Private Life in Britain's Stately Homes (23 page)

Yet masters varied as much as any other disparate group of people. There were also families who saw their servants as friends, or at least regarded them with interest. Naturally the length of time they had been in employment and the extent to which they were part of the life of the house could make a difference to the way they were treated. If servants proved over time their loyalty and discretion, they could reasonably expect some favour at the end of their working lives, such as residence in a local alms house or a cottage tucked away on the estate. They might alternatively be set up in a pub. The number of hostelries that have taken the names of aristocrats and have names like the Duke of Sutherland or the Marquess of Zetland reflects the kindness of employers who enabled their former butlers or housekeepers to retire into this occupation. The tradition went back at least to the eighteenth century, for the Marquess of Granby, heir to the Dukedom of Rutland and an officer in the Army, made a practice of establishing his men, once discharged from service, as landlords of public houses. So many of them expressed their gratitude that the Marquess of Granby is still a very common name for English pubs to this day.

Though there was no old-age pension, servants had no outlay to make on food or accommodation, and therefore it was often possible for them to save a large percentage of their wages. Those who did not have to send remittances to relatives could accumulate, over the years, a sum in the hundreds or even the thousands. They might also benefit from a master’s will, for it was surprisingly common that employers left individual sums to their servants, a stipulated amount to be settled on each.

Another form of kindness which they might experience was the servants’ dance, an annual entertainment at which they were waited upon by other servants who had been hired in for the evening. There would also be an orchestra to entertain the guests. If the household were especially liberal, the maids might even be allowed to invite followers, provided they were sufficiently respectable (in other words, regular and known).

Some employers were exceptionally good to their staff. The Duchess of Richmond not only held a party for her servants every Christmas, but also took her maids to the theatre in London and to tea at the Grosvenor Hotel. There were other mistresses who arranged similar outings, enabling the maids to experience the world of upstairs, for a few hours at least.

Rather than receiving help as a gift, some servants were able to earn their way to a better future. Many ex-domestics were able to save enough to open a small shop, restaurant, pub or seaside boarding house. (Mrs and Mrs Hudson, in the series
Upstairs, Downstairs
, do the latter when their employer’s house is sold.) Senior servants – butlers and housekeepers – made enough in tips and presents to retire very comfortably.

In a happy household the servants would not wish to move on, particularly the senior ones, and there would be little scope for advancement among those lower down the hierarchy. Employers were known to be unhappy and irritated when servants gave their notice. Though they had the power to remove a servant from their household at very short notice, they did not like servants, as it were, to remove themselves. They did not like the thought of having to search for replacements, or the possibility that no one would be found who was suitable. They did not like the thought of a new servant making mistakes and trying the patience of the household while learning the job. The only time they showed pleasure at the departure of a servant was if that person was getting married. Those who stayed and worked in a family throughout their career would find it increasingly difficult as they grew older. Men and women over fifty had little prospect of finding other work, because they were seen as too old for the heavy lifting and carrying that was involved. For a very large number of old servants with ungenerous employers the only prospect they faced was the workhouse.

The number of servants employed in a house varied, understandably, according to what was going on there. At different times of the year there would be less need for a full staff, while during a time of frequent entertainments, such as at Christmas or during the hunting and shooting seasons, it might well be necessary to hire in additional servants. There were usually sources of supplementary manpower available locally. If necessary, outdoor staff could be brought in to help serve at meals, or waiters lured from a restaurant in some nearby town (though these were considered to lack the necessary finesse). Maids and footmen could also summon brothers and sisters.

The yearly routine varied from family to family. Those who lived in very grand houses and belonged to the high aristocracy would probably have several country houses as well as a residence in London. They would visit these other properties either for a change of scene or for reasons of duty or pleasure. For instance if the head of the family held a position at Court, he and his wife might be required to spend weeks or months in London or at Windsor. If the family were keen sportsmen they would want to spend the autumn on grouse moors in Scotland or Yorkshire. During the summer they would in all probability be attending the events of the London Season. Wherever it was they were going, they would take with them the servants they needed and leave the rest behind on ‘boarding’ or board wages. In other words, wages that were somewhat more generous than usual to compensate for the fact that the servants, in the absence of the family, were not able to receive their usual benefits of upstairs leftovers. The valet and lady’s maid would without question have gone, the butler might have, but the housekeeper would not. The servants who remained in the country would have much less to do without the need for daily clearing up and serving meals.

When families went to London for the Season, they might well have a town residence with a skeleton staff retained there. Just before Easter servants from the country house would go up to town to help clean the house. The Season began in May and might involve up to ten balls a night. Racing took place at Epsom and Ascot. There were the usual other sporting events, including the Eton and Harrow cricket match and the regattas at Cowes and Henley. The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition was also important. Two additions in the twentieth century made the Season more varied: the Chelsea Flower Show and the opera at Glyndebourne. The servants, though likely to be as busy as their masters, had time to see something of London, to visit music halls and shops or to go dancing. The Season of course revolved around the presentations at Court, though these were important only for those with daughters ‘coming out’ that year. Events came to a close in August when the grouse moors beckoned and the aristocracy decamped to Scotland or the north of England to spend the autumn in country pursuits.

Those whose role it was to care for the country house stayed in it. The house and its plate and wine cellars still needed protecting. The remaining servants still needed supervising, and numerous tasks in the kitchen, the stables and the estate needed to continue. The gardens could not be neglected. The most important task was the thorough annual cleaning of the house, from basement to rafters, which could last four to five weeks and which must be completed in time for the owner’s return. The chairs and sofas would be hidden under dust sheets to protect them. All repainting or wallpapering would have been saved for this interlude. The estate carpenter would be kept busy mending furniture. Despite all this activity, the summer would have been a relatively carefree time for the servants. They could enjoy a feeling of relaxation, wandering at will through the upstairs rooms, sitting in the gardens in their free time, larking about in the servants’ hall in the knowledge that they could make as much noise as they wanted. Once the bulk of the work had been accomplished, many of the servants could also perhaps take a short holiday and travel home to see their families. Those who hailed from poor rural communities could expect to enjoy considerable status when they returned, looking clean and prosperous in non-uniform clothes that were hardly ever worn, bringing with them money to spend or to give away, as well as produce from the estate such as hams or preserves, and stories of their employers and colleagues that would entertain the neighbours.

Once the family returned from London or a sporting destination, autumn merged into winter and there was little to do on the land. This was the season for hunting and shooting. No other activities have come to be so closely identified with the English gentleman. The fox-hunt was, and is, a tribal affair, for there are different hunts in different parts of the country and each is under the care of a Master of Foxhounds. Though sportsmen would become members of a particular hunt, they could easily travel (thanks to the railway, which provided horseboxes) to other areas and hunt as guests. Enthusiasts naturally did this, keen to experience different country and different packs. The hunting season lasted, as did the shooting of game birds, from August until Easter.

House parties lasted from Friday until Tuesday, when the visitors’ book was signed and servants were given a tip (known as a ‘vail’).

By the late nineteenth century servants had one half-day off a month – Sunday, so that they could attend church. They might also get a day every month. They would have little choice as to when this could be taken, for they had to suit not their own convenience but that of their employer. Servants in a town would sometimes ask for leave to go to church so that they could get away from the house for a few hours, and go to visit friends. Their employer would not normally question them about their whereabouts, unless they had been gone longer than expected. In the country there was usually little choice as to place of worship, and the servants would attend the parish church, probably going there in a body and sitting (of course) separately in the gallery or the back pews. They would have worn their best, non-uniform clothes, though these would not be eye-catching. The guidelines they received on taking up employment would have made it clear that off-duty dress must be plain in style and sober in colour.

Attendance at church did not mean that servants had the rest of the day off, for there were many household tasks that still had to be performed. The chambermaids would have to tidy bedrooms as on every other day; the valets and lady’s maids would be working as hard as ever to dress the family for church; the meals on a Sunday often being the most elaborate of the week, the kitchens would be busy throughout the day. Not all servants could be spared for religious observance, and they were likely to have had to go in shifts. In the Victorian and Edwardian eras there were, in any case, three services a day in many churches. Apart from matins and evensong there was an afternoon service, and that would have coincided with the rest period of those who had spent the morning cooking or peeling vegetables.

Religion was seen as important to the running of a good household. It encouraged the status quo. Christianity brought with it a moral code that was useful for encouraging servants to behave themselves and to accept their place in the world. Most employers thought it important to set an example by at least going through the motions of observance.

The bigger the household the more specialist servants there would be, and the more exotic their functions. There could be a wine butler who only looked after the cellar and served at meals, just as there is a specialist wine waiter in restaurants today. He would not have been required, or willing, to supervise the footmen or answer the door. There would very likely be a chef just for pastries and desserts – again, something that is still common in restaurants. There could in addition be kitchen servants who would only deal with preparing vegetables. King Edward VII, both after his accession and when he was Prince of Wales, took with him on visits to country houses his own catering staff, which included a boy whose only task was to make coffee for him.

As well as a valet, the master of the house might have a groom of the chamber, a title that today only exists in royal households and which in practice meant a young man who generally tidied the bedroom and ran baths. Such servants were, one presumes, the very antithesis of the rushed-off-her-feet, overworked housemaid. While some servants clearly had more work to do than they could get through in the course of a day, others suffered from the opposite extreme. Those with little to do spent hours of every day standing about waiting to be summoned and employed. Boredom was a common enemy, and a cause of many men leaving their positions, and indeed service. This was especially true of footmen, who came into their own during the afternoons when social calls were made and received. From luncheon onwards they would have been positioned in the front hall of the house to listen for the sounds of approaching vehicles, so as to be ready to open the doors and take coats and accept visiting cards on salvers. Alternatively, of course, they would have outdoor capes and hats in readiness to accompany their mistress on visits of her own, both of them standing up behind her carriage. When she arrived at her destination they would both dismount and walk in unison to the front door, one to knock and the other to enquire if the mistress of the house was at home.

The butler, or the steward if there was one, was unquestionably the head of the servant body. Traditionally, a big household was run by a steward, the usual title on the Continent for this functionary, and a title so ancient that it is mentioned in the Bible (Pharaoh’s steward is one of those whose dream is interpreted by Joseph). Though far more women than men worked in domestic service, the highest-ranking servant was always a male – the steward and/or butler automatically took precedence over the housekeeper even though she probably knew the house better than he did. Men were generally paid more, and were far less disadvantaged. In a very large household, there could be a steward in overall charge with a butler, ranking beneath him, responsible for the wine cellar and the supervision of footmen. If there were no steward, the butler would by default become responsible for the administration of the household. If there were no valet he would have to provide that service for his master too. If there were no footmen he would have to answer the door, announce guests and fetch their coats when they departed. At mealtimes he was present in the dining room. He might be the only server at luncheon, while at supper he would have the assistance of footmen. He would place the first course on the table before summoning the family to dine, and would then stand behind his master’s chair unless, of course, there were no footmen and once again he had to fill that role himself.