CORRESPONDENCE

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIX, Issue 6868, 5 March 1883, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE

BARMAIDS. 10 TUB BDXTOB. Sib —Kindly allow mo to inform "Sobriety” once and for all that 1 have no direct or indirect interest on the publicans’ side, except that shared in by a far larger portion of the general public throughout the English-speak-ing world, than that small section or tho community which bo affects to represent. I write merely as a man, and an Englishman, to defend the aspersions which an anonymous writer has, with tho manliness peculiar to narrow minds, thrown on a class of women in our midst. lam sure I never said that men and youths were allured by bar-girl*. If they are, X should not throw the first stone. If 1 thought that " Sobriety” had a “muddled brain ” 1 ihould not be impolite and personal enough to tell him so, unless too much bored by his somewhat rigid presence. I could point out to " Sobriety ” oxbarmaids, wives of lawyers and other men holding good positions in many parts of tho (Monies—ladies who take a front rank in society, and whose surroundings ore perhaps sufficiently aristocratic to guard them from the intrusions of “ Sobriety.” Their children (I ihould not call them progeny) are much the same as other children { if anything, noticeable for the taste of their attire. 1 may also claim to speak from .experience, and as “ Sobriety ” keeps, and has “ presumably " always kept out of hotels, it may fairly be infemd that my experience is the larger. I can honestly Inform my friend that I am totally unable to tell him in what class I shall marry. If I loVod and respected a barmaid, the fact of her profession would prove no bar. The woman 1 had chosen for'my wife would probably answer well enough for my nurse. This closes the- correspondence on my part. If “ Sobriety ” would like to meet a “ muddlebrained idiot” in argument, publicly or privately, he can do so on leaving his address with you.--I am, Ac., OBITIO.

March 8. JUNIOR ATTENDANTS AT BUNNY-' BIDE. TO THB KDIXOB. Sib, —A letter appeared in your columns a week ox eo ago, headed “Junior Attend act* at Sannyside," dealing with the extremely

low rote of wages paid to junior attendants. Allw lubjsct is Olio which affect* not plflyw* of the Atjhxm merely, but the public »fc Urge, I would, through your paper, call publio ftttsnUon to the hct*. i’/eviou* tolho general 10 per cent reducWob, attendants at Baooyilde were paid at therate of £127 10* per annum, ratios* to the value of 1* por day, »od uniform. In accordance wi!h the recommendation of the late Dr Sitae, the pay was reduced to £BO { then again came the 10 per cent, which left the salary £72 per year. The 10 per cent ha* Been added to the lalery, bat neither the original, or first reduction of Ml 16», «or *»y Pthe pay thua remaining at £&0, (The above figure* refer to senior male attendant* | juniors receive £6O, and ration* a* above.

In addition to the reduction, the uniform* have been stopped, and attendants mutt now find ail their own clothing. This, considering the nature of tho work requires!, and the amount of clothing injured or destroyed by patients, is a serious matter. I have said that this is a public question. It it so, inasmuch as it seriously affects tho working of a very important public Institution. Home of the old hands still remain as attendants, hoping for bettor rimes. But the greateet difficulty, 1 am told, is experienced in procuring the services of competent men to fill tho frequent vacancies in the staff. Suitable men cannot be found at the money. Men of some kind must be hod, and the inevitable result is the evil* attendant upon incompotency and frequent change, the possible consequence* of which la an asylum for the insane it will bo unnecessary to enlarge upon. The employer who gives less than the market rate of wages will get inferior Pien, and those only. This is what the Government is doing in this particular case. I need not dwell upon the arduous and often unpleasant nature of the work required, nor of the necessarily long hours; neither need 1 speak of the danger to life entailed—all bhese things will bo understood a* unavoidable on the part of attendants at such an institution. I heartily agree with you when, in a leading article of a few months ago, ypu say, referring to attendant*; “ Their work i* of tho highest; order, requiring a rare combination of fine qualities, and (heir pay is no better than that of prison warders.” (You might have said with troth their pay doe* not average half that paid to prison warders.) Truly “this matter should be attended to."—-I am, Ac.,