The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-08-20
Tho Servants Cap in England.

London newspapers are earnestly discussing
tho question whether maid servants ought
to wear caps. As might have been expected,
the Tory and Liberal Unionist organs MAIN
tain the Affirmative with energy. while, with
ono exception, the representatives OF Radl-
cal opinion seem inclined to favor tho revolt
against what tlloy term badge Of servi-
tude. Tho controversyis not without inter-
est to some American households III which
cap wearing Is imposed upon female sor-
wants with Anglomaniac rigor.
The incident which gave rise to the agita-
ton OF this question was the following:
Ono Macy CHAPPELn was engaged BY Mr..
KENNEDY In the capacity OF house or parlor
mail ut stipend OF four dollars week. At
the end OF nine days the damsel in her own
words, "emphaticaliy refused to wear a
cap and was summarily dismissed. She sued
Mr. KENNEDY In n County Court for her
wages. and he pleaded TINT she had broken
her contract by disobeylng lawful orders.
Tho Judge overrued the plea and
held that In tho absence OF any ex-
press stipulation with regard to wearing
a cap the order was not lawful. and judg-
nent must accordingly I've given for the
plaintiff with costs. Commenting on this
decision, the London Standard, giving voice
IT, the convictions aud feelings OF arlsto-
cratic employers, dcnouncc5 tho houSemaid
ittigant as snob. IL lays down the broad
principle that the female servant who Is SO
much too good for her place that she de-
clines to wear highly convenient not to
sny decorative hcadpiecc. Is ono whom a
iudicious mistress should get rid Of as
speedily as possible. 1t dismisses with
sccrn the hyglenic plea that cap wearing
Is unhealthy and tends to mako the hair
fall Off. although. rs one Of its maid
servant correspondents had nathetically
pointed out bald parlor maid would
lose her usefulness. With equal contempt it
thrusts aside the aesthetic argument that
there is no use in cultivating the nascent
taste OF the feminine masses with free ex-
hibtions OF pictures and stntuary, If girls in
service are to be reduced to tho dull uni
formty Of white caps and black or sad
colored" frocks. Yet nothing Is more OBJ
vious than that when the aesthetic education
Of the people shall have done its perfect
work, n maid servant is very likely to enter
tain different views touching costume from
those OF her mistress. Sho may want. for in
stance, to wear her hair done up In a Grecian
knot, or deem her style OF beauty best set
of by rnglcts and a bang; or parlor maid
may have fancy for appearing In low
neck gown or in short skirts. or even In
diaphanous undergarments. Must the So
called master OF the house submit to her
waiting at table In any Of these startling
guises? II not, why not? II it be not law
full for him to order her to wear a cap,
whence derives he his authority to insist
upon q shawl or petticoat? Where, in other
words, Is the liberty or license conceded to
maid servants Ivy the decision Of the County
Court Judge to stop?
1t Is urged by some Tory organs that the
defendant In this notable case OF CHAPPELL
vs. KENNEDY should appeal from the judy
mont OF the magistrate and carry the mat
ter, II necessary, through successive trl-
bunals to the House Of Lords. These news
papers can sec nothing droll in submitting
the cap question to the united learning and
acumen OF half dozen ex-Lord Chancel-
lors. On the contrary, they look on tho
rebellion against the cap as the thin end OF
wedge which, IL driven further, would ami
hilate the order, decorum, and elegance OF
British household life. Is it likely, they ask,
that movement beginning with a house.
maid will not sweep into its current tho
groom, the coachman, and the butler? lit
be degrading to wear a cap. how much moro
humliatng must it be to don coat OF many
colors, to say nothing Of powder on the hair
and white stockings on the bullying calves
Already, it seems. a groom, emulous OF
MARY CHAPPELL's notoriety has firmly de-
clned to shave of his motstaoho and has
declared his determination to let tho hair
grow upon his upper lip to tho length hith-
erto confined to Guardsmen. The Standard
In its pessimistic forecast looks forward to
the time when even top boots. or a swallow
tailed coat, may DO regarded as the livery
OF shame. Reasoning solennly and even
tearful'y upon the subject, 1t assures SER
wants that no sensible man objects to adopt
ing tho distinctive garb OF his occupation.
1t points out that officers wear their uni.
form while they nrc about their work; so
do barristcrs and professors and tutors In
universities and the great public schools;
while Anglican and Catholic c.ergymen
always wear clothes which onablo them to
be distinguished at glance. 1t adds that
the large class OF ladies' who devote them
selves to nursing tho sick habitually appear
In special dress and are understood to re.
gard it with some pride. To these alleged
ana!ogics however. the maid servants turn
n deaf car and reassert In thcr letters to
tho newspapers that tho cap Is a mark OF
social lnferiority. and that servants are or
dercd to wear it for tho express purpose OF
stamping thcm as being beneath those they
wait upon.
We regret to sec that Mr.. LABoUcuEnE's
usually rampant Aadcalism las failed him
in this crisis. He Is a married man. and no
declares with some heat and Indignation
that no married Judge would have como to
the conclusion that q maid servant is lot
legally bound 10 wear q cap; or II lie had
come to that conclusion. he would certainly
never have yenturcd to express 1t. The
editor OF Truth is SO far carried away by his
i!i-t"mpcr MS to protest that for the splen-
did pay Of four dollars week many girls
would not only wear caps. but black their
faces or shave their heads. Hc would Ike
to know. he says, why it Is more degrading
to wear mans livery than to black his