Fect. 413.57 413.57

IDENTIFICATION OF NUMEROUS SITES.

required.

Mr. Beswick has extended his researches beyond the site of the Temple; he has traced Nehemiah's builders from end to end of the great wall, and has identified the sites of the gates and towers enumerated in the narrative of that patriotic leader (Nehemiah iii.), including the Sheep-gate, Corner-gate, Fishgate, Valley-gate, Dung-gate; also the Towers of Meah, Hananeel, Furnaces, Siloam, and the Great Tower which lieth out from the King's house. But the most important identification is the site of David's sepulcher. Mr. Beswick proposes to publish a work in which these subjects are discussed separately.

The rock was found to be scarped and cut down where it had cropped up too high, so as to reduce it to the required level of either platform or steps. This is especially the case at the northern end of the mosque platform, and for a short distance at the southern end near the Cup, and at the same distance from the Sakhra in both cases. The direction and location of the sides of the courts, as laid down in this plan when traced on the Ordnance Map of the Haram, led at once to the means of identifying a number of important sites, and furnished a satisfactory reason for the existence and location of many rock-cut structures and scarpings which have baffled all attempts at explanation. The two cruciform tanks, Nos. 6 and 36, in the Ordnance Survey Map, fall into their proper place, and become the two gates or entrances, for male and female, from the Court of Gentiles to the Court of Israel, the smaller cruciform tank, No. 6, being to the east of the larger entrance, and in the proper place for the women to enter the women's court, with

A

It is impossible to foresee the important changes in Biblical literature which must necessarily grow out of this discovery. The men and women of Biblical times will no longer be mere puppets, living in a mythical temple whose site no one can identify. reality will now pervade the narrative; its stories will come to us like a new revelation, with a location and name, making the actions of those whose deeds were done in the Temple intelligible and clear, which beforetime were seemingly fantastic, and oftentimes inexplicable. Fact will take the place of fancy, and topographical knowledge and clearness will take the place of conjecture and ignorance. To know this Temple intimately, to be able to describe its peculiarities, to illustrate the ancient story and narrative of the Old and New Testament, and to give life-like reality to incidents occurring in the Holy City and Temple, are results of the very highest order. Every writer on Biblical geography and history, every minister who attempts an illustration of his text, every teacher in a Sundayschool who associates the Gospel history with illustrations, does this more or less vaguely only because the maps mislead, or the standard text-books are defective in their descriptions and inaccurate in their pictorial representations.

I Do not propose to sing the woes of the American housekeeper. If aught needs to be added to the body of recent literature on that theme, the impulse to write must come from fuller hearts than mine. Let those who suffer relate how slatternly is Dinah, how impudent Bridget, how stupid Wilhelmina, and, alas! how fleeting were the delusive joys of Chang-Wang, son of the Sun. Propria quæ maribus. Because women invade the forum, and crowd us from our places on the public platform, shall we, therefore, take refuge in the kitchen, or be so base as seem to know what passes in that realm of blackness and smoke? Perish the thought! The object of this paper is to present facts that are not of personal experience, are authenticated by the testimony of no single witness, and are of no private interpretation; facts which pertain to the life, not of individuals and families, but of communities and States; facts gathered by thousands of men, who had as little notion what should be the aggregate purport of their contributions as my postman has of the tale of joy, of sorrow, or of debt, which lies snugly folded in the brown paper envelope he is leaving this moment at my door. No momentary fretfulness of a mistress overburdened with cares; no freak of insolence in a maid elated by a sudden access of lovers; no outbreak of marital indignation at underdone bread, or overdone steak, can disturb the serenity of this impersonal and unconscious testimony of the Census. The many millions of rays that fall confusedly upon the lens which every tenth year is held up before the nation, are cast upon the screen in one broad, unbroken beam of light, truth pure, dispassionate, uncolored.

The English Census discriminates many varieties of domestic service. There are, besides "the domestic servant in general," male or female, the "coachman," the "groom," the "gardener," all of the sterner sex; while gentle woman contributes to the list the "housekeeper," the "cook," the "housemaid," the "nurse," the "laundrymaid," and the "char-woman." All these titles are respectably filled in the Census, as might be expected in a country where the distinctions of wealth are so marked, and where the household among the upper classes is organized with a completeness

VOL. XI.-18.

approaching that of the Roman familia under the Empire.

In the United States, however, the distinctions of domestic service have not proceeded far enough to make it worth while to maintain such a classification of rank and work; nor are the agencies provided for our Census adequate to collect facts in any direction where discrimination is required. It was, indeed, attempted in the publication of the Eighth Census (1860) to preserve a few of the simpler forms. Thus "cooks" were separately reported; but the number of the class was disappointing, being but 353 for the United States; of whom 10 were found in Arkansas, 24 in Delaware, 6 in Florida, 3 in Georgia, 18 in Kansas, 14 in Kentucky, 237 in Louisiana, and 41 in Michigan. The considerable States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Massachusetts, had, if we may trust this account, no cooks in 1860. The universal consumption of raw food by such large communities cannot fail to excite the astonishment of the future historian.

The

The attempt to preserve the class "housekeeper" resulted in the report of a larger aggregate number than of cooks; but the distribution of that number was hardly more reasonable. Alabama, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia had none, individually or collectively. Think of several thousand "first families" of Virginia,-of the Rhetts and Barnwells, the Ruffins and Pettigrews of South Carolina without a housekeeper among them! remaining States of the Union were, indeed, allowed to boast their housekeepers; but the figures were such as to excite incredulity. New Hampshire had 1,245; Connecticut, 25; Pennsylvania, 2,795; New York, 940; Massachusetts, 4,092; Michigan, 20. Still another distinction was attempted, the precise idea of which is not at this date manifest, between "domestics" and "servants." Alabama had no domestics, any more than it had cooks; Arkansas had 797; California and Connecticut, none; Delaware, 1,688; Florida, 631; Georgia, Illinois and Indiana, none; Iowa, 358; Kansas, none; Kentucky, 1,782. This completed the tale of domestics in the United States. New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia were as destitute of domestics as before the discov

servant; while a black host of "unattached" swarmed through the house, the kitchens, the quarters, the stables, the sties, and overran the fields and roads in every direction.

Such having been the custom of the period preceding the war, we shall naturally expect to find it influencing the present situation in these States, despite impoverishment of planter and emancipation of slave, and should look to see here an excess of domestic service, due partly to an accumulation which has not had time to drain off, and partly to the force of habits deeply bred in master and in man. And so we find it. The Census statistics show that in 1870 there were but 4.29 families, high and low, rich and poor, white and black, to one domestic servant in Virginia; in Kentucky, 5.58; in Delaware, 4.83; in Maryland, 4.03. We have spoken of Virginia. This is the present State of that name. West Virginia has 11.75 families to one servant. Is anything further necessary, to a student of history, to explain the cleavage that took place during the war in the old State-the adhesion of the north-western counties to the cause of the Union, while the southern and eastern counties followed the fortunes of that Confederacy "whose keystone was slavery," than such a contrast as is thus presented in the statistics of domestic service in the two sections of the Virginia of 1860?

When we leave the slave-breeding, and turn to the slave-consuming States, the cotton, rice, and sugar-raising regions of the country, we should expect to find, and we do find, a decided change of conditions. The system of human chattelism tended to bring out the same results in the multiplication of domestic servants; but, on the other hand, there was opposed a most substantial and emphatic resistance, in the fact that the colored population of those States was only kept up by continuous importation. Speaking broadly, every able-bodied black represented a direct outlay of from eight to twelve hundred dollars. But more than this: twenty-five per cent. could be realized from that investment in a single season by proper employment. Even the women and the half-grown boys represented a net productive capacity of one or two hundred dollars a year if put into the field. Under such conditions, it was pretty certain that the number of house hands would be kept down to the real demands either of necessity or of luxury, not suffered to increase wantonly and wastefully to the degree of a positive nuisance, as was often the case

under the good-naturedly shiftless system prevailing in the border States.

has

The statistics of the Census bear out this view of the reason of the case. Alabama 9.05 families to one servant; Arkansas, 14.64; Florida, 9.84; Georgia, 6.42; Louisiana, 5.89; Mississippi, 10.54; South Carolina, 9.32; Texas, 11.28. The apparent exceptions here are Louisiana and Georgia. If, however, we exclude New Orleans, a city which belongs rather to the whole cotton-growing region than to any one State, Louisiana ceases to be an exception. New Orleans has but 2.89 families to a servant, and the remainder of the State no less than 9.83.

We have spoken of all the former slave States except three. Missouri never was more than half a slave State. The practical area of slavery was limited to less than a quarter of its soil. The number of families to a servant in Missouri is 10.8. If we exclude St. Louis, the number rises to 13.61. North Carolina and Tennessee have respectively 7.72, and 9.42 families to a serTheir position in this respect is undoubtedly due to the fact that they lay geographically between the old slave-breeding and slave-consuming States, and, partaking in a degree of the character of both, exhibited some of the characteristics of each.

vant.

Leaving now the former slave States, we find among the original free States an even greater variety in the matter of domestic service. The system of human chattelism did not enter here. Domestics were no longer property, to be worked at the will of their owners. Throughout the States we are about to consider, servants were free to go or to stay-free to enter the mill and the shop, free to ask their own price, and free to be just as disagreeable as they pleased. Even the words master and servant were in some sections taken as offensive. It is evident that under such conditions domestic service is never likely to be in excess from sheer indifference to accumulation. In such communities, servants will be employed only as the result of distinct efforts and sacrifices on the part of families to attract and retain them, bidding over the factories and the shops in respect to the amount of wages, or to ease of occupation, or both-such efforts and sacrifices becoming greater in the newer portions of the country, until, as we approach the extreme North-west, domestic service is almost forbidden by the industrial conditions which are there found to

we should expect to find communities employing domestic servants somewhat in proportion to the extent and success of their manufactures and commerce, the presence of a considerable city being almost inevitably indicated by an increase in this form of expenditure.

The facts revealed by the Census correspond in general with great exactness to the reason of the case as we have sought to represent it. Beginning at the extreme East, we have Maine, a State chiefly agricultural, and having no large city to bring up its average, with 11.57 families to one servant. New Hampshire, approaching in its southern parts the industrial conditions of Massachusetts, has but 9.64. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have, respectively, 7.61, 7.44, and 7.35. If, however, we exclude New Haven and Providence, Connecticut goes up to 8.08, and Rhode Island to 9.33. Massachusetts, with a population two-thirds that of the other New England States combined, has one servant to every 6.67 families. If, however, we exclude the cities of Boston and Worcester, we have for the remainder of the State but one to 8.24.

Of the States known in the geographies of our school days as the Middle States, New York has but 5.79 families to one servant; New Jersey, 6.97, and Pennsylvania, 8.01. If we exclude the seven principal cities of New York, the remainder of the State shows 7.31 families to a servant. If we exclude Philadelphia, Allegheny and Pittsburgh, the remainder of Pennsylvania shows 9.86.

Proceeding westward to Ohio and Michigan, we find, as we should expect, a smaller number of domestic servants in these States, the ratios being but one to 9.73 and to 9.74, respectively, or, if we exclude Cincinnati and Cleveland in Ohio, and Detroit in Michigan, but one to 10.92 and 10.31, respectively. Ohio and Michigan are, however, much older States than Illinois, which shows but one to 10.57, or, excluding Chicago, but one to 12.72. Indiana, a State of equal age, but of a more exclusively agricultural population, shows but one to 14.02 families. This is nearly the ratio of Iowa (one to 14.14). Wisconsin, with larger manufacturing interests, has one to 10.46, or, excluding Milwaukee, one to 11.26.

The six States remaining may be passed over with brief mention. California, with its great body of "Chinese cheap labor," naturally shows a large proportion of do

families, though, if we exclude San Francisco, the remainder of the State has but one to 11.32 families, which is very close to the ratio for Nevada (one to 11.13), where, also, the Chinese element largely enters. Three of the other four States show the condition proper to pioneer communities, where luxuries are not expected, and labor is scarce and high. Nebraska has but one servant to 16.92 families; Kansas, one to 16.18; Oregon, one to 22.29. Minnesota, however, forms a distinct exception, and one not easily explained. The ratio of domestic service here (one to 9.64 families) is precisely that of New Hampshire, and exceeds by a trifle that of Ohio. Unless the cause of this be found in the proportion of Swedes and Norwegians within the State, it must be left to some social investigator on the spot, to account for this indulgence of the far Minnesotians in the luxury of domestic service so much beyond the customs of their neighbors.

Heretofore we have had under consideration the domestic servants in the several States, and in certain important cities, in their aggregate number only. But it may not be without interest to follow this general class into the details of its nationality, and inquire what races and countries contribute, and in what measure severally, to this total of 951,334 persons, big and little, male and female, white, black and yellow, who minister in the households of our people.

At sight the statements of the Census in this respect appear scarcely credible. Thus, at the outset, we meet the assertion that 704,780 of the 951,334 were born within the United States. To one who has been accustomed to think of pretty much the whole body of domestic servants as of foreign birth, the first feeling must be that of incredulity. What, can it be true that all the Irish, Germans, Swedes, Canadians and Chinese, who make so much of a figure in our daily lives, and in the literature of the time, constitute little more than one-fourth of the entire number of servants?

In the first place, of the persons employed

* Another popular delusion, which is exploded by the Census, is that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy into his religious system merely as an indirect solution of the problem of domestic service; a shrewd device, at once to keep his handmaidens under discipline, and to defraud them of their rightful wages.

fewer servants to population than the Territories of

The Census shows that, while Utah has

Arizona, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming, it has more than Colorado, Dakota, Idaho and Montana.