Anthony Brown, musical instrument maker

Tags

dyer, music

Street View: 8
Address: 28 High Holborn

As we saw in the post on John Hooper, 28 High Holborn was occupied by his neighbour (and later father-in-law) Richard Swift, perfumer, but the last we hear of the latter is in 1831 when he took out an insurance policy with the Sun Alliance. Two years later, Eliza Huntley, hairdresser and perfumer, insures the property, but that is all we know of her. In July 1837, Emma Sarah, the daughter of Anthony and Julia Brown is baptised at St. Andrew’s, Holborn, and although no house number is given, the family lived at High Holborn. In the church record, Anthony is described as musical instrument maker. Although he was born in London, Anthony was originally called Antonio Bruno, as his ancestors were of Italian origin, but he anglicised his name to Anthony Brown. Pigot’s Directory of 1839 duly lists him at number 28. Tallis lists him at 28 High Holborn as violin, violincello and guitar maker, but he was not to stay at the address for very long.

In the 1841 census, Anthony can already be found at 40 Upper Rosoman Street, Clerkenwell, still listed as musical instrument maker. At the same address we find Alexander Cheffins, professor of music, whom we came across in the post on 4 Mortimer Street. Both gentlemen only made a brief appearance at the addresses that Tallis listed and if he had published his booklets a year later, he might have missed them altogether. Anthony Brown was to remain at Upper Rosoman Street for quite some years, although he seems to have emigrated to Australia later in life. At some point in time he worked with Joseph Panormo, the brother of Louis Panormo whom we have encountered in the post on 46 High Street, Bloomsbury. I suppose musical London was not that big a place and we should not really be surprised that Panormo, Cheffins, and Brown were in some way linked.

The next occupant of number 28 is Charles Laughton, a hosier, who was definitely there when the census of 1841 was taken, that is, on the night of 6/7 June. According to the Post Office Directory of 1848, he was still there, but, in the directory of 1851, he has made way for Henry Hart, clothier and outfitter. Around that time, Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, depicted the two small houses at 28 and 30 High Holborn.

T.H. Shepherd, 27-31 High Holborn (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Both Shepherd and the engraver for Walford’s Old and New London give the shop at number 28 the name “Aux Mille Couleur” and above the windows the words “cleaner, dyer, scourer”, so the shop was certainly no longer occupied by Hart, the outfitter. The alleyway between the two buildings, behind the man and the dog, leads to number 29, the Coach & Horses whose proprietor Pacy also took over number 30. The 1851 census (30 March) tells us that Henry Hart is still at number 28, so the Shepherd and Walford drawings must date from a later period. The British Museum dates the picture to c. 1850 and J.F.C. Phillips in his Shepherd’s London (1976) to c. 1852, which accords with the pencilled comment by J.G. Crace under the British Museum copy which says c. 1852 and that seems a more likely date than 1850 since Henry Hart is still at number 28 at the time of the census and is also listed in the 1851 Post Office Directory. The 1856 Post Office Directory gives ‘Boura Aimé, dyer & scourer’ which does corresponds to the lettering on the property in the two pictures. No comma between Boura and Aimé, so unclear whether Aimé is a first name.

E. Walford, Old and New London, vol. 4 – detail

But the listing in the 1856 directory does not solve everything. There were two gentlemen of that name in London who were both listed as scourers and dyers: Julien Aimé Boura and Louis Aimé Boura, no doubt with a close family relationship. In the 1851 and 1861 censuses, Julien is enumerated at 42 Edgware Road and Louis at 31 Rathbone Place, so neither was living at 28 High Holborn. The Finsbury electoral register for 1865 lists an Aimé Boura at 28 High Holborn, but does not give more information. The 1841 census, however, lists Louis as Aimé Boura at Rathbone Place and an Old Bailey case confirms that Louis and Aimé are one and the same person. Boura states that he is a dyer of Rathbone Place and that “I call myself both names when it is required, but generally I do not give any name but Aime” and when asked to confirm that he had two names, “I have never been used to write only Aime — it is the name I have always gone by — it is my Christian name”; in other words, he is called by his second name, but uses both first names in writing.⁽¹⁾ This explains why the census and electoral register just use ‘Aimé’ as that was probably his answer to their question ‘What is your name?’.

The 1861 census for 28 High Holborn shows a blank space behind number 28, so presumably nobody slept on the premises and the 1871 census even skips the number altogether. This would be the end of the story of 28 High Holborn, but for an invention by Louis Aimé Boura of Rathbone Place which was explained in The Patent Journal, and Inventors’ Magazine of 1848 and which I thought I’d share with you. The contraption was also shown in the 1851 Great Exhibition.

(1) Old Bailey Case t18420919-2638.

Neighbours:

<– 29 High Holborn

27 High Holborn –>

John Hooper & Sons, confectioners and lozenge manufacturers

Tags

food and drink

Street View: 8
Address: 26-27 High Holborn

Hooper’s shop only accidentally made it into a drawing by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, and that only partially, as he depicted the two neighbouring properties, numbers 28 and 30. One half of Hooper’s premises can be seen on the right-hand side of Shepherd’s picture. The same cluster of houses was also depicted in volume 4 of Walford’s Old and New London. In both pictures the names of the shopkeepers are different from the ones in Tallis’s Street View; we will come back to that in the posts on the other buildings, but for now, we are just concerned with Hooper’s shop.

T.H. Shepherd, 27-31 High Holborn (© Trustees of the British Museum)

E. Walford, Old and New London, vol. 4

Hooper was first found at 27 High Holborn in an 1802 insurance policy with the Sun Alliance. He and Silvester Norton, confectioners, insure the property on the 1st of November of that year. They may have been at the address in earlier years, but I have not found any evidence for that. In November 1806 Silvester Norton married Elizabeth Hooper at St. Andrew’s, Holborn, and in September of 1807, John Hooper married Elizabeth Norton at St. Pancras Old Church. Both marriages were by licence and the entries in the church registers do not include the names of the parents, which is a pity, as that would have confirmed the double link between the Hooper and Norton siblings. As it is, they may be relatives, such as cousins or nieces rather than siblings, but that the two confectioners forged a double family bond is clear. Silvester’s will of 1826, however, helps as he describes John Hooper as his business partner and brother-in-law, so Elizabeth Norton, John Hooper’s wife, was most likely Silvester’s sister.⁽¹⁾ Anyway, after the death of Elizabeth, John married Sarah, the daughter of his neighbour Richard Swift, a perfumer at 28 High Holborn.

Tallis lists the Hoopers as ‘confectioners and lozenge manufacturers’. Lozenges were, according to The Guide to Trade: The Confectioner (1842) “composed of loaf-sugar in fine powder, and other substances, either liquid or in powder, which are mixed together and made into a paste with dissolved gum, rolled out into thin sheets, and formed with tin cutters into little cakes, either oval, square, or round, and dried”. I am slightly worried about the “other substances”, but the Guide starts the list with fairly innocuous additions to give the lozenges their taste, such as peppermint, cinnamon, lavender, or ginger. They then go on to sulpher, ipecacuanha, yellow pectoral (made with orris-root), and magnesium lozenges, among others. Yuk.

The Great Lozenge Maker, cartoon by John Leech, first published in Punch, 1858. Mind, I am not suggesting that Hooper resorted to putting poison in his lozenges.

John Hooper's sons from his first marriage, John, William and Frederick, all entered into the business as wholesale confectioners. In the 1841 census, John senior is still found at 27 Holborn, but his occupation is listed as 'independent', so presumably retired. John junior and Frederick are found at the same address as 'confectioners'. At number 26 we find Charles Norton, Elizabeth Norton, and Thomas Norton. Charles (48 years old) is listed as 'independent' and after Elizabeth's name it says 'friends on a visit', but that is later crossed out. Thomas is 18 years old and 'shopman'. Thomas was most likely the son of Silvester, as he had a son John who was born in 1824, so definitely the right age, but what the exact link between the Hoopers and Charles and Elizabeth is, is uncertain. Thomas Norton is still at 26-27 High Holborn as a shopman in the next census of 1851. John Hooper senior is now listed as 'landed proprietor of houses' and although there is another John Hooper listed, it is not son John, but a 'nephew', working as 'warehouseman'. Another ten years on and the 1861 census lists John senior as 'gentleman' and son Frederick as the 'confectioner'.

John Hooper by John Linnell 1837 (Temple Newsam House, Leeds Museums and Galleries via BBC Your Paintings)

Various directories show us the changes in the name of the business and address:
1811 London and County Directory: Hooper & Norton, wholesale confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1814 Post Office Directory: Hooper & Norton, wholesale confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1819 Post Office Directory: Hooper & Norton, wholesale confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1823 Kent’s Hooper & Norton, confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1825 Pigot’s Hooper & Norton, wholesale confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1839 Pigot’s John Hooper & Sons, wholesale confectioners, 27 High Holborn
1843 Post Office Directory: John Hooper & Sons, wholesale confectioners, 26-27 High Holborn
1848 Post Office Directory: John Hooper & Son, wholesale confectioners & lozenge manufacturers, 26-27 High Holborn
1851 Post Office Directory: J. Hooper & Son, wholesale confectioners, 26-27 High Holborn
1856 Post Office Directory: J. Hooper & Son, wholesale confectioners, 26-27 High Holborn

It is logical that Norton’s name disappeared after Silvester’s death in 1825, but the explanation for the expansion into number 26 is not so easy to link to a specific occasion. Did the neighbouring shop owner die, move away, go bankrupt and did Hooper take the opportunity to expand? Or was there another reason to take over number 26? Whatever the reason, the confectioners continued to make their lozenges from the combined address for many years to come.

John senior died in November 1865 and his executors were sons John and William, both listed as wholesale confectioners of 27 High Holborn.⁽²⁾ At some point between 1866 and 1873, the sons must have sold the business as in the last instalment of The Building News of 1873, the rebuilding of 26-27 High Holborn was described as for Henry Brett & Co, whom we will encounter in a later post at 139 Holborn Bars as the proprietors of Furnival’s Inn, coffee house and hotel. The Building News gives details about the changes (see below), one of them the covering of the open courtyard with a timber roof with a lantern “the length of the store”. This lantern can clearly be seen on Goad’s insurance map of 1887. The WHSE you see in the picture just means ‘warehouse’. Brett informed his customers in an advertisement in the Daily News of 15 May 1874 that the distillery had been removed from Holborn Bars to their new building at 26-27 High Holborn. And with this, we have come to the end of our story for 26-27 Holborn.

(1) Silvester had died in July 1825 and was buried at St. Andrew’s on the 30th of that month. PROB 11/1710/11.
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1866. His estate was valued at under £25,000.

Neighbours:

<– 28 High Holborn

25 High Holborn –>

Henry Finch, victualler

Tags

catering, food and drink

Street View: 8
Address: 13 Middle Row, Holborn

Although Tallis shows The George, the pub on the corner of Middle Row, Holborn, in his Street View, he does not list the proprietor in the index of booklet 8. A mistake? Possibly, because there is also another shop with the number 13, occupied by William Blissett, a hatter. The house numbering in Middle Row was rather confusing at times, but at least the pub on the corner was always at number 13. We will come back to Blissett in another post, but first the pub.

Anonymous print showing the top of Middle Row with houses numbered 1 (on the left Marshall), 2 (centre, no name) and 13 on the right with the name of Joseph Frith, so dating from somewhere between 1800 and 1830 (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Joseph Frith was the proprietor in 1806 (and possible before that) and after his death, his son William took over. Unfortunately, William died, just 29 years old, in 1838 and a year later, his widow Mary Ann married widower Henry Finch of Grays Inn Lane.⁽¹⁾ The 1841 census saw Henry living at number 13 with young daughter Sarah from his first marriage. Mary Ann is visiting her parents in Bedale, Yorkshire, with two children from her first marriage and a baby boy, Henry junior, from her marriage with Finch. Alas, Mary Ann died a year later and in 1851, Henry is assisted in the pub by Charles Smith of Bedale, most likely Mary Ann’s brother. Something has gone wrong in the census registration for that year as Henry is listed twice; not only at 13 Middle Row, but also as tavern keeper at 20-21 Albert Terrace where we also find his daughter Sarah, his stepdaughter Jane Firth and, as housekeeper, Elizabeth Smith from Bedale, most likely Mary Ann’s sister. Besides various servants for the pub, we also find another Henry Finch on the premises as cellarman. Judging by his age, 17, he cannot be Henry and Mary Ann’s son, as the son would only have been 10 or 11 years old. Perhaps another relative?

Ten years later, Henry has made another move and is now to be found as hotel keeper at the Holly Bush Hotel in Norwood. He died there in December 1862 and probate is granted to his son William, one of the executors.⁽²⁾ William is described as wine dealer of 2 Middle Row Place, which was just to the west of Middle Row itself.

The Morning Chronicle, 30 October 1810

But back to The George at number 13. According to the Post Office Directory of 1851, Henry had extended the business to include number 12, which was not next to number 13, but on the south side of Holborn itself. An explanation may be found in an 1810 advertisement for the extensive vaults and cellars under number 12. Perhaps that was what attracted Finch? In the early 1850s, number 2, which is next door to Finch, was occupied by a carver and gilder, first by Alexander Marshall and then by James Piper. A drawing by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd in the British Museum shows Middle Row head on and, although it is not terribly clear, the names of Finch (green fascia) and J. Piper (yellow fascia) can be made out. The shop on the left of the Row is number 1, but I cannot make out the name of the shopkeeper [Postscript: His name was Robert Cole (see comment by David Wilson]. The drawing by Shepherd is dated 1857, but in a later picture of 1867, you can see that Finch had extended his pub to include number 2 with a matching front. Whether he held on to number 12 after he acquired number 2 is unclear. I only found evidence for number 12 in the 1851 and 1856 Post Office Directories.

T.H. Shepherd, Middle Row, 1857 (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Embed from Getty Images

– 1867 print by E.H. Dixon

In July 1862, that is half a year before his death, Henry requested that his licence as a victualler for number 13 be transferred to his son Henry junior.⁽³⁾ Whether it was Henry senior who extended the business to include number 2, or whether it was his son is unclear, but the effort involved did not bring any long-term advantages, as in 1867, Middle Row disappeared completely. At various times in the nineteenth century, plans had been put forward to remove the Middle Row houses as they were impeding the flow of traffic in Holborn⁽⁴⁾, but nothing had come of those plans until 1867 when the Board of Works made a start with the removal.⁽⁵⁾ Henry, as did the other owners of properties in the Middle Row block that was to be demolished, received compensation from the City. The total plus interest for him came to well over £10.500. For unfathomable reasons, the Board of Works referred to The George as being at numbers 11 and 12. Perhaps there had been a recent renumbering of the houses? The pub certainly did not move.

Part of a picture from The Illustrated London News of 28 September 1867 showing numbers 1,2 and 13 with posters in the windows and on the facade to announce that the houses were to be demolished

After the demolition of Middle Row, Finch removed his pub to 333 High Holborn, which used to be 8 and 9 Middle Row, that is: on the south side of Holborn itself, so not in the part of Middle Row that was removed. Goad’s insurance map of 1886 shows number 333 between the alleys leading to Staple Inn Buildings and Tennis Court. It also shows that Finch had extended the business backwards into Staple Inn Buildings. In July 1867, he asked for his licence to be transferred to the new premises, which was granted.

I have not found any decent pictures of the part of Middle Row that was hidden by the block of houses in the road and later became 328-336 High Holborn, but there is a photograph of a small part of Finch’s pub at number 333, which, after the move from Middle Row, he called ‘the Old Holborn Bars’. The photograph was taken in c. 1910 to show the rather grand Birckbeck (later Westminster) Bank next door and by chance the pub managed to get into the picture. I have cut off the bank as that is not what this post is about and although it is not a very good photograph, at least it shows that Finch’s still existed in those days and I think it even survived until World War II. For the original photograph with the bank see here.

bar jug (Source: invaluables.com)

============================
(1) William Firth and Mary Ann Smith were married on 4 August, 1834, at St. Luke’s Chelsea. Mary Ann was still a minor and her “natural and lawful father” George Smith had to give his consent. Mary Ann and Henry Finch were married on 15 August, 1839.
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1863. Estate valued at under £14,000.
(3) The Era, 13 July 1862.
(4) For instance in 1846 when the commissioners for paving in the parishes of St. Andrew and St. George the Martyr unsuccessfully presented a petition to the House of Commons for such removal (see Daily News, 15 August 1846.
(5) Minutes of Proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, 1867.

Neighbours:

<– 2 Middle Row

13 Middle Row –>

Daniel Barrett, tea and coffee dealer

Tags

grocer

Street View: 8
Address: 147 Holborn Bars

Kindest of friends, I have done with my brooding,
Ever obliging to each and to all;
Happy and thankful – if not too intruding,
I’ll meet your good wishes whenever you call.

On 18 October 1807, Thomas and Daniel, sons of Paul and Elizabeth Barrett of Marylebone were registered at Spa Fields Chapel, at the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion [see for the history of the movement here]. The record also notes their date of birth: 17 January 1805 for Thomas and 29 December 1806 for Daniel. In 1821, Daniel obtained his freedom of the City of London via the Haberdashers by redemption, paying the fine of 46s 8d. He is listed as a tea dealer and from a notice in The London Gazette of 21 February 1826, we learn that Alfred Tulley and Daniel Barrett dissolve their partnership as tea dealers at Church Street, Hackney.

Soon after, Daniel must have entered into another partnership as on the 31st of December 1828, he and James Franks of Green Lettuce Lane, London, dissolve their partnership as wholesale coffee dealers. We next hear from Daniel when he is declared a bankrupt in 1837.⁽¹⁾ He is then described as grocer, dealer and chapman of Fetter Lane and Holborn Bars. Possibly related is an insurance entry of 5 March 1838 for one John Blissett “at Mr. Barretts, grocer, 147 Holborn Bars, gent”.⁽²⁾ It would make sense to rent out some space in your property if you are in need of money to pay off your creditors. One month later, however, Thomas and Daniel Barrett, “green grocers”, insure property at 24 Church Street, Bethnal Green.⁽³⁾ But, the Holborn Bars shop must have remained in Daniel possession, as Tallis clearly lists him at number 147 and the advertisement Daniel put in the Street View leaves nothing to the imagination. He tells us that he has given up the shop at 44 Fetter Lane and that from the Holborn address, he once again deals in tea, coffee, cocoa, chocolate and sugar, and that he has also installed a tripartite mill, which, of course, makes all the difference to the quality of the produce. In the Tallis Street View index, he is listed as “Tea and Coffee Dealer, and Manufacturer of the Improved Coffee Roasting Machine”.

Advert in Street View 8

24 Church Street seems to have been the family residence, as from that address, on 9 May 1839, Mary Elizabeth Barrett, one of the daughters of Paul Barrett, grocer, and therefore Daniel and Thomas’s sister, marries one Edwin Loach, the son of Benjamin Loach, a gun maker. What is relevant, however, is that Edwin is also given the Church Street address. Was he perhaps an employee of the Barretts who fell in love with the daughter/sister, or was he simply a lodger? In 1841, Edwin and Mary, with their 11 month old baby Joseph, can be found in the census in George Street, Nether Hallam, Sheffield. Edwin is now said to be in the army. In 1851, the Loach family can be found at Fishergate, York St. Lawrence. Edwin is now a sergeant armourer and Joseph T(homas) has a younger brother Edwin B(arrett).

trade tokens (Source: abccoinsandtokens.com)

In the mean time, in an 1842 directory, Daniel is listed as a grocer and tea dealer at 95, Fetter Lane and in the 1851 census, he can be found at 24, Three Colt Street, Limehouse. He is not married and his sister Harriet is acting as his housekeeper. Ten years later, this household situation is the same, but at a different address, 7 St. John’s Villas, Upper Holloway, Islington. I have not found Daniel in the 1871 census, but he dies in 1880 and in his probate record he is still listed as of 7 St. John’s Villas and his nephew Joseph Thomas Loach is named as the executor.⁽⁴⁾ Joseph is described as a tea dealer of 193 Mile End Road, so instead of following in his father’s army footsteps, he took up his uncle’s grocery profession. In fact, when we look at the 1871 census for Mile End road, we see that Mary Elizabeth Loach, by now a widow, is listed as the head of the grocery business. Both sons, Joseph and Edwin, are also listed at that address as grocers. Joseph marries Victoria Jane Durstow on 22 October 1873 and their second son, who is born in 1879, is given the name of Daniel Barrett Loach. His elder brother is called Edwin Benjamin. The Mile End address remains the address for the grocery business, at least until 1897 when Joseph is listed in the electoral register as living at that address. When Joseph’s aunt Harriet dies in 1897, he is named as one of the executors. He is then still a tea dealer, but no address is given.

The brother of the Daniel of 147 Holborn Bars, Thomas, can be found at Albany Place, Stepney in the 1871 census record. He is described as tea dealer and grocer. He, like Daniel, is unmarried and another sister, Pauline, is his housekeeper. Thomas dies in early 1875 and probate is granted to Pauline as one of his residuary legatees. The estate is valued at less than £100, so he did not do as well as his brother, or perhaps he signed away his wealth before he died. The probate record gives his last address as the Gun Tea Warehouse, 599 Commercial Road.⁽⁵⁾

@Wellcome Library

In 1886, sister Harriet erects a drinking fountain in Commercial Road in memory of her brothers Thomas and Daniel. Once upon a time, the memorial also contained a cattle trough, but that is no longer there.⁽⁶⁾ Still, it is nice that the two tea dealing brothers have a lasting memorial, albeit not in the best of spots, on a very busy road under a railway bridge, but it is the thought that counts.

(1) The London Gazette, 26 September 1837.
(2) Sun Fire Office, LMA MS 11936/562/1271230.
(3) Sun Fire Office, LMA MS 11936/563/1273153.
(4) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1880.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1875.
(6) For more information on cattle troughs, see here.

Neighbours:

<– 148 Holborn Bars

146 Holborn Bars –>

Dymond & Co, operative chemists

Tags

chemist, photography

Address: 146 Holborn Bars
Street View: 8

In 1780, the Land Tax records for the Farringdon Without Ward list John and Robert Dymond for a substantial property in Holborn. They are charged almost twice as much as their near neighbours; not suprisingly if you consider the width of their property. The Medical Register for the year 1783 tells us that Robert, an apothecary, has died 17 June 1783 at Barnsley, Yorkshire. And in the list of subscribers to John Sheldon’s The History of the Absorbent System (1784), John describes himself as ‘surgeon’. We next hear of Dymond in 1802 as being the apothecary to the House of Recovery, the Institution for the Cure and Prevention of Contagious Fevers in the Metropolis.⁽¹⁾ He seems to have combined the skills of apothecary and physician as that same year, The London Medical and Physical Journal lists him as ‘physician extraordinary’ and as ‘apothecary’.

In 1813, the Land Tax records list Joseph Dymond as the owner of 146 Holborn Bars and The London Gazette tells us that the partnership between Joseph Dymond and Samuel Smith as surgeons and apothecaries has been dissolved by mutual consent on 25 December 1812. The next Dymond we hear from is another Robert who in 1820 receives a medical degree from Edinburgh University with his Dissertatio Medica Inauguralis de Morbis Artuum Quibusdam and we find him in 1836 in the Land Tax record for Holborn. The 1841 census lists him with his wife Mary, his daughter Mary and his son Robert at 146 Holborn Bars, but the large property is also occupied by Owen Thomas Owen, a surgeon and his family, John Turner, a chemist, and various servants. In other words, the property more or less houses a complete medical centre. Owen Thomas Owen and one Charles Button had at one time been in partnership “trading under the style or firm Dymond and Company, Operative and Manufacturing Chymists”, but the partnership was dissolved at the end of 1838.⁽²⁾ Although Owen is mentioned first in the census, Dymond seems to have been the owner of the business as he is mentioned as the one insured when a fire broke out in the premises by a “bursting small chemical apparatus”.⁽³⁾

Report in The Morning Chronicle of 10 July 1851

In 1844, Dymond is still the one listed in the Land Tax records, but by 1847, Charles Button had taken over the premises. Was he the same person who had been in partnership with Owen before? The 1851 census tell us that Robert Dymond has moved to Bolton Hall in Yorkshire. He must have done well for himself in the time he had his business in Holborn as he now employs nine servants, ranging from domestics to gardeners. In the 1851 census, Button is living at 146 Holborn Bars and styles himself “operative and manufacturing chemist employing five persons”. That same year, a report in the newspaper shows us that Button was not just a chemist who concocted pills and potions, as we are told that “a number of gentlemen met yesterday at 146, Holborn-bars, to inspect a model of Messrs. Shepherd and Button’s submarine telegraph”. The invention consisted of a chemical substance with which the usual gutta percha coating of electrical wires was covered. Around these layers came a metal casing which was to protect the wire when placed on rocky seabeds.⁽⁴⁾ The wire was to be used for the electric telegraph between Copenhagen and Hamburg.⁽⁵⁾

Advertisement in Thomas Sutton, A Dictionary of Photography (1858)

In 1853, Button placed an advertisement in The Journal of the Society of Arts to notify “photographers &c., that he still continues to manufacture and supply Chemical and Apparatus for their use”. The curious use of the word “still” may very well have something to do with a fire that broke out on the premises. The inquest, reported in The Standard of 16 March 1853, tells us that police constable Walker and serjeant Patterson had discovered that the back warehouse of Button’s shop was on fire. The firemen were alerted, who doused the fire quickly, but one of the firemen brought out “a vessel of melted fluid, which he poured into the gutter. The liquid immediately ignited, but was put out by the firemen in the course of a few minutes, by their throwing water upon it. It then formed itself into a solid mass about the pavement and road”. A little later, the stuff had ignited again and serjeant Patterson tried to stamp the fire out and while doing that, his trousers caught fire and after the firemen doused him in water, he was transported to the hospital, but later died of complications. Patterson admitted to having put a piece of the material in his coat pocket, which probably ignited when he was trying to stamp out the fire in the road. It turned out to have been phosphorus which, according to Button “was quite safe when covered with water”, but, although the external had become solid when the fireman doused it, the internal was still liquid and when Patterson stamped on it, hot sparks would fly out in all directions and that was what probably ignited the piece in his coat pocket. The verdict was accidental death. At the inquest, it also transpired that Button, who had been at his country residence when the fire broke out, occupied the back warehouse and that the front shop was occupied by Mr. Boulton (this was in fact William Bolton), chemist and druggist.

Advertisement from The Photographic News (1859)

Although Button annouced in the advertisement that he continued to supply photographers, his business was declared bankrupt in 1854, but he must have managed to hang on, as in 1856, both Bolton and Button were still at 146 Holborn Bars. In that year, they were mentioned in the papers because several inhabitants of Holborn and Brook Street had complained of unpleasant smells because of the chemical experiments carried out on the premises. Dr. Letherby, the medical officer of health, reported that he had “directed that Mr. Button should construct a hood over his yard, for collecting the acid vapours, that he should discontinue the distillation of muriatic acid, and that he should adopt means for preventing the escape of sulphuretted hydrogen”. He also “directed that Mr. Boulton should discontinue the manufacture of gun cotton.”⁽⁶⁾ Chemistry was a dangerous business and later that same year, Bolton himself got his hands burned when he tried to extinguish a fire when two bottles of ether exploded.⁽⁷⁾

After Button was once again declared a bankrupt in 1858, Bolton remained at number 146 until his death in 1867⁽⁸⁾, at one point in partnership with Francis Barnitt (1859-1864). One of their distinguised customers was Charles Darwin who in 1863 bought 9s worth of “poison for plants” to protect his childrens’ dried flowers from getting mouldy. Joseph Dalton Hooker, Darwin’s friend and Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens, had advised him to ask Bolton and Barnitt for a bottle of the poison they supplied to the Kew Herbarium and to wash the flowers in it before drying.⁽⁹⁾

If you are interested in what Dymond had for sale, there are 1834 (Joshua Dymond, 28 pages) and 1837 (Dymond & Co., 34 pages) catalogues under the title Chemicals and Apparatus Prepared and Sold, Wholesale and Retail to be found in various libraries, but you may have to travel some distance (see WorldCat).
———————-
(1) The Morning Chronicle, 3 February 1802.
(2) The London Gazette, 1 January 1839.
(3) The Charter, 8 December 1839.
(4) The Morning Chronicle, 10 July 1851.
(5) The Morning Chronicle, 30 December 1851.
(6) The Morning Chronicle, 19 March 1853.
(7) The Standard, 18 August 1856.
(8) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1867. Probate was granted to Catharine, his widow, and the estate was valued at £10,000, later resworn at £6,000.
(9) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 11: 1863 (1999).

Neighbours:

<– 147 Holborn Bars

145 Holborn Bars –>