Mr. Beswick's discoveries now. prove that this is a mistake. The eastern wall is a modern construction, including even the pool Birket Israil, and every other work whose sides are perpendicular offsets of the modern east wall, and look to it as a base of verification. Every old work on the eastern side of the northern wall of the Haram, from the eastern valley of the Bezetha hill, where the 352 ft. of scarped rock ends, is wholly modern, and did not exist when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. On the other hand, everything old within the limits of this scarp is of a more ancient date than anything east of it. The 351.54 ft. of scarp is the width of the Bezetha hill, and indicates where the old line of the third wall ran when Titus took Jerusalem.

The length of scarped rock being a measure of the width of Bezetha hill, also indicates the space between the second and third walls; at its western end was the second wall, and at its eastern end was the third wall. At the eastern end of this scarp it turns directly north, forming a clear corner or angle. The old north wall ran from this corner along the foundations of the Antonia westward, and joined the old west wall at the extreme northern end of the north-west cloister.

The second wall ran direct from the Antonia cloister to the pool Struthius, passing right through its middle from end to end. Josephus says: "The bank which was raised at the Antonia was raised by the fifth legion over against the middle of that pool which is called Struthius."—" Wars," V., II, 4.

The bank was raised against the wall running through the middle of the pool. John's party undermined the bank, cutting away the underlying rock. Mr. Beswick calls attention to the evidence which exists to this day of the rock having been taken away from this particular spot, in line with the middle of the pool. The scarped rock under the barracks and Serai ends abruptly, and leaves an intervening space between it and the direct line of the western wall with the middle of this pool, Struthius. scarped rock, directly in front of the southern end of the pool, has been leveled and carried away to the extent required. ("Wars," v., 11, 4.) The second wall clearly ran up north-west along the western side of the hill Bezetha; and the third wall clearly ran up the eastern side of the same hill. All beyond this, including the traditional pool Birket Israil and eastern wall, is mod

The

IDENTIFICATION OF NUMEROUS SITES.

Mr. Beswick has extended his researches beyond the site of the Temple; he has traced Nehemiah's builders from end to end of the great wall, and has identified the sites of the gates and towers enumerated in the narrative of that patriotic leader (Nehemiah iii.), including the Sheep-gate, Corner-gate, Fishgate, Valley-gate, Dung-gate; also the Towers of Meah, Hananeel, Furnaces, Siloam, and the Great Tower which lieth out from the King's house. But the most important identification is the site of David's sepulcher. Mr. Beswick proposes to publish a work in which these subjects are discussed separately.

The rock was found to be scarped and cut down where it had cropped up too high, so as to reduce it to the required level of either platform or steps. This is especially the case at the northern end of the mosque platform, and for a short distance at the southern end near the Cup, and at the same distance from the Sakhra in both cases. The direction and location of the sides of the courts, as laid down in this plan when traced on the Ordnance Map of the Haram, led at once to the means of identifying a number of important sites, and furnished a satisfactory reason for the existence and location of many rock-cut structures and scarpings which have baffled all attempts at explanation. The two cruciform tanks, Nos. 6 and 36, in the Ordnance Survey Map, fall into their proper place, and become the two gates or entrances, for male and female, from the Court of Gentiles to the Court of Israel, the smaller cruciform tank, No. 6, being to the east of the larger entrance, and in the proper place for the women to enter the women's court, with

their entrances to the south, as the case required.

The Jews' Wailing Place also falls into The outer wall of position with the rest. the Old Temple Area under Solomon, if prolonged, would strike the very gate-way to the Wailing Place, and the outer wall of the Court of Gentiles would cut the Wailing Place into two equal parts of 30 cubits= 44.31134 feet each length. Doubtless the old Jews who selected this spot as the Wailing Place knew something of the location of the Temple Courts, for it could hardly have been lost to the Jews of those times, in whose memories every vestige would be cherished and held as a landmark by which to identify the limits and site of that Temple whose history has filled the world with its glory and renown.

It is impossible to foresee the important changes in Biblical literature which must necessarily grow out of this discovery. The men and women of Biblical times will no longer be mere puppets, living in a mythical temple whose site no one can identify. A reality will now pervade the narrative; its stories will come to us like a new revelation, with a location and name, making the actions of those whose deeds were done in the Temple intelligible and clear, which beforetime were seemingly fantastic, and oftentimes inexplicable. Fact will take the place of fancy, and topographical knowledge and clearness will take the place of conjecture and ignorance. To know this Temple intimately, to be able to describe its peculiarities, to illustrate the ancient story and narrative of the Old and New Testament, and to give life-like reality to incidents occurring in the Holy City and Temple, are results of the very highest order. Every writer on Biblical geography and history, every minister who attempts an illustration of his text, every teacher in a Sundayschool who associates the Gospel history with illustrations, does this more or less vaguely only because the maps mislead, or the standard text-books are defective in their descriptions and inaccurate in their pictorial representations.

I Do not propose to sing the woes of the American housekeeper. If aught needs to be added to the body of recent literature on that theme, the impulse to write must come from fuller hearts than mine. Let those who suffer relate how slatternly is Dinah, how impudent Bridget, how stupid Wilhelmina, and, alas! how fleeting were the delusive joys of Chang-Wang, son of the Sun. Propria quæ maribus. Because women invade the forum, and crowd us from our places on the public platform, shall we, therefore, take refuge in the kitchen, or be so base as seem to know what passes in that realm of blackness and smoke? Perish the thought! The object of this paper is to present facts that are not of personal experience, are authenticated by the testimony of no single witness, and are of no private interpretation; facts which pertain to the life, not of individuals and families, but of communities and States; facts gathered by thousands of men, who had as little notion what should be the aggregate purport of their contributions as my postman has of the tale of joy, of sorrow, or of debt, which lies snugly folded in the brown paper envelope he is leaving this moment at my door. No momentary fretfulness of a mistress overburdened with cares; no freak of insolence in a maid elated by a sudden access of lovers; no outbreak of marital indignation at underdone bread, or overdone steak, can disturb the serenity of this impersonal and unconscious testimony of the Census. many millions of rays that fall confusedly upon the lens which every tenth year is held up before the nation, are cast upon the screen in one broad, unbroken beam of light, truth pure, dispassionate, uncolored.

There are,

The English Census discriminates many varieties of domestic service. besides "the domestic servant in general," male or female, the "coachman," the groom," the "gardener," all of the sterner sex; while gentle woman contributes to the list the "housekeeper," the "cook," the "housemaid," the "nurse," the "laundrymaid," and the "char-woman.' All these titles are respectably filled in the Census, as might be expected in a country where the distinctions of wealth are so marked, and where the household among the upper classes is organized with a completeness

VOL. XI.-18.

approaching that of the Roman familia under the Empire.

In the United States, however, the distinctions of domestic service have not proceeded far enough to make it worth while to maintain such a classification of rank and work; nor are the agencies provided for our Census adequate to collect facts in any direction where discrimination is required. It was, indeed, attempted in the publication of the Eighth Census (1860) to preserve a few of the simpler forms. Thus "cooks" were separately reported; but the number of the class was disappointing, being but 353 for the United States; of whom 10 were found in Arkansas, 24 in Delaware, 6 in Florida, 3 in Georgia, 18 in Kansas, 14 in Kentucky, 237 in Louisiana, and 41 in Michigan. The considerable States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Massachusetts, had, if we may trust this account, no cooks in 1860. The universal consumption of raw food by such large communities cannot fail to excite the astonishment of the future historian.

The

The attempt to preserve the class "housekeeper" resulted in the report of a larger aggregate number than of cooks; but the distribution of that number was hardly more reasonable. Alabama, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia had none, individually or collectively. Think of several thousand "first families" of Virginia,―of the Rhetts and Barnwells, the Ruffins and Pettigrews of South Carolina without a housekeeper among them! remaining States of the Union were, indeed, allowed to boast their housekeepers; but the figures were such as to excite incredulity. New Hampshire had 1,245; Connecticut, 25; Pennsylvania, 2,795; New York, 940; Massachusetts, 4,092; Michigan, 20. Still another distinction was attempted, the precise idea of which is not at this date manifest, between "domestics" and "servants." Alabama had no domestics, any more than it had cooks; Arkansas had 797; California and Connecticut, none; Delaware, 1,688; Florida, 631; Georgia, Illinois and Indiana, none; Iowa, 358; Kansas, none; Kentucky, 1,782. This completed the tale of domestics in the United States. New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia were as destitute of domestics as before the discov

ery of America by Christopher Columbus. When it came to "servants," these States were more than made good. New York counted her 155,282; Pennsylvania, 81,233; Massachusetts, 37,464.

This brief recital will probably suffice to show the inexpediency, in the present social condition of our people, of attempting to divide the class of domestic servants according to distinctions of occupation, which are certain to be affected where they do not exist, and disregarded quite as generally where they do exist. In the further course of this paper, this class, whether at 1870 or at 1860, will, therefore, be treated as a whole, without discrimination of cook or chambermaid, butler or scullion, gorgeous flunky or simple drudge. Prior to the enumeration of 1870, it was an interesting subject of speculation whether the social and economical causes which had produced such marked effects upon the ways of business throughout the country, upon the general scale of expenditure, and upon the habits of domestic life, would be found to have increased materially the number of hired servants in families. At the South, indeed, where the negroes, who mainly supplied the domestic service of 1860, had come to own themselves, and hence to be in a position not only to demand wages, but to take on airs; where, moreover, the general impoverishment of the proprietor class, and the slow and painful recovery of industrial production necessitated the retrenchment of expenditure, it required no careful count of the people to make it certain that more persons, in proportion to population, were not employed in the offices of the household in 1870 than at the earlier date.

But of the Northern and Middle States, the reverse was reasonably to be assumed. Not only had rapid progress been made in the Upper Ten Thousand toward European standards of equipage and service, but it was generally claimed and admitted that the middle class of our population had made a decided movement in the same direction; that life was freer with us than it used to be, family expenditure more liberal, luxuries more widely diffused, assistance more readily commanded in all departments, industrial or domestic. Few would have ventured to predict that the results of the Census would show that, while social requirements have increased on every hand; while the appetites and tastes of the household have been rendered more difficult and exact ing by the diversification of the national

diet, and by the popularization of foreign fruits and spices, of condiments and game; while we are everywhere taking on the semblance of greater ease and indulgence,-with these facts in view few would have thought the tendency of the age is not more and more to place servants in the houses of the people, or believed that, however it may be with the abodes of luxury and fashion, the wives and the mothers of the great middle class are discharging their daily duties, and keeping up their outward conformity to the demands of society, with a diminishing, rather than an increasing, body of hired help. Yet such is the fact, as revealed by the count of 1870. The sixteen free States in 1860 showed 474,857 domestic servants of all descriptions. The same States, ten years later, showed but 570,054, being a gain of only 201⁄2 per cent. Meanwhile the aggregate population of these States had increased upward of 27 per cent.

The States in which this relative decrease in the number of servants has been most marked, are the New England States, together with New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The Western and Northwestern States, on the other hand, have, without exception, increased the proportion of their domestic service largely since 1860, showing that, while the commercial and manufacturing States are coming to feel the necessity of economizing in this direction of expenditure, the well-to-do inhabitants of the agricultural States are just beginning to indulge themselves somewhat freely in the luxury of being served and waited on.

Abandoning now the retrospect, and grouping the States of the Union according to the facts of the present time, we shall in our further comparisons set the number of domestic servants in each State, not against the total population, but against the number of families, as affording the best measure of the amount of service secured.

Let us turn first to the old slave-breeding States. Here, in former times, the tendency to a plethora of domestic service was very marked. Niggers" were native and to the manor born. They represented no expenditure but that of the corn and pork necessary to bring them to the age, and size, and strength to perform the arduous duties of lying around on the floor or in the sun, and answering an occasional call to some personal service. In "one of the first families" cook had her legion of minor functionaries; the coachman was at the head of a little state; every member of the family, from youngest to eldest, had his or her own body