Domestic service

by Lucy Maynard Salmon

But it is undoubtedly in the legislation of the colonial period that one finds the best reflection of colonial service, and one may say of it, as Judge Sewall wrote to a friend when sending him a copy of the Statutes at Large for 1684, “You will find much pleasant and profitable Reading in it.”[79] Numerous acts were passed in all the colonies determining the relation between masters and servants, and these laws were most explicit in protecting the interests of both parties—a fact often indicated by the very name of the act, as that of 1700 in Pennsylvania, entitled “For the just encouragement of servants in the discharge of their duty, and the prevention of their deserting their master’s or owner’s service.”[80]

In the legislation in regard to service and servants, it is impossible always to discriminate between the general class of either bound or life servants and the particular class of domestic employees. But the smaller class was comprised in the larger, and household servants had the benefit of all legislation affecting servants as a whole. Few or no laws were passed specifically for the benefit of domestic employees.

These laws worked both ways. On the one hand, they were intended to protect the servant from the selfishness and cruelty of those masters who would be inclined to take advantage of their position; on the other hand, they protected the master who had invested his capital in servants, and asked protection for it at the hands of the law, as he sought protection for any other form of property.

Several general classes of laws are found for the protection of servants. The first provides that no servant, bound to serve his or her time in a province, could be sold out of the province, without his or her consent.[81] A second class of laws compelled masters and mistresses to provide their servants with wholesome and sufficient food, clothing, and lodging;[82] and a third provided that if a servant became ill during the time of his service, his master should be under obligation to care for him, and heavy penalties were sometimes incurred by a master who discharged a servant when sick.[83]

The law went even further and protected servants against unjust cruelty, especially against every form of bodily maiming. If a white servant lost an eye or a tooth at the hands of his master or mistress, he gained his freedom, and could sometimes recover further compensation, if the Court so adjudged.[84] If servants fled from the cruelty of their master, they were to be protected, though notice of such protection was to be sent to the master and the magistrate.[85] In New York if a master or dame tyrannically and cruelly abused a servant, the latter could complain to the constable and overseers, who were instructed to admonish the master on the first offence, and on the second, to protect the servant in the house until relief could be obtained through the Courts.[86] In North Carolina no Christian servant could be whipped without an order from the justice of the peace; if any one presumed so to do, the person offending was to pay forty shillings to the party injured.[87] Immoderate punishment also subjected the master to appear before the County Court to answer for his conduct.[88] When New Jersey became a royal province in 1702, the instructions of the Crown to Lord Cornbury included a provision that he should “endeavor to get a Law past for the restraining of any inhuman Severity, which by ill Masters or Overseers, may be used towards their Christian Servants, and their Slaves, and that Provision be made therein, that the wilfull killing of Indians and Negroes may be punished with Death, and that a fit Penalty be imposed for the maiming of them.”[89] Moreover, in North Carolina complaints of servants against their masters could be heard without formal process of action.[90] In Pennsylvania the law of 1771 provided that every indented servant should obtain a legal residence in the city or place where he or she had first served his or her master sixty days, or if he had afterwards served twelve months in any other place, he was at liberty to choose his residence in either place. In South Carolina a master denying a certificate at the expiration of a servant’s time was to forfeit two pounds.[91]

Important as these provisions were in the interest of the servant, the law protected the master even more carefully and specifically. The great danger to him was in the loss of servants through their escaping from service and being harbored by friendly sympathizers or rival employers. The law dealt rigorously with both classes of offenders. In South Carolina stubborn, refractory, and discontented servants, who ran away before their term of service expired, were obliged to serve their masters three times the period of their absence.[92] In Pennsylvania every servant absenting himself without leave for one day or more was to serve, at the expiration of his time, five days for every day’s absence, and in addition, to give satisfaction to his master for any damages or charges incurred through his absence.[93] In East New Jersey runaways were to serve double the time of their absence, and also to give satisfaction for the costs and damages caused by their absence.[94] In North Carolina runaways who would not tell the name of their master, either because unable to speak English or through obstinacy, were to be committed to jail and advertised for two months. Servants absenting themselves were to serve double time.[95] In South Carolina a servant who ran away was to serve one week for every day’s absence, but the whole time was not to exceed two years.[96] Servants running away with slaves were to be considered felons. In Maryland absenting servants were to serve additional time at the discretion of the Court, ten days, or not exceeding that, for every day’s absence, and to give satisfaction for costs incurred.[97]

The temptation to harbor runaways was great, not so much from philanthropic motives as because of the scarcity of labor, and every colony supplemented its legislation against runaways by corresponding acts carrying penalties for harboring them. In East New Jersey the offender was fined five pounds and was to make full satisfaction to the master or mistress for costs and damages sustained because of the absence, while any person who knowingly harbored or entertained a runaway, “except of real charity,” was to pay the master or mistress of the servant ten shillings for every day’s entertainment and concealment and to be fined at the discretion of the Court.[98] In Connecticut the presumption was that if servants were entertained after nine o’clock at night they were runaways, and the head of the family so entertaining them was to forfeit five shillings to the complainer and five shillings to the town treasurer. Any Indian hiding a runaway was to forfeit forty shillings for every such offence or suffer a month’s imprisonment.[99] In South Carolina runaways were not to be harbored under a penalty of two pounds for every day and night the servant was so entertained, but the total amount forfeited was not to exceed treble the value of the servant’s time remaining to be served.[100] In New York any one proved to have connived at the absence of a servant was to forfeit twenty pounds to the master or dame and five pounds to the Court. Any one knowingly harboring a runaway was to forfeit ten shillings for every day’s entertainment.[101] In Pennsylvania any one concealing a servant forfeited twenty shillings for each day’s concealment.[102] In Rhode Island any person entertaining a servant after nine o’clock at night forfeited five shillings for each offence.[103] In Maryland, by an act of 1692, persons harboring runaways were to forfeit five hundred pounds of tobacco for every hour’s entertainment, one half to the government and one half to the informer.[104] By a later act the person harboring runaways was to forfeit one hundred pounds of tobacco for every hour’s entertainment, one half to go to the public schools and one half to the party aggrieved.[105] This was intended to meet evasions of the previous laws on the part of those who harbored runaways a few hours at a time and then helped them on their way. Free negroes or mulattoes harboring runaways were to forfeit one thousand pounds of tobacco for every such offence, one half for the use of free schools and one half to the party aggrieved.[106] By a later act, servants harboring runaways were to be punished by the magistrate by lashes, not to exceed thirty-nine, on the bare back.[107]

On the other hand, every incentive was held out to assist in the return of runaways. In North Carolina any person who assisted in taking up runaways was rewarded, the reward being gauged by the number of miles away from the master’s house that the servant was taken.[108] In Pennsylvania any one apprehending a runaway servant and returning him or her to the sheriff of the county was to receive ten shillings if the runaway was taken within ten miles of the master’s house and twenty shillings if at a distance of more than ten miles.[109] In Connecticut any Indian who returned a runaway to the nearest authority was to receive as a reward two yards of cloth.[110] In Maryland the allowance was two hundred pounds of tobacco, while Indians were to receive a match coat or its value.[111] Persons in Virginia, Delaware, or the northern parts of America, who apprehended runaways from Maryland, were to receive four hundred pounds of tobacco, and the servant was to reimburse his master by additional servitude.[112] Every precaution to prevent runaways was taken. Indian, negro, and mulatto servants were not to travel without a pass,[113] nor were slaves to leave their plantation without leave, except negroes wearing liveries.[114] In Connecticut servants were not to go abroad after nine o’clock at night,[115] in Massachusetts they were not to frequent public houses,[116] and in South Carolina and Massachusetts innkeepers were not to harbor them.[117]