Isherwood & Son, house decorators

Tags

decorator

Street Views: 6 and 12 Suppl.
Address: 35 Ludgate Hill

Whalley in Lancashire has been in the news this Christmas because of floods, which is obviously most distressing for the residents, but Whalley ties in with one of London’s shopkeepers that appeared in Tallis’s Street View, so I thought to start this post in Whalley rather than in London.

In 1756, one Henry Isherwood, the son of another Henry, blacksmith, late of Easterley in Lancashire, is apprenticed to James Isherwood, a Stationer of London. Easterley is very close to Whalley and there is still an Easterley Farm, just east of Whalley and south of the golf course. Henry senior died in 1748 and the burial record of the parish names him as the blacksmith of Whalley. When Henry junior was baptised in 1737, he is described as the son of Henry Isherwood of Easterley within Whalley, so I guess that Easterley was only a hamlet, or even just an extended farm, and did not have its own church. Twelve years earlier, in 1725, another son of Henry the blacksmith was baptised, Nicholas, but this time the father is described as “of Read”. Read is the next village along the road coming from Whalley towards Padiham. Keep this Nicholas in mind because we will come back to him later on in the story, but we will first return to Henry junior.

Henry, at some point after his apprenticeship, went into partnership with Thomas Bromwich and Benjamin Bradley, and not only that, in 1766 he married Ann Maria Bromwich, the niece of his partner. She was most likely the daughter of the reverend John Bromwich who was mentioned in Thomas Bromwich’s will as “my dear brother”. In this will of 1787, Thomas mentions Henry Isherwood as his nephew-in-law and leaves him certain bequests “as a reward for and token of his ffidelity and assiduity as a partner to me in business and his affection and good behaviour to me and my family”.⁽¹⁾ Bromwich had been a paper-hanger and leather gilder at the Golden Lyon, 35 Ludgate Hill, since the 1740s and did not just supply wallpaper, but, according to one of his trade cards, also “all manner of screens, window blinds, covers for tables, rooms, cabins, stair-cases, etc.” In other words, all house decorations could safely be left in the hands of Bromwich & Co. He worked, for instance, for Horace Walpole at Strawberry Hill House.⁽²⁾ The shop at 35 Ludgate Hill was situated on the left-hand side of Naked Boy Court and touched at the back upon the yard of the Belle Sauvage Inn. Later baptism records for Isherwood children show that the family also used the address of 6 Belle Sauvage Yard to describe their living quarters.

1799 Horwood map

Announcement in The London Gazette, 26 October 1784

Bromwich retired from the partnership in 1784 and Isherwood and Bradley remain in partnership until the death of Bradley in 1792 at the age of 55. They had used Bromwich’s name in their billhead as “(late partners with M^r. Bromwich)” as we can see, for instance, on a bill written out in May 1792 for William Drake for “a mans time and expences going to Roehampton”.⁽³⁾ This particular bill was paid in February 1793 and the receipt of the money was signed by N. Isherwood. And this is where we go back to the beginning of this post and Whalley. Nicholas, the elder son of Henry the blacksmith, died in 1775; his son Nicholas (baptised 1762) came to work in his uncle’s shop in London and married Sarah Fielding in 1796. Uncle Henry and his wife Anna Maria Bromwich had one surviving son, Robert (born 1781), but he does not seem to have been involved in the business. He is always described as Esquire of Highgate and took on the management of the house and lands at Highgate that came to him via Thomas Bromwich, the widow Elizabeth Bromwich, and his father Henry Isherwood.⁽⁴⁾ Henry Isherwood of Ludgate Hill died – suddenly according to the record of St. Bride’s – in 1812 and was buried on 3 February.

John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, 1812

Invoice for Lady Ann Conolly from the Isherwood firm, 1788 (Source: British Museum)

The next phase in the decorator’s business is that under the management of Nicholas Isherwood, Henry’s nephew. In 1818, his son Nicholas Thomas obtained his freedom of the Company of Stationers and the City by patrimony and three years later he married Elizabeth Ann Dawes. When their son Nicholas William Tertius was baptised in 1825, their address is given as 7 Racquet Court. Nicolas dies in 1829 and from his will, we learn that he and his son are in partnership and that he would like his wife Sarah to continue the business in partnership with his son.⁽⁵⁾ And that is what happens. The 1841 census shows Sarah at 35 Ludgate Hill with her widowed daughter Mary Ann Daker and two servant. Where Nicholas Thomas is on the night the census is taken remains unclear. He may very well have been away on business as we know that the Isherwoods (and Bromwich before them) were frequently called upon to (re-)decorate country houses. [Update: he was at the cottage in Acre Lane, Brixton, see comment by Steve] Ten years later, Nicholas Thomas is at home at Ludgate Hill and his sister is still there as housekeeper. This time it is Sarah who is missing from the census. Things were not well with the business, however.

Daily News, 2 December 1851

On the 14th of November, 1851, a petition was filed at the Court of Bankruptcy against Nicholas Thomas and Sarah. While that in itself would not necessarily be a grave problem as many petitions were filed against shopkeepers and if they could satisfy their creditors, they could continue trading, but the Isherwoods were not able to turn things around and in December 1851, an advertisement announced the sale, not only of their furniture and household goods, but also of their stock in trade at 35 Ludgate Hill. In March 1852, a cottage at Acre Lane that they owned was also put up for sale.⁽⁶⁾ They had to move to Oxford Street and the building at number 35 was taken over by the Prudential Insurance Company for their headquarters. In March 1852, the Isherwood case came before the Bankruptcy Court and it was not a pretty picture. The total debt of Sarah and Nicolas was £3509 plus £753 for which security was held. Leniency was asked for Sarah who was almost 80 years old and as good as completely bedridden.

It turned out that Nicholas’s annual expenditure had exceeded income and “that the bankrupt had continued in trade when hopelessly insolvent”, “that he had kept his books badly” and that “he [drew] on persons on whom he had no claim, and thus supported himself with fictitious credit”. Assets had made £800 while the debts were between £3000 and £4000. The defence tried to put the blame on circumstances and stressed that “the business had been profitable for a series of years. The house had been established for a century, and had been carried on by the bankrupt’s father and uncle. The failure was attributable to the system now pursued by the large builders, who contracted for every part of the work in a house, and thus injured those who, like the bankrupt, were engaged in a particular department as decorators. The bankrupt’s father had carried on the business with great success; and the aged lady, his widow, had been accustomed to every comfort”. It sounds as if Nicholas Thomas and his mother failed to adapt to a changing world, compounded by Nicholas’s bad book-keeping which the commissioner thought decidedly reckless and hence refused to give Nicholas a certificate immediately. His certificate was postponed for a year, after which one of the third class (dishonest or fraudulent) would be given. Sarah was given one of the second class (that is: having been careless or reckless).⁽⁷⁾

Illustration of a carriage pulling into the Belle Sauvage inn. Isherwood’s shop can be seen behind the carriage with the name displayed on the front (Source: British Museum)

Sarah died in November 1853 and was buried at St. Bride’s on the first of December. Her address was given as 493 New Oxford Street. In 1858, Nicholas Thomas had to appear before the bankruptcy commissioners again and is then said to be “Formerly of 493, New Oxford Street, and now of 501a, Oxford Street … Paper Hanger, Decorator, House Agent and Appraiser”. The 1861 census does indeed find him at 501a Oxford Street, living with his sister Mary Ann Daker, her daughter Mary Ann who is a governess, and his own son Nicholas Wiliam Tertius. The men are both described as decorators.

Papier-mâché bracket, ca. 1764 by Bromwich & Co. (Source: Sotheby)

What happened subsequently is not entirely clear, but in the 1871 census, Nicholas Thomas can be found in Sutton’s Hospital of Charterhouse which provided accommodation for “men who had lived active and useful lives in conditions of prosperity and comfort and who had fallen on hard times through no fault of their own to finish their days in the kind of circumstances to which they had become accustomed”. “Through no fault of their own” may stretch the truth a little bit, but at least Nicholas had a few quiet years there before his death.
 
 
 
 
 
—————–
(1) PROB 11/1156/119.
(2) Thanks to Louise Varma, weekend volunteer at Strawberry Hill House, whose question on Bromwich led me to do the research on the Isherwoods.
(3) This particular bill is in the British Museum, but the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies have more records regarding the Drake family house at Roehampton.
(4) Survey of London, volume 17, the Parish of St Pancras. Part 1, the Village of Highgate.
(5) PROB 11/1765/25.
(6) Morning Chronicle, 12 March 1852.
(7) Daily News, 27 March 1852. The certificate was duly given to Nicholas in March 1853.

Neighbours:

<– 36 Ludgate Hill

34 Ludgate Hill –>

George and Richard Attenborough, jewellers and pawnbrokers

Tags

jeweller, pawnbroker

Street View: 12 Suppl.
Address: 204 Fleet Street

The story of the extended Attenbury family who worked as pawnbrokers, silversmiths and/or jewellers in London is quite a complicated one and started in two villages in Northamptonshire, Blakesley and Titchmarch. I will come back to the Titchmarsh lot in later posts, but for now I will concentrate on George and Richard, the easier family group to sort out. George Attenborough senior (1791-1829), a farmer of Blakesley, and his wife Elizabeth had two sons who went to London to find a better life for themselves: George (1820-1892), who married Sarah Emma Parsons (1824-1897), and Richard (1822-1901), who married Elizabeth Coales (1829-1914). In 1844, George and Richard obtain their freedom of the City of London via the Company of Spectaclemakers by redemption. They are described as pawnbrokers and silversmiths. 1844 is also the year in which George marries Sarah Emma Parsons at Brighton. The couple’s son, Henry Arthur (1848-1930), receives his freedom of the Spectaclemakers in 1873 and takes over the business. Richard, although listed at number 204 when he obtains his freedom, at some point moves to 19 Piccadilly. We will come back to him later.

The three pawnbrokers’ balls can be seen on the Fleet Street shop on the right-hand side of the picture (Source: Illustrated London News via Wikipedia)

204 Fleet Street was built next to and over a small alleyway leading to Bell Yard, clearly visible on the left-hand side of the elevation at the top of this post and the rounded arch can also be seen just under and to the left of the pawnbroker’s symbol in the Illustrated London News illustration above. The shop was moved east a few houses to 193 Fleet Street, on the corner of Chancery Lane, probably in the early 1880s when Temple Bar was taken down and the Royal Courts of Justice were built. Another address found for the business is 71-72 Strand (photo here), but that may just have been a temporary address while the building work at Fleet Street was going on.

193 Fleet Street (Source: Google Street View)

The new premises on the corner of Chancery Lane were designed by the architects Archer & Green and, according to English Heritage, opened in 1883. Two 1884 photographs can be found here and detailed pictures of the decoration on the building can be seen on the blog post by Ornamental passions here. George lives out his days at Grove Lodge, Muswell Hill, Hornsey where he dies on 22 January 1892. His estate was valued at over £313,000, but later resworn at £321,000.⁽¹⁾ His widow Sarah Emma died in 1897 and his son Henry Arthur in 1930.⁽²⁾ Henry must have handed over the pawnbroker and jeweller’s shop between 1891 and 1901 as the census for 1901 finds him at Catesby Hall, Daventry, Northamptonshire, as a grazier and farmer, while the 1891 census still found him in London as a pawnbroker.

The 1911 census tells us that 193 Fleet Street was occupied by three pawnbroker’s assistants, one warehouse boy, a jeweller’s assistant, a housekeeper and a general servant. The name of the owner is given as George Attenborough. This must be the son of Henry Arthur who was born in 1873 and obtained his freedom of the Company of Spectaclemakers in 1897 by patrimony, probably at the time when his father retired. George was a clever chap and had been to Oxford where, according to the 1901 census, he obtained a BA. He died in December 1949 and is described in the probate entry as of Catesby near Daventry and of 193 Fleet Street.⁽³⁾ Over time, the shop became less of a pawnbroker’s and more a jeweller’s and still occupies the 1883 building. Their website can be found here.

Trade card for Richard (Source: British Museum)

Richard, although listed at number 204 Fleet Street when he takes out his freedom, at some point moves to 19 Piccadilly. He is not yet there when the Tallis Street View for Piccadilly comes out (number 19 is then occupied by Woolley an ironmonger), but when he marries Elizabeth Coales in 1849, he is described in The Observer as of Piccadilly and Portman Street. The Post Office Directories of 1848 and 1851 give, besides 19 Piccadilly, also 8 Portman Street, Portman Square, as his address. Richard and Elizabeth do, however, live above the property in Piccadilly where the 1851 census finds them with two assistants and two house servants. Richard makes quite a name for himself when he enters some of his work in the Great Exhibition of 1851 and his work merits a whole page in the Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue. At the next exhibition, in 1862, some of his jewels are depicted in the catalogue and described as “most refined examples”.

In 1856, the Post Office Directory lists Richard at both numbers 19 and 33. In 1870, he had his shop at 33 Piccadilly (by then encompassing numbers 34 and 35) entirely rebuilt and The Architect (27 August 1870) fills a whole column describing the new building (online here), illustrating it with the drawing of which you see the lower section below.

The Architect, 1870

In the 1861, 1871 and 1881 censuses, we find Richard living at Whitley Grove, St. Giles, Reading, variously described as landowner, pawnbroker, silversmith and farmer. In 1873, his entire herd is sold at auction.⁽⁴⁾ This had probably all to do with a compulsory purchase order on the farm taken out by Reading Town Council for drainage purposes.⁽⁵⁾ Given the extensive building work at Piccadilly, the exclusive silverwork he produced which received only praise, and his move to the countryside, one might assume that Richard was doing very well, but instead of leaving a similar sum of £300,000 at his death in 1901 as his brother George had done, Richard left a ‘mere’ £5,800 in assets.⁽⁶⁾ Not to be sneezed at of course, but more could have been expected. A possible explanation is a bad investment. According to culturalecology.info, Richard retired from his business in London in 1874 and bought the Lower Resolven colliery in Wales. By 1885, “extravagant living and ignorance of the trade brought their nemesis when he failed, with assets negligible and debts of nearly a quarter of a million”.⁽⁷⁾ Unfortunately, the article does not give any references, so no idea where the information came from, but it would certainly explain the drop in Richard’s financial resources. By 1891, Richard had moved back to his roots and could be found at the Manor House in Horton, Northamptonshire, where he spent the rest of his days.

(1) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1892.
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1897 and BMD Death Index December 1930.
(3) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1950.
(4) Thornton’s Circular. A Record of Shorthorn Transactions, vol. 3, January 1872 to December 1873.
(5) The Builder, 29 March 1873.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1902. Estae valued at just over £5,800.
(7) ‘Living and Working by Water’ by culturalecology.info (online here).

You may also like to read the posts on Robert Attenborough of Charlotte Street, and on Richard, Richard and George Attenborough of Shoreditch High Street and Crown Street, Finsbury Square.
More information on the Attenborough family can be found in blog post 243 on the Landed Families of Britain site (here)

Neighbours:

<– 205 Fleet Street

205 Fleet Street –>

Henry Farley, toy dealer

Tags

toys

Street View: 12 Suppl
Address: 31 Fleet Street

We made a pause at the toy-shop in Fleet-Street,
to see the giants of St. Dunstan’s strike upon the bells⁽¹⁾

On 4 May 1841, Henry William Alphonsus Farley received the freedom of the City of London by redemption (that is: by paying a fine) via the Company of Cordwainers. On the documents, he is described as a ‘toy dealer’, the son of George Farley, a painter from Maidstone, Kent and he had been a member of the Cordwainers since 3 October, 1838. His address on the 1838 document is already 31 Fleet Street, but Tallis, in the original set of Street Views, tells us that one Harrison, a toy dealer, lived at that address. The Land Tax Records for 1838 give us the name of Mary Harrison and she can be found at the 31 Fleet Street address from 1824 onwards. The property, opposite St. Dunstan’s Church, belonged to the Cordwainers Company, so it is not really surprising that Farley became a member of that Company. In 1547, The Cordwainers had been left several houses in Fleet Street and Falcon Court by John Fisher and hence the area is known as Fisher’s Charity.⁽²⁾

Farley’s freedom of the Cordwainers’ Company

Henry Farley placed an advertisement in The Morning Post of 5 January 1839 in which he advertised a new drawing-room game, called The queen and her defenders. Farley explains the rules of the game in the advert and it appears to be a game played on a specially designed board, involving a spinning-top and fifteen chessmen. The chessmen are supposed to ‘defend’ the queen from the attack by the spinning-top. Don’t know if it was fun, but it does not seem to have survived, unlike Russian bagatelle⁽³⁾, also announced in the advertisement as “new and delightful”. But, if buying board games and toys was not what you were after, Farley could also arrange for a clown to come round to your party, or provide the fireworks “from one pound and upwards”. Later that year, he advertised his shop as “Toy and Fancy Repository, and City Conjuring Depot” where magic lanterns, rocking horses and “an extensive assortment of amusing and popular games” were to be had.⁽⁴⁾ A few years later, he mentioned “evening parties attended with magic lantern and mechanical tricks”.⁽⁵⁾

On 28 October, 1844, the new Royal Exchange was opened in grand style by Queen Victoria. The houses in the streets through which the Royal party was to ride towards the Exchange (that is: Pall Mall, the Strand and Fleet Street) were lavishly decorated and Mr. Farley’s was one of the properties mentioned in a newspaper report of the event. He had covered his shop with “laurels, evergreens and dahlias, tastefully interspersed with various coloured flags” and for that he “obtained general admiration”.⁽⁶⁾

A toy shop by Anton Pieck (Source: Geheugen van Nederland)

1847 was not a very good year for Farley, but, as is so often the case when things go wrong, the circumstances were reported in the papers and we therefore now know that Farley also ran a Post Office in his toy shop. An investigation by the Crown Commission found Farley indebted to the Crown for 331l, 17s, 4d in money and stamps. A writ had been issued to recover that sum more speedily than normal because Farley was insolvent.⁽⁷⁾ Two weeks later, one of Farley’s employees, John Martin, was found guilty of stealing from the till. Various sums of money had gone missing and one day Farley charged Martin with it and asked him to empty his pockets. Martin flung some money in the fire and was taken into custody. The case was heard before the City authorities and Farley had to admit that more than 300l was missing from the Post Office account, but that more people in the shop had access to the till. Alderman Musgrove considered Farley to blame for the neglectful way in which he conducted his business and although Farley was ready to forgive Martin, the alderman thought that Martin ought to be punished and committed the case to trial.⁽⁸⁾

Surprisingly enough, at the Old Bailey, Martin was charged with taking a work-box, “a lady’s companion”. Farley had not missed the box from his shop, but it was brought in by an officer who had searched Martin’s room after he had been arrested for the stolen money. When Farley was cross-examined, little details about the everyday running of the shop came out. Martin was given 6s 6d a week, presents, clothes and food. Farley and his wife and “one or two others” attended to the post office. All the people working in the shop handled and received money which they were supposed to put in the till. Farley also states that he is now in trouble for “mistakes in the account” and that his property will be confiscated in lieu of the deficiency. Although the report of the Old Bailey does not state it, the theft of money by Martin could not be fully lain at his door, because others had the opportunity as well, but he was found guilty of stealing the work-box and confined for six months.⁽⁹⁾

Paper dolls (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum)

Despite the insolvency and the missing Post Office money in 1847, Farley continued to ply his business from 31 Fleet Street and in 1851 advertises for model ships and boats besides the usual games and toys.⁽¹⁰⁾ That same year, he once again decorates his shop to celebrate the Queen’s visit to the City by hanging up a transparency with a medallion portrait of Nelson with the model of a frigate in front of it and miniature flags surrounding it.⁽¹¹⁾

Farley died, 48 years old, in late September or early October 1854 and was buried at Abney Park on 7 October. From his will, which was dated 23 March 1835, we learn that at that time, he lived at 25 Ludgate Street, which may very well indicate that he learned his trade from Payne who ran a “Repository for English and Foreign Toys” at that address at the time Tallis produced his Street Views. In his – very short – will, Farley leaves everything he has to his wife Mary Ann who is also named executrix, and he apparently never saw a reason to change the will. It was proved on 2 November 1854. On 8 March 1855, the lease with goodwill, stock and household furniture was auctioned “at the Mart, opposite the Bank of England”.⁽¹²⁾ In the advertisement about the auction, Farley’s business is described as “comprising that of a naval modelist, and flag manufacturer, toy and fancy repository, carried on by the late Mr. Farley, and his predecessors […] for nearly a century and a half”. More on the earlier history of the shop in the post on Mary Harrison, the proprietor mentioned by Tallis in his early Street View and the direct predecessor of Farley.

children playing with a kite from J.M. Voltz, Kinderspiele, 1828

(1) Charles Dickens, The Personal History of David Copperfield (1850), p. 245.
(2) The Endowed Charities of the City of London (1829), p. 210 and the website of the Cordwainers’ Company
(3) For the history of (Russian) bagatelle and the later pinball, see here.
(4) The Morning Post, 17 December 1839.
(5) The Morning Post, 5 January 1843.
(6) Berrow’s Worcester Journal, 31 October 1844.
(7) Daily News, 24 September 1847.
(8) Daily News, 6 October 1847.
(9) Old Bailey case t18471025-2296.
(10) The Morning Post, 7 May 1851.
(11) The Morning Post, 10 July 1851.
(12) Hampshire Advertiser & Salisbury Guardian, 3 March 1855.

You may also like to read the post on Thomas Farley, who may or may not have been related to Henry Farley.

Neighbours:

<– 32 Fleet Street

30 Fleet Street –>