Officers in the Company's army were equally well provided for, their servants never left behind, even during marches and battles. An English captain in the Mysore campaign of 1780, for instance, brought with him his steward, cook, valet, groom, groom's assistant, barber, washerman and 'other officers', as well as 15 'coolies' to carry his baggage, wine, brandy, tea, live poultry and milch-goats. If a gentleman of fashion really wanted to flaunt his status and wealth, then he could obtain the ultimate in luxury: an African slave, specially imported from Bourbon or Mauritius. Because African slaves were expensive, costing about ten times more than Indian domestics, most Englishmen preferred Indian servants. And it was these that they brought to Britain.

	Lord Robert Clive
	The British Library Lord Clive and the Nawab of Bengal, 1773. Clive, Robert, Baron Clive of Plassey (pls), 172574, British soldier and statesman. He went to India in 1743 as a clerk for the British East India Company and entered the military service of the company in 1744; he soon distinguished himself in the fighting against the French. Clive's brilliant capture of Arcot (1751) and the relief of the siege of Trichinopoly (1752) thwarted DUPLEIX, who had been on the verge of achieving French hegemony in S India. Full Entry Reproduced with permission from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Copyright (c) 2000 Columbia University Press. All Rights Reserved.

A grand lifestyle was not the only advantage of employment in India. There were also opportunities for making money by private trade, or by other means. The years after 1757 (the battle of Plassey), which virtually turned Bengal into a Company province, are particularly notorious for the plunder of India, as Company agents reaped undreamt of wealth for themselves, earning the title of 'nabob' (a nawab is a Muslim nobleman). Robert Clive, at the age of 35, extorted a fortune worth over £230,000 in settlement with Mir Jafar, in addition to an annual income of £30,000 from his jagir (land titles). Having made their money, these nabobs retired to Britain with their wealth, their Indian artefacts, their Indian servants and, occasionally, their Indian wives and children.

Indian servants in British homes
There is evidence to suggest that Indian servants and ayahs (nannies) were brought over by British families returning from India as early as the seventeenth century. For example, among the burial notices of 1618 for the parish of St Botolph without Aldgate, mention is made of 'James (an Indian) servant to Mr James Duppa Brewer'. Further, from a small sample of the parish of St Olave, Hart Street, between 1638 and 1682, three baptisms and two burials of 'Indians' (among them the 16-year-old Chirugeon and a woman, Loreto) are revealed.

By the eighteenth century, the custom of employing Indian servants and ayahs in British households had become firmly established. William Hickey, on a visit to London in 1780, brought his 'little pet boy', Nabob, and in 1808 he returned with the 13-year-old 'faithful little Munnoo', whose doting mother had only been induced to part with him after a payment of Rs 500. Munnoo accompanied Hickey into retirement at Beaconsfield, where, under the 'anglifyed' name William Munnew, he was baptised.

York Museums Trust (York Art Gallery).

Peter Lely's portrait of Lady Charlotte Fitzroy, c.1672, shows Charlotte, then aged eight, being offered grapes by a boy, identified by Professor J.D. Stewart as an Indian. This may well be the first portrait of an Indian page in England.

Since domestic service was one of the largest classes of occupations in eighteenth-century Britain, why import Indian servants? Indians served broadly similar functions to their African counterparts. First, there was the practical aspect of convenience. Since the voyage home round the Cape of Good Hope was long and arduous, lasting six months or more, personal servants were essential to attend to the needs of the family on board the Indiamen. Second, children were often sent home for their education in the company of trusted Indian servants. William Thackeray, the writer, came home from India as a child in 1817, accompanied by his 'Calcutta serving-man'. Another important reason for bringing Indian servants back to Britain was a reluctance to leave behind a favourite, loyal servant, familiar with the routine and ways of the master. After years in India, returning to a changed Britain, the servant would be the one familiar figure round the nabob. Nostalgia for life in India might be another reason. Then there was the economic aspect: a desire to enjoy the same cheap labour that had been available in India. The most important reason, however, was the value of servants as an 'index of rank'. Just as having French servants reflected taste and status, Indian servants were a symbol of the exalted status of the newly enriched India-returned nabobs. In an age when things Oriental were desirable fashion accessories in the homes of the rich, Indian servants in their gorgeous costumes added to the sense of Oriental luxury. The presence of Indian servants and ayahs in eighteenth-century portraits of families who had made their careers and fortunes in India visibly emphasize this relationship.

How widespread the practice had become by the eighteenth century is seen from the fact that in a single year, 1771, for the two months of April and May, the EIC received 18 applications from its employees to return their servants to India: 15 of these were male and three were female. How long they had been in England is open to conjecture, as no information is provided. Some Indian servants were, like these, sent back when no longer required, but an unknown number remained as personal servants.

Parish records also tell us the areas where Indian servants lived and thus, by inference, indicate the favourite haunts of the India-returnees, in particular cities like Edinburgh, Cheltenham and Bath. In London, it is highly probable that Indian servants were as familiar in East London as in St James's and the Mall or Marylebone. Gravestones in churchyards bear witness to the fact that many Company agents retired to the East End, forming a visible presence. Places like Stepney may be poor today, but in the eighteenth century these areas were gentrified and desirable residences; it was this that attracted the India-returned nabobs.

An important aspect of this complex web of importing Indian servants to Britain was the practice of employing them for the duration of the voyage home. Travelling servants and ayahs were indispensable on the voyage. Once in England their engagement was over and they were returned to India at the expense of the family. By the middle of the eighteenth century, however, an increasing number of families were discharging their travelling servants on arrival in Britain, but leaving them to fend for themselves. Abandoned and destitute, they were forced to beg for a passage home. After several petitions for a passage home in Company ships from 'forsaken' servants in destitute circumstances, the Directors were forced to provide passage at their expense to 'prevent reflection on us in this respect from the people of India'. In order to save the Company any future expense, the Directors ordered that a bond of £50 be provided as surety before any Indian servant was permitted to leave India. But this measure clearly failed to provide the desired security as, in 1782, the Company again complained to Madras that it had been 'put to considerable expense'. In a strongly worded letter, the Company tried to discourage the practice of sending Indian servants without means of return. In 1783 regulations for the proper treatment of Indian servants and lascars (seamen) taken abroad came into force in India. Such regulations proved ineffective, however. Servants and ayahs employed for the duration of the voyage lacked any security: there were no contracts of employment. Some could even be dismissed and stranded during the journey, never reaching England.

Status of Indian domestics in British society
As personal servants Asian domestics may have led comfortable lives in the homes of rich nabobs. Treated as 'pets', some were pampered and well looked after. Some, like Hickey's Munnoo, were even sent to school. But evidence also suggests that they led lonely and rather sad lives, with their position in society remaining lowly.

Legally, the position of Indian domestics was murky. As personal servants, were they free or mere property? Like their African counterparts, Indians were sometimes publicly sold. An advertisement in Steele's and Addison's Tatler in 1709 read: 'A black Indian Boy 12 Years of Age, fit to wait on a Gentleman, to be disposed of at Denis's Coffee-house in Finch Lane near the Royal Exchange.' Some rare advertisements even show Indian domestics with slave collars. At baptism (which also implies prejudice against the 'heathen') Indians were sometimes given their masters' names with the words 'belonging to ... '.