Charlotte: Before the Workhouse

On 26 February 1857, Ellen Boyt, aged 19, gave birth to a baby girl in the Union Workhouse, Christchurch, Hampshire.  Ellen was illiterate and could not sign her name on the child's birth certificate.  Her mark 'X' appears instead.  No father's name is indicated on the certificate.

Ellen chose the names Charlotte Elizabeth for her baby and they left the workhouse to live in Christchurch with Ellen's parents, John and Mary Boyt.  John and Mary were happy, or at least tolerant, of Ellen and Charlotte living with them, as they remained so for some years.  John died prior to 1861, leaving Mary, a cook and domestic, as head of the household. Ellen was their eldest child and there were four younger children: David, Hannah, Eliza and Louisa.

By 1861, Ellen was employed as a watch chain maker as was her sister Hannah, aged 19. David, 22, was a bricklayer's labourer and the younger children, aged nine and 11 scholars.  Charlotte, aged four, also became a scholar, a fact evident as she was able to write sufficiently well to complete the petition for her own illegitimate daughter to be received into the Foundling Hospital in London some twenty years later.

Life in Christchurch was hard, and Ellen and Charlotte, no doubt feeling themselves a burden on their family, left for London in the early 1860s.  Ellen married John Ward, a London blacksmith, in 1864 and set up house with him in Islington.  Charlotte was still living with them at the age of 14, although already employed as a domestic servant.

Several children were born to Ellen and John in the tenement they lived in at 5 ("otherwise No.2") Caroline Court, Islington, a place which appears to have had its origins in the communal construction and courtyard living of medieval London and which would have been reliant upon a central well rather than piped water. The family could not afford to live elsewhere, as by 1871 John was blind, living on charity and an allowance from the Parish.

No doubt this dwelling was overcrowded and Charlotte, as the eldest child, left this wretched home at some stage during the 1870s, eventually becoming a servant to Dr Hardy of Hatton Villas, The Grove, East Dulwich and then to Mrs.McCreagh of Wood Court, near Wallington.  It was during this period that she became acquainted with George Robertson, a bricklayer.

George's mother was frequently employed by Mrs.McCreagh as a charwoman and it was through her that Charlotte met George, who had been working in East Dulwich for about six months.  Shortly after becoming acquainted, they became engaged.  Being unable to find further employment in his trade, he went as gardener to Mr Potter of Waddon, where he remained for about two years.  After this period of work, he appears to have more often than not been out of work than in it, as was commonplace in the early 1880s, when unemployment amongst the working class became prevalent, despite London being the largest and wealthiest city in the world at the time.  It was in fact a time of recession, strikes, riots, increased homelessness and suffering. 

Charlotte formed a good relationship with Mrs.McCreagh, who considered her "respectable" and a good servant and the only point upon which any unpleasantness arose between them was Charlotte's association with George Robertson, as he appears to have been a constant presence at the home.  So taken up with George was Charlotte, that when Mrs.McCreagh removed to 1 St.Paul Villa, New Thornton Heath, Charlotte found the distance too inconvenient for her courtship with George, who lived with his mother at 3 Church Lane, Beddington and left her situation, with Mrs.McCreagh's good wishes.

Mrs.Parrott was Charlotte's next employer, at 2 Clifton Road, Wallington, where Charlotte tended to her needs and those of her husband and eight children.  Mrs.Parrott also took exception to her relationship with George as Charlotte was "very much taken up with him, rather more than she approved of" and she endeavoured to put an end to the engagement. 

Poor Charlotte.  She had found a man she loved, in circumstances where it was very difficult for someone of her station to meet any man apart from those in her household.  Working in a busy home from before sunrise to late at night, with perhaps some time off on a Sunday, gave her limited opportunity to meet men other than those who perhaps made deliveries to her place of work.  And now her employer was trying to put an end to both her relationship and her one opportunity to leave domestic service: marriage.

But Mrs.Parrott failed in her attempts to stymie her employee's amour.  She resigned herself that it was best to accept the inconvenience of having Mr.Robertson constantly about the place and to allow the matter to run its course.  And there was every indication that this would be to the altar, as there was no doubt there was an honourable engagement between the couple.

But events took a turn for the worse; one night, when Charlotte and George were out walking, probably one of the few ways they could manage to spend time alone together, he "violently seduced" her.

She told no one of this incident, it was not repeated and, when it was clear that she was carrying a child, she still did not disclose it until she was no longer able to disguise the fact of her pregnancy.  Mrs.Parrott kept her on as long as she could, before Charlotte entered Croydon Workhouse Infirmary to be confined.

George, once informed of Charlotte's condition, initially admitted paternity but later denied he was the father of the child.  He scarpered to Yorkshire, never to be heard of again.

So Charlotte entered the workhouse alone.  Her hopes of a happy marriage and family life dashed, her mother and stepfather unable to assist her, her only thought was to have her child in the safest environment available to a woman of no means.

• 
  

Oh! To be a Servant!

On reading recently that deployment of 'concierges' is on the rise in the corporate world and that people in full time work too busy to perform their own errands are outsourcing these tasks via Airtasker.com, I could not help wondering if we were perhaps reprising the situation of previous era where the rich delegated their menial tasks to those born into the working class - those who were destined to obtain employment with the rich in "situations" where they worked for life in domestic service as unskilled or semi-skilled servants.

The only difference between a 'service provider' in the nineteenth century and today is that the provider lives in their own home, not cheek by jowl with other servants in cramped quarters under their employer's roof, where they were always at the mercy of their master or mistress's demands.

Today's service provider is usually self-employed and living in their own home, but relies on a well-off person with a need to pay them for a one-off service.  Servants of yore at least had security in the knowledge that they would be paid wages and did not have to pay rent.  All was well, unless they incurred their employer's displeasure and were dismissed without a 'character' - the vital reference they needed to gain a 'situation' with another household.

The role of a female servant in the Victorian era was potentially one for life from which a woman could escape only if she married or emigrated to Australia or the United States, where better working conditions and an improved life could be obtained.  The 1901 census counted 1,330,783 female domestic indoor servants and probably one in three Victorian era women served as "domestics" at some point in their lives, usually between the ages of 15 and 25.  The work was demanding, the hours long and irregular and the segrated life often very lonely.*

In the early 19th century, servants were given no regular time off, and had to ask pernmission for even short periods of personal time, which was typically frowned upon by their employers.  By the 1880s, servants had gained a half-day off on Sundays, starting after lunch (but only after all their chores were completed) and were generally given one day off per month, starting after breakfast.

By about 1900, many servants could expect an evening off each week, but this concession was only usually available in households with more than one servant so one was still available to attend to their employer.

In short, those in domestic service were at the beck and call of those in positions of wealth, as were the other dominant type of worker of the time - the itinerant, those who shined shoes, played music on the street, were labourers or skilled tradesmen. All were self-employed and reliant on casual work to be given to them by those who had deeper pockets.

Today, there is a new pool of servants for those who are time-poor but flush with cash can call upon; the migrant from a poor country or asylum seeker fleeing persecution from within their native land or those who have suffered retrenchment or who are simply unable to find regular employment for a variety of reasons.  Servants are alive and well in the modern era and just as subject to exploitation, under-payment and irregular hours as their predecessors. Modern laws protecting their rights are more plentiful, but it takes a brave person to enforce those rights, as doing so requires time, resilience and financial resources, all in short supply when you have to keep working in the only employment you can obtain in order to simply keep body and soul together.

But, as we all know, under the glittering surface of the late Victorian and Edwardian eras where master/mistress and servant all knew their place, things were not all well.  Poverty was growing and social tensiona were rising. Entrenched class inequality gave rise to working men striking for rights.  Today, it may well be that history is repeating itself, with an increasingly casualised workforce and chief executives earning salaries many times those of the average worker.  Are the living standards of the majority being sacrificed perhaps to protect those of the privileged and powerful few?  Economic growth is benefitting some, but not all.   And has social mobility slowed to the pace it was prior to the game changer that was World War I?



How Our Ancestors Lived David Hey, Public Record Office (UK) 2002 pp108-9