Henry Mills, silversmith

Tags

clocks and watches, jeweller

Street View: 48
Address: 172 Oxford Street

We saw in the post on Henry Fricker, shoemaker, at 171 Oxford Street, that at some point in time his neighbour at number 172, Henry Mills, extended his own property to include number 171. That is not to say that the two buildings very physically merged into one; they were not, but Mills apparently thought it advantageous to spread his shop over two properties. It appears from the 1841 census that the shops were already combined in or before that year as there is only one entry between the occupants of numbers 170 and 173, listing Mills and his family. The next census, of 1851, however, reverted to two entries with Benjamin Burchett, watchmaker, two shop assistants and a general servant at number 172 and John Finlayson, jeweller’s assistant at number 171. Also at number 171 could be found a house decorator with his wife and a lodger. It would appear that the decorator just rented part of the house as we still find Mills as “Mills, Henry, silversmith & goldsmith, watchmaker & jeweller, importer of foreign clocks & watches” at 171 & 172 Oxford Street in the 1856 Post Office Directory, without any mention of anyone else trading from either property. Mills himself, by the way, was by then living at Turnham Green, Chiswick.

advertisement in The Nottinghamshire Guardian, 3 January 1856

Not surprisingly perhaps, over the years the jeweller’s shop fell victim to a number of thefts and swindles. In March 1843, for instance, a woman came into the shop who wanted to look at a gold watch. According to the newspaper article about the case, she indeed bought a watch, but could only pay with a 50l. bank note. She said that if Mills could change the note she would be happy to buy other items from him and she told Mills that she had been given the note by Mr. Wyatt of Oxford Street. Mills said he could not change the note, but would give her a cheque. After some hesitation she agreed. Mills did not quite trust her and sent one of his apprentices to follow her to see if she went to the address she had given. No, she did not. The apprentice was heard as a witness and he said that the lady had appeared “in the family way”, wore spectacles, a straw hat, a veil and a black silk dress. A lodger at the house the accused went to testified that she did indeed have a room there and had been wearing a black silk dress on the day in question. When a policeman searched the room of the accused, he found various items that were “apparently the result of habitual pilfering”. He also found a black dress and straw bonnet, but no trace of the watch or cheque. The woman declined to say anything in her defence and was committed to be tried at the Old Bailey.⁽¹⁾

From the proceedings of the Old Bailey case a few months later, we learn that the woman’s name was Harriet Oakley and that she was accused of stealing the 50l. note from Edward Wyatt, a carver and gilder of 360 Oxford Street. When Mills sent his apprentice to follow the prisoner, he also sent his other apprentice to Mr. Wyatt to inquire about the woman and the bank note. It turned out that the accused had been employed as a seamstress and domestic servant by Mrs. Wyatt and that Mr. Wyatt had given his wife the 50l. note, which she kept in an unlocked drawer. Wyatt went to Oakley’s address after he heard from Mills, but went away again and only involved the police the next day, giving her every opportunity to hide or dispose of the goods acquired with the stolen money. During the hearing at the Old Bailey, the various witnesses were rather hesitant when it came to identifying the woman, the dress or the straw bonnet and frequently contradicted their own story. Mills, for instance, could not recollect exactly whether he had been shown the bonnet: “I think I saw a bonnet, since that time, at the police-office — I have been shown a bonnet since than by the police-officer — perhaps it might be twice — I do not think he showed it me at all — he might have shown me the bonnet in Court — it might be there — he did not show it to me — he did show it, I believe”. Although it seems most likely that Harriet Oakley had pilfered the note from the Wyatts, there was not enough conclusive evidence against her and she was found ‘not guilty’.⁽¹⁾

advertisement in Greenwich Hospital. The Park and Picture Gallery. A Hand-Book for Visitors, 1860

By 1861, sons William James and Henry junior were living at 171 Oxford Street, although Henry senior was still involved. At least, the census for Turnham Green lists him as jeweller, not as retired jeweller. In 1864 a newspaper report saw William testifying in a case of “obtaining goods by false pretences”. William described himself as assistant to his father, certainly suggesting that Henry senior was still in charge. The case, by the way, revolved around a Thomas Godfrey, auctioneer and house agent, who bought silver tea spoons from Mills’s and paid with what turned out to be a bad cheque. Mills was not the only victim of Mr. Godfrey who seemed to have made a habit of shopping in this way.⁽³⁾

Henry senior died in April 1868 and the burial and probate records still gave Oxford Street as his abode, so he apparently never officially retired.⁽⁴⁾ Son William James was to follow him to the grave two years later, just 31 years old.⁽⁵⁾ Louisa, William’s widow, was listed as watchmaker and jeweller at 172 Oxford Street in the 1871 census, and Henry junior with the same profession at number 171. By 1881, however, Henry had disappeared from Oxford Street and numbers 170 & 171 are occupied by James Moore, upholsterer and carman. Louisa is still at number 172, though. A little after the census was taken, the house numbering in Oxford Street changed and 172 became 394.

1886 Goad’s insurance map with number 394 as the second house from Duke Street (click to enlarge)

It is not clear how long Louisa remained at number 172 after the 1881 census was taken, but in 1891 and 1901, number 394 was occupied by Frederick Dixon, a jeweller originally from Lincoln. In the 1911 census he is still described as a jeweller and his son Leslie Frederick as an assistant jeweller, although they were no longer living at Oxford Street, but at Gayton Road, Harrow. In 1909, Leslie had acquired the freedom of the City through the Company of Spectacle Makers by redemption. On the Company’s documents he was described as an optician. The Dixons may have continued trading as jewellers while sharing the premises with others, but it is clear that totally different things were available from number 172/394 in 1913 and 1919.

1895 pocket watch by Dixon (source: antiques-atlas.com)

advertisement in The Bystander, 10 December 1913

advertisement in The Tatler and Bystander, 27 August 1919

(1) The Morning Post, 22 March 1843.
(2) Old Bailey case t18430508-1499. Online here.
(3) Daily News, 15 September 1864.
(4) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1868. Estate valued at under £7,000.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1870. Estate valued at under £2,000

Neighbours:

<– 173 Oxford Street

171 Oxford Street –>

Henry Fricker, shoe maker

Tags

footwear

Street View: 48
Address: 171 Oxford Street

There must have been thousands of shopkeepers such as Henry Fricker in 19th-century London. Nothing spectacular happened to them, they were not particularly successful and their name hardly ever appeared in the newspapers. Their lives may not have been as quiet as one may assume from the lack of records, but for the purpose of this blog, they are the difficult ones. What do you write about a 19th-century London shopkeeper if nothing seems to have been worth recording, either about the person or the shop they had, or indeed about the building where they had their business? Well, you make the most of what you have found and hope the unassuming story about an unassuming man does not bore your readers. If you like detective stories, you may appreciate the account given below of my research. No, nobody was murdered, so do not expect a sensational plot; it is just a description of the tortuous route to find snippets of information about Fricker.

19th-century ladies’ shoes from the New York Public Library Digital Collections (see here)

Henry Fricker is not a very common name, so first of all, I gathered all the bits of information I could find about what I thought was him, and put them in chronological order. That sounds like an efficient way of starting your research, but it quite quickly became apparent that there were two Henry Frickers involved in the leather and shoe business in London at roughly the same time. So, the next step was to separate these two gentlemen. There is a will for one of of them, dated 1842, and this fortunately tells us his exact address, 171 Oxford Street, so he must be the one we are after for this blog post. He mentions his brothers John and Francis and his wife Harriet. The will was written in 1836 and witnessed by Griffith Humphreys of 169 Oxford Street, by Griffith Richards, also of 169 Oxford Street, and John Henry Hoskyns of Queen Street, Edgware Road. Probate was granted on 8 August 1842 to Harriet and John Fricker, the surviving executors.⁽¹⁾ The only snag is that no Henry Fricker is listed in the Registration of Deaths for 1842. But, a Henry Fricker, 54 years old, is buried at All Souls, Kensal Green, on 19 September 1841, which may be the shoe maker we are after. Perhaps it just took a long time to sort out the effects after Henry’s death. However, the address given in the burial register is not Oxford Street, but 6 Mortimer Terrace, Kentish Town, so more work to be done.

entry for Fricker in the 1829 Post Office Directory

The other Henry Fricker could at one time be found at 182 Fleet Street and is consistently listed as a (Japanned) leather cutter or splitter, or as a cap peak maker, never as a shoe maker or seller. In about 1836, he moved to 2 Albion Terrace, Kingsland Road, so, as long as the addresses or occupations are mentioned, the two man can be distinguished from one another. This second Henry died in 1866, still at 2 Albion Terrace.⁽²⁾ To work out more details of the life and/or career of Henry of 171 Oxford Street, we can safely ignore all references to Albion Terrace or peak makers. The most logical place to start for someone who was alive after June 1841 is the census for that year which was taken on 6 June. Sounds straightforward, but it was not.

A name search on Ancestry only gave me more Henry Frickers, but none matched the shoemaker and the 1841 census does not give any house numbers for Oxford Street, so we have to work it out by looking at the neighbours. William, Thomas and Henry Green are listed as dressing case makers next door to Griffith Humphreys whom we have already seen as a witness to Fricker’s will. Both are also listed by Tallis (published in ±1839, so a little bit before the census). It is therefore easy enough to work out that they must be living at numbers 168 and 169. At 170 Tallis has a Mr. Balls, auctioneer and upholsterer and the census has George Martin, upholsterer, so he probably took over from Balls. We will sort those two out when we get to write the post on number 170. If we follow the numbering, we would next expect number 171 with Fricker, and after him Henry Mills, a silversmith, who is listed by Tallis at 172. But, that is not the case. Mills follows Martin and number 171 seems to have disappeared from the list completely. Or has it? No, not really, an 1840 insurance record for the Sun Fire Office has both the names of Mills and Fricker for number 171 and later advertisements for silversmith Mills have him at 171 & 172. In other words, he took over number 171 and merged it with 172. So far, so good, but where is Fricker?

Perhaps already at 6 Mortimer Terrace? Yes, indeed, Mortimer Terrace, Kentish Town, no house numbers given, has Henry Fricker, 52 years old, “ind” as in independent/retired. His wife is 40 years old, her name unfortunately totally unreadable, or perhaps the squiggle says ‘Mrs’, and children Harriet, Emily, Eliza, Francis, Mary and John. As always, the 1841 census is completely unreliable as regards ages, and they have the eldest three daughters all at 15 years of age. Anything is possible, of course, but I doubt they were triplets. The children were all born in London, but Henry and his wife were not (see last column in the illustration below).

Although the bare fact that a Henry Fricker lived and died at 6 Mortimer Terrace, and that a person of the same name had his business at 171 Oxford Street, does not necessarily mean that these two people are one and the same, but the baptism records of the children help us out here. On 21 July 1837, Henry and Harriet of 171 Oxford Street register their children, as most non-conformists did, at Dr. Williams’s Library. The names and ages of the children roughly match those of the 1841 census and no, the girls were not triplets.⁽³⁾

signatures of Henry and Harriet under the children’s baptism registration

Where did Henry come from? Well, the electoral register for 1840 tells us that Henry Fricker who resided at the freehold of 171, Oxford Street, came originally from Meltham (this should probably be Melksham) in Wiltshire. And the baptism records for the children state that Harriet was the daughter of John Webb, a dyer, of Park Street, Borough, Southwark. This gives us enough information to search for a marriage. Harriet and Henry were married at St. Saviour’s, Southwark after putting up the banns on three successive Sundays: 24 May, 31 May and 7 June 1818. Henry was 54 years old when he died and 52 in June 1841 (census), so should have been born in 1788 or 1789. I have not found a record for the birth of Henry, but there were Frickers in Melksham around that time, so it is very possible that he came from there.

There is one intriguing trade card (© Trustees of the British Museum) left to discuss and that is the one above of Farmilo and Fricker at Bentinck Street. Was he “our” Fricker? Farmilo is certainly listed as a ‘lady’s shoe maker’ in various records, as Fricker was to be later on, but that is of course no guarantee. Francis Farmilo was buried on 1 April 1801 at St. George, Hanover Square, and that does seem a bit early for Henry to have been involved with him. The earliest possibility I found for shoemaker Henry is 1814 when he insured premises at 3 Tavistock Court, Covent Garden. And in 1822 he insured 171 Oxford Street and was found at that address in Pigot’s Directory. Was there an earlier generation of Frickers involved in the shoe business? Please leave a comment if you know the answer. For now, I think I have bored you enough with this account of my search for Henry Fricker of 171 Oxford Street.

——————–

(1) PROB 11/1966/277
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1866. Estate valued at under £450.
(3) Date of births: Harriet (1-9-1819), Emily (14-2-1822), Eliza (1-6-1824), Francis (16-1-1829), Mary (20-8-1830) and John (29-1-1833).

Neighbours:

<– 172 Oxford Street

170 Oxford Street–>