Since the disappearance of slavery, domestic service has taken on new forms—variable, oppressive—and now it seems likely to disappear altogether. The terms, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, misunderstood by some, misconstrued by others, have created great disquietude in society. The servant of former days—the wage-earning man or woman—who formed an integrant part of the family, exists no longer, and those succeeding have changed the old ways and manners to the point of rendering them unacceptable—from the time when attachment disappeared before a false conception of liberty. So that to-day, amongst people of only moderate means, the lack of servants is becoming a serious problem, although changing fashions and the competition in “special lines of work” secures us assistance in much of our daily business.

We occupy ourselves with workmen’s dwellings, have honestly sought to secure better conditions for the poor; why should we not consider the case of those blocks of flats where the closeness of the quarters has become one of the principal hindrances to the “good and loyal service” so much appreciated by our forbears?

Servants in these days consider themselves as employees of a special kind, able to dictate their own terms and exempt from various duties. Their service, continuous and dearly paid, is no longer suitable except in palaces and large private houses.

In these they form a community of their own which is not, each member of it individually, every moment of the day in direct contact with the master and mistress. In such cases as these one scarcely realises the irritating position of servants with regard to their employers, and vice versa.

The question to be considered is that of small establishments and blocks of dwellings in large towns where, for the sake of greater accommodation, the employers’ and the servants’ quarters are close together, perhaps only divided by glass doors and thin partitions. Now, to ensure respect for the master and mistress in their private life, and willing obedience from the servants, distance in point of fact should be in proportion to distance in point of position and education.

“No great man is a hero to his valet,” says the proverb. This proverb is unfortunately true. It describes an evil which has grown to such a degree as to make domestic service in apartments impossible.

In America this question is almost completely settled. In England the example set by the United States is beginning to be followed. The Continent in its turn should evolve some practical expedient for the independence of both employer and employee.

To this end there should be a system of “service by the hour.” This will have to be arranged in view of the fear that we may find ourselves servantless. It does not imply that the service now extant will disappear entirely.

Like all innovations, my suggestion will at first alarm some and bring a smile to others; it will seem paradoxical in spite of its simplicity. However, I will explain my idea.

It is not to be denied that we have become servants to our domestics, for they dictate terms on entering our service, and we are compelled to accept their conditions for fear of finding ourselves boycotted and unable to get them at all. In America—I quote typical cases—people have ceased to have their meals at home on Sunday because the chef or cook spends that day in the country. In England ladies’ maids refuse to wait up for their mistresses’ return from evening parties. (I knew an unmarried lady who was compelled to sleep one night dressed as she was because her maid, having locked herself into her room, declined to get up to unfasten her dress for her!) In Germany the servants make it a condition that they shall spend so many evenings at masked balls; in France a weekly or fortnightly “day off” is one of the least inconveniences created by domestic service.

Is it not the truth that in flats, if one had a woman in in case of need, and a sort of watchman to guard against burglars, nothing more would be needed?

“Service by the hour” would have the advantage of providing regular attendance, and the servants themselves would earn more; they would not be obliged to listen to the voice of command from the same master or mistress all day long; they could choose the kind of service they preferred, just as the employer could choose his employees. There would be more freedom on both sides: the one party would work more conscientiously, the other enjoy greater peace of mind. There would be less friction, more justice, all round. In the absence of close proximity there would be no more irritating surveillance, no fear of gossip, no ill-temper over work ill-done or neglected.

If you have a masseur or masseuse, even a “bath attendant,” a hairdresser, a manicurist, a packer, a “vacuum cleaner,” and a floor polisher, what remains for you to ask of your servants?

If a woman can come and fetch your dresses to be ironed or “freshened,” and a man do the same with your coats, and someone else come and polish your boots, is not that all-important?

Companies for “service by the hour” would have to be established in different districts. According to one’s needs he would telephone to one of these establishments for a bath attendant, for someone to truss poultry, for housework, etc.

And then how delightful it would be to be alone again, no longer spied upon, to be one’s own master—without any servants!

“But the expense!” someone will say. If you calculate what the servants living in your house cost you in one way and another, you will come to the conclusion that there would be less expense for the employer and certain profit for the servants, whose service by the hour would be better paid.

In some of these modern blocks of dwellings there is but one common kitchen. It would be sufficient to mention the hour for meals and the number to be served to ensure regular attendance.

“Service by the hour” would do away with a thousand annoyances, some merely irritating by their frequency, but others serious, as in England, for instance, where the evidence of servants has so much weight in cases of divorce.

With “service by the hour” there would be no more spying, no more mean revenges, no more dishonourable compromises. As the lower classes have shaken off the yoke of their slavery, why should we still be the victims of a new state of things in matters domestic?

There is no perfect happiness without real independence. Let us aim at independence for everyone.

In doing good in a new way the human end in view has not changed. Let us bear in mind that good for all is only found in individual freedom.