International Classification of Servants

The International Classification of Servants
in the Nineteenth Century
WOOLLARD, Matthew
AHDS History
University of Essex - England
A sidelight to the problem of the classification of domestic servants outlined in the article above
(pp. - ) relating specifically to England and Wales can be seen in the various attempts to produce
internationally applicable statistical equivalences or classifications. In this short note I propose to look
solely at those produced before the beginning of the twentieth century, rather than delve into those used
post World War Two.
The International Statistical Congress was first mooted during the days of the 1851 Great
Exhibition of London. The first meeting was held in Brussels in September 1853, under the guiding hand
of Adolphe Quételet. The purpose of the meeting was, as in the statistical spirit of the day, to bring
together like-minded people to consider some of the pressing questions regarding the collection and
presentation of statistical material. The first meeting had 150 delegates representing 25 countries, mostly
European, many of whom were government officials, but as in the case of the British strictly speaking
were private individuals attending a scientific conference. A total of nine congresses were held before its
demise in 1879 1 . This first Congress addressed a number of issues regarding different areas of statistical
endeavour including the taking of the census. But it was not until the Congress in London in 1860 when
any concrete steps were taken to propose a classification which could be used in more than one country.
This first attempt was made by William Farr, the Statistical Superintendent of the General Register Office,
and was essentially a list of principal occupations in English, French and German arranged in classes; and
while Farr did not attempt to obtain the congress’ approval of this classification it should be noted that it
was almost identical to that which he used in the 1861 census of England and Wales 2 . Farr’s proposal was
not discussed at the congress, ostensibly due to lack of time, but also presumably because there was
unwillingness to accept the scheme in its totality.
[Table 1]
1
2
The nine meetings were: Brussels 1853, Paris 1855, Vienna 1857, London 1860, Berlin 1863, Florence
1867, The Hague 1869, St. Petersburg 1872 and Budapest 1876. Each published its own reports and
programmes.
The author(s) of the Irish census report suggested that the ‘scheme was not wanting in general harmony’,
but was misleading. They picked up on the translation of parish clerk in French as clerc de paroisse - a nonexistent term. See 1871 CENSUS OF IRELAND, Part III General report, BPP 1876 LXXXI.1, 63. Other
infelicities are present: why does an innkeeper’s wife translate as hôtelière and it is doubtful whether the
French would have used the term Pensionnaires de Chelsea?
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SERVANT PROJECT, vol. II, Seminar 2. Oslo, 13-15 June 2002, pp. -.
ACTES DU SERVANT PROJECT, vol. II, Séminaire 2. Oslo, 13-15 juin 2002, pp. -.
MATTHEW WOOLLARD
2
Congress did not discuss occupational classifications further until 1872 when it met in St.
Petersburg. The most resounding failure at this meeting was the production of a classification scheme
which translated occupational titles between French, English, German and Russian presented by L.
Maïkow and S. Stchépkine 3 . And while the scheme was said to based on the census publications of
Belgium, America, France, Great Britain, Italy, Prussia and of the unpublished census of St. Petersburg as
well as the lists of occupations drawn up by Ficker for Austria and by Farr for Great Britain it was not
considered further 4 . This proposal was doomed because of translation problems. The Irish census report of
1871 commented archly 5 :
notwithstanding the well known aptitude of the Sclavonic (sic) nations for the acquirement of
languages...[the authors]...appear to have qualified for the performance of their undertaking by an extremely
moderate acquaintance with English
As will be seen from Table 2 which contains part of the scheme, there are potential problems with
this classification. The whole system is truly socio-economic, but for comparative purposes it would be an
impractical scheme, attempting to make a distinction between private service and attendants.
[Table 2]
The series of congresses stopped after the meeting in Budapest; mainly because of their unwieldy
nature, but also because the newly-founded statistical bureau in Germany and other bureaux in the various
German states, wanted no internationally binding decisions to be influenced by the French; the congress
scheduled to meet in Rome in 1880 was cancelled 6 . However, at the jubilee of the Statistical Society of
London in 1885 a compromise solution to the problem of the lack of an international body of statisticians
was put forward: an independent international statistical association where individuals, who were still
mainly government employees, discussed current statistical problems, but without proselytising the
‘official’ view, and without having to recommend resolutions to national governments to implement
legislation 7 . The Institute held its first conference in Rome in 1887 and conferences were held biannually
until 1913 when the war intervened.
At the second conference of the International Statistical Institute in Paris in 1889, where
discussions on the uniformity of census-taking were continuing, Jacques Bertillon (1851–1922) presented
an outline scheme for classifying occupations 8 ; Bertillon is perhaps best known today for producing a
standard classification for causes of death - the international standard in use today is based on his
classification of 1903. His occupational classification system was based on readings of schemes currently
in use in Britain, Italy, Germany, France and Belgium. His most pressing concern, apart from attempting
to draw out common ground from these schemes, was to distinguish between makers and dealers. He is
3
4
5
6
7
8
MAÏKOW L. and STCHÉPKINE S., “Essai d’une nomenclature classifiée des professions et des
conditions”, in CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE STATISTIQUE, Compte-rendu de la huitième session
à Saint-Pétersbourg. Première partie. Programme, St. Petersburg, 1872, pp. 117-134.
They cite: FICKER A., Vorträge über die Vornahme der Volkszählung in Oesterreich, Vienna, 1870 and
Instructions to the clerks employed in classifying the occupations and ages of the people, London, 1872.
They note the terms Agents des abattoirs (Fr.) is given as Carver (Eng.); Frippier (Fr.) as Trödler (Ger.) and
Salesman (Eng.); Changeurs (Fr.) as Masters-at-exchange (Eng.). 1871 Census of Ireland, Part III General
report, 63. An interesting example is the translation of Entrepreneur (Fr.) into Undertaker (doubtless
through the German Unternehmer).
VON NEUMANN-SPALLART F. X., “Summary of the results of the international statistical congresses
and sketch of proposed plan of an international statistical association”, in Jubilee volume of the Statistical
Society, London, Edward Standford, 1885, pp. 284-311. Here at 300-301. WESTERGAARD H.,
Contributions to the history of statistics, London, P. S. King, 1932, pp. 181-182 gives a slightly different
story.
The formal proposal for the Institute can be found in VON NEUMANN-SPALLART F. X., op. cit.,
pp. 303-306. The remainder of the Jubilee volume of the Statistical Society, pp. 312-331 reports the
discussion and the final resolutions.
BERTILLON J., “Communication de M. le docteur J. Bertillon sur le classement des professions dans les
dénombrements de la population”, Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, 4.2, 1889, pp. 252-262.
2
THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF SERVANTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
3
scathing about the nature of the classification used in Britain which was then combining makers and
dealers under many headings, and opines that in the responses to this question that complete anarchy
reigns in statistics. As a solution, Bertillon attempted to lay out a socio-economic classification,
innovating in dividing industry into two constituent (and a supplementary) parts; the first based on the raw
materials used, the second on the basis of what the manufactured item is to be used for. He argued
cogently for employers and employees to be tabulated separately and that dependants should be tabulated
alongside those on whom they are dependent. The scheme as presented was incomplete inasmuch as it
only contained two major groupings and had no discrete occupations listed. The conference agreed in
principle to the scheme, but wanted it finalised. To expedite matters (and probably to keep it out of the
hands of an individual), a committee was invited to comment on the scheme 9 . This committee was
composed of a team of eminent international statisticians - Blenck, Bodio, Cheysson, Kőrösi, Levasseur,
Loua, Ogle, Élis Sidenbladh, Vannacque and Bertillon 10 . At the following conference in 1891 in Vienna a
revised and expanded scheme was presented to the conference 11 . This expanded scheme had 456 unit
groups. However, the ISI were unwilling to accept this scheme without further discussion and European
statistical bureaux were invited to comment on the proposal. According to Korösi numerous observations
were received on a detailed level, but a number of substantive issues were raised by European
statisticians 12 .
[Table 3]
By the following conference in Chicago in 1893 Bertillon had revised the scheme after further
consultation and presented a report that the conference accepted with some slight reservations 13 . The
outline of this scheme is shown in Table 3, and it is generally clear, though the first heading: “Members of
the family (married women, etc.) devoted to domestic work” is interesting, as at this stage it was still
considered necessary to separate wives involved in domestic work from those who didn’t carry it out. It is
perhaps interesting to note that a footnote tells us that Anders Kiaer insisted on this particular addition to
Bertillon’s original scheme. However, the most surprising feature of this part of the system is another
footnote which didn’t find its way into all of the different republications of this scheme which I have seen.
The original note was in French but has been translated here 14 :
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ibid., p. 264.
This list is from Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, 8.1 (1895), CIII and may not represent the
committee as appointed.
BERTILLON J., “Rapport de M. Bertillon sur la nomenclature des professions dans le recensement”,
Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, 6.1, 1892, pp. 263-297. This was translated into English as
“Classification of occupations in the census”, Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical
Association, 3, 1893, pp. 379-415.
KORÖSI J., Le recensement séculaire du monde en 1900. Mémoire adressé à la session de SaintPétersbourg de l’institut international de statistique, Paris, Guillaumin & Cie., 1898, p. 20.
BERTILLON J., “Rapport sur les observations faites par différents directeurs de services statistiques, à
propos du projet de nomenclature des professions présenté à leur examen par l’Institut international de
statistique (Session de Vienne, 1891)”, Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, 8.1, 1895, pp. 226239; BERTILLON J., “Projet de nomenclature des professions”, Bulletin de l’Institut International de
Statistique, 8.1, 1895, pp. 240-262. This version of the scheme is also reproduced in MINISTERO DI
AGRICOLTURA, INDUSTRIA E COMMERCIO, Studi e proposte per l’esecuzione IV censimento
generale della popolazione del regno, Roma, Tipografia nazionale di G. Bertero, 1900, pp. 88-107, where it
was accepted as the scheme to be used in the following Italian census. (For the 1911 round of censuses India
and Ceylon both accepted Bertillon’s scheme. See DENHAM E. B., Ceylon at the census of 1911,
Colombo, H. C. Cottle, 1912, pp. 448-451).
Ces rubriques ne contiendront la totalité des personnes adonnées aux travaux domestiques que dans le cas
où l’on ne distinguerait pas, par une colonne spéciale, les domestiques attachés à chaque profession. Dans le
cas où cette distinction serait faite, on ne comptera dans ce chapitre que les “domestiques” pour lesquels la
profession du maître sera inconnue. De même que les “membres de famille (femmes mariées, etc.) adonnés
3
MATTHEW WOOLLARD
4
These headings will only contain all people devoted to domestic service if a special column distinguishing
domestics attached to each profession is not used. If this distinction is made this order will only contain the
domestics for which the profession of the master is unknown. Just as “family members (married women,
etc.) devoted to domestic work” will only be allocated to this heading when the column entitled “family”
doesn’t exist and when the profession of the head of household is unknown.
This complex get-out clause for Kiaer’s suggestion, demonstrates that there were rather advanced
views on the exact economic position of wives and other family members carrying out domestic work, and
that even at the production stage of an international classification system for occupations, there were
difficulties in deciding exactly how to implement the system.
The ISI accepted these proposals, and Bertillon’s modified system was approved 15 . It languished
almost totally unused until it was superseded until the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) proposal
for what was to become known as ISCO (International Standard Classification of Occupations) in 1957
though earlier discussions on the subject had been presented by the ILO at the International Conference of
Labour Statisticians in 1923 16 .
The international statistical world thus took some fifty years to create fixed guidelines for the
classification of people by their occupation, and despite all this time, at least where domestic workers were
concerned, the solution has an unfinished and incomplete air to it, especially to British eyes, where
important distinctions in occupational groups were ignored. It is perhaps interesting to note that in the
various versions of ISCO domestic service is poorly defined, reflecting, most probably the virtual, but not
complete disappearance of this contractual form of domestic service.
This short outline of the development of international classification schemes demonstrates two
main points which relate directly to the understanding of official conceptions of domestic service in the
late nineteenth-century. First, that there was not, amongst the statistical classes in Europe, a uniform
definition of domestic service. Second, that while domestic service played an enormous role in the
economy and society, the statisticians were generally uninterested in understanding the enormous
differences within that occupational group. This is evidenced by Bertillon’s scheme which has only one
more occupational group than “minor group” 17 . In order to further examine international differences in the
relative economic importance of domestic service throughout nineteenth century Europe it is vital to first
consider national changes in classification over the period, and only when this is completed will it be
possible to make proper, informed comparisons between the different international statistical
equivalences.
15
16
17
aux travaux domestiques” ne seront comptés à cette rubrique que lorsque la colonne intitulée “famille”
n’existera pas, ou lorsque la profession du chef de ménage sera inconnue.
The quote is translated from KORÖSI J., op. cit., p. 21 but can also be found in the BISI.
See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/wedo.htm [available on 6 June 2001]. The progenitor of
ISCO was first discussed in 1949 and had an eight year gestation period.
This distinction was not confined to Europe. The first major study on domestic service in the United States
of America was undertaken by an historian. See SALMON L. M., “A statistical inquiry concerning
domestic service”, Publications of the American Statistical Association, III, 1892, pp. 89-118.
4
THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF SERVANTS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
5
Table 1. Extract from William Farr's international proposal for in 1860
Class VI: persons engaged in entertaining, clothing and performing personal offices for man
Sub-Class 1
In Boarding and Lodging
Sub-Class 2
In Attendance, Domestic Servants, etc.
Domestic Servant
Domestique
Diener
Coachman
Cocher
Kutscher
Groom
Palefrenier
Bediente
Gardener
Jardinier
Gaertner
Housekeeper
Homme de charge
Haushälter
Cook
Cuisinier
Koch
Housemaid
Servante
Magd
Nurse
Bonne
Kindermädchen
Nurse (not domestic service)
Nourrice
Amme
Inn servant
Domestique d'auberge
Kellner
Midwife
Sage-femme
Hebamme
Charwoman
Femme de journée
Aüshelferin
Source: “List of some of the principal occupations...”, Programme of the fourth session of the International Statistical Congress,
London, 1860, p. 139.
Table 2. Proposals from 1872 St Petersburg Congress
VI
1
2
3
Personnes de service
Service de la cour
Service chez les particuliers
Secrétaires privés
Compagnons
Intendants, régisseurs
Service de la maison
Domestiques
Porteurs d'eau
Portiers, concierges, suisses
Gardiens
Domestiques sans place
Personal Service
Court and household of the reigning family
Private Service
Private secretaries
Companions
Stewards
Attendants
Domestic Service
Water-carriers
Porters, gate-keepers
Watchmen, nurses
Domestic Servants without place
Source: CONGRÈS INTERNATIONAL DE STATISTIQUE, Compte-Rendu de la huitième session a St-Pétersbourg, St
Petersburg, 1872, pp. 131-132.
Table 3 The International Statistical Institute’s final classification scheme
10
55 Travail domestique
192Membres de la famille (femmes mariées,
etc.) adonnés aux travaux domestiques
193Concierges, gardiens de magasin, de
chantier, etc.
477 Membres de la famille (femmes
mariées, etc.) adonnés aux travaux
domestiques
478 Concierges, gardiens de magasin, de
chantier, etc.
194Cuisiniers et cusinières
479 Cuisiniers et cusinières
195Cochers et palefreniers
480 Cochers et palefreniers
196Autres domestiques
481 Autres domestiques
482 Femmes de ménage
Source: BERTILLON J., “Projet de nomenclature des professions”, Bulletin de l’Institut International de Statistique, 8.1, 1895,
p. 261.
5