Domestic service dominated women's lives in the first half of the twentieth century. The largest
sector of female employment, paradoxically there was a perceived servant problem. Defined as
a shortage of female applicants, it generated much debate both within and outside Parliament.
One potential answer was training unemployed women to fill domestic service
vacancies. To this end, successive Governments sanctioned and funded training centres,
operating alongside State-run Employment Exchanges. This aspect of domestic service has
been largely neglected by historians, yet it formed a vital component of Government policy,
receiving active support from successive ministries.
This thesis focuses on the semi-autonomous organisation administering those training
centres - the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment (CCWTE).
Operational from 1914 until 1940 in a predominantly male-ordered society, the female-run
CCWTE played a central role in State unemployment programmes. Yet, the CCWTE gradually
became confined to domestic service training, being forced to abandon its other courses. This
thesis seeks to show how this narrowing of opportunities was entrenched in traditional views of
women's place in the home - albeit someone else's home. The male-dominated Government's
aim was twofold - reduce the number of unemployed female claimants, fill domestic service
vacancies. This aim ignored a fundamental element of the domestic service - its unpopularity
among workers. Without addressing root issues of status and conditions, the training scheme to
solve the servant problem was doomed to failure.
This thesis explores the impact of the CCWTE's training work in relation to the servant
problem, against constraints imposed by economic and political changes. Also included is an
investigation of the role of official migration schemes. Since the servant problem was entwined
with broader issues of employment and unemployment, this thesis affords insights into attitudes
towards the female workforce, often manifested in gender and class bias, discriminatory
practices and restricted opportunities
