John Burder, solicitor

Tags

law

Street View: 73
Address: 27 Parliament Street

27 Parliament Street was situated on the west side of the street, but the row of houses it belonged to is no longer there. The building that now houses HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) occupies the whole block of houses that used to be there, although not exactly, as the street has been widened in the late 1890s and the frontage set back and the street at the back, King Street, has disappeared altogether. The building is now known as 100 Parliament Street and Grade II* listed (see here).

27 Parliament Street in Horwood’s 1799 map

The Times, 11 Nov. 1891

At the time when Tallis produced his Street Views, number 27 was occupied by John Burder, a solicitor. We first come across him with this address in 1822 as the solicitor where particulars can be obtained about the sale of an estate in Buckden.⁽¹⁾ The previous occupant of number 27 had been Christopher Hodgson who provided similar services and who removed his business to Dean’s Yard. Hodgson and Burder were or became friends and Hodgson is remembered in Burder’s will as “his friend”. We next find Burder in an advertisement of the Medical, Clerical and General Life Assurance Society, established in June 1824. Burder was one of the society’s solicitors.

The Examiner, 20 June 1824

In early 1826, Burder married Elizabeth Taylor at Holy Trinity Church, Guildford. Ten years later, he acquired the freedom of the City of London through the Worshipful Company of Broderers. The 1841 census does not show him at number 27, but the entry does show a Mary Burden or Burder, 30 years old, without an occupation, who may have been a relative living with the Burders. Also present are a clerk and a female servant. Also in 1841, Thomas Evans of Hereford transmits Articles of Clerkship to William Gilmore Bolton of Austin Friars, attorney of the Queen’s Bench, solicitor of the High Court of Chancery, and Burder’s co-solicitor for the Medical, Clerical and General Life Assurance Society. The clerkship was for the benefit of John Burder junior, the son of John and Elizabeth. In addition, in 1843, John Burder junior became the apprentice of the same William Gilmore Bolton and he thereby obtained his freedom of the City after the customary seven years. The 1851 census shows John senior and his family living at Crown Lane, Brixton. That same year John junior and his brother Charles Sumner become members of the freemasons’ Middlesex Lodge. Charles Sumner was listed with the abode of Pembroke College, Oxford and was later to become rector of Ham on the Wiltshire/Berkshire border.⁽²⁾.

In the alphabetical section of Boyle’s Fashionable Court & Country Guide of 1847, John Burder Esq. is listed as of 27 Parliament Street, but also of 41 Parliament Street. A look at the street section explains that the office of the Clergy Mutual Assurance Society was situated at number 41 for which Burder was one of the secretaries. John Burder senior died in 1855 and in his will and subsequent codicils still described himself as “of Parliament Street”, although The Freeman’s Journal stated that he died at his residence at Norwood.⁽³⁾ The Morning Chronicle states that he was interred at Hale, near Farnham, by the bishop of Winchester, in the church created by his lordship [that is, St. John’s]. The Bishop of Winchester was Charles Sumner and there must have been some sort of link between the two gentleman for Burder to call one of his sons Charles Sumner Burder. The burial register of Hale also described Burder as of Norwood.

The family’s woes were not over yet as Burder’s other son, Thomas Henry Carr, died a few months later at Cambridge, just 23 years old. He was also buried at Hale. According to Anne Henry Ehrenpreis, Thomas was a little frail and she records him falling ill several times when on a trip to America with Henry Arthur Bright. Not to mention his clumsiness in losing his carpet bag and sticking his hand in a cactus.⁽⁴⁾ When Elizabeth Burder died in late 1879, it turned out that she had not done anything with Thomas’s estate and it fell to her executors to sort out both estates in 1880.⁽⁵⁾ Elizabeth was also buried at St. John’s, Hale.

St John the Evangelist’s Church, Farnham (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

John junior remained at 27 Parliament Street, later together with his brother-in-law Simon Dunning who had married sister Elizabeth Mary Burder in 1856. The gentlemen were secretaries to several bishops, among them the bishops of Ely, Chichester and Chester. They dissolved their partnership in July 1876 with Dunning to continue the business.⁽⁶⁾ According to the 1861 and 1871 censuses John, unmarried, lived with his mother at 60 Queen’s Garden, Paddington, but in 1873, he married Annie Theresa O’Connell, 20 years his junior. The couple lived at various addresses, at some point in Brussels, Belgium, and had three children. In 1881, John filed for divorce on the grounds that Annie had committed adultery. He had not been living with his family since 1877, but Annie was delivered of a son in 1880, who must therefore have another father. Annie denied the allegation and said that John had lived with her in August 1879 and was therefore the father of her youngest son and that he had abandoned her for another woman, one Mary Jane Manning. John denied all that and said he left Annie because she was violent towards him, throwing plates and candlesticks, forcing him to sleep on the sofa. In March 1881, Annie had forced her way into the house where he then resided, creating a disturbance and assaulting Mrs Manning. On earlier occasions she had annoyed and threatened his mother and partner Dunning. The court dismissed the case with Burder to pay costs.⁽⁷⁾

In the 1891 census, John Burder is living in the same house as Mary Jane Manning, née Walker. He is described as ‘cousin’. There does seem to be a family link between the Burders and the Mannings or Walkers as in the 1881 census, one Sarah Burder is described as ‘aunt’ and living with the Walkers and Mannnings. When John died in 1895, probate was granted to Mary Jane Manning. His effects had dwindled to £14 15s, so whatever he had made as a solicitor had disappeared dramatically.⁽⁸⁾ Simon Dunning had died in 1883.⁽⁹⁾

Solicitors’ Journal and Reporter, vol. 27 (1882-1883), p. 456

(1) The Morning Post, 23 May 1822.
(2) St. Mary Hall, Oxon., B.A. 1853, M.A. 1857. Deacon 1854, Priest 1856, Winchester. Curate of Privett (Hants); Rector of Ham, 1864 — 1900.
(3) PROB 11/2211/418; Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser, 6 April.
(4) Anne Henry Ehrenpreis, ‘A Victorian Englishman on Tour: Henry Arthur Bright’s Southern Journal, 1852’, in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 84:3 (July 1976), pp. 333-361. Available via JStor.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1880. The executors were Charles Sumner Burder and Simon Dunning. Elizabeth’s estate was valued at under £1,500 and Thomas’s at under £5,000.
(6) The London Gazette, 11 July 1876.
(7) Civil Divorce Court: Class: J 77; Piece: 259.
(8) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1895.
(9) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1883. The executor was his widow Elizabeth Mary. The estate was valued at over £29,000.

Neighbours:

<– 28 Parliament Street

26 Parliament Street –>

Advertisements

Fendall’s Coffee House and Family Hotel

Tags

catering

Street Views: 73 and 80
Address: 32 Parliament Street and 14 Bridge Street

We saw in the post on Edward Milns that the houses along the southern side of Bridge Street had to be demolished in the early 1860s for the widening of the approach road to Westminster Bridge, but Fendall’s Coffee House had been moved once before. It used to sit against the northern front of Westminster Hall and was known as the Exchequer Coffee House. According to The Epicure’s Almanach,⁽¹⁾ it had existed since the 1730s and was removed in 1793, but that is dating the removal a bit too early. In 1800, Samuel Ireland is talking about the “shameful neglect” in allowing “those nuisances, the coffee houses” to be erected at the entrance to the Hall, thereby obstructing the view of the figures which adorned the front.⁽²⁾ According to John Tomas Smith,

the City of Westminster [was receiving] a rapid and material improvement […] by the demolition of many shabby buildings west of the present alterations […]. At this very date, April 1807, the north front of Westminster Hall is about to resume its appearance in the time of Richard II. The two public houses, the sign of the Coach and Horses, and the Royal Oak, Oliver’s coffee-house, and the Exchequer coffee-house, which for many years disguised the Hall and Tudor buildings, have been taken down.⁽³⁾

Source: R. Dodsley, London and its Environs, 1761. Sources differ as to whether the Exchequer Coffee House was the one on the right or the one on the left of the entrance.

The lease of the coffee house property against the Hall had been in the hands of Alexander Lindsay, 6th Earl of Balcarres, and the under-lessee and occupier of the coffee house was one Mr. Chapman. They were compensated for the loss of the establishment.⁽⁴⁾ In Boyle’s Court Guide for January 1829, we find Mrs Kendall of the Exchequer Coffee House at 1 New Palace-yard, 14 Bridge Street and 32 Parliament Street. No, she did not have three coffee houses; a look on Horwood’s map shows the properties interconnected and wrapped around Edward Milns’s linen drapery which was situated on the corner of Bridge Street and Parliament Street. The Parliament Street front of the coffee house can be seen at the top of this post and on the right in the vignette for Milns property in Tallis’ booklet 80 (here). The Bridge Street façade, much narrower, can be seen on the left. I have not found a picture of the Palace Yard front, but if you know of one, please leave a comment.

Who Mr. Kendall was – I presume there was one – is unclear [Postscript: yes, there was a Mr Kendall, see the comment by Gwyneth Wilkie], nor do I know when the coffee house started taking in overnight guests and calling itself a hotel, but in 1831, the hotel side of the business was definitely part of the establishment as in that year, one Charles Jones of the Birmingham Political Union wrote a letter to E.J. Littleton which was published in The Morning Chronicle of 19 April. He heads the letter “Fendall’s Hotel, New Palace Yard”. The 1841 census gives Frances Kendall, 65 years old, as the hotel proprietor at 1 Palace Yard. Also living on the premises is one Susan Kendall, 35 years old, but how they are related is not made clear.

In the 1851 census, the Exchequer Coffee House has Charles Ritchie as the 30-year old hotel keeper. He is not married, but helping him as housekeeper is Ann Page, a widow, and there is, of course, a whole host of other servants. The 1851 Post Office Directory tells us that Ritchie not only occupied the addresses Mrs Kendall had, but the business had been extended to include number 15 Bridge Street which, in the 1839 Tallis Street View, had been occupied by Mr. Gill, a glass cutter. Ritchie gets a separate entry in the directory for 15 Bridge Street as a tobacconist.

The Times, 19 May 1856

The advertisement above from The Times states that there are eight years left on the lease and that corresponds with a debate in the House of Commons on the Westminster Bridge improvements. On 5 March, 1863, William Cowper, First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings, is asked when the houses left standing are to be removed and what arrangements have been made with the occupants for lost income. Cowper says that all the houses on the south side of Bridge Street are to be removed before the end of next year [that is 1864] and agreement had been reached with all tenants and leaseholders, except two of which Fendall’s hotel was one. The Office of Works was reluctant to pull down the hotel before it was absolutely necessary as “it was a great resort during the sitting of Parliament” and the lease was to expire in 1864 anyway, so by leaving it standing, the expense of compensation was avoided.⁽⁵⁾

The tenant for the last years of the hotel’s existence was Charles Brumfitt. From the list of houses to be demolished for the new approach, we can see that 14 Bridge Street was part dwelling house / part hotel; number 15 was a dwelling house and shop: the Exchequer Cigar Divan (run together with Charles Ritchie)⁽⁶⁾; number 32 Parliament Street was a dwelling house / part hotel; and 1 New Palace Yard also part dwelling house / part hotel.⁽⁷⁾ The 1861 census tells us that Brumfitt, his family, and the hotel staff were living at 1 New Palace Yard; the other addresses were not mentioned separately, so the census taker apparently considered the whole complex as one unit. As it had already been clear since early in the 1850s that plans were being considered to widen the bridge approach and that the Act with the compulsory purchase orders had been decided in Parliament in 1859, we can well imagine that prospected hotel guests thought it better to book their rooms somewhere else, damaging Brumfitt’s business even before the building had actually disappeared.

It is no wonder that he reacted rather fiercely in The Times of 6 January, 1863, where he states that the Daily News of the 2nd saying that “notice had been given, on the previous day, to the owners and occupiers of the remaining houses […] that they would have to vacate in the course of the month” was utterly and totally wrong and “WITHOUT FOUNDATION” [his capitals] as he was “under no notice whatever from the Board of Works or from any other quarter” and that committees, etc. requiring rooms were welcome “during the ensuing session”. It is of course true, as we have learned from Cowper’s answer in the Commons, that it was thought best to let the hotel stand as long as possible, but ‘without foundation’ is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Brumfitt must have realised that eviction was unavoidable, although he may not have known the exact date. He may even have regretted his initial outburst as a few days later, a letter from Brumfitt to the editor was published which is couched in far more moderate wording, although we can still read between the lines that Brumfitt was not very happy about the financial compensation he was to get and had put his solicitor onto it.

The Times, 10 January 1863

Fendall’s was indeed the very last building to be removed. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper of 15 January 1865, says that all the houses had been removed, “Fendall’s hotel, the last of them, which stood until a day or two ago, having at length disappeared”. Despite the frequent mention in the papers of the whole process of planning and carrying out the improvements to the approach road, some people were still caught out. Andrew Halliday, a Scottish journalist, when coming up to London for the debate on the Budget, took a cab and had himself set down at the corner of Palace Yard where he

“looked for Fendall’s Hotel. It was gone, and a whole row of houses with it, and had been gone, I was informed, ever so long. When I was in the habit of visiting the gallery some years since, it was my custom to fortify myself at Fendall’s before entering the House. But here I am today, wanting fortification, and there is no Fendall’s […]. Palace Yard without Fendall’s appears to me like a desert without an oasis. Where is the weary parliamentary agent to sit him down and rest?”⁽⁸⁾

Where indeed?

—————————–
(1) Footnote 2 on page 83 of Ralph Rylance, The Epicure’s Almanach: Eating and Drinking in Regency London, ed. Janet Ing Freeman (2012).
(2) Samuel Ireland, Picturesque views, with an historical account of the Inns of court, in London and Westminster (1800), pp. 227-228.
(3) John Thomas Smith, Antiquities of Westminster (1807), p. 267.
(4) Reports from Committees, session 1 November – 24 July 1810-1811
(5) Hansard, HC Deb 05 March 1863 vol 169 c1067.
(6) See this Londonist page for the history of tobacco in London and the first divan.
(7) The Statues of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 22. The schedule of the houses to be removed is part of Act C.58 22 & 23 Victoria.
(8) Andrew Halliday, Sunnyside Papers (1866), p. 257.

Neighbours:

<– 33 Parliament Street
<– 15 Bridge Street	13 Bridge Street –>

Edward Milns, linen draper

Tags

clothing

Street Views: 73 and 80
Address: 33 Parliament Street and 13 Bridge Street, Westminster

Milns’ drapery could be found on the corner of Parliament Street and Bridge Street and had two house numbers, one for either street, but we are just talking about one shop, called Anglesea House, but why it is called that is unclear. The earliest reference I found for Edward Milns is an 1827 entry in the Sun Fire Office papers where he is described as linen draper and laceman at 33 Parliament Street. He was to marry four years later to Elizabeth Briant.⁽¹⁾ The position of his shop turned out to be a lucky one, as on 25 June, 1838, Edward advertised in The Morning Post that for the coronation of Queen Victoria a few days later, he had “a few good front seats to be let; also a shop front and the use of a shop and balcony outside, commanding a most extensive view of the procession”. Edward obviously saw the festivities as an opportunity to make a bit of money.

1799 Horwood map

In 1844, a Mrs Sarah Truman, came into the shop to look at shawls, but they were not to her satisfaction and she just bought a pair of gloves. She apparently acted suspiciously as Milns followed her to the Haymarket where he saw her take a bundle from her side. It transpired that she had stolen a black satin shawl with a value of 35s 6d. She was given into custody and later tried. The defence asked for clemency as the lady was pregnant and “females very frequently purloined ornamental articles of dress while labouring under strong passions, which they could not control, when in a similar situation to the prisoner”. Despite this plea, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and Truman was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and hard labour, three weeks of which in solitary confinement. Although the sentence is rather harsh in our 21st-century opinion, pregnancy is of course no valid excuse for shoplifting.⁽²⁾

The caption to the vignette tells us that Edward Milns was a linen draper, silk mercer, hosier and haberdasher who sold millinery, baby linen, Irish linen, damask table linen and items for mourning. And we know from the Truman case that shawls and gloves were on offer. What you could also obtain from the Milns drapery were patterns. In 1847, James Holms and his 17-year old son John, Scottish textile manufacturers who specialised in Paisley shawls, were on a visit to London because the father had to give testimony before the Railway Commission, but business was not forgotten and “they ‘got many good patterns at Milns’, Parliament Street”. John became the firm’s representative in London a year later and, although there is no evidence, he may very well have continued his business dealings with the Milns’ firm.⁽³⁾

Edward and Elizabeth Milns do not seem to have had any children. In the 1841 census, no children are mentioned, just three male and three female servants. The servants are not given a distinct occupation other than servant, but in the 1851 census, the information is more elaborate and we learn that besides Edward, his wife, his wife’s sister Mary, a nephew Robert, and two visitors, there are also living on the premises three male draper’s assistants, one male apprentice, one young male servant, and one female servant. We also learn from the 1851 census that Edward was born in Lusby, Lincolnshire, c. 1801. Elizabeth originally came from Wiltshire and was a few years younger than Edward. Fast forward another ten years to 1861, when Edward, his wife, the sister and the nephew can still be found in Parliament Street, but this time with just two male assistants and one female servant. We do not necessarily have to read into this that the business was going down as assistants need not necessarily have lived above the shop, but things were certainly about to change.

elevation in Tallis’ Bridge Street booklet

In 1859, Parliament passed the “Westminster Bridge Act” (C.58 22 & 23 Victoria) in which the widening of the western approach road to the new bridge was set out. In other words, Milns (and his neighbours) were to be bought out and their houses and shops removed to be able to widen Bridge Street. But, government departments are not always as efficient as they should or could be (nothing changes) and the Office of Works had neglected to serve the required notices of the compulsory purchase orders to some of the occupants and the whole process was delayed.⁽⁴⁾ No wonder Milns could still be found in his shop in 1861, but in the end, the shop had to be demolished.

We know where he went from a notice in The London Gazette of 22 May 1868 in which the partnership between Edward Milns, George Miller and Robert Briant (most likely the nephew who had been living with the Milnses since 1851) is dissolved. Who George Miller was is unclear, but he was to continue the linen drapers’ business which had been at 1 Broadway, Westminster, at 134 Long Acre. Miller was not the original occupant of 1 Broadway as the 1861 census gives a John Beard, linen draper, as the resident. Milns & Co. probably took over the Broadway shop when Beard got into difficulties with his creditors as he is recorded as having assigned all his effects in trust to two of his creditors “for the benefit of themselves and the rest of the creditors”.⁽⁵⁾ According to the electoral registers, Milns himself could be found in Park Street from 1864 onwards and the 1871 census finds him there at number 16 as “retired draper”. I have not found the 1881 census entry for Edward, but his probate entry of 1884 says that he was “late of 9 Queen-Anne’s-gate Westminster … and of Sunninghill in the County of Berks”. Elizabeth died in 1890.⁽⁶⁾

—————————–
(1) The marriage took place at St. Mark’s, Kennington, on 6 October 1831.
(2) The Examiner, 30 March, 1844.
(3) H.L. Malchow, Gentlemen Capitalists. The Social and Political World of the Victorian Businessman (1991), p. 260-261.
(4) The Observer, 11 December, 1859.
(5) The London Gazette, 25 June, 1861.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1884 and 1890. When Edward died, the estate was valued at £31,323. Elizabeth left £29,870.

Neighbours:

<– 34 Parliament Street	32 Parliament Street –>
<– 14 Bridge Street