kansas, none; Kentucky, 
1,782. This completed the tale of domes- 
tics in the United States. New York, Penn- 
sylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia were as 
destitute of domestics as before the discov- 
