Sheraton thus defines this distinctive piece of furniture in his Cabinet Dictionary of 1803. But its history goes back much further; indeed the earliest reference so far found is in the diary of the 1st Earl of Bristol who purchased a dumb waiter from a cabinetmaker in Covent Garden named Robert Leigh in 1727. 'Dumb waiters on casters [sic]' are also included in an advertisement for the sale of goods of another maker, James Faucon of Soho Square, in the Daily Post in 1731. Nor were they merely a middle-class novelty: in 1750 Benjamin Goodison charged 4 guineas for 'two mahogany Dumb waiters on castors' for Kensington Palace, and the royal cabinetmaker William Vile supplied 'two board waiters with edges ... neatly carved' for the Queen's House in St. James's Park in 1762.
So what were these essentials for fine dining? The illustrations to this article include some unusual variations which occasionally appear on the market, but the conventional dumb waiter has three (sometimes two or rarely four) circular trays, graduated in diameter, which revolve on central baluster or column supports and are raised on a tripod base, almost always ending in castors.
The edges of the trays are commonly dished or galleried to save things from slipping off. The supports between the tiers and on the base are usually matching -although not always so, as at least two drawings by Rowlandson attest - and graduated like the trays. On fine examples this can give a most successful visual pyramidal balance (for example, figure 4).

Figure 8. A George ll mahogany two-tier dumb waiter or library table, the top supported on six spindles, on a tripod base, c.1760.

It is worth quoting Sheraton's Cabinet Dictionary to understand the mechanism: 'the waiters turn round on the pillars; for the under pillar has a beech nut [with turned thread] let into it, and the upper part of it screws itself home into it so as to admit the waiter to turn.' The top 'waiter' has a round block screwed to the underside and screws on to another threaded nut with a washer allowing it to revolve. Although the vast majority of dumb waiters are made in this way, I have found one or two smaller examples with a central pole on to which each section drops in turn. When the trays are joined by columns or spindles at the edges, they cannot of course turn independently.
As to size, the standard mid-18th century three-tier dumb waiter (figures 3 and 4) is around 45 inches high, with the diameter of the largest tray 25 inches, while two-tier examples (figures 5 and 6) are about 34 inches in height. To a great extent this was dictated by their use, which was to stand at the corner of a dining table within arm's length of the host so that, from a sitting position, they could reach for additional plates, cutlery or food that were put on the trays. The importance of castors for mobility and the rotation of the trays immediately becomes obvious.
It may be helpful at this point to recall the nature of the English dining room in polite circles. During the first half of the 18th century dining commonly did not take place in one designated room, but rather could move to different rooms in the house, informally using more than one table at which to eat. As the meal became more formal with one long dining table in a single room during the second half of the century, so customs became more precise. Looked upon primarily as a male domain, dining room furnishings were nearly always made of mahogany, including dumb waiters. An inventory taken in May 1768 of Sir Lawrence Dundas' grand dining room at 19 Arlington Street in London (just behind what is now the Ritz Hotel) shows that it included: 'a large Dining Table, made to join [i.e. in sections with leaves], a Smaller Do. [probably for breakfast], 2 Side Board Tables, 2 Dumb Waiters, 2 Cisterns with brass hoops [wine coolers], a pillar and claw [i.e. tripod] table, 13 Back Stools, covered with Leather, and a Pedestal and Pail and Lead Cistern [for washing glasses etc]'. In larger dining rooms, as here, dumb waiters were sometimes stood at opposite corners of the table and pairs are occasionally found today.
In spite of the fact that servants played an important role in serving meals in both town and country houses, it is clear that hosts and visitors alike resented the restrictions placed on free speech by their presence any longer than was necessary. Dumb waiters therefore came into use when the servants had withdrawn. In 1784 Francois de la Rochefoucauld in his A Frenchman in England noted that when the dessert course was over, all the servants disappeared and after a further glass or two of wine, the ladies all went out together, leaving the 'heroes to their pleasure'. There is not an Englishman who is not supremely happy at this particular moment ... conversation is as free as it can be ... complete license is allowed.'
Dumb waiters were also used at more informal meals taken without servants. Mary Hamilton noted in her diary of a supper taken at half past ten at Bulstrode in Buckinghamshire, again in 1784, 'we had dumb waiters so our conversation was not under any restraint by ye servants being in ye room.' At the service of a dinner at Saltram in Devon (now National Trust), the Reverend Talbot described how 'in the absence of company, his Lordship performed by a Dumb waiter the whole Ceremony himself.' Even in royal circles the dumb waiter was praised by Lady Charlotte Bury when she dined informally with Queen Charlotte in 1810.