On the subject of having domestics sit in the parlour and eat with the family these things must be taken into consideration. There are
some families who live in such a way that it is perfectly convenient for them, to have the one who cooks and waits on table, eat and sit with the family. And then, if the character and manners of a domestic are suitable, there is no reason why this practice should not be adopted. But there is another class of persons, whose style of living is such, that it would be very inconvenient to have the one who cooks and waits on table sit and eat with the family. In such families one person is needed during meals to attend to matters in the kitchen, and another person to change dishes and carry food back and forth, and if these persons sat at table there would be constant disorder and confusion in jumping up from table to perform these services, while a dress suitable for kitchen work would not be suitable at a table where company is often entertained. Besides this, the master of a family often is so engaged in business that the only time he can see his wife and children together is at meals, and then he wishes to be at liberty to talk freely, as he could not do, if every stranger he hires must come to his family meal.
For these reasons, even if domestics were ever so well educated and well bred, there are reasons why it would be more agreeable and convenient to have the family eat and sit by themselves, and domestics eat and sit in the kitchen. And when domestics do become intelligent, and well educated, they will have sense enough to feel, that the place where they sit or eat, has nothing to do with their respectability. They will see that it is most convenient to sit and eat in the kitchen, and they will choose to do so themselves, and never think that it is any hardship, or any thing that implies, that they are not as good and as respectable as any other members of the family.
It is because domestics do not consider these things, that they sometimes feel that it is all owing to pride, that their employers do not have their domestics share the parlour and family meal. Now I do not doubt that there are some employers that have a foolish pride of this sort, which is as unworthy of a Christian, as it is of a republican people. But so far as I have observed, it is among those who
have the least claims to be considered as well bred and well educated.
The more education and good sense a person has, the more it is seen that respectability depends not on the employment, but on the character of a person. And those who put on the most airs of aristocracy and superiority, are generally those who have risen from circumstances where they had no chance to gain the education and good breeding, that would have taught them better.
But in most cases, among well educated and sensible persons, the great reason for having domestics have a separate sitting-room and tables is, that it is more convenient to the family, and in most cases, it is also most convenient and agreeable to domestics themselves.
When domestics cannot dress and appear like the family, and when their education and manners do not qualify them for the society that visits the family, in most cases, they themselves would prefer to sit and to eat in the kitchen, and would regard it as a great trial to be obliged to sit and eat with the family.