Askew & Co., Linen Drapers and Carpet Warehouse

Tags

carpet, clothing

Street View: 31
Address: 110 Blackman Street

In the post on George Alderson, we saw that George and his brother John sold their father’s old shop somewhere in the second half of the 1820s, but I think John had moved to 110 Blackman Street a little bit earlier [Update: no, wrong, that is another John, see comment on the post of George Alderson by David Williams]. In July 1823 he had married Margaret Loy at St. Giles, Camberwell and when their daughter Margaret was baptised on 28 May 1824 at St. George the Martyr, their address is already given as Blackman Street, albeit without a house number. The Land Tax record for 1826 shows John’s name squeezed in at number 110 between the names of his immediate neighbours. Unfortunately, John died in 1833, just 36 years old.⁽¹⁾ As his brother was to do, John left everything he possessed to his wife Margaret without specifying what properties and goods he owned.⁽²⁾

Margaret continued the business and in 1835 she is given as the proprietor of the business when Richard Russell testifies in a case of theft from the shop. He says ” I am in the service of Margaret Alderson, she keeps a linen-draper’s shop, in Blackman-street, Borough”.⁽³⁾ But less than a year later, widow Margaret married bachelor John Askew, hence Askew’s name in the Tallis Street View. In the 1841 census, Askew is classed as a carpet dealer; Margaret is not given an occupation and in the 1843 Post Office Directory, Askew is described as “linendraper & carpet war[e]h[ouse]”, suggesting he had taken over the management of the business. Another Old Bailey case tells us a little detail about the building. Askew testified: “I looked at the skylight over the counting-house the next morning, and part of the frame of it was broken”. We nowadays refer to a counting house as the inner office and it was were the money and papers were kept as the shopman testified: “they had … taken the money from the till, and I missed two coats from the counting-house — all the drawers in the counting-house had been broken open, and the papers were all about the floor”.⁽⁴⁾ The building at Blackman Street apparently had a skylight, but no more information is given, so, other than the picture of the front of the house at the top of this post and the existence of the skylight, no more is known about 110 Blackman Street.

From 1841 onwards, it is Askew’s name that appears in the Land Tax records. In the 1848 and 1851 Post Office Directories an additional address is given for Askew: 2 & 3 Mint Street, which was just round the corner from the Blackman Street shop, but the list of occupants for Mint Street in the 1856 Post Office Directory no longer shows Askew’s name.

View into Mint Street, 1840 (Source: British Museum)

Margaret dies in 1870 and is buried on 11 March at Nunhead Cemetery in the same grave as her daughter Eliza Loy who had died in 1860.⁽⁵⁾ Also in the same grave is a Margaret Sherrington (died 1856) whose connection to the Askew-Alderson family is not clear. A Margaret Askew married a Thomas Sherrington in Kerby-Stephen, Westmoreland in 1814, but whether she is the same woman is uncertain. Nor is it entirely clear who John Askew’s father was, but in the 1851 census he claims that Westmoreland was where he came from, although in other records, he names Lancashire. Margaret Sherrington may have been his mother who remarried after the death of John’s father, but that is only guesswork.

What is surprising in this post, and was indeed in the post on George Alderson, is that I have not found any advertisement for the shop, no trade cards, nor any references to them other than in a few Old Bailey cases of petty theft, with one exception. Unfortunately, that one exception was after the death of John Askew. According to a small item in LLoyd’s Weekly Newspaper of 15 June 1873, an inquest was held at St. George’s Workhouse in Mint Street, just round the corner from the draper’s shop, into the death of Askew. “He had lately engaged in large business transactions, and not being successful executed a deed of inspectorship for the benefit of his creditors. Since then he had been very desponding as to the fate of his business, and blew out his brains with a pistol. The jury returned a verdict of ‘temporary insanity'”. Poor chap. What the large business transaction was remains unsaid, but a deed of assignment of 21 May 1873 was mentioned in The London Gazette of 22 September 1874 where all creditors are urged to send in their claims. John was buried in the same grave as his wife and step-daughter on 14 June.⁽⁶⁾ The stock of the business was purchased by a company in Hull and advertised as for sale in that city.

The Hull Packet and East Riding Times, 27 June 1873

One more thing is left to say about Askew and that is that he moved from number 110 to number 109 Blackman Street. Margaret’s probate record of 1870 still mentions number 110, but the 1871 census lists John and his sister Peggy at no. 109. In April 1869, however, The Building News advertised the freehold business premises at no. 110 for £2,300 (let at £140 a year). Did that mean that Askew never owned the premises? Or did he sell it when he was in financial difficulties?

———————-
(1) There is something unexplained about his date of birth, though. I have found a son John for William and Martha Alderson of Barnard Castle, but he is baptised on 8 August 1783, which would make John 49 or 50 years old when he died. It is of course possible that the 1783 John died and that the name was re-used for a later child, but I have found no record of a later baptism. [Update: it is another John, see comment on the post of George Alderson by David Williams]
(2) PROB 11/1821/33.
(3) Old Bailey case t18351214-301.
(4) Old Bailey case t18450512-1216.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1870. Probate was granted to her son George Alderson and her estate was valued at £100, later resworn at under £200.
(6) In 1885 John’s sister Peggy was also interred there. Peggy, 7 years older than her brother, had lived with him at the time of the 1871 census, possibly as his housekeeper, although that is not made clear in the census record. The sister’s name Peggy, may strengthen the case for Margaret Sherrington as their mother. After the death of John, Peggy rented a room at 47 Blackman Street (census 1881). In the census record she is described as from Caton, Lancs. which leads me to suggest her baptism on 24 Nov. 1799 as the daughter of James and Margaret Askew. John may then very well have been the brother baptised on 30 July 1809, also with parents James and Margaret, but at St. Mary’s in Lancaster itself. It is slightly tenuous and circumstantial, but not impossible to tie the Aldersons to the Sherringtons.

Neighbours:

<– 109 Blackman Street

111 Blackman Street –>

The Rudderforths, staymakers

Tags

staymaker

Street View: 31 and 35
Addresses: 11 Blackman Street and 42 and 52 Newington Causeway

The Rudderforths, staymakers, had three shops, one in Blackman Street and two on Newington Causeway. We will see if and how they are related in this post. Tallis gives no indication at all; he does not even give the proprietors an initial, so we have to look further afield. The 1793 will of one Thomas Rudderforth, staymaker of St. Paul’s Churchyard gives us a few good clues and working from there, we can reconstruct the following family tree (only persons who were involved in the family’s staymaker’s business are shown). The Thomas of St Paul’s was, according to the document that records his freedom of the Fanmakers Company in 1777, the son of another Thomas of Yorkshire, also a staymaker, deceased, but we know nothing more than his name.

click to enlarge

Nice as being able to produce a family tree is, it still does not explain the three addresses, as all we have so far is a shop in St. Paul’s Churchyard which is not listed for a Rudderforth by Tallis, so the search goes on. Now that we have first names, however, the task is slightly easier, although the first mention I found in a directory muddies the waters somewhat. The Post Office Annual Directory of 1808 has a T. Rudderforth, stay warehouse, at 39 Bishopsgate Without, but perhaps The London Gazette helps to explain what happened. In 1799, they have Thomas Rudderforth of St. Paul’s Churchyard as having been declared bankrupt.⁽¹⁾ This must be Thomas junior as Thomas senior died in 1793 and son John Thomas is still too young. Thomas next tried his luck in Bishopsgate, but in 1802, he is once again declared bankrupt.⁽²⁾ He manages to hang on and the 1814 Post Office Directory lists him at 36 Bishopsgate Without. The Land Tax records, however, from 1814 onwards, suddenly list Elizabeth Rudderforth. She is listed until 1833 for 36 Bishopsgate. What happened to Thomas and who was Elizabeth? Thomas and Loveday had a daughter Elizabeth Jane; did she take over? But why was she then still called Elizabeth Rudderforth after 1820 when she married William Wilkinson Drayton, another staymaker? I am afraid this mystery will have to stand as it is, as we must move on across the river.

William Hogarth, The stay maker, c. 1744

Bankruptcy was a constant threat in Victorian England and in 1814, Thomas Rudderforth the younger is declared a bankrupt; his address is given as Newington Causeway and 120 Ratcliffe Highway.⁽³⁾ He is apparently able to satisfy the commissioners that his business is viable and he is given a certificate, so he can continue trading in order to pay off his debts. This Thomas must be the eldest son of Thomas and Loveday and he must have started out on his own on the other side of the Thames. As all three addresses Tallis gives are south of the Thames, it seems logical to look at Thomas the younger as the most likely one to be the proprietor of these three shops, but that would be too simple.

For more information, let’s turn to some other records to see who is occupying which shop. Listed are only those names and addresses with firm dates. More addresses were used by the Rudderforths for their staymakers’ business, but I have listed only those that are mentioned by Tallis with the exception of Aldgate High Street for reasons I will explain later on.

42 Newington Causeway
– 1819: H. – Post Office Directory
– 1822: Henry – Pigot’s Directory
– 1825: Henry – Pigot’s Directory
– 1839: Henry – Pigot’s Directory
– 1840: Matthew Henry – will
– 1841: Mary – Census
– 1842: Harriet – Robson’s Directory
– 1843: Henry (Mrs) – Post Office Directory
– 1848: Henry (Mrs) – Post Office Directory
– 1851: Harriet – Census
– 1856: Hy (Mrs) – Post Office Directory

52 Newington Causeway
– 1829: John Thomas (with John Sarl) – Sun Fire Office
– 1839: Thomas – Pigot’s Directory
– 1842: T. – Robson’s Directory
– 1843: John Thomas – Post Office Directory
– 1848: John Thomas – Post Office Directory
– 1855: John Thomas – burial Nunhead Cemetery + will
– 1856: T. (Mrs) – Post Office Directory

11 Blackman Street
– 1842: J.T. – Robson’s Directory
– 1843: John Thomas – Post Office Directory

19 Aldgate High Street
– 1825: Thomas – Pigot’s Directory
– 1839: John Thomas – Pigot’s Directory
– 1841: John – Census
– 1842: T. – Robson’s Directory

8 Aldgate High Street
– 1843: John Thomas – Post Office Directory
– 1851: J.T. – Census “visitor”
– 1855: John Thomas – will

trade card 42 Newington Causeway (source: British Museum)

We will start with the easy one, 42 Newington Causeway, which was run by (Matthew) Henry and later his wife Harriet. As you can see from the trade card above, they warn their customers that their business has nothing to do with the other Newington Causeway address. That is not to say that the family had fallen out as Matthew Henry names his brother John Thomas the executor of his will. Matthew Henry left his house and business at number 42 to his wife Harriet, but he also provided for Lucy Hart who had been the family’s faithful housekeeper and forewoman in the business, by leaving her his property at 61 Newington Causeway. She was probably related to Harriet as her maiden name was also Hart. Number 61, by the way, was the address given on the burial registration of Henry.⁽⁴⁾ The only anomaly is the 1841 census where Mary Rudderforth (50 years old), Ann Rudderforth (28 years old) and Caroline Rudderforth (26 years old) run the business. How they are related to Matthew Henry and Harriet is unclear, but they may just have minded the shop while Harriet sorted out Henry’s estate after his death. In any case, Harriet is back in 1842 and continues to run the business till at least 1856.

trade card 52 Newington Causeway (source: British Museum)

The more difficult one is 52 Newington Causeway as the name of the proprietor is sometimes Thomas and sometimes John Thomas. I am guessing that the brothers Thomas and John Thomas traded together, but have found no evidence other than the alternation of names. As you can see from the trade card above, (John) Thomas had more than one shop, at the time when the trade card was published at 158 Strand, but 52 Shoreditch High Street was another one, and, as Tallis tells us, he or they also had a shop at 11 Blackman Street. For the purpose of this story, however, the one at Aldgate High Street is more interesting. The earliest mentions are of number 19, but around 1842 or 1843 it changed to number 8. Whether he moved the shop or whether the street numbering changed is unclear. What is significant (that is, if you like gossip) is that the 1841 census shows a Nancy Russell (47 years old) listed below John (Thomas) Rudderforth (57 years old). Also listed is a Rosina Russell (19 years old). Ten years later, Nancy is listed as the unmarried head of the household, a staymaker employing 6 hands. Rosina is still there and listed as Nancy’s niece. John Thomas is a ‘visitor’, 66 years old and a widower.

John Thomas died in 1855⁽⁵⁾ and in his will, he mentions his daughter in law, Elizabeth of Edgware Road to whom he leaves £50. We do indeed find a Mrs Elizabeth Rudderforth, staymaker, at 39 Edgware Road in the 1856 Post office Directory and in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. But, the will continues with the statement that “all the rest and residue of my estate and effects of what nature or kind soever I give and bequeath the same unto my friend Nancy Russell of number 8 Aldgate High Street”. The 1856 Post office Directory does give Nancy Russell as the proprietor of the business, but judging by the information in the 1851 census, she had already acquired the business several years before John Thomas’s death. Nancy and Rosina continue to run the shop until 1872 when Nancy dies. That she kept in touch with the Rudderforths is apparent from her probate entry as she named Thomas William, the nephew of John Thomas, as one of her executors.⁽⁶⁾ We will probably never know the exact relationship between John Thomas and Nancy, but fantasy can – correctly or not – fill in lots of blanks.

Stay-making seemed to run in the extented Rudderforth family. In this post I have concentrated on the family members that have a link with the locations mentioned in Tallis’s Street Views, but if one was to follow all the possible links, a whole network of stay makers would emerge. It is quite possible that I will come across more links when I research more Tallis stay makers and if so, I will provide links, but for now, I think I have done enough.

(Source: British Museum)

(1) The London Gazette, 2 November 1799.
(2) The London Gazette, 2 February 1802. We know for certain it is the same Thomas as he and Loveday baptise a daughter, Mary Ann, in St. Botolph Bishopsgate in 1801. Mary Ann later marries another staymaker, John Richard Colbron.
(3) The London Gazette, 5 March 1814.
(4) Norwood Cemetery, 26 January 1840.
(5) Nunhead Cemetery, 16 April 1855. His address on the registration is given as 52 Newington Causeway.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1872.

Benjamin Holwell, confectioner

Tags

food and drink, medicine

Street View: 31
Address: 30 Blackman Street

You may assume that a confectioner produces daintly little cakes, sugared nuts, candied fruit and lots of sweets, and Holwell may very well have done that, but checking through some newspapers, I came across his name in advertisements for patent medicines. In The Examiner of 24 November 1833, the Holwell shop is listed as one of the agents where Allender’s Pectoral Balsam of Carrageen could be bought. This balsam alleged to have been “used with the most decided success in a vast number of cases of coughs, asthma, hoarseness, colds, influenza, and all diseases of the lungs”. But Allender’s amazing balsam was not the only solution available at Holwell’s to sort our your cough problems, you could also buy Collis’s Essence of Honey⁽¹⁾ or Greenough’s Tolu Lozenges⁽²⁾. And after a copious dinner, you might have need of either Hall’s or Plumbe’s Digestive Pills⁽³⁾. In advertisements for Plumbe’s pills (1823), Holwell was given the address of 96 High Street Borough and unless the street name and the numbering changed dramatically, there must have been at least one move. None of the advertisements give an initial or first name for Holwell, so we must turn to other sources to determine who the proprietor of the confectioner’s shop was.

T. Rowlandson and G. Woodward, 1801 (Credit: Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images)

An obvious place to look are the records of the Sun Fire Office, but Holwell, confectioner, cannot be found there, so further detective work had to be done. Tallis kindly gave the initial B in his index and that letter can also be seen on the façade (see top of this post). This pointer led to an announcement in The London Gazette in which Esther and Benjamin Holwell let it be known that they had dissolved their partnership of wholesale and retail confectioners at 30 Blackman Street as of the 31st of January 1838 and that Benjamin was to continue the business.⁽⁴⁾ The 1841 census gives us a Benjamin Holwell, confectioner, with his wife Elizabeth and children in Blackman Street, but no house number.⁽⁵⁾ If, however, we compare the names of his neighbours with those in the Tallis index, it becomes clear that this Benjamin indeed lives at number 30. Although the youngest child is called Esther, she would be unlikely to have been his business partner, but a close family relationship is indicated. Perhaps his mother?

Confectioners’ Shop c.1820-1840 (Source: British Museum)

No, not his mother. A lead to this Esther and Benjamin can be found in the will of one William Holwell, confectioner of 269 Borough High Street. William asks his executors to sell his property and business and to invest the money for the benefit of his wife Esther and after her decease to divide the income equally among his children. One of the signees of the will is Benjamin Holwell of 32 St. Andrew’s Road, Horsemonger Lane. The will is dated 16 February 1832 and proved 16 November 1836. William Holwell and Esther Carter married on 13 September 1817 at St. Giles, Camberwell, but unfortunately by licence and names of fathers are not included in the record. Anyway, when William drew up his will in 1832, his children were all minors, so the Benjamin witnessing the will was not William’s son, but perhaps his brother which would make Esther Benjamin’s sister-in-law. That we are talking about the same Benjamin as the one who later occupied the 30 Blackman Street property, can be worked out in a roundabout way. Benjamin married Elizabeth Butlin on 26 March 1816 at St. Dunstan and All Saints, Stepney and the addresses where they lived can be deduced from some of the baptismal records of their children. The couple moved regularly in the first years of their marriage and Benjamin’s occupation changed a number of times, from shoemaker(!) in 1816, to confectioner (1818), to ‘gent’ (1820), to confectioner again (1822) and once again to ‘gent’ (1825-1830). When his son Alfred Robert is baptised on 7 November 1830, the address is indeed given as St. Andrews Road, so that corresponds nicely to the 1832 signing of the will.

Benjamin obtains his freedom of the City of London in 1833 by redemption via the Saddlers’ Company and he is then described as a confectioner of Blackman Street. Can we assume that Esther used the income she received from William’s estate to invest in Benjamin’s business? We will probably never know for certain why and how exactly, but that the shops of confectioners William and Benjamin were somehow linked through Esther seems certain.

Thomas Mills & Brother, United States Confectioners’ Tool Works, Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of Goods (1886) (Source: Exhibition University of Michigan here)

As we saw, Benjamin was found above the shop at 30 Blackman Street in the 1841 census. Elizabeth dies in 1842 and Benjamin remarries in 1843 to Frances Caroline Allen (neé Turner), a widow. The marriage registration at St. Marylebone’s helps a lot as Benjamin’s father is named as Edward Holwell, a hatter (and through him Benjamin is possibly related to Charles Holwell, the hatter of Westminster Bridge Street). The registration also tells us that Benjamin has changed careers (again) and is now a chapel clerk. The 1851 census gives his occupation as scripture reader and his address as 17 Hayes Place, Marylebone. So, the confectionary shop in Blackman Street has been let go and does indeed show different occupants in the 1851 census. The 1851 census also gives us a clue to Benjamin’s origins as it lists Exeter as his place of birth. The 1861 census goes one better and says Exeter High Street. Another clue may be the name of one of Benjamin’s children. In 1830 Elizabeth Christiana is baptised and in 1772 one Edward Holwell of Exeter had married a Christiana Cooper. There is no concrete evidence that this Edward was indeed Benjamin’s father (or grandfather or uncle or …), nor can I conclusively link Benjamin to Charles Holwell the hatter, but perhaps one day …

I will leave you with the title-page of a recipe book, one that the Holwell’s may very well have had, and two recipes from it, just in case you feel you are in need of something sweet after so much genealogical information.

(1) Advertisement in The Morning Post, 26 March 1841.
(2) Advertisements in The Morning Post, 19 February and 24 December 1845. See for Greenough himself here.
(3) The Times, 29 October 1823.
(4) The London Gazette, 13 March 1838.
(5) Benjamin is given as 45 years old, Elizabeth as 40, but the 1841 census ages are only approximate. The children are William (15), Susannah (20), Henry (15), Jane (15), Alfred (11) and Esther (9). Benjamin and Elizabeth were not born in London, but the children were.

Thomas Hosegood, surgeon

Tags

medicine

Street View: 31
Address: 90 Blackman Street

Thomas Hosegood (±1778-1844) had his medical practice at 90 Blackman Street, Borough. The street is now simply part of Borough High Street, but the section south of St. George the Martyr used to be called Blackman Street. Number 90 was situated on the corner of Lant Street (of Dickens fame); the opposite corner, number 91 was occupied by Yate and Son, chemists and druggists, which would have been quite handy for ‘surgeon’ – as he styled himself – Hosegood.

The doctor’s practice undoubtedly had its fair share of patients with ordinary household complaints and diseases, but from time to time, everyday life was shaken by an unusual event. In January 1833, William Dunningham, an ostler at the Star-Yard livery stables (79 Blackman Street), came to the surgery for a cut on his nose which he said had been caused by the throwing of a brush by a comrade when they were ‘larking’. No major injury had been inflicted, or so it seemed, and the cut was dressed by the doctor’s apprentice. But a few days later, the man came back with a high fever and he died that same night. At the subsequent inquest, Hosegood and his apprentice Richardson alleged that the man died from the effect of heavy drinking, but one of the parish surgeons, Mr. Evans, was of the opinion that the man had died from injuries inflicted by violence. The postmortem had revealed a deep cut across the nose to the opposite cheek bone. The nasal bone had been broken, causing inflammation of the brain which, according to Evans, resulted in the death. Another surgeon, one Mr. Hooper, was of the opinion that the blow that broke his nose could not have been done after death, but as Hosegood persisted in his denial of witnessing the fatal injuries when the man first came to him, the jury could at first not come to a decision and Evans was recalled. When cross-examined by the coroner, he could not positively say that the injury had caused the man’s death. The final verdict was that Dunningham “died by the visitation of God”.⁽¹⁾

A year and a half later, Blackman Street was the scene of road rage. One evening at about half past eight, a ‘gentleman’ returning from Epsom races, rode his horse at such a furious pace that an elderly woman was knocked down at the corner of Horsemonger Lane. She escaped with ‘just’ a broken arm, but Mr. Tibbs was knocked down in Blackman Street and his “skull was so severely fractured that but very little hopes are entertained of his recovery”. These two accidents did not stop the rider, however, and at the corner of Union Street, another elderly woman was run over. She was not badly hurt, but the rider was thrown of his horse. He quickly appeased the woman with a few shillings and gave a false address to a witness who tried to interfere. The man remounted his horse and rode on to knock a young lad down near London Bridge; he then continued onwards and out of this story. The unfortunate Mr. Tibbs was taken to Hosegood’s surgery, but whether Hosegood managed to save his life is unclear.⁽²⁾

Normally Hosegood’s life was far less eventful, at least he did not feature in any more newspaper reports, and presumably went about his normal medical business. He was heavily involved in the vaccination programs set up after the discovery in 1796 of the smallpox vaccine by Edward Jenner. The Royal Jennerian Society (in full, The Royal Jennerian Society for the extermination of the small-pox by the extension of vaccination) was established in 1803 to roll out a wide-scale vaccination program. However, one of the staff members, Dr John Walker, allegedly flaunted the inoculation regulations and much public in-fighting resulted in his resignation. Walker set up the London Vaccine Institution in 1806 which did rather well, leaving the Jennerian Society struggling for survival until 1809 when they expired, although the name was later revived.⁽³⁾

James Gillray, The Cow-Pock-or-the Wonderful Effects of the New Inoculation! (1802) ©British Museum

The row between the societies was fought very publicly with pamphlets for and against each other, no doubt supplying the public with plenty of entertainment. The Circular Letter to Supporters of John Walker’s London Vaccine Institution, Emphasising the Society’s Disapproval of Walker and His Activities of 1808 was mild-worded compared to another one that did not mince words to describe the opposition. In 1816, John Ring wrote A Caution against Vaccine Swindlers, and Imposters in which he strenuously denied having anything to do with the “falsely calling itself the Royal Jennerian Society”, which, in his eyes, had been “organizing a complete system of quackery”. He continues for pages and pages with – probably largely unfounded and reeking strongly of anti-Quakerism – accusations against John Walker who he puts down as “ignorant, illiterate, and unskilful”. Unfortunately for Mr. Ring, Walker’s efforts did bring about a large decrease in smallpox cases and smallpox deaths. A report of the ‘Parliamentary committee on the expediency of continuing the vaccine board’ states that the average yearly mortality by smallpox had decreased from 2,204 in the period 1770-1780 to 654 in the years 1830-1832.⁽⁴⁾

Whether Hosegood was a member of the first Jennerian Society is unclear, but in 1831 and 1833 he figured in the list of ‘managers’ of the London Vaccine Institution. His name was graced with an asterisk to signify that he was “of the medical profession” and hence on “the Committee of Medical Assistants, or Medical Council”.⁽⁵⁾

Of his private life we know next to nothing. His will mentions a brother George, already deceased when the will was drawn up in 1837, and a sister Ann who had married one Henry Pollard.⁽⁶⁾ Thomas seems to have remained a bachelor and left his money to his sister and his nephews Thomas Hosegood (the son of George) and Henry John Revoult Pollard (the son of Ann) and his niece Mary Revoult Hosegood Pollard (the daughter of Ann). Surgeon Thomas died on 27 October 1844 and was buried at St. Mary’s Newington on 2 November. His burial record gives his age as 66, so he was born ca. 1778. His much younger sister Ann (b. ±1800), died in Paris on 31 March 1846 and was buried on 7 April, also at St. Mary’s. According to a listing of the memorials at St. Mary’s, her son Henry John Revoult died a few years later on 24 April 1849, aged just 28, and was also buried there.⁽⁷⁾ Thomas’s will mentions “two freehold messuages […] in the parish of South Molton in the county of Devon”, so he may have come from there. The Hosegood name certainly appears in the Devonshire genealogical records, but whether and how Thomas is related to them I have not been able to find out without going to Devon to look at the parish records myself. In 1751, 1762, 1771 and 1783, a (or maybe more than one) Thomas Hosegood appears in the records as holding a freehold in South Molton, but here again, no evidence of a family link.⁽⁸⁾ And last, but perhaps not least, there is a baptism record in South Molton for one Thomas Hosegood, the son of William and Hannah, on 17 June 1779, which would more or less be the correct year for Thomas the surgeon.⁽⁹⁾ Perhaps someone in Devon can shed some light on the matter?

(1) The Morning Chronicle, 18 January 1833.
(2) The Examiner, 1 June 1834.
(3) In 1813, the name Royal Jennerian Society was reused by a newly set up branch of the London Vaccine Institution. The two institutions had different names, but one common management.
(4) The London Medical Gazette, vol. 13 (1834), p. 126.
(5) The title-pages of the 1831 and 1833 transactions give the institute its full name: London Vaccine Institution, for Inoculating and Supplying Matter.
(6) PROB 11/2010/320.
(7) The Monumental Inscriptions in the Old Churchyard of St. Mary, Newington, part 1 (1880), p. 147.
(8) S. Dixon, Devon Freeholders, 1711-1799, Friends of Devon Archives
(9) IGI

Neighbours:

<– 89 Blackman Street

91 Blackman Street –>