William Whitfield, butterman

Tags

food and drink

Street View: 7
Address: 44 Old Bond Street

In 1810, the partnership between Stephen and George Cullum was dissolved. The notice about it in The London Gazette does not mention their trade, but it does give the address of Clare Market.⁽¹⁾ A newspaper advertisement of a few weeks later tells us the rest of the story. “George Cullum, from Clare-market, Butterman and Cheesemonger … informs [his customers] that he has removed to No. 44 Old Bond-street (late Mr. Hance)”⁽²⁾

trade card (Source: British Museum Collection)

The Cullums had already been buttermen in London for quite some time. In 1775, John Cullum obtained the freedom of the City by redemption, suggesting he came from outside the City of London and had not gone through the usual 7-year apprenticeship. In 1787 and 1789 respectively, he takes on his own sons Stephen and George as apprentices. Their address is then given as Clare Market where the family worked together, but in 1810, George decides to go it alone in Old Bond Street. Later that same year, he writes his will, leaving everything to his wife Mary Ann.⁽³⁾ He died in early April 1814 and his burial record gives him as of Devonshire, late of Bond Street, although he was buried at Heston, Hounslow.

trade card (Source: British Museum Collection)

The next instalment in the Cullum occupation of the cheesemonger’s shop in Old Bond Street can be deduced from another trade card and the Land Tax records. The business was continued after the death of George by Samuel Cullum, most likely George and Stephen’s brother who – I think – may also have had a shop in Newgate Street, although there were more Samuels in the family. Please note that besides the butter and cheese George sold, Sam is also advertising eggs, bacon and ham. I think Samuel retired in the early 1830s, although there is a suggestion that he, with a Charles Whitfield, was involved in the Paxton & Whitfield business, now in Jermyn Street, but the information that firm gives on its website does not quite match the information I have, as they have Sam as the son of a Stephen (an earlier generation than John’s son Stephen). I will come back to that puzzle when I have worked it out. Sam Cullum is still mentioned for 44 Old Bond Street in Kent’s 1823 Directory, and is listed in the Land Tax records for 1830, but in 1831 William Whitfield is paying the tax. An 1834 insurance record also mentions William Whitfield, although Cullum and Whitfield probably traded together in the early 1830s, as their servant, William Holmes, described both Cullum and Whitfield as his employers when he gave evidence in 1831 in a case of stolen butter.⁽⁴⁾. William had already been a cheesemonger before he took over from Cullum as he is mentioned as such in the baptism records for his children (the oldest was born in 1821). The Whitfield family lived in East Street while William worked in partnership with his half-brother John at 16 Lamb’s Conduit Street (Kent’s Directory of 1823), before moving to Old Bond Street to work for Cullum and then taking over the business.

William Whitfield was born in 1786 in Startforth, Teesdale as the son of John Whitfield and Elizabeth Pinckney. In April 1819, he married Jane Barbara Benning, daughter of Jane and James Benning, surgeon, at Staindrop, Durham.⁽⁵⁾ Jane Barbara was the sister of William Benning the bookseller at 43 Fleet Street who married Alice Whitfield, William Whitfield’s sister and John Whitfield’s half-sister.⁽⁶⁾ Two of William and Jane Barbara’s sons were given the additional first name Benning: William Benning Whitfield (1821-1841), and James Benning Whitfield (1825-1881). The couple were to have eight sons, six of whom survived into adulthood.⁽⁷⁾ By 1831, when son Septimus was baptised, the Whitfields had moved to 44 Old Bond Street. Only three children are listed in the 1841 census: George, James and Octavius; perhaps the others were at school or visiting somewhere. The 1851 census also shows three children: James Benning, a solicitor, John, a clerk and Octavius who was still at school. The 1851 Post Office Directory, however, lists the business as William Whitfield & Son, so at least one of the absent sons must have been involved in the cheese and butter business.

William Whitfield died in 1859, 73 years old, and was buried at All Souls, Kensal Green, on 7 September 1859. In the probate entry his address is given as 18 Hereford Square, Brompton, and Old Bond Street, although he seems to have died in Drummond Street, Euston Square. His widow Jane Barbara was the sole executor.⁽⁸⁾ Jane died in February 1861 and the executors of her estate were sons George of 167 New Bond Street, and James Benning of 1 Mitre Court Temple.⁽⁹⁾ Two other sons, Septimus, silk merchant, and Octavius, solicitor, both unmarried, were living in Great Portland Street at the time of the 1861 census, but the cheese business at 44 Old Bond Street remained in the family, as in 1862, John Whitfield of Messrs. Whitfield gave evidence in a court case where the basket of Whitfield’s porter had been emptied of a roll of butter when the basket had been temporarily left on the railings of a house.⁽¹⁰⁾ Who the other half of Messrs. Whitfield was, remained unsaid, but it was most likely George.

The returns of Westminster Polling District of 1862 and 1863, show that four sons, Charles, James Benning, Octavius and Septimus, had an interest in the freehold of 44 Old Bond Street. Contrary to the 1861 addresses, this time James Benning and Octavius are shown to be living at 1 Mitre Court, Charles is living at 8 Jermyn Street (strengthening the case for his Paxton involvement?) and Septimus can be found at New Bond Street. No house number is given for Septimus’ abode, but he was to die in 1868 and from his probate record we learn that he lived at number 142.⁽¹¹⁾ John and George are not mentioned as having an interest in the freehold, but we know that they lived and worked as buttermen and cheesemongers in Old Bond Street. Although I have not seen the will of father William, we can surmise that he left the business to John and George and the freehold of the building to the other four sons. John died in September 1865.⁽¹²⁾

On 2 February 1873, a small notice in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper spoke of a “destructive fire” that had occurred on Sunday morning on the premises of W. Whitfield, 44 Old Bond Street. No more information is given, but at least it tells us that the Whitfield shop was still in business. A year later, the Westminster Polling District records show that it were just Charles and Octavius that were still having an interest in the freehold. James Benning’s name has been struck out and Septimus was dead by then. I am afraid that from now on, we will see the brothers dying one by one, resulting in a long list of probate records. In 1878, the probate records tell us that it was indeed George who had been the other partner in the business at number 44, as he is listed as having been a cheesemonger at that address, although he lived at 28 Nottingham Place.⁽¹³⁾ The next brother to die was James Benning who lived at 97 London Road, St. Leonard’s, Sussex. He died in August 1881.⁽¹⁴⁾ Probate was granted to his brother Charles, “the surviving executor”. Charles was then living at 18 Jermyn Street, the same address as the Paxton & Whitfield shop at that time, so I think we can conclude that it was indeed Charles who was involved in the Paxton & Whitfield business, although he cannot have been the Charles who entered the business in 1790 as he was not even born then. That, with the inconsistency in the Cullum partner, means there is more work to be done to solve the Paxton puzzle. Charles died in 1882 and turned out to have been the best businessman as he left the largest estate.⁽¹⁵⁾ And to round off the list of probates, the last one is for Octavius who died in November 1885 in Italy.⁽¹⁶⁾.

And the shop itself? George was the last of the Whitfield brothers to actually work in the cheese and butter business in Old Bond Street and I have not found any more cheesemongers there, so I think the shop was sold outside the family. In 1906 a new building was erected for Glyn & Co, hatters, and a recent owner decided to paint it a horrible pink and the Whitfields would certainly no longer recognise the building, so best to leave the story with the death of the last Whitfield brother and forget about the later history of the premises.

(1) The London Gazette, 24 April 1810.
(2) The Morning Chronicle, 4 May 1810.
(3) PROB 11/1554/335.
(4) Old Bailey case t18310908-211. Butter was stolen from the servant’s basket when he had left the basket when he went into a property to deliver goods.
(5) The will of James Benning is transcribed on the Will Transcriptions Website here.
(6) Information supplied by Catherine Ryan and Nicky Carter, for which grateful thanks.
(7) I found the following baptisms: William Benning 29 July 1821, died Jan 1841; George 12 Sep 1823; James Benning 9 Feb 1825; Charles 22 Sep 1826; John 18 Sep 1829; Henry 5 May 1830, died Sep 1833; Septimus Augustus 2 December 1831; Octavius 1838?
(8) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1859. The estate was valued at under £25,000.
(9) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1861. The estate was valued at under £16,000.
(10) The Daily News, 10 January 1862. In fact, a similar offence to that of 1831, see footnote 4.
(11) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1868. The estate was valued at under £20,000 and probate was granted to his brother Octavius.
(12) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1866. The estate was valued at under £3,000 and probate was granted to his widow Jane Rebecca.
(13) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1878. The estate was valued at under £16,000 and probate was granted to his widow Hester.
(14) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1881. The estate was valued at over £2,200.
(15) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1881. The estate was valued at over £155,000 (resworn in 1883 at £163,445) and probate was granted to his nephew William Henry, solicitor.
(16) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1885. The estate was valued at over £60,000 and probate was granted to his nephew William Henry as the sole executor.

Neighbours:

<– 45 Old Bond Street

43 Old Bond Street –>

Christopher Lonsdale, music library

Tags

book trade, music

Street View: 7
Address: 26 Old Bond Street

To learn about Christopher Lonsdale of 26 Old Bond Street, we first have to go back to 1819 when Robert Birchall, a music seller at 140 New Bond Street, died. In his will, Birchall described Christopher as Christopher Lonsdale the Younger “now living with me”. Christopher’s father, also Christopher, is described by Birchall as “the Elder” and a relation of his wife’s. Robert Birchall was married to Mabel Mills, who was the daughter of Mary Mills-Lonsdale, who was the sister of Christopher Lonsdale the elder’s father, yet another Christopher Lonsdale. So, Christopher the younger was the grandson of the uncle of the wife of Robert Birchall. Still with me? The family relations are even more difficult than this, see for more information the post on 140 New Bond Street. Suffice it to say here that Christopher the younger was related to Birchall and worked in his shop until the latter’s death. Christopher Lonsdale, Birchall’s daughter Mary, and Richard Mills (another relation which is explained in the other post) formed a partnership after the death of Robert to continue the music business. Mary left the partnership in 1829 and in October 1834 Mills and Lonsdale decided to discontinue the remaining partnership with Mills to stay at 140 New Bond Street and Lonsdale to start his own business at 26 Old Bond Street, taking with him Birchill’s sign “Handel’s Head”. A photograph of the doorway of number 26 with the bust of Handel above it, can be found in the collection of the London County Council Photograph Library.

Click here to go to Collage for the original photograph

1834 was also the year in which Christopher the elder died. He is described as gentleman of Arlaw Banks, Whorlton, Durham.⁽¹⁾ Grandfather Christopher was also described as of Arlaw Banks; he died in 1797.⁽²⁾. Christopher the younger had been born in Whorlton, or at least, he was baptised there on 22 May 1795 as the son of Christopher and Mabel Lonsdale. This Mabel is not to be confused with the Mabel that married Birchall. Christopher’s mother was Mabel Bellamy. Christopher the younger married Mary Ann Mills, the sister of his business partner Richard Mills in 1821. But now onto the business and the shop at 26 Old Bond Street itself. The building is still there, although it has acquired a totally new shop front and the top floor as been extended upwards. You can, however, still recognise the brickwork and windows on the first and second floor as more or less original. The brickwork of the higher floors does not quite match.

Google Street View still shows Chanel as the occupant of the building, but they have recently moved to a bigger shop at 158-159 New Bond Street. I do not know who now occupies number 26 Old Bond Street as I have not been in the street for quite a while.

26 Old Bond Street from Google Street View

The first insurance record for Lonsdale with the Sun Fire Office after the split with Mills is dated 2 September 1835 and names Christopher as ‘music seller and publisher’, but he was certainly trading from the new address as early as March 1835 as an advertisement in The Morning Chronicle makes clear. And not just as a music seller, but also, as Birchall had done, as a musical circulating library (The Era, 12 December 1841). Please note that Lonsdale is still referring to Birchall, more than 8 years after opening his own shop.

Birchall had started publishing work by Ludwig von Beethoven in 1805 and obtained some of Beethoven’s’s copyrights in 1815/6. Beethoven sent a receipt in March 1816 confirming that he had received the equivalent of £65 from Birchall for the copyright of four works.⁽³⁾ In November 1816, Lonsdale writes to Beethoven on behalf of Birchall and says that he is “sorry to say Mr. Birchall’s health has been very bad for two or three years back – which prevents him from attending to business […] I fear but little hopes of his being much better”.⁽⁴⁾ Because of Birchall’s declining health, Lonsdale was the one to take over the correspondence with Beethoven, first as Birchall’s assistant, later in his own right from his premises in Old Bond Street. But not just Beethoven went with Lonsdale to Old Bond Street; Johann Sebastian Bach did as well. Yo Tomita, of Queen’s University Belfast, has dedicated a web-page to the publishing history of Bach’s 48 Preludes and Fugues, showing the editions published by Birchall and Lonsdale (see here).

Title-page of Bach’s 48 Preludes and Fugues (Source: Yo Tomita)

The 1841 census does not tell us very much other than that the Lonsdales were living above the shop, but in 1851 sons Charles Richard and Robert Edward are listed as ‘assistants’ and Christopher himself is employing 7 men. Ten years later, the sons are no longer living at home, but the number of employees has remained the same. In 1855, Robert Edward had married Marie Rosalie Thémar, “a talented pianiste”.⁽⁵⁾ In 1871, Robert Edward and Rosalie are once again living in Old Bond Street. Christopher is by then a widower and was to die in November 1877.⁽⁶⁾ I think that Robert continued the business for a few years, but in 1881, the name of Lonsdale is struck through in the Land Tax records and a Mr Hays is pencilled in. Robert died in 1891 and his address is then given as 21 Parkside, Albert Gate, Knightsbridge. He apparently died in Nice at Maison Salvi, 55 Boulevard de l’Imperatrice de la Russie.⁽⁷⁾

The Mr Hays of the Land Tax record was Alfred Hays, who took over the business, but not so much as a shop where music could be bought, but as theatre ticket supplier or ‘entertainment agent’. His sons, Alfred Cordeux and Herbert Bosworth, are referred to as such in the registration of the leasehold of 26 Old Bond Street in The London Gazette of 6 May 1921. They published, for instance, Alfred Hays’ Theatre Plan Book, Showing the Seating Plan of London Theatres, Concert Halls, Sports Grounds, &c.. Alfred Cordeux died on the last day of 1929. His brother Herbert was one of the executors of his will.⁽⁸⁾ Herbert himself died in 1948.⁽⁹⁾

(1) PROB 11/1826/305.
(2) PROB 11/1286/108.
(3) Lady Grace Wallace, Beethoven’s Letters 1790-1826 (1866), letter 181 (online here).
(4) Beethoven-Haus Bonn, NE 151 (online here).
(5) The Morning Chronicle, 2 August 1855.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1877. Robert Edward was one of the executors and the estate was valued at under £8,000.
(7) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1891. The estate was valued at just over £1,500.
(8) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1891. The estate was valued at over £27,300.
(9) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1891. The estate was valued at over £100,000.

Neighbours:

<– 27 Old Bond Street

25 Old Bond Street –>

Dr. Culverwell’s bathing establishment

Tags

medicine

Street View: 7
Address: 23 New Bond Street

23 New Bond Street was used by several businessmen: Richard James Culverwell had his bathing establishment there, but Tallis also lists James Cooper, a tailor, Thomas Ince, a wine merchant, and G.H. Watton, tobacconist “Importer of Havannah Segars & Foreign Snuffs”. As you can see from the elevation at the top of this post, it was rather a large building which easily accommodated all these various businesses. Watton had apparently the most money as he had his name engraved above the building, but that is not to say that his shop was the largest; we do not know. The building was situated on the corner of New Bond Street and Conduit Street where today you can find the even larger building of Burberry’s.

Back cover of the autobiography

Culverwell wrote an autobiography, The Life of Doctor Culverwell, written by himself: being Curiosities of Thirty-Five Years’ Medical Experience, Embodied in the Biography of the Author (1850?), but unfortunately for us, Culverwell’s account is rather verbose, not to mention the fact that he refers to himself as ‘we’, because “it appears less gratingly egoistical”, so you never know whether he means ‘I’ or indeed ‘we’. All this does not make for easy reading. And the ‘facts’ about his life with which he interspersed the account of his medical cases may not be reliable, but I will draw upon them from time to time as they do fill in the gaps between the real facts elicited from dry archival records. Culverwell says that he was born on 13 July 1802 and that his father was a merchant. The date is born out by his baptismal record at St. Sepulchre, London, which gives the same date for his birth when young Richard James was baptised there on 8 August 1802 as the son of Richard James senior and Mary Ann Culverwell. Richard junior became an apprentice apothecary and he received his Licentiate degree in November 1824 at Apothecaries’ Hall after which he could legally start his own career. A year earlier, in November 1823, he had married Ann Eliza Mansell at St. Maylebone and after Richard’s exams, they proceeded to set up their own medical business. Richard typically does not give us the exact address, although later on he mentions living at number 3, but it was “on the borders of a bustling suburb of the north of London, in a newly-built residence” and his account of the preparations to open the shop are a good example of his style of writing.

The old custom for the draper, druggist, and other dealers, was to emblazon in shaded characters, black and white, gold and green, or any motley antagonism, as we see now in our palatial hotels, and other monster establishments. Accordingly, ciphered in due form over a broad front with a couple of transparent paintings in two central windows, one representing the hieroglyphic emblem of a rhinoceros, with “Chemicals from Apothecaries’ Hall” and another notifying the popular attractive fact that advice was to be had at certain hours for nothing, a card on our counter, and a conspicuous lamp, showing its refulgence a mile off, over our door, threw we open our “Medical Hall” to the admiring curious of the neighbourhood.

We may not know the address where he sat himself up in 1825, but we do know that he lived in St. John Square when his daughter Ann Eliza was baptised on 26 August 1824 at St. James, Camberwell. His profession is then given as surgeon. When his next child is baptised, Georgina Phillis, on 4 June 1826, the family’s address is Lower Road (now Lower Street), Islington. They were still there when the third daughter, Harriet Muriel, was baptised on 29 October 1828. We know from later records that there was at least one more daughter born to the couple, Fanny, but I have not found any baptismal record for her. Judging by the census records, she was born c. 1834. That brings me to the first census record available, that is of 1841, when the family are residing at Grove Place.

Portrait R.J. Culverwell, Stipple engraving by W. F. Holl after S. Chinn (Source: Wellcome Library)

By then of course, the baths were well established in New Bond Street as Tallis’s Street View testifies, but before that the Culverwell baths were to be found at Founders Court, Lothbury. An advertisement in The Examiner of 14 March 1830 announces “Culverwell’s shampooing, sulphur, Harrowgate, medicated, vapour and warm baths”. A warm bath would cost you 2s. 6d. According to Richard’s autobiography, the idea of providing hot baths emerged when he still lived and worked in the suburbs (presumably at the Islington address) when a rich patient used a large copper cauldron at the surgery for the hot baths he had been advised by a physician, rather than going up to London to have a good soak. Word got out and hot baths turned out to be more profitable than bottles of physic. The Culverwells had a wooden bath lined with lead constructed in a separate room, but it caused severe disruption to family life as a waiting room had to be arranged in the parlour. One day, the demand for hot water was so great that the chimney caught fire. The coach house at the back of the house was subsequently converted into several bath rooms where vapor, sulphur and warm baths could be had. The drawback was that customers had to go through the house and garden to get to the baths and in winter everything got mouldy and damp. With a neighbour⁽¹⁾, Richard then planned to open a bathing establishment in London and as the neighbour went there every day for his work, he was to find suitable premises, which he eventually did in Founders Court. Culverwell claims to have had twelve rooms with baths in each of them, and in some of the larger rooms, they had vapour, hot air and sulpher baths. The prices were adapted to London standards and a hot bath was now 3s. 6d., later reduced to 2s.

Culverwell branched out into writing books about medical subjects, not so much because money was to be made from the books themselves, but because they could be used to draw in the customers. Some of his publications have several pages at the back eulogising about the baths and itemising his growing list of publicatons. And it worked; business was going well and thoughts of expansion entered Culverwell’s mind. One day, “in a West End ramble our eye caught some premises to let, at 23 New Bond street”. And so Culverwell moved his family to Bond Street and attended to his customers at Founders Court in the morning and to Bond Street in the afternoon, but “the West End Establishment was not successful or satisfactory as a locality for practice. After enduring many discomforts, we sold it for less than half of the original outlay”. And so the baths moved again, this time to 5 Broad Street. Culverwell does not provide years for the several moves, but from advertisements and other sources, we can deduce that the move from New Bond Street came about fairly soon after the Tallis Street Views were published, as an advertisement in his Medical Counsellings; or, The Green Book of 1841 already gives the Broad Street address. An advertisement in his Illustrated Domestic Handbook for Invalids of 1843 tells us that he had moved his family and doctor’s practice to 21 Arundell Street, Strand, while maintaining the baths at Broad Street. Richard had by then acquired his medical degree on the Continent which, according to him, was a lot cheaper than trying to obtain the degree from the College of Physicians.

And then came the last move and finally Culverwell gives us a date “On the 8th of August, 1846, we removed to Argyll Place”. And there they stayed. In December 1852, Richard died, but the business was continued by the widow. The 1861 census shows her as the “owner of public baths”, living with daughter Fanny at 10 Argyll Place. Ann Eliza died in December 1863, but the baths remained in Argyll Place for many years to come.

1885 advertisement sheet (Source: British Library)

(1) The neighbour is just referred to as Tom in the autobiography, but two notices in the London Gazette (2 November 1830 and 8 May 1838) tell us that his name was Thomas Cooke.

Neighbours:

<– 24 New Bond Street

22 New Bond Street –>

Thomas Warne, currier

Tags

currier

Street View: 7
Address: 165 New Bond Street

According to booklet 7 of the Tallis Street Views, 165 New Bond Street was shared between John Barnes, a wig maker and hair cutter and Thomas Warne, antigropelo manufacturer. Pardon? Antigropelo? Yes, exactly my thoughts when I read Warne’s occupation in the Street View directory, so I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary and it turns out to be a combination of the prefix ‘anti’ and the Greek ὑγρός (ygrós = wet) and πηλός (pi̱lós = mud). The OED gives the word as antigropelos with an s at the end which is the more common (and probably linguistically correct) form. The explanation for the word reads: ‘Coverings to protect the legs against wet mud; waterproof leggings. (Originally, a proprietary name)’. And to be comprehensive, the explanation for ‘legging’ is ‘A pair of extra outer coverings (usually of leather or cloth), used as a protection for the legs in bad weather, and commonly reaching from the ankle to the knee, but sometimes higher’. And the National Standard Encyclopedia of 1888 has a nice synonym for them: spatter-dashes, although we call them more prosaically ‘rain leggings’ these days.

Trade card ©British Museum

The first reference I found for Warne’s antigropelos is in an advert in the Newcastle Courant of 3 December, 1836 in which “Thomas Warne, patentee of the antigropelos, begs leave to solicit the attention of noblemen and gentlemen, to his unrivalled invention, by the use of which they are enabled to walk or ride in the dirtiest weather, without soiling their boots or trowsers [sic.]”. Why the advert is in the Newcastle newspaper while Warne is based in London becomes clear further on in the advert when John Newton, a saddler in Newcastle, is introduced as the sole agent for that town. Warne had more ‘sole agents’ in various towns around the country, such as in Bristol, Leicester, Norwich and Southampton. He was on to a good thing and as these things go, the competition tried to get their share of the pickings and Warne had to issue warnings and even go to court to stop the infringement of his patent. In 1843, The Mechanics’ Magazine reported on the breach of an injunction against using the name antigropelos when one Peter Golding tried to get away with it by calling the leggings he sold ‘antimudropelos’. The Vice-Chancellor of England who had granted the injunction the month before was having none of that and Golding was told to stop. During the proceedings Warne claimed to have used the name antigropelos “for upwards of ten years to distinguish the articles of his manufacture”, so he must have invented them in 1833 or thereabouts.

1839 advert (Source: Grace’s Guide)

1848 advert (Source: Grace’s Guide)

But it was not just competitors that Warne had to contend with. In 1844, William Northcott, Warne’s shopman, was charged with embezzling sums of money from his master⁽¹⁾ and in 1838 it was another employee, James Robinson, who was charged with the same offence, although he was found not guilty.⁽²⁾ There had been some disagreement over the payment Robinson made or was supposed to make to Joseph Bold on behalf of Warne for the metal springs Bold made for the antigropelos (the clerk writing down the proceedings obviously did not know what they were, or perhaps there is an error in transcription at a later date, but they are referred to as autocropolis in the proceedings of the case). What is more interesting about this case than the alleged embezzlement is the information given about Warne’s places of business. We know from the Tallis Street View that he had an outlet in Bond Street and several of his advertisements mention 9 Henrietta Street (more on that address later), but in the Old Bailey papers, 414 Strand is mentioned as the “wholesale manufactory”. Robson’s London Directory of 1842 also gives the Strand address as one of the premises for Warne, incidentally also revealing that Warne is a currier, an army and navy contractor and a wholesale boot and shoe manufacturer.

414 Strand is, however, not mentioned in the Street Views, the numbering seems to jump from 413 to 415. On closer inspection, however, it can be seen that between these two premises is a small entrance to Heathcock Court and several tax documents and electoral registers mention Thomas Warne as the occupant of a dwelling in Heathcock Court. A bit more digging produced an F. Warne, currier, who in the 1814 Post Office Directory was given the address of Heathcock Court, 414 Strand. A family relation seems likely, although I have not worked out which one exactly. It cannot have been his father as that was also a Thomas, unless a mistake has been made and F. is really T. From 1821 onwards, I find Thomas at that address in the tax records. In 1829, the partnership between William and Thomas Warne, curriers at 414 Strand, is dissolved.⁽³⁾ No doubt another family relation, but here again, not known which relation exactly.

1839 Freedom City of London

But at some point, probably from the mid-1820s, Thomas, his wife Sarah and the children can be found at 9 Henrietta Street. When precisely Thomas married Sarah cannot be established, but it was probably in 1817 or 1818. Unfortunately, those two years are missing from the St. Paul’s, Covent Garden marriage records and we will have to infer from the baptism of their first child Sarah Sophia in April 1818 that it was a bit before that. After Sarah, six more children are born, all baptised at St. Paul’s (Emma Louisa, 1819; Thomas Burley, 1821; Mary Jane, 1822; George Frederick, 1824; Horatio William, 1825; and Augustus, 1826). When the three eldest children are baptised, the family address varies each time, but when Mary, George and Horatio are baptised, all on 3 November 1825, the address is already Henrietta Street. Thomas acquires the lease for the Henrietta Street property in 1839 and when he renewed the lease in 1861, he added a shop front and a Portland cement refacing to match that of number 10.⁽⁴⁾ But by then, he had long been living in Gloucester Road where the 1851 census finds him with his wife Sarah, his daughters Sarah and Emma and two servants. Sarah sr. died in late July 1854 and was buried on 2 August. The address is then given as Sussex Villas, Gloucester Road, Regent’s Park. The 1861 census shows Thomas, government contractor, living as a widower at Gloucester Road with daughter Emma and three servants. He died on 20 January 1864 and probate is granted to daughters Sarah, by then married to James Somerville, and Emma. His estate is valued at less than £30,000.⁽⁵⁾

modern rain legging

(1) The Morning Post, 13 May 1844.
(2) Old Bailey, 22 October 1838.
(3) London Gazette, 1829.
(4) Survey of London: volume 36: Covent Garden via British History Online (see here).
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1864. Probate is granted 11 February.

Neighbours:

<– 166 New Bond Street

164 New Bond Street –>

David Simpson, baker

Tags

food and drink

Street View: 23 and 7
Address: corner 57 Piccadilly / 46 Old Bond Street

As mentioned in the post on baker William Henry Simpson, the shop at 391 Strand was first in the possession of David Simpson, probably a relation, but the latter removed his bakery to 57 Piccadilly (or 46 Bond Street as it was often referred to, being on the corner of the two streets) somewhere in the 1820s or early 1830s. David was born in about 1786 and married Agnes Johnston in 1811. They had two children, Isabella Maria (born in 1813) and David junior (born in 1815) who was to follow his father in the bakery profession. At the time of the 1841 census, David senior and junior were assisted by at least nine other male bakers and three female (shop) assistants. Isabella is also still living at home, but Agnes is no longer mentioned. David senior dies in late 1842 or early 1843; probate is granted 23 January 1843.⁽¹⁾

biscuit tins ca. 1890 ©Victoria and Albert Museum

David junior continues the bakery, but a few years later, in April 1847 disaster strikes. On a Sunday morning at about eight o’clock, fire broke out in the “extensive range of premises belonging to Mr. Simpson, bread and biscuit maker”. The fire was discovered by a passer-by, but the flames had by then already taken hold of most of the lower floor. The occupants were alerted and made their way out of the building with difficulty; two of the journeymen escaped with nothing more than their night clothes. The newspaper report⁽²⁾ mentions that the “fire-plugs” yielded enough water for the fire-engines to throw on the flames, or, as the newspaper phrased it: “copious streams of the antagonistic element were scattered over the flames”. Unfortunately, the firemen could not prevent the fire reaching the roof from which it spread to the neighbouring property at 58 Piccadilly, the shop of Alabaster, bonnet maker.

The Observer, 11 April 1847

The fire was extinguished by about ten o’clock when the full damage could be ascertained. Simpson’s bakery was severely damaged, and his personal furniture had for a large part gone up in flames. Alabaster’s shop also suffered greatly by fire and water. The property around the corner in Bond Street, belonging to Messrs Judd and Son, boot and shoemakers, was damaged by water, but they were insured, unlike Simpson who was not. Another report said that although he was not personally insured, the building itself was.⁽³⁾ Simpson rebuilt the bakery, but a little over a year later he died⁽⁴⁾ and the business was taken over by George Frederick and Edward Jobbins. Their partnership only lasted until 25 March 1850 when it was dissolved by mutual consent.⁽⁵⁾

George Frederick stayed at the Piccadilly / Bond Street premises and Edward moved out. The 1851 census shows George Frederick at the address, together with his wife Jane, sons Henry and George, his widowed mother (or mother-in-law; it is not clear as she uses a different last name) and a house servant, two shop girls and eight male bakers. In 1852, he deems it necessary to put in an advert stating that the bread made at his establishment “is warranted to be quite free from adulteration” and made with the flour provided by Mr. Dives of Battersea “whose flour was pronounced by the Analytical Commission to be quite pure”.⁽⁶⁾ Had someone been making accusations? And while Jobbins is guaranteeing the flour he uses, he also takes the opportunity to tell his customers that his dry biscuits are warranted to remain in good condition for twelve months if kept in the boxes provided and free from damp and “boxes allowed for when returned”.

Dives’ horizontal mill at Battersea, copy of an illustration in E. Walford, Old and New London, vol. 6. Photo credit: Wandsworth Museum via BBC Your Paintings. The top of the windmill had been taken down in about 1825 and the work was from then on done by a steam engine.

The next census return for G.F. Jobbins (1861) is fairly unreadable, but he can no longer be found at Piccadilly, but at Montpellier Vale, Blackheath, Lewisham. He is still a baker, his sons and daughter and several other bakers are listed for the business, but why Blackheath? The lease for 21 (was 1) Montpellier Vale had been in the possession of John Dalton, a grocer, since 1851, but after a few years, he advertised the shop for sale with the lease as “recently erected […] spacious lofty corner shop and fine spring water”.⁽⁷⁾ Spring water was no doubt of great use to a baker and this asset may have determined Jobbins to move to Blackheath. From the 1850s, the suburbs of London grew rapidly and Blackheath was no exception. The additional number of customers ensured that Jobbins’ business prospered despite the competition of other bakers in the area. In 1880, George Frederick handed the bakery over to his son Stephen, whom we see in the 1881 census as a 28-year old “baker & confectioner employing 11 men & 1 boy”. George Frederick, a widower, can be found at Milsey Lodge in Islington, living with his daughter Jane and her husband George Drysdale, a Presbyterian minister from Scotland. George Frederick died in 1895 in Bournemouth. A family tree of the Jobbinses can be found here (Ancestry members only).⁽⁹⁾

Jobbins’ shop at 6-7 Brunswick Place (with thanks to chrisj60)

Stephen did not stick to baking bread and biscuits. He also acted as an agent for domestic staff and started up a catering business, not just supplying the food for functions, but also the cutlery and crockery needed and the entertainment itself, from conjurors to dance orchestras.⁽⁸⁾ In 1900, Stephen signed over the lease of Montpellier Vale to a hosier and just concentrated on his other premises at 7 and 9 Blackheath Village (then 6-7 Brunswick Place). But within a very short time, he had expanded that shop once again to include a “Luncheon and Oriental Tea Room”. Eventually he had five branches in Lewisham, Lee, Eltham and Mottingham and – as these things go – was eventually taken over by even bigger companies.

(1) PROB 11/1974/118.
(2) Northern Star, 10 April 1847.
(3) The Observer, 11 April 1847.
(4) He was buried 20 June 1848 at Hillingdon, just 33 years old.
(5) London Gazette, 29 March 1850.
(6) The Spectator, 21 February 1852. Jobbins refers to Food and the Adulterations; Comprising the Reports of the Analytical Sanitary Commission of “The Lancet” for the Years 1851 to 1854 inclusive (1855) who pronounce that Dives’ flour “does not contain alum”.
(7) N. Rhind, Blackheath Village and Environs, 1790-1970, vol. 1 (1976), p. 60-61.
(8) idem, p. 38.
(9) Family tree owned by chrisj60 and published at Ancestry.co.uk. Many thanks to Christina for allowing me to use the photo of the bakery.

Neighbours:

<– 58 Piccadilly

56 Piccadilly –> 45 Old Bond Street –>

Jean-Baptiste Reynauld, an unfortunate silk merchant

Tags

clothing, silk

Street View: 7
Address: 14 New Bond Street

On the 29th of March, 1837, a Frenchman arrived in England through the Docks of London and the arrival certificate states that his name was Jean Baptiste Reynauld, that he was a silk mercer, a French citizen with a French passport, and that he had arrived from Boulogne on the Emerald. This was not his first entry into England as it is also stated that he had “left from London in March last”.⁽¹⁾ And indeed, we do find a Jean-Baptiste Reynauld as early as 1827 in the records of the Fire Office as “silk mercer and linen draper” in 2 Beak Street off Regent Street. Subsequent entries show him in 1831 in 53 Lower Brook Street off Grosvenor Square as “silk mercer, embroiderer and jeweller” and from June 1836 in 14 New Bond Street, again as “silk mercer, embroiderer and jeweller”.⁽²⁾ As you can see from the elevation, 14 New Bond Street appears to be a very moderate establishment, but as we will see later in the story, the space above the shops at number 13 also belonged to Reynauld.

Advertisement The Morning Post 20 May 1839

1840s Fashion From Paris (Source: pinterest.com/pin/83035186849172026/)

His trip to France in 1837 for which we have the arrival certificate was probably not his last, as in May 1839 he advertises new dresses from Paris which have arrived in time for the celebration of the Queen’s birthday. We can probably assume that he went over to France to buy the dresses himself, although records do not show us that he did indeed go himself. He may have used agents, or received them on spec from his French suppliers, but that is not certain. The dresses probably looked something like the ones shown here. An advertisement in The Morning Post alerts us to the fact that Reynauld did more than sell silk. He was apparently also the agent, or at least the corresponding address for French institutions, such as the Institute for Young Ladies in Paris.

Advertisement The Morning Post 22 March 1837

1839 is also the year where his misfortunes begin. One of his employees, Frederick Syret (also Syrett) and two associates, Robert Agar and Wiliam Blake, rob the place on 2 June. We can follow the story from the newspaper reports. The Era of 16 June gives a detailed account of the event under the heading “Housebreaking and extensive robbery” which came out at the Queen Street Magistrate Court hearing:
“Frederick Syret, Robert Agar, and William Blake, were placed at the bar, charged with feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Baptiste Reynauld, silk-mercer and laceman, of no. 14, New Bond-Street, and stealing therein £120 in bank notes, 28 sovereigns, a large quantity of blonde lace, Chantilly veils, jewellery, plate, and other property to a very considerable amount. – Mr. J.B. Reynauld stated that he had known the mother of the prisoner Syret for upwards of ten years, she having lived as housekeeper with him for ten years. He had never lost sight of the family from that period, and prisoner (Syret) had been a servant of his three times. He last came into his employ on the 15th of March, and remained with him until Sunday, the 2nd of June, when he asked, and received permission, to go out for the day. About a quarter to four in the afternoon prosecutor left his house, and on his return, at a quarter past five, his female servant, who opened the street door, was much agitated, and desired him to go up stairs. He found his bedroom and dining room strewed with articles of wearing apparel and property of different descriptions, and the lock of a bureau had been forced, and eighteen silver spoons, sugar-tongs &c. carried off. He then found the warehouse door, which great violence had been used to, open, unlocked, and the iron chest, which had been secured but two hours previously, robbed of its contents in cash and jewellery, amongst the latter of which was a valuable head ornament set with dead pearls of green, blue, violet and lilac. On a further examination he discovered that the locks of the different drawers had been forced, and a very large quantity of black and white blonde, a piece of silver blonde, a pair of gold epaulettes, a number of Chantilly veils, and other property stolen. – Mr. Gregorie [the magistrate] inquired the amount of the property stolen? – Mr. Reynauld said that he could not give a correct estimate at the moment, as so much appeared to have been carried off. He had at present missed articles to the value of £300. – Mr. Gregorie was desirous of knowing how Syret first became suspected? – Mr Reynauld replied that he had absconded, and, from what his servant told him, there must have been others besides him to have committed the robbery. Prosecutor was about to explain further, but Mr. Gregorie observed that what the girl had told him would not be evidence in law. She must be in attendance herself. – Mr. Reynauld said that he had omitted to state in his evidence that he had found a suit of old clothes in his bedroom, which had been evidently left by his visitors. – Serjeant Langley, of the A division, stated that he went with another constable – in consequence of having made inquiries – to the house, No. 13, New Street, Vauxhall, which the prisoners had taken possession of the day previously. It was at about nine on Sunday morning, and he found Agar in the front room. He told him he must consider himself in custody, and on searching he found £68 tied up in a silk handkerchief on a chair in the same room, which Agar claimed as his money; and in the parlour, under a bed, he discovered a box full of veils and lace, which prosecutor identified as part of the stolen property; and in a back lumber room several perfect sets of housebreaking implements. – George Colier, 38 E, corroborated the above. – Mr. Gregorie inquired who occupied the house as landlord?. – Collier replied, that Syret said he took it. – Witness had since seen the landlord, who confirmed this account. – Mr Gregorie inquired if the housebreaking implements had been brought away? – Two large portmanteaus full were then exhibited as ‘part’ of those found. They contained about half a hundred weight of skeleton keys of all seizes, several of which had been evidently broken in forcing locks. There were three dark lanterns, stocks and centre-bits, and a corresponding number of ‘jemmies’ as the crowbar is technically termed. There were other blank keys with wax on them, ready to take the impression of any lock; and by the account of the constables a vice and other implements were also found on the premises to file them out to any shape or size. – The prisoners declined making any defence.”

A week later, the paper continued with the report on the case. First of all the landlady of the house Syret had used after the robbery was questioned and she alleged that Syret had represented himself as “Mr. Edgar” to her. Another witness called was Miss Gibbs of 165 New Bond Street who “stated that on Sunday, the 2nd of June, she saw a person whom she believes to be the prisoner Blake standing facing Mr. Reynauld’s shop about four in the afternoon. He went to the street door, and the servant let him in a short time afterwards. When she again went to the window from which she had observed this, she saw Mr. Reynauld’s female servant who had let the man in ringing at her master’s door several times. Mr. Gregorie desired the servant to stand up, when she stated that on the Sunday of the robbery Syret went out in the morning while she was cleaning the warehouse out, and he returned again about half past three. While her master was engaged with two gentlemen in the warehouse, Syret went down into the kitchen, and inquired of her whether Mr. Reynauld had seen him come in, and she replied that she did not think his master had. After a few minutes Syret said, ‘It’s a nice day, Anne; how much good a walk would do you.’ She said, she knew no one nearer than Chelsea, and that was too far; to which he replied, ‘You can go and get that coat from my mother’s, or take a walk to Mrs. Wooler’s the washerwomen’s.’ She expressed her unwillingness to do so, and he then said if she would go out for a little while it would much oblige him, as he had two friends coming that he wished to say something to alone. Her master had just left the house, and, as Syret had pressed her, she went out for three quarters of an hour, as he said that would be long enough. On her return she found, after ringing at the bell some time, that the street door was partly open. She then went up stairs, and discovered that the place had been robbed and Syret gone. – On the application of Mr. Humphreys [the prosecutor], who said he was not prepared to go any further at present, the prisoners were remanded for a week.”

The story is then taken up by The Morning Post of 5 July who report that a case is made for Blake being innocent as Anne Kelly, the servant, could not identify him and Syret also said that Blake had nothing to do with the robbery, but Mr. Gregorie was having none of that. According to him the prisoners had all to go to trial. The next step in the saga is the trial at the Old Bailey where the case was presented on 8 July. I will not repeat the whole proceedings as they are essentially the same as those reported in the newspapers, but they do itemize the goods stolen, which in total came to well over £460:

505 yards of lace, value 112l.; 30 lappets, value 32l.; 14 veils, value 20l.; 12 sleeves, value 8l.; 18 spoons, value 6l.; 1 pair of sugar tongs, value 1l.; 3 studs, value 16s.; 1 watch, value 4l.; 2 coats, value 3l.; 1 cravat, value 6s.; 1 waistcoat, value 12s.; 1 pair of trowsers [sic], value 15s.; 2 pencil cases, value 12l.; 2 knives, value 2s.; 1 pair of spoons, value 4s.; 1 head ornament, value 30l.; 1 bracelet, value 20l.; 2 brooches, value 60l.; 1 opera-glass, value 2l. 10s.; 1 purse, value 5s.; 23 sovereigns, 10 half-sovereigns, 100 shillings, 16 sixpences, 1 £40 Bank-notes, 5 £10 Bank-notes, and 6 £5 Bank-notes.

Blake and Syret were indicted for stealing, Agar “for harbouring the said prisoners, knowing them to have committed the said felony”. The verdict for William Blake turned out rather good, he was let off “not guilty”, but Syret, 18 year old, was given a 15-year transport sentence, and Robert Agar, 23 years old, was to be transported for 14 years.⁽³⁾ Syret was transported on the Eden in July 1840 to New South Wales; Agar on the Asia in April 1840 to Van Diemen’s Land.⁽⁴⁾

Life returned to normal and Reynauld continued to sell his silk from 14 New Bond Street until another disaster struck, this time a major fire. The Morning Post is once again our key witness:
“A fire broke out yesterday morning [= 7 February 1843] about a quarter before four o’clock, at no. 14, New Bond Street, occupied by Mr. Reynauld, a silk mercer, and which but for the promptitude displayed by the firemen, would doubtless have resulted in vast destruction of property. The house of Mr. Reynauld, which is in the narrow part of New Bond Street, nearly facing the Clarendon Hotel, is an extremely large one, extending over a row of shops occupied by Mrs. M.A. Smith, milliner, Miss. Devine, hosier and glover, and Mr. Asplin, hair dresser and perfumer, Mr. Reynold’s own show-room extending on the first floor over the entire three. Mr. Reynauld and his family occupied the upper portion of the house. Engines from Baker-street, which had but just left the fire at Colonel Buckworth’s, and those of the County Office, were speedily in motion, and a good supply of water being procured, operations were commenced with great difficulty, five lengths of hose having to be conveyed to the top of the house up the staircase, and the leaden roof having to be cut through before they could fairly get to play upon the flames. They were got under in about three quarters of an hour, and it was then discovered that the fire must have originated from a stove which stood in the south east corner of the dining room, the pipe of which came in close connection with one of the rafters of the roof. There was a fire in the stove the previous night, but Mr. Reynauld saw it put out. A considerable quantity of furniture is destroyed and the house much damaged by the water; the exact amount, however, had not been ascertained. The house and property of Mr. Reynauld is insured in the Phoenix.”

He may have been insured, but not long after the fire, Reynauld decided to sell up. What became of him and his family is unclear. Perhaps they went back to France.

Advertisement The Morning Post 14 June 1843

(1) Alien Arrivals, 1810-1811, 1826-1869. Class: HO 2; Piece: 23; Certificate Number: 1168.
(2) National Archives, Records of Sun Fire Office MS 11936/516/1065576 28 September 1827; MS 11936/522/1096193 11 September 1829; MS 11936/533/1130316 28 October 1831; MS 11936/539/1163634 4 December 1833; MS 11936/550/1211708 28 January 1836; MS 11936/553/1224157 1 June 1836.
(3) Old Bailey Proceedings Online, July 1839, trial of Frederick Syrett William Blake Robert Agar (t18390708-2100).
(4) Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 91, Class and Piece Number HO11/12, Page Number 197 and 184 resp.

Neighbours:

<– 15 New Bond Street

13 New Bond Street –>