for servants, and that women are sadly in want of some occupation which would lessen competition and raise wages in the sewing business—­it is evident that society is deeply interested in getting rid of the ridiculous notion.  As a first step towards that desirable consummation, let us endeavour to analyse the impression which exists in the minds of those who turn their backs upon household duties, and with their eyes open devote themselves to a laborious and underpaid occupation.

’A correspondent ( The Argus, December 16) informs us that observation and the remarks he has heard made by factory girls have led him to think that there are three serious objections which the seamstresses have to domestic service.  One of these is—­“The idea of degradation, attached to the position of a ‘slavey’ in the minds of the lower classes themselves.”  As we have seen that there is nothing degrading in the work itself which servants are called upon to do, how comes it that its performance is considered less honourable than sewing or serving in a shop?  The notion must take its rise in the conditions under which domestic service is rendered.  The sewing girl or the shop-woman has certain business hours, outside of which she is as independent as her employer, and as little amenable to control.  The household servant, on the other hand, is under discipline, and liable to be called on to do this, that, or the other during every hour of the twenty-four.  From the time she gets up in the morning to the moment she goes to bed at night, she has no hour which of right she can reckon on as her own.  If she wishes to go out she must ask permission; if she wants to receive a friend, she cannot rely on being left undisturbed.  As a matter of fact, servants in this colony enjoy a very large measure of liberty, and those who are worth their salt very seldom have to complain of want of consideration or indulgence.  If they do not meet with proper treatment, they can easily find situations where more regard is had to their feelings and comfort.  But the thought that the leisure and freedom they enjoy is due in a great measure to favour, and not to right, is the fly in the ointment of the domestic’s lot which renders it distasteful to many women, and which causes it to be looked down on by those who exist under far less favourable conditions.  It seems to us that it is the want of some definite respite from liability to work which constitutes the “slavery” of which our correspondent speaks.  If we are right in our supposition, then it is evident that employers have it in their power to take away the reproach from domestic servitude, by assimilating the conditions of household employment to those which attach to industrial occupations.  Why should not servants have regular hours of work, outside which they would be absolutely free to go where, or to do as they please, without asking permission or fearing interruption?  If such arrangements were to become customary, we can hardly doubt that the prejudice against domestic service would die out.  The attractions of higher wages, equal freedom, better board, and more comfortable lodging would soon do their work.