SOURCE: Branca, Patricia. “Do's and Don'ts for the Mistress of the House.” In Silent Sisterhood: Middle-Class Women in the Victorian Home, pp. 22-37. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie-Mellon University Press, 1975.

[In the following essay, Branca discusses English Victorian conduct books, suggesting that they were critical in tone; they implied that women were impractical and under-skilled due to their overly “ornamental” education and they denigrated the social aspirations of middle-class women.]

As mistress of the house, the middle-class woman gained a new position in society. Her personal influence grew greatly, as overnight she became an important decision-maker in her realm of home and family. Instead of obeying orders, the middle-class woman now gave directions to servants and tradesmen. For the first time in her life she was responsible for very important sums of money. Her power lay in her control over the household budget, but this could be a source of frustration as well. Direction of the household also included a number of demanding physical tasks and, usually, the employment of a servant. The middle-class housewife was thus an active agent in the family, not a pampered woman of leisure, yet her functions could easily outstrip her means.

The importance of the role of mistress of the house was widely acclaimed in nineteenth-century English society. The household manuals, which were really a product of the new functions of middle-class women, were naturally most explicit in their emphasis on the importance of her position.

Yet the household manuals produced a curious misconception about the middle-class housewife. They reflected real problems and responsibilities, as we shall see; above all they talked of the two greatest difficulties in household direction, budget management and the direction of servants. They gave a host of even more practical advice as well, by providing recipes and patterns. Hence, if for no other reason, they were widely read and elicited letters from ordinary women which reflected persistent concerns. Yet, beyond the recipe level, most of the advice in the manuals was irrelevant, aimed at a group above the real middle class. Above all, the tone of most manuals was naggingly critical of middle-class women. For if her household responsibilities were consistently recognized, her abilities to meet them were almost as regularly challenged. These various elements must all be sketched in this brief discussion of the manuals, for all may have had an impact on the middle-class readership.

There was a great deal of discussion in the nineteenth century on the middle-class housewife and her domestic problems, and the consensus among the critics was that the nineteenth-century middle-class woman had lost the treasured art of housekeeping. The Victorian woman was compared constantly to some woman of a past golden age who was her superior in every way; a healthier, happier, and a far more efficient housekeeper. The criticism of the middle-class housewife grew quite intense in the second half of the century. In the 1880s, a very popular and outspoken critic, in a series of articles which first appeared in The Saturday Review and later in a two-volume work entitled The Girl of the Period, lamented that

… things are getting worse not better, and our young women are less useful than their mothers, while these last do not as a rule, come near the housekeeping ladies of older times, who knew every secret of domestic economy, and made a wise and pleasant distribution of bread their great point of honour.¹

She sardonically went on to bemoan that

… it is strange to see into what unreasonable disrepute active housekeeping—women's first social duty—has fallen in England. The snobbish half of the middle-class hold housewifely work as degrading. A woman may sit in a dirty drawing room which the slip-shod maid has not had the time to clean, but she can not have a duster in her hands. There is no disgrace in the dust only in the duster.²

How did the middle-class woman in the nineteenth century come to lose the art of housekeeping? According to most of her critics, it was due to the lack of a proper education. The debate concerning the middle-class woman's education was wide and varied. Most of the authorities on domestic matters agreed that the middle-class girl's education was too ‘ornamental.’ The typical complaint was that

… too frequently in the middle classes we have instances of young women whose education has completely unfitted them for their sphere, by a process simply ornamental. They have been rendered indolent, useless and a disgrace to their connexions.³

An ornamental education was one that involved little more than music, singing, dancing, fancy needlework and some familiarity with a foreign language.

This criticism of the middle-class girl's education was part of a general criticism of the middle-class life style. Throughout the period the middle class, and in particular the middle-class woman, was criticized for its reckless extravagance, for living in a manner which was beyond its means and trying always to imitate the upper class. It was believed that the worries and disappointments that vexed the middle class were a result of their trying to appear ‘better off’ than they really were.⁴ Education was one of the obvious ways in which the middle class aped the manners of the upper class. Middle-class parents desiring to improve their social standing would send their daughters off to boarding schools, to insure that they became ‘ladies.’ Many of the manuals warned parents that they must

… think seriously of what may be the real position of their children, not encourage ambitious hopes which are never likely to be realized. The great aim in their rearing should be to instill a fondness for home and domestic associations.⁵

A boarding school education did not afford the young girl the necessary knowledge;

… shut up in a school room with a French grammar and a piano as instruments of torture … the young girl loses the influence of household life and knows as little how to cook a dinner as to cure a cold. Both however, were part of every day life with which sooner or later they will probably have to cope.⁶

According to Mrs. Warren, a popular writer on domestic matters, the proper education of a middle-class girl should teach her first how to make and mend clothes, wash, bake, and cook, economically and well, to clean and scour. This was the oil by which the domestic machinery efficiently and noiselessly revolved each day,⁷ and it was neglect of this pragmatic education that set the basis for the later troubles of middle-class women, according to many contemporary observers.

With this general hostility to the presumed middle-class life style well established, the manuals sought to apply their comments to actual household management. Here is where their interests and those of their readers did to some extent converge. Readers solicited advice, for example, about how to find a good servant. The following letter, written to the Housekeeper's Magazine, described the problem:

Sir—I have been for a long time desirous of procuring that great, useful, and extraordinary curiosity, a rough, plain laborious, old-fashioned servant maid; and having in vain looked out for a specimen of this genius, either in town or country, for twenty years, have at last come to the resolution of applying to The Housekeeper's Magazine and requesting, through the medium of its pages, such assistance as may enable me to obtain the subject of my search!⁸

Other letters asked for recommendations on planning a budget. A typical inquiry was a letter from ‘Housekeeper’ asking the readers of the EDM for advice on how to make an allowance of £4.1s. per week cover the expenses of four people.⁹ From the manuals' standpoint, questions of this sort were an ideal focus for the application of the general criticisms of the housewife; budget discussions, particularly, allowed frequent blasts against extravagance. Ironically, however, the manuals usually mistook their audience. They talked about the upper end of the middle class, which may indeed have seemed most threatening to the established order in their ability to approach upper-class spending patterns. But, as we will see, this left most of the middle class unaided, except in so far as its members could benefit from general recommendations on household accounts or the employment of servants.

Neither of the two specific problems which, by mutual agreement of authors and readers, deserved most attention was new to the nineteenth century. Women had dealt both with servants and with household budgets in the past. However, the situation in the nineteenth century was indeed different from prior periods because now more women than ever before were in a position to assume these responsibilities. For the first time in any society, a very considerable portion of its members could turn their attention to the problem of disposing of surplus income as the middle class grew steadily and commanded increasing total wealth.¹⁰ The specific point is not just that more people were making more money but that this brought about a new style of living which profoundly affected the middle class, as will be shown in this discussion.

The rise of domestic servants serves most dramatically to indicate the novelty of the middle-class situation. In the eighteenth century domestic service was largely restricted to the aristocracy. By 1850 the number of families that could afford domestic servants had greatly increased—hence, the rise in the number of domestic servants, which was much greater than the general population increase. In 1801 domestic servants totalled only 100,000; by 1851 the number was up to 1,300,000 and by 1881 it had reached 2,000,000.¹¹ The change in financial situation cannot be traced so vividly, given the lack of precise budget information on the middle class. But we will see that, in addition to seeking food, housing, and clothing above subsistence levels, the middle class tried to move into other categories of expenditure, particularly with regard to household appliances. Clearly, unfamiliarity with above-subsistence earnings, particularly when confronted with a growing variety of consumer goods, accounted for many of the difficulties middle-class families sensed. For many women, it was the first time that they had money to spend on provisions beyond the basic necessities or had come into contact with domestic servants. This is why they sought advice on these subjects. The advice they received is important in helping us to determine the intricacies of the problems and how the middle-class woman was expected to handle them.

The manuals heralded the Victorian woman's concern for keeping track of most family expenses by creating a new science, Domestic Economy. It was not a difficult science to learn, for it consisted simply of laying out to the greatest advantage the revenue which was appropriate to the domestic establishment, or so the manuals insisted. However, the practice of domestic economy was a bit more involved than this, especially for those on a limited income. Detailed planning and careful keeping of accounts became the norm for the middle class in running their households as in their businesses.

The key to household management, as stated in the manuals, was economy and frugality; ‘Frugality and Economy are Home Virtues without which no household can prosper.’¹² The necessity of practising economy was considered vital to everyone, whether in the possession of an income no more than sufficient for a family's requirement, or a large fortune which put financial adversity out of the question. The philosophy was that it was never how much money one had but rather how one handled it which determined domestic happiness. Guidelines were set for the young mistress of the house to follow.

The first rule of domestic economy was to plan one's expenditures rationally. To do this properly it was recommended that the woman keep an account of all her daily expenditures, which should include every shilling and sixpence laid out. The keeping of the account book was guaranteed to take the mystery out of managing of finances.¹³ The authorities on domestic economy generally believed that the reason women had such difficulty with their money affairs was that they did not properly organize them. A woman must be able to look at her financial situation as a whole and in detail, which is why such importance was placed upon the housekeeping account book.

Early in the century, the household manuals gave directions on how to make up one's account book. Columns for every article purchased for every day of the year were to be entered. By mid-century, ruled and printed books were being sold specifically for this purpose. The Domestic Account Book was typical, containing twenty-four divisions for such items as Bread and Flour, Butter and Cheese, Beer, Rent, Taxes, and Servants' wages.¹⁴ A ledger was suggested also to record the various payments made to specific tradespeople, for example, Butcher, Baker, Milkman. This ledger afforded the mistress protection from dishonest tradesmen. If the woman had no account for each tradesman, it would be impossible to check them and an error made either wilfully or by mistake could neither be detected nor remedied.¹⁵ It is difficult to determine how widely used these accounting books were but it should be noted that many of them were made and purchased as gift items. Here, then, is an area where the manuals' recommendations and the housewife's need for financial order often coincided.

Of course, accounting was useless without budgeting. This aspect of domestic economy gave it the appearance of being an exact science. Budgets were a predominant feature in many household manuals and they covered a wide range of incomes. One of the first manuals (1828) to systematize a series of budgets began with the income level of £55 and went up to £5000.¹⁶ Two samples of budgets found in the 1828 manual and an 1874 manual are given in Table II. They show how a family of five in 1828 and a family of six in 1874 were advised to lay out their money.

TABLE II SAMPLE BUDGETS FOR YEARS 1828 - 1874

1828 £150 PER YEAR¹⁷

	Weekly			Annually
Items	s	d	£	s	d
Bread, flour	5	0
Milk, butter, cheese	4	4[frac12]
Tea, coffee	2	0
Sugar	2	4
Grocery	1	8
Butcher's meat & fish	7	7
Vegetables, fruits	2	1
Coals, wood	2	9
Soap, starch	0	9
Sundries	0	7
Candles	0	9
Clothes			24	0	0
Rent, taxes			15	0	0
Servant			3	0	0
Illness, amusement			3	14	0
Education & Private expenses			5	0	0
Reserve			12	0	0

1874 £150 PER YEAR¹⁸

		Annually
Items	£	s	d
Bread	12	0	0
Milk, butter, cheese	10	0	0
Grocery	10	0	0
Greengrocery	8	0	0
Butcher's meat	30	0	0
Wine, spirits	1	0	0
Beer	8	0	0
Washing	3	0	0
Chandlery	3	0	0
Rent, taxes	17	10	0
Clothing	17	10	0
Servant's wages	10	0	0
Illness, amusement	10	0	0

The principle upon which the 1828 budget was based was to divide the whole income, whatever it was, into twelve equal parts; and of the expenditures per week, in every estimate, that of the parents was 8/12 and that for each child 1/12 or 3/12 in all. The remaining 1/12 was for reserve. The greater of 2/3 assigned to the parents not only included all the articles of provision for themselves, but also every other category of household expense, together with clothes, rent and all extras, while the 1/12 for each child consisted chiefly of provisions of the following kind—bread, flour, rice, oatmeal, sugar, treacle, milk, butter, potatoes, and all other vegetables.¹⁹

The 1874 principle of dividing up one's income was far more simple and the one most often cited: 1/2 of the annual income was reserved for the supplies of the house, 1/8 for rent and taxes, 1/8 for clothing, 1/8 for illness and amusement, 1/8 for wages, incidental expenses and charities.²⁰

Even though the 1828 method of budgeting was more complicated, it did provide more useful information than the later method. In addition to dividing the income on a weekly basis, it listed how much bread, flour and butter was to be allotted for each person. This type of information was certainly of value for those on a narrow budget. The lack of these specifics in the later manuals might have limited their utility for the middle-class housewife, since letters appeared regularly asking for this type of information.²¹

Other advice from the manuals was of more dubious utility, for it could counter to the needs and aspirations of middle-class women. Prompt paying of bills was urged, for it was noted that irregularity in this matter often contributed to the financial destruction of the family.²² The middle-class woman was advised that

… she is happy and blessed among women who ‘pays as she goes’ and never has one single thing she cannot pay for on the spot. Because bills shorten one's life and spoils one's temper.²³

Detailed rules for marketing were recommended, and many of the prices quoted in the budgets were based on the ability to know how to make bulk purchases at the most appropriate time. For example, candles and soap should be purchased once a year, in the summer, when they were cheapest. And from this, of course, it was easy to belittle the ordinary shopper who did not know that the most economical method of shopping was to ‘lay in stock for the week, in lieu of purchasing, as so many do, from hour to hour.’²⁴ How many middle-class women had the cash, not to mention the expertise, to buy in bulk is open to question.

The most likely distinction between the rather traditionalist pieties of the manuals and the actual habits of Victorian women concerned buying on time. The manuals, particularly during the first half of the century, urged cash purchases. The sentiment expressed was that ‘it should be an invariable rule in domestic economy never to obtain anything on credit, for those who take credit generally pay an enormous interest for so doing.’²⁵ At the same time women's periodicals such as the EDM made frequent references to instalment buying, noting at one point, for example, that some stores were willing to give a discount as high as 15 per cent for those with ready money.²⁶ The extent of instalment buying during the ninteenth century has not yet been determined, but we do know that it was practised and that it spread rapidly during the second half of the century. And, as we will see, it must have made sense to a number of hard-pressed middle-class women.

These then were the general rules of domestic economy as found in the household manuals, which changed very little during the nineteenth century. If the middle-class woman followed these rules she would presumably have no problems with managing her finances, but the extent to which she did so is difficult to determine. They required that she be adept with mathematical skills and able to give the strictest attention to the most minute details, especially for those in the lower income levels, in order to maintain economic solvency. In this sense the manuals' advice was indeed useful, if difficult to follow. But whether middle-class woman had enough time and money to follow much of this advice, indeed whether they remained as wedded to traditional rules of domestic economy in some particulars, is open to question.

The one thing that is certain is that, in spite of all the sage advice, the middle-class woman's problems with finances not only persisted but grew in intensity as the period progressed. The number of middle-class families had increased steadily during the nineteenth century, so that more and more women were confronted for the first time with the problem of disposing of income; the problem, however, went deeper than this, and must be taken up again in the next chapter. For now, the main point is that the manuals' advice was not particularly helpful. They identified a problem. They gave advice on accounting procedures that could be useful. And they continued to preach against needless luxury and extravagance. But they rarely talked about what should be done with a small margin over necessity and, in their hostility to social climbing, they failed to guide women in the development of new material goals. These goals were developing, but far below the level of ostentation that preoccupied the manuals. Even an unusually sensitive comment, which did recognize some of the inevitable pressures on middle-class families and was relatively free of cant, failed to offer a remedy:

Owing to the increasing wealth of the wealthy, and the increasing number who every year step into the wealthier class, the style of living as well as the cost of necessaries and comforts of which ‘living’ consists, has advanced in an extraordinary ratio; and however frugal, however, unostentatious, however rational we may be, however resolute to live as we think we ought, and not as others do around us, it is, as we shall find, simply impossible not to be influenced by their example and to fall into their ways, unless we are content either to live in remote districts or in an isolated fashion. The result is that we need many things that our fathers did not, and that for each of these many things we must pay more. Even where prices are lower, quantities are increased.²⁷

And so ‘life at high pressure’ went on, with most advice offered to women only creating a sense of guilt that the budget was not under better control.

Problems with domestic servants were as endemic as difficulties with household finance, and again the manuals recognized this fact. The pervasiveness of these problems received amusing comment in an 1835 article in the Magazine of Domestic Economy, which observed that

What topic—always excepting our national subject, ‘the weather’, is so unfailing in conversation, as that of servants, and their faults? Every country town is ‘the worst place in the world for servants’, while in London, we hear, ‘they become more and more insolent and worthless every day …’²⁸

The complaints grew louder as the century progressed. In the 1850s an essay lamented that

… the cry is common, and too true that there are ‘few good servants to be had now-a-days’, and the question naturally follows ‘Why is it so?’ ‘Is it the fault of employers or of servants?’²⁹ 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?³⁰

In 1899 there was even a session at the Industrial Section of the International Congress of Women on the ‘Scientific Treatment of Domestic Service.’ The problem was stated to be twofold: 1. There were not enough servants; 2. The servants that were available were not good enough.³¹

What was the cause of this persistent concern? Again the consensus was that the fault lay with the mistress of the house. Some of the typical comments were that ‘this growing incompetence of servants so loudly and so widely deplored, is very largely the result of the growing incompetence of mistresses.’³² ‘It is the carelessness of the mistress, which in nine cases out of ten makes the sin of the servant.’³³ Eliza Warren, in her popular best seller, How I Managed My House on £200 per Year, was of the same opinion. She remarked that

It is said that the race of good servants has died out, leaving no successors. And why is this? It may be asked. Because their teachers have died with them. Untaught young mistresses are incapable of teaching.³⁴

The mistress was guilty of many faults. She did not know how to manage her home and therefore she did not know how to tell others to do it for her. She was thoughtless and inconsiderate, often expecting far too much from her servant. She was the major cause of ‘the greatest plague in life.’³⁵ However, in spite of the consistency of the complaints, most of the manuals claimed that the problem was not inevitable. If the mistress would abandon her apathy and idle moaning and follow the advice of the manuals, a good relationship was possible and indeed vital to the running of a proper home. The manuals did, to be sure, offer constructive suggestions, but often of the most general nature. They urged that the mistress be careful in her selection of servants, choosing a person with ‘integrity, sobriety, cleanliness, and general propriety in manner and dress and a knowledge of the duties of the prospective department of household management.’³⁶ How was such a paragon to be found? Most manuals recommended that the employer inquire among her friends or local tradesmen, though one series of articles noted that some tradesmen gave references for servants who had incurred the disfavor of their previous employers, in return for a fee or the promise that the servant would bring in the household's trade.³⁷ Registry offices for placement were not considered respectable by the manuals, though they did exist.

This meant, as the manuals recognized, that most mistresses had only one means of determining the suitability of a prospective servant, which was through her ‘character,’ a form of reference from her previous mistress. Hence, as one manual stated, the mistress was warned ‘to be minute in her investigation of the character she received and equally cautious and scrupulously just in giving one to another.’³⁸ But characters themselves were unreliable. Many former employers were reluctant to cause trouble for their servants, and some may have feared legal problems if they gave a bad character. Hence, by the second half of the century, it became the general opinion that ‘characters are perfectly worthless.’ Mrs. Beeton suggested that written characters be supplemented by an interview with the former mistress, which would help in the assessment of the servant and also in judging the quality of this person's household, as a means of testing her own basis for judgement. ‘Negligence and want of cleanliness in her and her household generally will naturally lead you to the conclusion, that her servant has suffered from the influence of the bad example.’³⁹ But in truth, there was no good remedy.

Beyond the difficult attempt to hire a good servant in the first place, the manuals recommended that the servants' duties be spelled out carefully in advance. For example, Mrs. Beeton advised that

We would here point out an error—and a grave one it is—into which some mistresses fall. They do not, when engaging a servant, expressly tell her all the duties to which she will be expected to perform. This is an act of omission severely to be reprehended. Every portion of work which the maid will have to do should be plainly stated by the mistress and understood by the servant.⁴⁰

Many of the manuals accordingly went into great detail, describing the various functions of the different types of servants in the domestic hierarchy. Mrs. Beeton gave in-depth descriptions of the functions of the following domestics: butler, footman, coachman, groom, stable boy, valet, lady's maid, upper and under housemaid, maid-of-all-work, dairymaid, laundry-maid, upper and under nursemaid, sick nurse, wet nurse and monthly nurse.

Finally, during the second half of the nineteenth century a number of manuals dealt with increasing legal complexities in the employment of servants, stressing the need for proper notice in termination of employment and the grounds for legal dismissal.⁴¹

These categories of advice were not entirely irrelevant. The elaborate discussions of servant's references reflected a real problem, and given the labor market actual mistresses had no better luck resolving it than did the manuals. But the desirability of listing duties was obscured, for most middle-class readers, by the fact that they simply did not employ the kinds of specialized servants that the manuals went to such trouble to describe. Legal problems were closer to the mark again, but they reflected difficulties most likely to occur in a complex household and, probably, with male servants. The laments of middle-class women, which did reflect their unfamiliarity with their situation as employers, were much more prosaic. In one letter a housewife inquired

I shall be much obliged by early answers to the following questions: If I give a servant a month's notice, and send her away before the end of that month, must I pay her board wages until the end of her time? If so, how much? Also, can a servant demand cab fare and railway fare back to the place she comes from?⁴²

Another young housekeeper wanted information on the proper allowances for servants, asking:

Is it customary for servants always to have egg, fish, or ham, etc. for their breakfast? Also a pudding to their dinner? Would it not be better to make them a plainer pudding? Also, when the washing is done at home, is it usual for domestics to get as much starch as they please for their own gowns and petticoats? Is it correct that servants always have the evenings to themselves? About holidays—which are they really entitled to? And what about allowances—is 1 lb. of sugar and 3/4 lb. of butter the right amount for each servant weekly?⁴³

To concerns of this sort the manuals paid relatively little attention, although they did give suggested wage lists from time to time.

Most important, again, is the fact that, on the all-important question of the quality of servants' work, the manuals turned primarily to the treatment the mistress meted out. Here was the real problem, and the criticism was typically intense. The famous Mrs. Ellis was especially severe in her criticism of the middle-class mistress's treatment of servants. She remarked that

Servants are generally looked upon, by thoughtless young ladies, as a sort of household machinery, and when that machinery is of sufficient extent to operate upon every branch of the establishment there can be no reason why it should not be brought into exercise, and kept in motion to any extent that may not be injurious. This machinery, however, is composed of an individual possessing heart as susceptible of certain kinds of feelings, as those of the more privilege being to whose comfort and convenience it is their daily business to minister.⁴⁴

The typical lament of the critics was that the old paternalistic relationship between mistress and maid was dying and being replaced by a cold business arrangement. Too many mistresses believed that their only responsibility to their servant was to pay them their wages. Mistresses never took the time to acquaint themselves with the worries or joys of their servants. They no longer extended over them the same watchful protection and the same kind of solitude as in prior times.⁴⁵ When were mistresses going to remember that ‘Good servants are to be sought not only by money but by money's worth …’⁴⁶ In other words, the manuals applied to their discussion of servants the same sense of deterioration, given the rise of a new middle class, that they developed in more general arguments. New women, not born to their place, could not direct servants in proper fashion. Some of these criticisms may have been appropriate, for inexperienced mistresses could easily have neglected or even mistreated their charges. But there is little independent evidence that this was so, at least in comparison with the eighteenth century, on any general level. The laments for a lost paternalism are particularly suspect. Above all, since we cannot here be concerned with a thorough assessment of the servants' lot, the manuals' approach had little utility for the middle-class woman and may have done little even to correct abusive treatment. For the manuals failed to deal with the real middle-class situation. They did not discuss in any detail the kinds of servants middle-class women employed, and they therefore virtually ignored the vast change in the servant labor force during the ninteenth century.

After 1850, objections to the common approach found their way into print, holding that the servant problem was not entirely the fault of the mistress. A few essays went so far as to claim that it was the mistress who was disadvantaged, because the modern servant came from the dregs of the lower classes, even from the ranks of outright criminals.⁴⁷ An important article, entitled ‘Our Servants,’ reflected the attitudes of those mistresses who had tried all the standard recommendations:

I now offer the result of my experience as a ‘mistress of a household’, and as having devoted time, energy, and health to the task of improving servants, while there has been no result but ingratitude on their side, and disappointment on mine. I simply say to those of my readers who would do the same, ‘Don't try it. Be just to your servants, and expect obedience from them, but anything that you may do for them beyond their ‘rights’ any concession you make to them is simply thrown away. Perhaps it does positive harm by weakening your authority and lessening the distance between you.’ Friends in servants, indeed! Expect servants to be our friends! I have tried, but it cannot be; it is not in their nature to soften or yield to kindness.⁴⁸

The disappointed mistress went on to say she was sick and tired of the nonsense about the poor condition of domestic service, that servants were treated as slaves by mistresses who were no better than tyrants. The truth was that servants were better off than any other sector of the working community, and at the same time the most insolent and unappreciative.

The frustrations of the mistress with her domestic servant was also a theme developed by Eliza Warren in several of her works. In her book Comfort for Small Incomes she related similar experiences with the same fruitless results as that of the outspoken mistress above. Mrs. Warren was forced to make the same conclusions and warned mistresses that ‘good servants suitable for middle-class families were not to be had …’⁴⁹

Here is the problem writ large for us. What was the true situation facing the middle-class housewife? Were incompetence and reckless extravagance the real causes behind her continuing financial woes? Was her thoughtlessness the source of her servant problem? It is obvious that much of the criticism found in the manuals and domestic magazines echoes our image of the Victorian woman, with the important qualification that the manuals recognized that the woman was charged with a variety of important functions. The manuals found the woman wanting in her functions because of poor training and ostentation; this is not perhaps too far from the conventional historical view that Victorian women had few functions of any sort. If we could move only from uselessness to failure we would not, perhaps, advance historical understanding significantly. But, as we have already suggested, the manuals were often misleading. They raise some of the real problems middle-class women faced, but their general tone was persistently colored by the conviction that women were going astray in the modern world. This in itself is interesting. It reflects change, even if the change was misinterpreted; it reflects the fact that the middle-class housewife was gradually trying to forge a new style of life. Why the manuals adopted such a critical stance toward change is not easy to answer, and suggests a need to look at the background of the authors, including their relationship to older groups such as the clergy which offered moral advice. The impact of the hostile tone on middle-class readers is another ambiguous problem to which we shall return. Certainly the barrage of criticism could have been unnerving to women eager for advice on activities new to them.

Above all, we cannot stop with the manual literature because it was too often focused on an upper-class, rather than middle-class situations. Here is doubtless one reason for the frequent criticisms, for the manuals often used as examples types of people who were open to social climbing. Middle-class women, if they climbed, aspired to no such heights. Even some contemporaries noted this disparity.

Notes

1. E. Lynn Linton, The Girl of the Period and Other Social Essays, Vol. I & II (London, 1883), pp. 38-9.

2. Ibid., p. 43.

3. Economy for the Single and Married, p. 99

4. Health and Home [by a Quiet Woman] (London, 1875), p. 104.

5. Economy for the Single and Married, p. 44.

6. The Hand-Book of Women's Work [ed. by L. M. H.] (London, 1876), pp. 6-7.

7. Warren, Managed My House, Preface.

8. The Housekeeper's Magazine and Family Economist, (London, 1826), p. 60.

9. The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, (October 1871).

10. Checkland, The Rise of Industrial Society, p. 314.

11. Perkin, The Origins of English Society, p. 143.

12. Beeton, Household Management, p. 2.

13. Economy for the Single and Married, pp. 35-6.

14. Domestic Account Book was printed in 1843 and sold for 2s.

15. Walsh, Manual of Domestic Economy (1874), p. 692.

16. A New System of Practical Domestic Economy (London, 1828).

17. A New System of Domestic Economy, p. 424.

18. Walsh, Manual of Domestic Economy, (1874), p. 677.

19. A New System of Practical Domestic Economy, pp. 393-4.

20. Walsh, Manual of Domestic Economy, (1874), p. 676.

21. One such letter appeared in the British Mothers' Journal (February, 1858) asking how much bread and meat per diem was to be allotted to a family of four, p. 56.

22. John Armstrong, The Young Woman's Guide to Virtue, Economy and Happiness, (Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1817), p. 46.

23. Jane Ellen Frith Panton, Leaves From a Housekeeper's Book, (London, 1914), p. 102.

24. Economy for the Single and Married, p. 40.

25. The Housekeeper's Magazine, p. 2.

26. Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, Vol. 7 (1869), p. 101.

27. W. R. Gregg, ‘Life at High Pressure,’ in The Contemporary Review, (March, 1875), p. 633.

28. The Magazine of Domestic Economy (1835-36), p. 211.

29. British Mothers' Journal, (May, 1859), p. 105.

30. The Mother's Companion, (London, 1890), p. 132.

31. Emily James (ed.), Englishwoman's Year Book and Directory 1899-1900 (London, 1900), p. 91.

32. Health and Home, p. 170.

33. Home Difficulties: or Whose Fault is it? A few Words on the Servant Question [by the Author of ‘A Woman's Secret’] (London 1866), p. 8.

34. Warren, Managed My House, Preface.

35. Beeton, Household Management, p. 961.

36. T. Webster, An Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, Comprising Such Subjects as are Most Immediately Connected with Housekeeping (New York, 1845), p. 347.

37. Domestic Servants, As They Are and As They Ought To Be (By a practical mistress of a household) (Brighton, 1859), p. 15.

38. Armstrong, Young Woman's Guide, p. 47.

39. Beeton, Household Management, p. 7. Other manuals which offered the same advice were Ward & Lock's Home Book (London, 1880), p. 347; Warren Managed My House, p. 54.

40. Beeton, Household Management, p. 7. The recommendation was also stressed in Ward & Lock's Home Book, p. 317

41. Walsh's Manual of Domestic Economy, had a detailed section on the laws concerning servants and masters, pp. 227-8, as did Ward & Lock's Home Book, section 529, entitled ‘The Law of Masters and Servants,’ p. 348.

42. Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, (April 1869), p. 222.

43. Ibid. (December 1871), p. 381.

44. Ellis, Women of England, p. 15.

45. The British Mother's Journal of 1859, (October 1859), p. 232.

46. Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, Vol. VII (May-October 1863), p. 158.

47. British Mother's Journal, (May 1859), p. 105.

48. The British Mothers' Family Magazine for 1864, p. 270.

49. Eliza Warren, Comfort for Small Incomes, (London, 1866), p. 14.

Selected Bibliography

Primary Sources

Armstrong, John. The Young Woman's Guide to Virtue, Economy and Happiness. Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1817

Beeton, Isabella. The Book of Household Management. London, 1861.

Domestic Servants as They Are and As They Ought To Be (By a Practical Mistress of a Household). Brighton, 1859.

Economy for the Single and Married; or The Young Wife and Bachelor's Guide to Income and Expenditure on 50 Pounds Per Annum, 100 Pounds Per Annum, 150 Per Annum, 200 Pounds Per Annum; With Estimates Up to 500 Pounds Per Annum. 1845.

Ellis, Sarah Stickney. The Women of England, Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits. London, 1839.

The Handbook of Women's Work. Edited by L. M. H. London, 1876.

Health and Home. (By a Quiet Woman). London, 1875.

Home Difficulties; Or, Whose Fault Is It? A Few Words on the Servant Question. By the Author of ‘A Woman's Secrets.’ London, 1866.

Linton, E. Lynn. The Girl of the Period, and Other Social Essays. Vols. I & II. London, 1883.

A New System of Practical Domestic Economy Founded on Modern Discoveries and the Private Communications of Persons of Experience. 3rd ed. London, 1828.

Walsh, John. A Manual of Domestic Economy: Suited to Families Spending from 100 Pounds to 1000 Pounds a Year. London, 1853.

Ward and Lock's Home Book, A Domestic Cyclopaedia. London, 1880.

Warren, Eliza. Comfort for Small Incomes. London, 1866.

How I Managed My House on Two Hundred Pounds a Year. London, 1865.

Weatherly, Lionel, M.D. The Young Wife's Own Book: A Manual of Personal and Family Hygiene, Containing Everything that the Young Wife and Mother Ought to Know Concerning Her Own Health and That of Her Children at the Most Important Periods of Life. London, 1882.

Webster, T. An Encyclopaedia of Domestic Economy, Comprising Such Subjects as are Most Immediately Connected with Housekeeping. New York, 1845.

Secondary Sources

Checkland, S. G. The Rise of Industrial Society in England 1865-85. London, 1964.

Perkin, Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880. London, 1969.