Now it is one of those received pieces of historical truth, that the age of the domestic servant peeked in the early years of the 20th century.
Before that date, even the most modest of homes might boast a servant.
After the Great War, the rising cost of living, the advance of labour saving devices, and the growing expectations of “the servant class” combined to shrink what had once been a source of employment for many young people.
All of which I knew from trawling the census returns for Chorlton and many other places.
But I had never gone looking for the hard evidence, and then yesterday rising out of a discussion on a blog story about Chorltonville, I decided to test the idea, and to test it through the records of the estate.
A number of people had questioned whether the residents would have employed servants, given the size of the houses and occupations of those who lived in the properties.
As a project it had much going for it, because there are a limited number of households and they are grouped in a compact and defined area.
But and there is always a but, only a proportion of the estate had been built and occupied by the time of the 1911 census, which is the last that can be accessed at present.
Not that I was daunted.
In the April of 1911 eighteen households on South Drive returned the census form.*
The occupations listed were pretty much what you would expect for the estate, consisting of a high proportion who described themselves as “Commercial Travellers”, a couple of clerical workers, two employers, along with an actor, one manager, and one on “private means”.
Of these eighteen households, six employed a domestic servant, who lived in the home. Not surprisingly two worked for the two employers, another for the one householder on “private means”, but the remaining there were employed who commercial travelers and a clerk.
It is of course a very limited survey, but what is interesting is that when compared to the 1939 Register which required every householder to supply basic biographical details for all the occupants, none of the six households employed a servant.
In their place comes that familiar term “unpaid domestic duties” or “housekeeper” which in each case refers to a wife, which of course raises an interesting debate about the role married women.
Other than that, of the full eighteen, only one household listed an individual who was described as a “housekeeper”.
Which just leaves me to report that none of the original six who employed a servant in 1911 were still living in their house by 1939.
So, that is it, other than to say in a quiet time I shall go back to the historical record to push forward our knowledge of servants in the Ville.
Location; Chorltonville
Pictures; from the Lloyd Collection, circa 1900s-30s.
* 1911 census, Enu 11, Didsbury, South Manchester & 1939 Register
 |
| South Drive, circa, 1900s |
After the Great War, the rising cost of living, the advance of labour saving devices, and the growing expectations of “the servant class” combined to shrink what had once been a source of employment for many young people.
All of which I knew from trawling the census returns for Chorlton and many other places.
But I had never gone looking for the hard evidence, and then yesterday rising out of a discussion on a blog story about Chorltonville, I decided to test the idea, and to test it through the records of the estate.
A number of people had questioned whether the residents would have employed servants, given the size of the houses and occupations of those who lived in the properties.
As a project it had much going for it, because there are a limited number of households and they are grouped in a compact and defined area.
 |
| Chorltonville from the air, circa 1930s |
Not that I was daunted.
In the April of 1911 eighteen households on South Drive returned the census form.*
The occupations listed were pretty much what you would expect for the estate, consisting of a high proportion who described themselves as “Commercial Travellers”, a couple of clerical workers, two employers, along with an actor, one manager, and one on “private means”.
Of these eighteen households, six employed a domestic servant, who lived in the home. Not surprisingly two worked for the two employers, another for the one householder on “private means”, but the remaining there were employed who commercial travelers and a clerk.
In their place comes that familiar term “unpaid domestic duties” or “housekeeper” which in each case refers to a wife, which of course raises an interesting debate about the role married women.
Other than that, of the full eighteen, only one household listed an individual who was described as a “housekeeper”.
So, that is it, other than to say in a quiet time I shall go back to the historical record to push forward our knowledge of servants in the Ville.
Location; Chorltonville
Pictures; from the Lloyd Collection, circa 1900s-30s.
* 1911 census, Enu 11, Didsbury, South Manchester & 1939 Register
A major selling point in the original marketing was that the houses could be run with a servant. And indeed they could, I did so for 25 years.
ReplyDeleteShould have read without a servant.
Delete