Fro THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—A letter on
this subject (Spectator, March 12th) seems to ask for a reply. Yes; it does at first sight seem curious that poor gentlewomen do not adopt teaching as a profession. On closer inspection the reason is obvious. It is an " out- door " the teacher does not live on the premises. The training involves many examinations, and in the present unsettled state of education there is no certainty of employment, what now exists may be entirely swept away ere long. The long hours in class are trying, mentally and physically ; the pay, probably 260 to 280, without board and lodging, is not attractive. Compare this to other professions. A nurse gets board, lodging, laundry, clothes, and a salary of at least 225. A cook gets board, lodging, laundry, possibly beer-money, and wages from 222. A parlour-maid gets board, lodging; laundry, perhaps beer-money, and wages from 216. For dressmaking, millinery, or showroom, after three years' apprenticeship, board, lodging, and wages from 215. The very lowest sum you can reckon for board is 5s, a week, but with lodging it is usually averaged at 220 per annum. Laundry comes to 23 or £4. This makes the cost of board and laundry 224 at the lowest; or for better class of living, the whole assessed at the lowest boarding- house charge of 30s. a week, exclusive of clothes, you will find a young gentlewoman's cost of living comes to as much as, or rather more than, the ordinary school teacher's salary, leaving no margin. Many women do not possess the faculty of teaching, nor the faculty for passing examinations, nor the strength to stand the strain, nor are they willing to live alone in lodgings in a strange neighbourhood.—I am,
Previous page
