THE MENIAL SLAVES OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The spirit of British institutions is nowhere more plainly and offensively manifested than in the treatment which domestic servants receive. The haughty bearing, the constant display of supreme contempt, and the frequency of downright cruelty on the part of the master or mistress, and the complete abasement and submission of the servant, have been repeatedly subjects of observation, and show clearly that the days of "lord and thrall" are vividly remembered in Great Britain. In Miss Martineau's "Society in America," we find some observations to the point. She says—

It has been remarked that those who are most submissive as serfs are the most arrogant and tyrannical as lords. In Great Britain, from dukes down to workhouse officials, the truth of this remark is obvious. Each class treats its superior with abject deference, and its inferior with overbearing insolence. The corollary of our quotation from Miss Martineau is that the treatment masters give to their negro slaves in America, in their common intercourse, is what masters give to their servants in Great Britain. In the free States of America a master may command his servant, and if obedience is refused he may deduct from his wages or give him a discharge, but the laws prevent all violence; the man is never forgotten in the servant. Another state of affairs is to be found in Great Britain. The laws are inadequate in their construction and too costly in their administration to protect the poor servant. Should he refuse obedience, or irritate his master in any way, his punishment is just as likely to be kicks and blows as a discharge or a reduction of wages. Englishmen have frequently complained, while doing business in the United States, because they were prevented from striking refractory persons in their employ. In attempting to act out their tyrannical ideas, such employers have been severely chastised by their free, republican servants.

What the serf of the feudal baron in the twelfth century was, the servant of modern days is, in the eyes of the lords and ladies of Great Britain. Between these aristocrats and their retainers there exists no fellow-feeling; the ties of our common brotherhood are snapped asunder, and a wide and startling gap intervenes. "Implicit obedience to commands, and a submissive, respectful demeanour on the one hand, are repaid by orders given in the most imperative tone, to perform the most degrading offices, and by a contemptuous, haughty demeanour on the other hand. In the servant the native dignity of our nature is for the time broken and crushed. In the master the worst passion of our nature is exhibited in all its hideous deformity. The spirit that dictated the expression, 'I am the porcelain, you are only the common clay,' is not confined to the original speaker, but, with few exceptions, is very generally participated in. It is not, however, solely by the aristocratic class that the servant is treated with such contumely, the fault is largely participated in by the middle and working classes. The feelings of the English people are essentially aristocratic."[100]

Until recently an order was placed at the entrance to Kensington Gardens, which read as follows:—"No Dogs or Livery Servants admitted." What more conclusive evidence of the degraded condition of menial servants in Great Britain could be obtained. A fellow-man, of good character—a necessary conclusion from his being in a situation—is placed on a level with brutes. The livery seems as much the badge of slavery in the nineteenth century as the collar of iron was in the days of baron and villain. It is a bar to the reception of a servant in any genteel society, and thus constantly reminds him of his debased condition. He can have but little hope of improving that condition, when all intercourse with persons of superior fortune or attainments is so effectually prevented. A menial he is, and menials must his children be, unless they should meet with extraordinary fortune. The following letter of a footman recently appeared in the "Times" newspaper. It is manly, and to the point.

We have mentioned, in other chapters, some instances of the cruel treatment of parish children apprenticed to trades. We have also evidence that those who are hound out as servants are subjected to the most brutal tyranny. Occasionally, when the cases become so outrageous as to be noised abroad, investigations are held; but these instances are few compared with the vast number of cases of cruel treatment of which the public are permitted to hear nothing.

In the latter part of December, 1850, one Mr. Sloane, a special pleader, residing in the Middle Temple, was guilty of the most frightful cruelty to a servant-girl named Jane Wilbred, formerly an inmate of the West London Union. The girl, or some of her friends, complained, and Mr. Sloane was brought before Alderman Humphrey, at Guildhall. During the examination, evidence of the most brutal treatment of the poor girl was given, and such was the nature of the statements made on oath that the fury of the people was aroused. Mr. Sloane was committed for trial. When he was conveyed to the Compter the mob attacked the cab, and seemed determined to apply Lynch law. But the wretch was safely deposited in prison, through the exertions of the police. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment; but whether he served out his sentence we are not informed. This was one case of punishment for a thousand of impunity.

So great was the indignation of the people at the developments made upon the trial of Sloane, that some measure of alleviation in regard to parish apprentices and servants was deemed necessary. The Earl of Carlisle, (late Lord Morpeth), brought in a bill in the House of Commons, the object of which was to compel the parish guardians and the binding magistrates to watch over and protect the helpless servants and apprentices. The bill was passed by Parliament; but it is inoperative and ineffectual. Parish guardians are too glad to get the children off their hands to take any steps which might retard the desired consummation; and the children can easily be prevented from making complaints to magistrates by the threats of masters and mistresses, and the common fear of consequences. In this case, as in all legislation concerning the poor, the Parliament of Great Britain has proceeded upon the same principle as the physician who applies external remedies for diseases which have internal causes. Instead of endeavouring to remove the great causes of pauperism—the monopolies of the aristocracy—it only seeks to render the paupers easier in their condition.

Mr. Mayhew, in his "London Labour and the London Poor," shows that a large number of the vagrants of London and other English cities, are young persons who have been servants, and have run away in consequence of ill-treatment. Rather than be constantly treated as slaves, the boys prefer to be vagabonds and the girls prostitutes. They then enjoy a wild kind of freedom, which, with all its filth and vice, has some share of pleasure, unknown to those who move at the beck of a master or mistress, and live in constant dread of the rod.

In those countries where society is untainted with aristocracy, the servant when performing duties is respected as a human being—with a mind to think and a heart to feel—one to be reprimanded or discharged from service for neglect or positive wrong, but never beaten as a soulless beast. In England, the servant, to hold a place, must be a most abject, cringing, and submissive slave. In some countries, the taint of negro blood keeps a man always in the position of an inferior. In England, the man of "serf blood," though he be a Celt or Saxon, is ever treated as a hind by the man of "noble blood;" and the possession of this same "noble blood" justifies the most infamous scoundrel in treating his domestics, not only with contempt, but positive cruelty. Americans have been charged with having an undying horror of the negro taint. In England, the common blood is just as steadily abhorred by the dominant class. The slavery of servants—their hopeless, abject, and demoralizing condition—is the result, direct and unmistakable, of the existence of the aristocracy. When the serfs are completely freed; when the country is no longer ruled by a few thousand persons; when a long line of ancestry and magnificent escutcheons cease to dignify imbeciles and blackguards; in short, when England takes a few steps upon that glorious path which the great American republic has hewn for the nations of the earth—there will be sure respect for man, as man; and the servants may have some hope of improving their condition.