1883-11-22uu

“There is probably scarcely a housekeeper in the city who keeps a servant girl but knows from experience of the difficulties which meet a person in search of one.”

Hamilton Spectator.    November 22, 1883.

It had had been a problem occasionally in the past, but by November, 1883, the situation of hiring, and keeping, dependable women to work in Hamilton homes had reached a crisis stage.

On November 22, 1883, the Hamilton Spectator carried an article about the situation under the headline, “About Servant Girls.”

The reporter began his examination of the matter with a case which he described in detail:

“Here, for instance, is a lady who for ten or fifteen years has had a servant, one who has been so long in the household that she is looked upon almost a part of it; she knows the ways of every member of the family, knows also how to supply their wants, and does it in a thorough manner; in fact manages the entire house.

“Like all girls, however, she is not satisfied with her position, and, against the wishes and protests of her mistress, she encourages the attentions of an industrious mechanic, and leaves a home where, as a servant, she lived amid luxuries and fashion, in which she could not indulge, to become the mistress of a much less elegant house, but where all that surrounds her is her own, and the voice of a kind husband is heard in the evening instead of that of a mistress, annoyed probably by some trifling error.

“Thus left without her faithful helper, the lady is obliged to get a new one, and though she may get a good girl, she will surely get one whose styles and ways are different from the one whose ways were formed under her care; but the probability is that she will not get a good one, for while there are plenty of girls to be had, not many of them are up to the mark, else they would not be out of employment.”¹

¹ “About Servant Girls : Growing Demand for Farmers’ Daughters : Good Pay, Easy Work and Fine Dresses, the Object of Girls’ Ambition – English Girls Not Good Servants”

Hamilton Spectator.   November  22, 1883.

The reporter then went on to recount a conversation with someone who had recently he had met in his newspaper’s office:

“Not long ago, a gentleman called at the Spectator office one evening to have an advertisement for a girl put in. He said that his wife had a few months before lost a girl who had been with them ever since they were married, twelve years before, and since she left to get married, they had no less than nine other girls.

“The first was recommended to them by a friend, but after trying her for three days, she was told to go. The last of the nine, a colored girl, had in one week broken five milk pitchers, and had on every occasion came to her mistress with the remark, ‘Missie, I’se broke de snout off de pitcher, but I’se a gwine to be mo’ careful next time.’ After breaking the fifth, she was not allowed to try
again, and an advertisement was inserted.”¹

The next interview conducted by the Spectator was with a man very knowledgeable with the current problem as regards domestic help:

“Speaking of servant girls, a gentleman whose business for years has been to supply the best families with girls, told a reporter that of all he had had to do with, none, as a rule, could equal the girls who had been brought up on a Canadian farm, for giving general satisfaction. They enter upon their duties with a clear conception of what a house should look like, and how it should be kept, and, being accustomed to house work all their lives, are strong and healthy, and, at the same time, industrious and cleanly.”¹

The man interviewed also had decided views as regards the nationalities from which the best servant girls are located:

“Scandinavians make splendid workers, but lack the neatness of the Canadian girls, and moreover are hard to get. Then follows the Irish, Scotch and German, the former being the preferred of the three, on account of their willingness to work and their devotion to their mistresses.

“English girls, as a rule, do not make very good servants, not being possessed of the strength and adaptability of Canadian girls, or the willingness of the Irish. When a real good English girl can be got, however, she is a treasure.

“About one-third of the girls employed in this city are Canadian girls, most of whom have been brought up on farms. Of the remaining two-thirds, about three-eighths are Irish, the others being divided among Scotch, German and English, with an occasional Scandinavian, French and African.

“As a rule, the Canadian and English girls dress neater than the others, although they make less show than the Irish. Frequently, a girl leaves a good mistress to go to one where she thinks she will have a better chance to dress well and see fashionable people, but generally they look out for a place where they can get the most money and have the least work to do. A house where other servants are kept also offers greater inducements to a girl than one where one has to all the work.”¹  
    While the “servant girl” problem was deemed to be acute in 1883, it was a problem which would not get better but become much worse in the future.

1883-11-21uu

Purchasers of the Hamilton Times on Monday November 20, 1883 found a brief and tantalizing item, a “special to the TIMES” item concerning an event which had taken place in Dundas the previous evening:

“DUNDAS, Nov. 20 – Much Excitement prevails in this town in consequence of the arrest of Mr. Mason, a very respectable and highly esteemed tradesman, and a Mr. Townshend from Hamilton, the principal persons in getting up an assemblage on Sunday evening of what are known as ‘Cecilites.’

“The meeting took place on the corner of King street, near the knitting factory. Chief of Police Fitzgerald happened to come along and ordered the parties to leave, which they declined to do. To the surprise of most people, Messrs. Mason and Townsend have since been summoned to appear before the Mayor and they will accordingly do so at 5 p.m.

“The feeling against the arrest is very strong, and particularly among religious people.”¹

¹ “Street Preachers : Excitement Over the Arrest of Leaders on Sunday”

Hamilton Times.   November  20, 1883.

The day after the arrested men were summoned to appear before Dundas Mayor Wardell in the Town Hall, there was extensive coverage of the matter in both the Spectator and the Times. Both papers sent reporters to the Valley Town to observe and detail what happened.

From the Hamilton Spectator of November 21, 1883:

“It appears that on Sunday evening the defendants, who are both Cecilities, were preaching publicly on the streets, and as a consequence, a crowd gathered round them, who, according to Chief Fitzgerald, acted in a very disorderly manner.

“The chief constable told the ministers to move on, with the option of being arrested. As they did not move or stop preaching, Fitzgerald arrested them and took them to the city hall, where they remained until released on their own recognizance to appear before him yesterday afternoon for trial.

“When a Spectator reporter arrived there yesterday afternoon, the judgment hall was filled with a crowd whose eager faces would lead one to suppose that there had not been an arrest made in Dundas for the past twelve months.”²

² “Dundas is Disturbed : By the Arrest of Two Street Preachers : Who Interfered With Chief of Police Fitzgerald When He Broke Up a Meeting for Evangelizing the Town.”

Hamilton Spectator.    November 21, 1883.

When proceedings began, Dundas Mayor Wardell occupied the bench, with Police Chief Fitzgerald, the complainant in the case, standing at his side.

It did not take long for the proceedings to become heated. Chief Fitzgerald charged Mason and Townsend with “unlawfully collecting idlers and shouting upon the streets of Dundas, thereby obstructing the traffic:’

“When the mayor asked them if they were guilty or not, Mr. Townsend spoke up and said there was no obstruction until Fitzgerald interfered. Mr. Mason, who was not as calm and collected as his brother in misfortune, began to compare the law of the present day with that of 1900 years ago, but the mayor, afraid of the infliction that was seemingly coming, cut him short, and asked him if he was guilty or not.

“Mason : ‘If they call me guilty, I shall have to bear it.’

“Mayor : ‘Well, you are not guilty.’

“Mason : ‘No sir, but the Bible –

“Mayor : ‘I don’t want to hear you talk. You have been warned that this thing could not be permitted in Dundas; that it draws a crowd who use all kinds of abominable language and blasphemies, and peaceable persons passing were shocked; and all this is occasioned by persons like you preaching on the streets. It is not the preaching I object to; it is the unusual noise which always attends it, and as long as I have any power I am going to put a stop to it. (Voice – ‘Can’t Do it.’) I don’t care what the consequences are, I am going to take the bull by the horns, and crush this sort of thing.’

“At this juncture, the small boys who were unable to get into the building, amused themselves by throwing stones up at the windows.

“Mayor (proceeding) : ‘If the defendants will promise not to let this occur again, and stop preaching on the street, I am quite willing to let the matter drop.’

“Mason : ‘I don’t know what my brother here will do about it, but I refuse to promise. I can’t help but speak the things which I know and believe-‘

“Here Mr. Mason made another attempt to introduce his sermon, but was unsuccessful, as the Mayor interrupted him by stating that he did not care what he thought; he wanted to know if they were going to repeat it. Both of them refused to promise, and the Mayor said he would proceed with the trial. ‘I have a duty to perform, and I shall perform it, and I don’t care for anyone.

“Another voice : ‘Arrest the blackguard.’

“Fitzgerald : ‘Some of you will go down to the cells in a minute’ (General laughter.)”²

Chief Fitzgerald testified that Dundas was once a quiet place on Sundays until these open-air meetings disturbed the peace. The chief claimed that Mason was always shouting in a very excited manner, prompting the chief to consider him to be crazy.

For the defense, Austin Crowley disputed the chief’s claim and said that the noise and general disturbances did not begin until the chief interfered and arrested Mr. Mason.

Mayor Wardell had heard enough and decided to conclude proceedings by telling the defendants that he would not convict them of anything, but would give them two weeks during which they would be watched, if they repeated any street preaching, they would be arrested and dealt with severely.

The Hamilton Times carried two stories about the Street Preaching hearing in the Dundas Town Hall. In one, the basic details of what went on were very much the same as the Spectator except for the following which the Times chose to include:

“The Mayor asked why they could not occupy some building for their services.

“Mr. Mason : ‘There are lots of churches, I know, but we consider that we can better reach a class who will not enter a building for worship but working as we do. No objection is offered to such as us elsewhere; we are behind the age in Dundas. They don’t stop it in Hamilton or Toronto.’

“Mayor Wardell : ‘It is none of my business what the authorities in other towns do. I am determined to preserve the peace of the town of Dundas.’

“There were some unseemly interruptions among the crowd of spectators, who for the most part appeared to sympathize with the defendants. The Mayor ordered Chief Fitzgerald to keep order or clear out the offenders.”³

     ³ “A Dundas Sensation : Mayor Wardell Prohibits Street Preaching in the Town : Defense By the Itinerants : The Accused Found Guilty and Given Two Weeks to Capitulate.”

Hamilton Times. November 21, 1883.

In the same issue of the Times, another article appeared about the Street Preaching matter in Dundas. Noting that it was “From our own Correspondent” the article was both an analysis of the issues involved and a quite humorous commentary on the Dundas Mayor and Chief of Police :

“The great agony is over; that is, matters have been left pretty much as they were respecting street preaching. Great things were expected as soon as it became known that the Mayor had set apart an evening for the purpose of investigating the charge made against Messrs. Mason and Townsend by Chief of Police Fitzgerald. That worth grew into importance, and on the streets became the cynosure of all eyes. Newspaper men buttonholed him, while indignant citizens hurriedly remarked, ‘You have made a mistake;’ while still others were good enough to intimate that they did not blame him as he was acting under orders. ‘No,’ said the Chief, ‘nor would you blame the Mayor either, if you knew all the circumstances.’

“Evening found the Town Hall filled, and His Worship probably never had so large an audience before to hear him dispensing justice. Public opinion seemed divided, but the greater number expressed regret at the occurrence, and some pressed upon the Mayor to drop the matter, but he had made his mind up to go through with it. In fact, he wanted an opportunity to tell the offenders that they would receive no mercy hereafter, insofar as he and the chief were concerned.

“The trial was only a sort of travesty, and simply developed that neither “Cecilites,” Salvationists nor any other set of shouting outside preachers would be allowed to bawl, whistle or sing unless it was under the leadership of a deaf mute.

“The Mayor was considered by some to be rather unreasonable, especially when he declared his intention of taking the bull by the hornsd. It is to be hoped that he will be satisfied by taking by the tails the cows that make early incursions into gardens. By his order, the cows are shup up all night, and in the morning they seem to be hungry enough to eat up the vegetables, garden and all.

“None of your nonsense, Mr. Wardell, but inside of crushing out ‘Cecilism’ just try your hand in the way of crushing out cows. If they are not street preachers, they rise early enough to do more harm in an hour than a ‘Cecilite’ could do in ten years.

“Well, it is some consolation to know that we shall have rest for two weeks, that being His Worship’s period of probation for street preachers to learn manners as respects street howling. What a chance this gives the Salvation Army to do some extra work in the way of trying to rope in our worthy Mayor, who has told Messrs. Mason and Townsend ‘to go and sin no more.’ What a text he has given them, and won’t they improve upon it too.

“The dismissal of the case has given great satisfaction, but what a time the Chief will have watching the parties. Some parties occasionally get out from Hamilton, perhaps from the asylum, who make night hideous, but the Chief fails to hear their shouting and lets them go on. Perhaps he is comfortably provided with a bed about that time, as the Hamilton boys are the reverse of early risers, consequently they go into bed late, just to bother the toll-keepers, for the street railway stops at a respectable hour in the night.”⁴

⁴ “The Woes of Dundas : Some Matters Needing Attention if All Shouting is to Be Put Down : Mayor Wardell’s Crusade.”

Hamilton Times.  November 21, 1883.

1883-11-12is

John Knapman was a popular man in the Hamilton of 1883. Well-known on many accounts, including his skills as a master carpenter. At a time when Hamilton’s telephone network was expending rapidly, he was pressured to finish the task he was hired for by working on a Sunday, so that the upgrades to the system could go public on the following Monday:

 “Another name has been added to the list of those fatal accidents that seem to be connected with the telephone company’s existence in this city. For some days past the company have been having new poles put up, and the wires changed from the old to the new. As a consequence business has been nearly suspended, or rather, the wires having been crossed, considerable confusion has been the result.

“The wires run from poles on the corner of King and Hughson streets up to the roof of the Hamilton Provident and Loan Company’s building, in which the company’s offices are situated. On the roof they enter into what is technically known as ‘the wire house,’ and from thence pass down through the roof into the office below. The ‘wire house’  that has always been there has got to be too small, and when the change was made to the poles, the powers that be thought it advisable to have the old house taken down and a larger one substituted. To this end they engaged Mr. John Knapman, a master carpenter, of No. 14 Emerald street. The job was almost finished Saturday night when Mr. Knapman left off work, and a couple of hours more would have seen it finished. Mr. Knapman left off with the intention of finishing off this morning, but the manager of the company not satisfied with this, pressed him to return Sunday morning early and do it. Mr. Knapman demurred, but at their earnest solicitation and to have everything in readiness for them to proceed with their business as usual this morning, he finally consented to do as they wished.

“Yesterday morning then, about 7 o’clock, Mr. Knapman proceeded to the roof of the building. The new house is immediately on the east side, and as the work to be done was right on that side of the house, he had put up a scaffolding to get at it.

“To get his scaffolding in shape was but a moment’s work, and he had a couple of boards across the projecting timbers but neglected, unfortunately, to nail them down. He got out on them, and had just commenced work when he stepped on the end of one of the boards, which, being unfastened, flew up, and he fell to the roof of Messrs. A. Harvey and company’s wholesale grocery, some 20 feet below. He lit on his head, and the force of the fall broke his skull. Assistance came promptly, and he was taken to his home, where he lingered for a couple of hours, unconscious to the last. He died quietly.

“Mr. Knapman was a member in good standing of Crescent Lodge, I.O.O.F., and was also a leading member of the St. George’s Benevolent Society. He leaves a wife and six children to mourn his loss. Mrs. Knapman has been an invalid for many years, and the news of the sad accident has had a very severe effect upon her; indeed, at the time of writing, it is feared that she will not recover the shock. Fortunately, the deceased leaves his family well provided for.

“He was an Englishman by birth, being born in Millbrook, Devonshire county, England, and was aged 46. He came to Canada some 14 years ago, and located at once in Hamilton, where he has been ever since. He was a warden in the John Street Wesley Church, and took a great deal of interest in church affairs. Possessed of a genial, kindly nature and pleasant manner, he made hosts of friends, and the bereaved family have the sympathy of all who knew him and them. He will be buried on Tuesday at 2 o’clock, the lodge of the Oddfellows to which he belonged attending the funeral.”¹

¹“A Fall From a Roof : John Knapman Tumbles From the Telephone Building : And Falls Twenty Feet, His Injuries Resulting Fatally – A Very Sad and Unfortunate Accident.”

Hamilton Spectator.   November  12, 1883