Introduction
Build 7 — 27 September 2026
The Servants of Five Houses Lane in the 19th Century One of the opportunities that was presented to [del: the researchers of] the Lost Houses ][add: and Gardens] Group was to look at the lives of those who lived in the houses, [?"with particular emphasis on" whether those who lived "above stairs" and possibly led lives of note [or...]. However, equally valid is the pursuit of more information about those who lived "below stairs", to try to paint a picture of what life was like for them and thus giving a rounder view of what life was like for all.
The information available comes initially from the census returns for the Five Houses from 1841 until each house was demolished, the last useful census for our purposes being 1881's.
The 1841 census is of [only] limited use, as it contains much less data [than later censuses] to enable the researcher to accurately identify individuals, as no birthplace is given, ages are rounded, and job descriptions are limited to quite general types, e.g. "FS" (female servant), "MS" (male servant), rather than specific positions such as parlourmaid or footman.
Inspired by Pamela Horn's 1975 study The Rise & Fall of the Victorian Servant , an attempt has been made to describe the types of live-in servants that the Five Houses [del: of Bolingbroke Grove] employed over the period 1841–1881 and what the duties of those servants were likely to have been [sharper: "what their duties are likely to have been" or, "and their likely duties]. [wordy? "It should be borne in mind that ] these Five Houses were more often than not the second homes of the owners, rather than their principal residence, and so some of the servants may have commuted between the two, although the limitations of this study do not allow for any further investigations on this point.
[[wordy? A problem encountered in attempting to follow the lives of specific individuals who were at one time a servant in one of the Five Houses, is the perhaps unexpectedly"] ephemeral nature of their positions. Frequent changes in personnel between censuses made [it?] all the more complicated, and few servants stayed with a particular family throughout their working life. From the list on each census return, those with anything but the most commonplace names were examined, and an attempt was made to trace their lives both backwards and forwards, in the hope of being able to draw a picture of their life experience. It was surprisingly hard to do this successfully in many cases. Some people seem to just disappear from the records. The reasons for this include premature death, emigration, or inaccurate recording on the census of names, ages, birthplaces by their employer, who would have supplied the information to the census enumerator.
One immediate fact that was revealed to the researcher from Horn’s book is that there was a tax on male servants, which meant that although historically male servants were more highly prized than female, it was in fact by the Victorian period much more usual to have more female servants than male.
Servants formed the largest single employment type in England, exceeding even agricultural workers during the 19th century, and about one in five women aged under twenty were in service. The rise of the middle classes, with the notion that class and status were exemplified [?] by having a servant, meant that anyone who could afford one would have a live-in servant.
According to Mrs Beeton and other publishers of books [authorities] on household management, an income of [o]nly about £250 per year was deemed sufficient [for?], . However, a maid of all work, or general servant, carried out all manner of duties in more modest homes. Only the wealthy could afford to keep multiple servants, whose duties were more defined and where a hierarchy existed, which affected the lives of those who lived and worked within its system.
The wealthy of London, of whom the owners of the Five Houses should be included, had an insatiable [demand for servants] and depended on large-scale immigration from outside London for its [supply of servants]. Furthermore, many well-off households were prejudiced against London-born female servants, as they were regarded as dishonest, less diligent and often insubordinate. This is exemplified by the list of birthplaces of many of the servants in the Five Houses.
A question then arose as to how prospective servants, often girls as young as twelve, found such "positions" within the households of the wealthy in London. [Del? Obtaining a position relied on one or more of a number of options.] Information was often passed on by family or friends who were already in service to the prospective servant. Help was sometimes secured from the local gentry or clergy to find a position. Tradespeople in the area of a house in need of staff were often used as an unofficial registry, because they knew many people’s business.
Newspaper advertisements were placed by both employers and servants. In early Victorian times “Mop” fairs were attended not only by agricultural workers but also cooks and housemaids, where they may be hired. Mrs Beeton declared in 1861 that newspaper adverts were [had become?] one of the commonest modes of procuring servants. [which suggests rising levels of literacy]
For female servants in wealthy households the hierarchy was as follows: housekeeper, cook, lady’s maid (only found in the very wealthiest households), nurse (nanny rather than medical), house-maid, kitchen-maid, scullery maid, laundry-maid.
The position of housekeeper held considerable responsibility. Mrs Beeton states that “she must consider herself as the immediate representative of her mistress, and bring to the management of the household all those qualities of honesty, industry and vigilance, in the same degree as if she were at the head of her own family. Constantly on the watch to detect any wrongdoing on the part of any of the domestics, she will overlook all that goes on in the house, and will see that every department is thoroughly attended to, and that the servants are comfortable, at the same time that their various duties are properly performed.”
The cook in a household was the next most important servant. Working in a hot, badly ventilated kitchen, she and her assistants would have to work extremely hard and were generally held in awe by their mistresses [really?] . During the morning, a cook would prepare food for the next day, prepare lunch for the upstairs household and eat lunch with the servants before this was served. She would then prepare the parties, jellies, creams and entrees needed for the evening meal, and if guests were expected there was much tension, with the cook working under pressure. Kitchen-maids worked under the cook, preparing food for the cook, preparing staff meals and doing the washing up, perhaps assisted by a scullery maid. A long day of extreme hard work was the norm. [Hours? How many days a week?]
House-maids rose [del: at] about 6 a.m. and before breakfast [time?] had to sweep and dust the drawing room, dining room, front hall and other sitting rooms, as well as [del: to] tidy the grates and light the fires. She would then carry up the water to the bedrooms for the family to wash. After her own breakfast she would make the other servants’ beds, sweep, dust and arrange those rooms and then clean the front staircase and hall. Water jugs and chamber pots had to be cleaned, windows wiped clean, and once a week bedrooms had to be thoroughly cleaned, mattresses brushed, curtains shaken, paintwork washed down, mirrors polished, brass cleaned and floors well rubbed. Fireplaces in bedrooms were also in the care of the housemaid, so if lit during the day, they had to be [constantly] attended to. In the evenings she would turn down the beds, fill jugs with water, close curtains and take up hot water for washing.
Most servant-keeping families with children kept one or more nurse-maids, who themselves were often very young, generally under twenty. They were [quite separate from the other servants?], often a source of conflict with the other more senior members of the domestic staff, especially over the question of food for the children.
The laundress or laundry-maid was employed to undertake the laundry for the household. The laundry itself consisted of a washing house, an ironing room and drying room and sometimes a heated drying closet. It was usually separate from the house. The laundry-maid would enter into the washing book a list of articles taken into her care each week. It was extremely hard [and unpleasant] work, with greasy clothes soaked in unslaked lime and water. Three days a week were taken up with washing and rinsing clothes and linen. Then there was mangling, starching and ironing to do, which might take up another two days per week.
By 1881 female servants outnumbered male by about twenty-two to one. However, [among] [del: within the ranks of] outdoor servants, men still made up the vast majority, [comprising]coachmen, grooms and gardeners.
Within the ranks of indoor male servants, a man-servant combined the duties of a butler and a footman, setting coals and wood, cleaning knives and boots. The valet to the men in the household carried water for baths, set out clothes for their employer to wear, laid breakfast and carried food in, but did not wait at table.
The butler had the highest status of all male indoor servants, but there do not appear to be any listed at the Five Houses from the census information. [this sentence largely repeats the description two paragraphs above – worth trimming one?] A man-servant would rise early to deal with the rough work of the day before breakfast, act as a valet, clear breakfast and wash up, lay the lunch table, wash glass and silver, attend the sitting room fires, answer the drawing room bell and open the door to callers. Sometimes he would go out with his employer if no footman was employed. He would prepare tea, serve and clear away, keep the front hall in order and carry in after-dinner drinks. A page boy would assist with these duties if one was employed.
One of a butler’s most important duties [, as his title implies,] was to be in charge of the wine cellar, and the Five Houses each had one of these.
A footman or man-servant was presumably put in charge of the keys in the case of the Five Houses. A footman was expected to rise early and again do rough work [!?] before the family came down. He would then appear in a clean jacket to lay the table for breakfast. By midday the footman had to be ready, dressed in his livery, to answer the door and take messages etc. He assisted in serving the dinner and attending to his employer’s wants. He would also sit with the coachman when his employer went out in the carriage. He would attend to the needs of the gentlemen in the library or smoking room and go out in the evening with guests when they left, if using the household carriage. The appearance of a footman was regarded as important by employers, so they were usually tall and well built.
Of the outdoor male staff, the coachman had the highest status and was the most senior of the liveried servants. Sometimes the coachman, rather than a member of the indoor staff, headed the servant’s hall [I've changed the phrase order]. A good coachman was expected to drive smoothly and not too quickly. [Where should this sentence go?] He was expected to get the coach ready within twenty minutes. A typical day would see him rise at 6 a.m. and spend the first ninety minutes getting the stable in order and dressing the horses. Washing and cleaning the carriage and harnesses took up the rest of the morning. The horses had to be fed and groomed, plus he had to order hay, corn, straw etc., but often they had the assistance of one or more grooms.
A groom might also be tasked with assisting indoors, for example by waiting at table. From sales particulars of the Five Houses, it has been established that each had one or more coach houses and stabling for around six horses, so more than one carriage would have been kept, certainly in the heyday of the houses.
The gardener was the most commonly employed male servant in the 19th century. He would be in charge of a lot of glass – [in the form of] hothouses, greenhouses, conservatories. He produced vegetables [And flowers] for the household and grew [luxury fruits] such as strawberries, pineapples and melons, both in season and out. A gardener at the Five Houses may well have had under-gardeners working for him as live-out servants from the local area.