It has been seen how great a change the inventions of the past century have made in the character of household employments. A change in the nature of household service no less important has taken place by virtue of the political revolutions of the century, acting in connection with certain economic and social forces. The subject of domestic service looms up so prominently in the foreground to-day that there is danger of forgetting that it has a past as well as a present. Yet it is impossible to understand its present condition without comprehending, in a measure, the manner in which it has been affected by its own history. It is equally impossible to forecast its future without due regard to this history.

Domestic service in America has passed through three distinct phases. The first extends from the early colonization to the time of the Revolution; the second, from the Revolution to about 1850; the third, from 1850 to the present time.

During the colonial period service of every kind was performed by transported convicts, indented white servants or “redemptioners,” “free willers,” negroes, and Indians.[11]

The first three classes—convicts, redemptioners, and free willers—were of European, at first generally of English, birth. The colonization of the new world gave opportunity for the transportation and subsequent employment in the colonies of large numbers of persons who, as a rule, belonged to a low class in the social scale.[12] The mother country looked with satisfaction on this method of disposing of those “such, as had there been no English foreign Plantation in the World, could probably never have lived at home to do service for their Country, but must have come to be hanged, or starved, or dyed untimely of some of those miserable Diseases, that proceed from want, and vice.”[13] She regarded her “plantations abroad as a good effect proceeding from many evil causes,” and congratulated herself on being freed from “such sort of people, as their crimes and debaucheries would quickly destroy at home, or whom their wants would confine in prisons or force to beg, and so render them useless, and consequently a burthen to the public.”[14]

From the very first the advantage to England of this method of disposing of her undesirable population had been urged. The author of Nova Britannia wrote in 1609: “You see it no new thing, but most profitable for our State, to rid our multitudes of such as lie at home, pestering the land with pestilence and penury, and infecting one another with vice and villanie, worse than the plague it selfe.”[15] So admirable did the plan seem in time that between the years 1661 and 1668 various proposals were made to the King and Council to constitute an office for transporting to the Plantations all vagrants, rogues, and idle persons that could give no account of themselves, felons who had the benefit of clergy, and such as were convicted of petty larceny—such persons to be transported to the nearest seaport and to serve four years if over twenty years of age, and seven years if under twenty.[16] Virginia and Maryland[17] were the colonies to which the majority of these servants were sent, though they were not unknown elsewhere.[18]

Protests were often made against this method of settlement, both by the colonists themselves[19] and by Englishmen,[20] but it was long before the English government abandoned the practice of transporting criminals to the American colonies.[21]

Of the three classes of white, or Christian servants, as they were called to distinguish them from Indians and negroes, the free willers were evidently found only in Maryland. This class was considered even more unfortunate than that of the indented servants or convicts. They were received under the condition that they be allowed a certain number of days in which to dispose of themselves to the greatest advantage. But since servants could be procured for a trifling consideration on absolute terms, there was no disposition to take a class of servants who wished to make their own terms. If they did not succeed in making terms within a certain number of days, they were sold to pay for their passage.[22] The colonists saw very little difference between the transported criminals and political prisoners, the free willers, and the redemptioners who sold themselves into slavery, and as between the two classes—redemptioners and convicted felons—they at first considered the felons the more profitable as their term of service was for seven years, while that of the indented servants was for five years only.[23]

It is impossible to state the proportion of servants belonging to the two classes of transported convicts and redemptioners, but the statement is apparently fair that the redemptioners who sold themselves into service to pay for the cost of their passage constituted by far the larger proportion. These were found in all the colonies, though more numerous in the Southern and Middle colonies than in New England. In Virginia and Maryland they outnumbered negro slaves until the latter part of the seventeenth century.[24] In Massachusetts, apprenticed servants bound for a term of years were sold from ships in Boston as late as 1730,[25] while the general trade in bound white servants lasted until the time of the Revolution,[26] and in Pennsylvania even until this century.[27]

The first redemptioners were naturally of English birth, but after a time they were supplanted by those of other nationalities, particularly by the Germans and Irish. As early as 1718 there was a complaint of the Irish immigrants in Massachusetts.[28] In Connecticut “a parcel of Irish servants, both men and women,” just imported from Dublin, was advertised to be sold cheap in 1764.[29] In 1783 large numbers of Irish and German redemptioners entered Maryland, and a society was formed to assist the Germans who could not speak English.[30]

It has been said that a great majority of the redemptioners belonged at first to a low class in the social scale. A considerable number, however, both men and women, belonged to the respectable, even to the so-called upper classes of society.[31] They were sent over to prevent disadvantageous marriages,[32] to secure inheritances to other members of a family,[33] or to further some criminal scheme.

Many of these bond servants sold themselves into servitude, others were disposed of through emigration brokers,[34] and still others were kidnapped, being enticed on shipboard by persons called “spirits.”[35]

The form of indenture was simple, and varied but little in the different colonies. Stripped of its cumbersome legal phraseology, it included the three main points of time of service, the nature of the service to be performed, although this was usually specified to be “in any such service as his employer shall employ him,” and the compensation to be given.[36]

It sometimes happened that servants came without indenture. In such cases the law expressly and definitely fixed their status, though it was found extremely difficult to decide upon a status that could be permanent. Virginia, in particular, for a long time found it impossible to pass a law free from objections, and its experience will illustrate the difficulties encountered elsewhere. An early law in Virginia provided that if a servant came without indenture, he or she was to serve four years if more than twenty years old, five years if between twelve and twenty years of age, and seven years if under twelve.[37] Subsequently it was provided that all Irish servants without indenture should serve six years if over sixteen and that all under sixteen should serve until the age of twenty-four,[38] and this was again modified into a provision requiring those above sixteen years to serve four years and those under fifteen to serve until twenty-one, the Court to be the judge of their ages.[39] It was soon found, however, that the term of six years “carried with it both rigour and inconvenience” and that thus many were discouraged from coming to the country, and “the peopling of the country retarded.” It was therefore enacted that in the future no servant of any Christian nation coming without indenture should serve longer than those of the same age born in the country.[40] But as the law was also made retroactive, it was soon ordained that all aliens without indenture could serve five years if above sixteen years of age and all under that until they were twenty-four years old, “that being the time lymitted by the laws of England.”[41] This arrangement was equally unsatisfactory, since it was found that under it “a servant if adjudged never soe little under sixteene yeares pays for that small tyme three yeares service, and if he be adjudged more the master looseth the like.” It was then resolved that if the person were adjudged nineteen years or over he or she should serve five years, and if under that age then as many years as he should lack of being twenty-four.[42] This provision was apparently satisfactory, subsequent laws varying only in minor provisions concerning the details of the Act.[43]

The condition of the redemptioners seems to have been, for the most part, an unenviable one. George Alsop, it is true, writes in glowing terms of the advantages enjoyed in Maryland:

Hammond also says of Virginia:

A Glasgow merchant under date of January 19, 1714, also writes: “The servants are all well cloathed and provided with bedding as ye will see,” adding that some servants prefer “Mariland, the reason whereof is that Virginia is a little odious to the people here.”[46]

But these enthusiastic descriptions must be taken cum grano salis. The object of Alsop’s book was to stimulate emigration to Maryland, as is evident from the dedication to Lord Baltimore and to “all the Merchant Adventures for Mary-land.” The object of Leah and Rachel was the same, and others who wrote in a similar strain had evidently little personal knowledge of the condition of the redemptioners. The real life is more truly portrayed in the accounts given by the redemptioners themselves, and many of these are preserved.

The Anglesea Peerage Trial brings out the facts that the redemptioners fared ill, worked hard, lived on a coarse diet, and drank only water sweetened with a little molasses and flavored with ginger.[47] Eddis says the redemptioners were treated worse than the negroes, since the loss of a negro fell on his master; inflexible severity was exercised over the European servants who “groaned beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage.”[48]

Richard Frethorne, writing from Martin’s Hundred, gives a pitiful tale of the sufferings of the indented servants. “Oh! that you did see my daily and hourly sighs, groans, tears and thumps that I afford my own breast, and rue and curse the time of my birth with holy Job. I thought no head had been able to hold so much water as hath, and doth daily flow from mine eyes.”[49]

The maid who waited on the Sot-Weed Factor says:

Undoubtedly, in time, servants of all kinds received more consideration than had at first been given them;[51] in 1704 Madame Knight even complained of what she considered too great indulgence on the part of the Connecticut farmers towards their slaves.[52] Yet, even at the North, the lot of a servant was not an enviable one, though much was done by the laws of all the colonies to mitigate the condition of the redemptioners, as will be seen later in discussing the legal relations of masters and servants.

The wages paid were, as a rule, small, though some complaints are found, especially in New England, of high wages and poor service.[53] More often the wages were a mere pittance. Elizabeth Evans came from Ireland to serve John Wheelwright for three years. Her wages were to be three pounds a year and passage paid.[54] Margery Batman, after five years of service in Charlestown, was to receive a she-goat to help her in starting life.[55] Mary Polly, according to the terms of her indenture, was to serve ten years and then receive “three barrells of corn and one suit of penistone and one suit of good serge with one black hood, two shifts of dowlas and shoes and hose convenient.”[56]

Peter Kalm writes of Pennsylvania in 1748: “A servant maid gets eight or ten pounds a year: these servants have their food besides their wages, but must buy their own clothes, and what they get of these they must thank their master’s goodness for.” He adds that it was cheaper to buy indented servants since “this kind of servants may be got for half the money, and even for less; for they commonly pay fourteen pounds Pennsylvania currency, for a person who is to serve four years.”[57] Even at the beginning of the present century wages had scarcely risen. Samuel Breck writes of two redemptioners whom he purchased in 1817: “I gave for the woman seventy-six dollars, which is her passage-money, with a promise of twenty dollars at the end of three years if she serves me faithfully; clothing and maintenance of course. The boy had paid twenty-six guilders toward his passage-money, which I agreed to give him at the end of three years; in addition to which I paid fifty-three dollars and sixty cents for his passage, and for two years he is to have six weeks’ schooling each year.”[58]

For the protection of both masters and servants the law sometimes interfered and attempted to regulate the matter of wages received at the end of an indenture. In Virginia by the code of 1705 every woman servant was to receive fifteen bushels of Indian corn and forty shillings in money, or the value thereof in goods.[59] In 1748 it was enacted “that every servant, male or female, not having wages, shall, at the expiration of his, or her time of service, have and receive three pounds ten shillings current money, for freedom dues, to be paid by his, or her master, or owner,”[60] and in 1758 the same law was re-enacted, but excepting convicts from the provisions of the Act.[61] In South Carolina all women servants at the expiration of their time were to have “a Wastcoat and Petticoat of new Half-thick or Pennistone, a new Shift of white Linnen, a new Pair of shoes and stockings, a blue apron and two caps of white Linnen.”[62] The laws of Pennsylvania provided that every servant who served faithfully four years should at the expiration of the term of servitude have a discharge and be duly clothed with two complete suits of apparel, one of which should be new,[63] while in Massachusetts and New York it was provided that all servants who had served diligently and faithfully to the benefit of their masters should not be sent away empty.[64] In North Carolina every servant not having yearly wages was to be allowed at the expiration of the term of service three pounds Proclamation money, besides one sufficient suit of wearing clothes.[65] In East New Jersey the law was more liberal and gave every servant two suits of apparel suitable for a servant, one good felling axe, a good hoe, and seven bushels of good Indian corn.[66] West New Jersey gave ten bushels of corn, necessary apparel, two horses, and one axe.[67] In Maryland a woman at the expiration of her term was to have the same provision of corn and clothes as men servants, namely, “a good Cloath suite either of Kersey or broad Cloath, a shift of white Linnen to be new, one new pair of shoes and stockings, two hoes one Ax and three barrˡˡˢ of Indian corn.”[68] A later act specified that women servants were to have “a Waist-coat and Petty-coat of new Half-thick, or Pennistone, a new Shift of White Linen, Shoes and Stockings, a blue Apron, Two Caps of White Linen, and Three Barrells of Indian Corn.”[69]

The test question to be applied to any system of service is—Is the service secured through it satisfactory? It has been seen that a considerable number of servants could be secured through the system of indenture, though probably less than the colonists desired, and that the wages paid them were, as a rule, remarkably low. But it must be said that the service received from indented servants was, as a rule, what might be expected from the class that came to America in that capacity.

It is easy to surmise the character of the service rendered at first in Virginia and the difficulties encountered by employers. Many of the redemptioners had been idlers and vagabonds, and for idlers and vagabonds, there as elsewhere, stringent laws were necessary. In 1610, under the administration of Sir Thomas Gates, various orders were passed with reference to pilfering on the part of launderers, laundresses, bakers, cooks, and dressers of fish.

Even more stringent penalties are attached to purloining from the flour and meal given out for baking purposes.[71]

But it is not alone in Virginia that perplexed employers were found. John Winter, writing to Trelawny from Richmond Island, Maine, under date of July 10, 1639, says of a certain Priscilla:

Winter’s letters and reports to the London Company are as full of his trials with his servants indoors and out, as are the conferences to-day between perplexed employers. Even when fortune smiled on him and one promised well, misfortune overtook her.

It is true that Maine was a remote colony and the difficulty of obtaining good servants was presumably greater than in places more accessible. Yet the same tale of trial comes from Boston and from those whose means, character, and position in society would seem to exempt them from the difficulties more naturally to be expected in other places. Mrs. Mary Winthrop Dudley writes repeatedly in 1636 to her mother, Mrs. Margaret Winthrop, begging her to send her a maid, “on that should be a good lusty seruant that hath skille in a dairy.”[74] But how unsatisfactory the “lusty servant” proved a later letter of Mrs. Dudley shows:

Other members of the Winthrop family also have left an account of their trials of this kind. A generation later, July 7, 1682, Wait Winthrop wrote to Fitz-John Winthrop, “I feare black Tom will do but little seruis. He used to make a show of hanging himselfe before folkes, but I believe he is not very nimble about it when he is alone. Tis good to haue an eye to him, and if you think it not worth while to keep him, eyther sell him or send him to Virginia or the West Indies before winter. He can do something as a smith.”[76] In the third generation John Winthrop, the son of Wait Winthrop, wrote to his father from New London, Connecticut, 1717:

The trials of at least one Connecticut housekeeper are hinted at in an Order of the General Court in 1645, providing that a certain “Susan C., for her rebellious carriage toward her mistress, is to be sent to the house of correction and be kept to hard labor and coarse diet, to be brought forth the next lecture day to be publicly corrected, and so to be corrected weekly, until order be given to the contrary.”[78]

But it is undoubtedly in the legislation of the colonial period that one finds the best reflection of colonial service, and one may say of it, as Judge Sewall wrote to a friend when sending him a copy of the Statutes at Large for 1684, “You will find much pleasant and profitable Reading in it.”[79] Numerous acts were passed in all the colonies determining the relation between masters and servants, and these laws were most explicit in protecting the interests of both parties—a fact often indicated by the very name of the act, as that of 1700 in Pennsylvania, entitled “For the just encouragement of servants in the discharge of their duty, and the prevention of their deserting their master’s or owner’s service.”[80]

In the legislation in regard to service and servants, it is impossible always to discriminate between the general class of either bound or life servants and the particular class of domestic employees. But the smaller class was comprised in the larger, and household servants had the benefit of all legislation affecting servants as a whole. Few or no laws were passed specifically for the benefit of domestic employees.

These laws worked both ways. On the one hand, they were intended to protect the servant from the selfishness and cruelty of those masters who would be inclined to take advantage of their position; on the other hand, they protected the master who had invested his capital in servants, and asked protection for it at the hands of the law, as he sought protection for any other form of property.

Several general classes of laws are found for the protection of servants. The first provides that no servant, bound to serve his or her time in a province, could be sold out of the province, without his or her consent.[81] A second class of laws compelled masters and mistresses to provide their servants with wholesome and sufficient food, clothing, and lodging;[82] and a third provided that if a servant became ill during the time of his service, his master should be under obligation to care for him, and heavy penalties were sometimes incurred by a master who discharged a servant when sick.[83]

The law went even further and protected servants against unjust cruelty, especially against every form of bodily maiming. If a white servant lost an eye or a tooth at the hands of his master or mistress, he gained his freedom, and could sometimes recover further compensation, if the Court so adjudged.[84] If servants fled from the cruelty of their master, they were to be protected, though notice of such protection was to be sent to the master and the magistrate.[85] In New York if a master or dame tyrannically and cruelly abused a servant, the latter could complain to the constable and overseers, who were instructed to admonish the master on the first offence, and on the second, to protect the servant in the house until relief could be obtained through the Courts.[86] In North Carolina no Christian servant could be whipped without an order from the justice of the peace; if any one presumed so to do, the person offending was to pay forty shillings to the party injured.[87] Immoderate punishment also subjected the master to appear before the County Court to answer for his conduct.[88] When New Jersey became a royal province in 1702, the instructions of the Crown to Lord Cornbury included a provision that he should “endeavor to get a Law past for the restraining of any inhuman Severity, which by ill Masters or Overseers, may be used towards their Christian Servants, and their Slaves, and that Provision be made therein, that the wilfull killing of Indians and Negroes may be punished with Death, and that a fit Penalty be imposed for the maiming of them.”[89] Moreover, in North Carolina complaints of servants against their masters could be heard without formal process of action.[90] In Pennsylvania the law of 1771 provided that every indented servant should obtain a legal residence in the city or place where he or she had first served his or her master sixty days, or if he had afterwards served twelve months in any other place, he was at liberty to choose his residence in either place. In South Carolina a master denying a certificate at the expiration of a servant’s time was to forfeit two pounds.[91]

Important as these provisions were in the interest of the servant, the law protected the master even more carefully and specifically. The great danger to him was in the loss of servants through their escaping from service and being harbored by friendly sympathizers or rival employers. The law dealt rigorously with both classes of offenders. In South Carolina stubborn, refractory, and discontented servants, who ran away before their term of service expired, were obliged to serve their masters three times the period of their absence.[92] In Pennsylvania every servant absenting himself without leave for one day or more was to serve, at the expiration of his time, five days for every day’s absence, and in addition, to give satisfaction to his master for any damages or charges incurred through his absence.[93] In East New Jersey runaways were to serve double the time of their absence, and also to give satisfaction for the costs and damages caused by their absence.[94] In North Carolina runaways who would not tell the name of their master, either because unable to speak English or through obstinacy, were to be committed to jail and advertised for two months. Servants absenting themselves were to serve double time.[95] In South Carolina a servant who ran away was to serve one week for every day’s absence, but the whole time was not to exceed two years.[96] Servants running away with slaves were to be considered felons. In Maryland absenting servants were to serve additional time at the discretion of the Court, ten days, or not exceeding that, for every day’s absence, and to give satisfaction for costs incurred.[97]

The temptation to harbor runaways was great, not so much from philanthropic motives as because of the scarcity of labor, and every colony supplemented its legislation against runaways by corresponding acts carrying penalties for harboring them. In East New Jersey the offender was fined five pounds and was to make full satisfaction to the master or mistress for costs and damages sustained because of the absence, while any person who knowingly harbored or entertained a runaway, “except of real charity,” was to pay the master or mistress of the servant ten shillings for every day’s entertainment and concealment and to be fined at the discretion of the Court.[98] In Connecticut the presumption was that if servants were entertained after nine o’clock at night they were runaways, and the head of the family so entertaining them was to forfeit five shillings to the complainer and five shillings to the town treasurer. Any Indian hiding a runaway was to forfeit forty shillings for every such offence or suffer a month’s imprisonment.[99] In South Carolina runaways were not to be harbored under a penalty of two pounds for every day and night the servant was so entertained, but the total amount forfeited was not to exceed treble the value of the servant’s time remaining to be served.[100] In New York any one proved to have connived at the absence of a servant was to forfeit twenty pounds to the master or dame and five pounds to the Court. Any one knowingly harboring a runaway was to forfeit ten shillings for every day’s entertainment.[101] In Pennsylvania any one concealing a servant forfeited twenty shillings for each day’s concealment.[102] In Rhode Island any person entertaining a servant after nine o’clock at night forfeited five shillings for each offence.[103] In Maryland, by an act of 1692, persons harboring runaways were to forfeit five hundred pounds of tobacco for every hour’s entertainment, one half to the government and one half to the informer.[104] By a later act the person harboring runaways was to forfeit one hundred pounds of tobacco for every hour’s entertainment, one half to go to the public schools and one half to the party aggrieved.[105] This was intended to meet evasions of the previous laws on the part of those who harbored runaways a few hours at a time and then helped them on their way. Free negroes or mulattoes harboring runaways were to forfeit one thousand pounds of tobacco for every such offence, one half for the use of free schools and one half to the party aggrieved.[106] By a later act, servants harboring runaways were to be punished by the magistrate by lashes, not to exceed thirty-nine, on the bare back.[107]

On the other hand, every incentive was held out to assist in the return of runaways. In North Carolina any person who assisted in taking up runaways was rewarded, the reward being gauged by the number of miles away from the master’s house that the servant was taken.[108] In Pennsylvania any one apprehending a runaway servant and returning him or her to the sheriff of the county was to receive ten shillings if the runaway was taken within ten miles of the master’s house and twenty shillings if at a distance of more than ten miles.[109] In Connecticut any Indian who returned a runaway to the nearest authority was to receive as a reward two yards of cloth.[110] In Maryland the allowance was two hundred pounds of tobacco, while Indians were to receive a match coat or its value.[111] Persons in Virginia, Delaware, or the northern parts of America, who apprehended runaways from Maryland, were to receive four hundred pounds of tobacco, and the servant was to reimburse his master by additional servitude.[112] Every precaution to prevent runaways was taken. Indian, negro, and mulatto servants were not to travel without a pass,[113] nor were slaves to leave their plantation without leave, except negroes wearing liveries.[114] In Connecticut servants were not to go abroad after nine o’clock at night,[115] in Massachusetts they were not to frequent public houses,[116] and in South Carolina and Massachusetts innkeepers were not to harbor them.[117]

Yet the life under a master or mistress was often such as to tempt a servant to escape; added to a condition that often involved hard work, poor lodging, and insufficient food and clothing, was the infliction of humiliating corporal punishment in case of disobedience or disorder. In Connecticut a servant could be punished by the magistrate not to exceed ten stripes for one offence.[118] The Rhode Island law was similar.[119] In North Carolina runaways were to receive from the constable as many lashes as the justice of the peace should think fit, “not exceeding the Number of thirty-nine, well laid on, on the Back of such Runaway,” while disobedient servants were to be punished with corporal punishment, not to exceed twenty-one lashes. In cases where free persons suffered punishment by being fined, servants were whipped.[120] In South Carolina a servant for striking his master or mistress was to serve not more than six months’ additional time, or be punished with not more than twenty-one stripes.[121] In Massachusetts and New York any servants who had been unfaithful, negligent, or unprofitable in their service, notwithstanding good usage from their masters, were not to be dismissed until they had made satisfaction according to the judgment of the civil authorities.[122]

In nearly every colony heavy penalties followed attempts to carry on trade or barter with servants. In North Carolina a freeman trading with a servant forfeited treble the value of the goods traded for and six pounds in addition; if unable to pay the fine he was himself sold as a servant. A servant trading or selling the property of his master was to serve his master additional time, the length to be fixed by the Court.[123] In East New Jersey the penalty was five pounds for the first offence and ten pounds for each subsequent one; the offending servant was to be whipped by the person to whom he had tendered such sale, the reward of half a crown being paid by the master or mistress to the person administering the punishment.[124] In Pennsylvania any one trading secretly with a servant was to forfeit to the master three times the value of the goods, and the servant at the expiration of his time was to render satisfaction to the master to double the value of the goods, and, if black, was to be whipped in the most public place in the township.[125] Trading with servants was prohibited in Connecticut[126] and in Massachusetts.[127] In South Carolina any one buying, selling, or bartering with a servant was to forfeit treble the value of the goods and ten pounds to the informer; the offending servant was to be whipped on the bare back in the watch-house at Charleston.[128] In New York servants were forbidden to trade under penalty of fine or corporal punishment. Those trading with servants were to restore the commodities to the master and to forfeit double their value to the poor of the parish.[129] In Maryland the penalty was two thousand pounds of tobacco, one half to go to the king and one half to the master.[130]

Many miscellaneous provisions in different colonies must have seemed oppressive. In New Jersey and South Carolina servants could not marry without the consent of their masters.[131] In Massachusetts no covenant servant in the household with any other could be an office holder.[132] In Pennsylvania innkeepers were forbidden to trust them.[133] In North Carolina servants making false complaints in regard to illness were to serve double the time lost, and the same penalty followed if they were sent to jail for any offence.[134] No slave was to go armed in North Carolina, and if one was found offending, the person making the discovery was to appropriate the weapon for his own use, and the servant was to receive twenty lashes on his or her bare back. One servant on each plantation, however, was exempted from the law, but such an one must carry a certificate of permission.[135] In Massachusetts servants were to be catechised once a week[136] and were not to wear apparel exceeding the quality and condition of their persons or estates under penalty of admonition for the first offence, a fine of twenty shillings for the second, and forty shillings for the third offence.[137]

The obligation of the master to a servant-owning and slave-owning community was recognized in North Carolina in a positive law prohibiting a master from setting free a negro or mulatto on any pretence whatsoever, except for meritorious services to be judged and allowed by the County Court, and even in this case a license was to be previously obtained.[138] In Massachusetts Bay servants were not to be set free until they had served out their time.[139] In Connecticut a slave set free was to be maintained by his master if he came to want.[140]

In view of all these restrictions on servants of a personal, industrial, and political character it seems strange that even any from their number should have been able, at the expiration of their term of service, to break away from the spirit of this bondage and reach a higher position in the social scale; yet many of the redemptioners became in time, especially at the North, respectable and even prominent members of the community.[141] The women often married planters[142] and in turn became the employers of servants. Yet these are the exceptions. For a long time the redemptioners were considered the off-scourings of English cities, and they formed a distinct class in the social order lower than their masters or employers. In view of this fact, a reproach was of necessity attached to all belonging to the class and to the designation applied to them. Their descendants ultimately formed the class of poor whites,—the lowest stratum in the social order whose members were held in contempt even by the negroes.

It has been said that the redemptioners were found in all the colonies, though they were more numerous in the Middle and Southern colonies than in New England. But it was difficult to keep white servants for any length of time in a country where land was cheap and the servant soon in turn became a master.[143] It was undoubtedly this difficulty that led to the substitution for white servants of Indians and negro slaves. Indian servants were apparently more numerous in the New England colonies, while negro slavery gained its strongest foothold in the South.

The employment of Indians as servants grew up naturally in New England and was continued for at least a hundred years.[144] Their presence was regarded as almost providential by the New Englanders, hard pressed for assistance in house and field. When the question of the right and wrong of the matter was suggested by the troubled conscience, an easy answer was found: was it not sin to suffer them longer to maintain the worship of the devil when they were needed so sorely as slaves?[145] But like the redemptioners, their service so eagerly sought often proved unsatisfactory. Hugh Peter wrote to John Winthrop, September 4, 1639, “My wife desires my daughter to send to Hanna that was her mayd, now at Charltowne, to know if shee would dwell with vs, for truly wee are so destitute (hauing now but an Indian) that wee know not what to doe.”[146] More unfortunate still was the young clergyman, the Rev. Peter Thatcher. He records in his diary at Barnstable, May 7, 1679, “I bought an Indian of Mr. Checkley and was to pay 5£ a month after I received her and five pound more in a quarter of a year.” A week later he writes, “Came home and found my Indian girl had liked to have knocked my Theodora on head by letting her fall, whereupon I took a good walnut stick and beat the Indian to purpose till she promised to do so no more.”[147]

In every section negro slavery grew up side by side with white and Indian slavery,[148] though its hold even upon the South was far from strong until the end of the seventeenth century. It is both unnecessary and impossible to discuss in this place the question of slavery[149] and its relation to the larger subject of service. The close of the colonial period saw it firmly established at the South, where it supplanted the system of white servitude, while at the North both black and white slavery gave place to free labor.

The details of the history of domestic service during the colonial period may seem unnecessary to an understanding of domestic service as it is to-day, but an examination of them must show the existence during that period of principles and conditions that must modify the judgment concerning the conditions of to-day. No wish is more often expressed than that it might be possible to return to the Arcadian days when service was abundant, excellent, and cheap. But those days did not exist in America during the colonial period. The conditions at that time bear a marked resemblance to those of to-day. The social position of all servants was lower than that of their employers, and the gulf between the two was more difficult to span. Service was difficult to obtain and unsatisfactory when secured. Servants complained of hard work and ill treatment, and masters of ungrateful servants and inefficient service, and both masters and servants were justified in their complaints. The legal relations between master and servant were explicitly defined as regards length of service, wages paid, and the mutual obligations of both parties to the contract during the period of service. But this very definiteness of the contract was due to the fact that the relationship between the two parties was an arbitrary one and could not have been preserved without this legal assistance. In default of a better one, the system of white servitude may have served its age fairly well; but its restoration, if the restoration were possible, would do nothing to relieve in any way the strain and pressure of present conditions.