The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-18

the London journals declares that two
or three more such cases will provoke a
revolution. This language may be too strong
but the late Sir Charles Trevelyan once said to
me that the English Nation would never stand
another George w, There are newspapers Of
enormous circulation in Great Britain, support
ed by the humber class, whose pages are filed
with every story, true or false, discreditable to
ROYALTY aristocracy. And this glazing show
of immortality among the so-called great is dan
gerous.
The stories of this trial however, il is plain,
are not all to be believed. The evidence of the
servants of the aristocracy is not the most cred
ible imaginable. Those servants lead as idle and
pampered a life almost their betters; they are
fed high; they dance attendance at dinners and
balls; are witnesses of spendor, associates, after
a fashion, in luxury They petted some
times, but oftener Extensively treated, as if
creatures OF another sort than their masters. and
incapable of approaching the sentiments of
those they serve. Yet they have keen eyes and
sometimes brains and the greatest gossps
and scandal mongers in England. Scores of fine
ladies have told me stories of their neighbors
which they heard from their maids and half the
tittle-tattle and back-b biting in London society
originates or is carried from one house to an
other in this way. At "a great country-house
party the talk of the servants hall finds its way
up to the dressing-rooms. and thence to the din
ing table of the guests; and regulations are
marred. characters blasted, because of what is
learned or reported from sources nobody would
name.
If one of these servants is malicious, purchas-
able, false in tongue. and happens to be dis
charged as he thinks unfairly, to have been in
suited, or wounded, or wronged, as often doubt
less happens-the testimony of such an one
should hardly be allowed to blast q woman's rep
utation or determine a gentleman's character
Some OF them, indeed are very different from
what l have described; and / would
rather take the favorable testimony of
loyal servant as convincing than
4hA e Ct
prove the guilt decide the fate of one who
had injured him. But the servants of the aris-
tocracy are what the arstocracy have made
them; they have the faults which the institution
engendered in them; for it acts unfavorably, not
only in those who are set so far above the rest of
mankind that they SIN and not be ashamed
but on those who look on themselves as inferi
or to the upper class. and therefore not expected
to be honorable or truthful in their relations
with them.
was brought into court The maid of the
Duchess of Westminster shed her mistress for
money, which it was claimed was but her due.
She thought that rather than be brought into
petty trial the great lady would pay the demand.
But the Duchess was plucky and went on the
witness-stand. Then the maid showed a recon-
mendation which her Grace had given her. But
the Duchess proved that she had qualified the
character III a letter to the Duchess of Argyll,
who had thought of engaging the maid. One ducal
parsonage wrote to another warning her against
the servant whom yet she recommended to the
rest of the world. 1t was fair to put the woman
off on persons of less exalted rank, but when it
came to duchesses, they must be warned The
frankness with which this was acknowledged
delightful. But when duchesses do such
things, and servants know of them, which is the
more injured2
So to-day the disclosures of the Campbells and
Churchills about themselves offend not only
their own class, but the common people of Eng
land. Yet the common people this, appar-
entity, more plainly than the aristocracy.