THE QUESTION OF TIPPING.
IT is not always easy to appreciate the troubles of other people, but in some cases we may, at least, plead a good excuse for want of sympathy. Such a case, we think, is furnished by the writer in the National Review, who, under the heading of "A. Country House Question," discusses the troubles experienced by country-house visitors in the matter of tips. If ever there was a question which depended entirely upon circumstances and common-sense for its solution, it is surely that of the amount of the gratuities which we offer to our friends' servants. It must vary, one would think, accord- ing to the amount of trouble which we have given them, the willingness they have shown in our service, and our own in- clination. But that does not seem to be the opinion of the National Review ; nor is the article in that periodical the only one that has discussed this question from a very different standpoint. The country-house visitor of whom this article speaks, is a person of no discretion who is guided absolutely by the example of his fellow-creatures. He does not distribute tips for his own satisfaction, but because he understands that " tipping " is the custom ; and he regulates the value of his gifts not by his own inclination, but by what he supposes to be the usual practice of people in the same position as himself. To judge from what is said on the subject in the National Review, there must not only be many people in that same position, but also a good many of the same mind, and this game of "Follow your neighbour" has landed them in difficulties which anybody might have foreseen to be inevitable. In order to make sure that they are not giving too little, they have habitually given too much, with the result that the standard which they have set them- selves has gradually risen to an extremely inconvenient height. The question that now confronts the visitor is, in the words of the National Review, "What's the very least I can give without looking mean ? " and, thanks to his own weak-minded extravagance, it is one that cannot be answered to his own satisfaction without dipping deeply into a slender purse. We say" to his own satisfaction," for after all it is only in his own eyes that this poor-spirited creature looks mean when his tips are small. His fellow-guests have no oportunity of comparing his liberality with their own ; his host, naturally, knows nothing of the amount that his servants receive ; and the servants themselves—those whose good opinions are worth having—think no worse of a man because he rewards their service rather according to his own means than their dignity. What kind of a man is he, we wonder, who quails before the frown of a discontented butler? Is his case really deserving of sympathetic consideration ? The National Review seems to think so, to judge from the seriousness with which it advocates a social reform in his favour.
The present scale of tipping in country-houses is, the writer thinks, too high. We are decidedly of the same opinion, if the tariff which he puts before us is anything like a correct indication of general custom. Here is a list of the sums which must be disbursed by a young couple, without servants, who spend "the inside of a week for shooting," and the writer adds, "No one will deny that these tips are on a low scale :"—" Head-gamekeeper, £2; under-keeper, specially helpful, 5s.; butler (this is very low), 5s.; footman, who looks after guest, as,; housemaid, as. ; coachman, who drives to and from station, 2s. Gd." Total, £3 2s. 6d. The young couple would have beert less expensively lodged at a hotel. And why is the cook left out ? Surely if one is to tip half the household, it is impolitic to omit so important a personage. "Many people," he continues, "in a really large place, give the butler 10e., or even a pound, on the plea that if they do not he will probably leave their glasses empty at dinner. Others, again, especially if they are rather bad shots, think it a necessary piece of policy to give the head-gamekeeper a five-pound note, and so insure that they are not left out when the big shoot takes place in January." Truly, the times must have changed, and ourselves with them, far more than we had fancied. A new race of men must inhabit country-houses to-day, with a new race of guests to pay thew, visits. It used not to be the case, that the head-gamekeeper should invite the guests, or that the guests were required to pay the butler for their champagne. But to return to the tariff, which we are told is an exceptionally low one ; let us.
first consider the question of the indoor servants. Why should a young couple tip both the butler and a footman ?' If the husband gave 5s. to the particular man-servant,.
whether butler or footman, who acted as his valet during those five days, he would surely have done all that could be expected of him. We will not quarrel with the housemaid's tip,—it de- pends so entirely on the services which may have been required of her by the lady of the party. Nor is half-a-crown am extravagant present for the coachman. But two pounds to the head-gamekeeper is foolish, and a five-pound note is simply idiotic. Of course, tips to gamekeepers must vary according to the circumstances ; one does not feel inclined to give the same amount for a day's partridge-shooting as one would for a day later on in the coverts ; but still, in no case, we think, would a sensible man give more than a sovereign to one keeper for three or four days' sport. There is always an underling, underkeeper, or beater, who carries his cartridges and has to be tipped also. What is the use of giving large- sums to the gamekeeper ? With all respect to the National'. Review, we do not believe that there are very many places, where the gamekeeper is allowed absolute control over the arrangements of the shooting. If the host is anything of a sportsman himself, he generally insists upon keeping,. not only the placing of the guns, but also all the- other arrangements of a beat in his own hands. Even when everything is left to the discretion of the head-game. keeper, we do not believe that heavy tips will induce him. to put a bad shot in what he knows to be the best place. After all, he is still a gamekeeper, and likes to see his birds. accounted for in a workmanlike fashion. As a rule, he even more concerned than his master in the results of a day's, bag ; and some grumpy old country parson, whose tips are as scanty as his aim is unerring, is far more likely to find. favour in his eyes than the brilliant appearance and lavish, generosity of a young man who has not learnt "to hold straight."
The practice of tipping our friends' servants is a very right and proper one as long as it is not carried to excess. We give extra trouble, and by privately offering a reasonable compen- sation we help to keep our hosts' household in a good temper: But the people who exalt this practice to the level of a law, and who bemoan themselves because their own folly has made- the law too heavy for their comfort, are—to speak plainly— nothing more or less than weak-minded fools. Whence comes, this slavish desire to do in all small things exactly what our neighbours do ? A man is a man; he is not a sheep that ho should always require the comfort and support of the rest of the flock. It is really the most pitiful form of moral cowardice, if one looks at it from a proper point of view. There are, as everybody knows, shoddy and vulgar people in the world, who live in vulgar houses and entertain shoddy guests,. and, no doubt, the relations between themselves and their guests and their servants are as vulgar as their surroundings. But what import the ostentation and the folly of these- people, and why should any reasonable man concern himself' with their manners and customs ? The fact that Ponsonby de Tomkyns has given a ten-pound note to the groom of- the chambers of Sir Gorgius Midas need not revolutionise country life. An impecunious man can still afford to. spend a few days with a duke and distribute very humble doucewrs amongst his host's servants. As a matter of fact, the good-will of other people's servants is not always to be bought. A pleasant manner and a friendly word or two will go much further in winning their consideration than a heavy tip, as the writer in the National Review points out, Indeed, the counsel which he offers to the country-house guest is sensible enough : what we complain of is the fact that he,. too, seems to think that it is incumbent upon one visitor to give the same amount as another. We do not see the neces- sity; it is a matter in which every man ought to be a law to himself. There are oases in which it may be right that a man should give a very heavy tip ; a servant in the house of Sir Gorgius Midas, for instance, deserves all the compensation. that he can get, and a guest in that house ought, in justice,. to be heavily fined.
Previous page
