William Churton & Son, hosiers

Tags

clothing

Street View: 36
Address: 91 Oxford Street

We already came across another hosier in Oxford Street named Churton in the previous post, but William Churton of number 91 Oxford Street stressed in his Street View advertisement that he had nothing to do with the other shop and would customers please note the house number and the fact that his property was NOT on a corner. True, it was not, there was one house between him and Market Court, although the Churtons later acquired that house as well. William originally came from Whitchurch in Shropshire, but by 1796 he had established himself as a hosier at the Golden Fleece in Oxford Street.⁽¹⁾. The year after the start of his business, William married Elizabeth Bray at St. Mary’s, Marylebone. In 1807, some years after the death of Elizabeth (she probably died in 1804), William married Eliza Fuller.

Things were going well for our hosier and in 1819 he insured property in Little Sutton, Chiswick. His name can be found in A List of the Names of the Members of the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East-Indies (1825) with both addresses: 91 Oxford Street and Sutton Court Lodge, Chiswick. The Lodge was a rather substantial building that was later used as a boarding school and temporary council offices (see here for more information on its history). It was demolished just after 1900. The London Metropolitan Archives have an 1844 engraving of the property by M.J. Starling, showing a family walking in the grounds. We can well imagine that the artist depicted William Churton and his family, and the picture may even have been commissioned by Churton himself.

Detail of Starling’s engraving, See Collage for the complete picture

Henry Churton of 140 Oxford Street was known for the elastic rollers for horses’ legs that he developed, but William also had a speciality up his sleeve, not for horses’ legs, but for human legs. He developed elastic cotton bandages which were “particularly adapted to the treatment of rheumatismal and oedematous swellings, and even to fractures and dislocations, when they are followed by much tumefaction” according to Thomas Cutler in his Surgeon’s Practical Guide in Dressing of 1838. According to Henry Thomas Chapman in his Brief Description of Surgical Apparatus of 1832 the rollers were sold as ‘Chorton’s Stocking Bandages’ and were “well adapted to cases of anasarca of the lower extremity, varicose veins and hydrops articuli”.

William retired at the end of 1837 and handed over the business to his son Edward George who had already been in partnership with his father.⁽²⁾ William died in 1851 and his wife Eliza a year later. William left Sutton Lodge House to his son Charles, but the latter does not seem to have lived there as the 1861 census show a Frederick Wigan, hop merchant, as the occupant.

Edward George lived above the shop in Oxford Street, although the 1841 census only shows shop assistants and servants living there. It is unclear where Edward was at that time, but he is certainly found at home in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. Also living there was son William who was Edward’s main assistant. To distinguish him from his grandfather, I will refer to him as William II. Around 1850, Edward and William II expanded the business to include the property next door at number 92.⁽³⁾ One of the shopman in 1861 was Joseph Day who was still there in 1871 when he and his wife were looking after the property. It is, however, unclear for whom they were minding the shop as William II Churton had died in January 1868. His widow Emma died a few months later and the effects were turned over to William’s sister Julia Churton of 51 Ventnor Villas, Hove, for the benefit of William and Emma’s children.⁽⁴⁾ Edward George was listed as retired in the 1871 census and living at Ventnor Villas, Hove, with his three unmarried daughters, among whom Julia, and two grandchildren, the sons of William and Emma.

Catalogue of the British Section. Paris Universal Exhibition of 1867

Edward George died in 1874 and his probate entry lists him as late of 91 and 92 Oxford Street and of Ventnor Villas, certainly suggesting that by then he was no longer involved in the hosiery business.⁽⁵⁾ Another family member may have stepped in after the death of William II as the probate entry for William II’s brother John Ashton of 41 Foley Street, who also died in 1874, lists his widow Martha Elizabeth Churton as of 92 Oxford Street. From 1877 onwards, the electoral register shows James Churton at 91 & 92 Oxford Street (most likely William II’s other brother) and he is still there at the time of the 1881 census, although number 92 is then occupied by an Oriental carpet merchant.

When James ran the business, the financial situation was far from ideal and bankruptcy proceedings were started in 1878, which perhaps explains the occupation of number 92 by the carpet merchant. In 1884, James had paid off enough of his debt to be able to terminate the bankruptcy⁽⁶⁾, but the business that had existed for over a hundred years was not to last much longer. At some point between 1881 and 1891 the houses in Oxford Street were renumbered and 91 and 92 became 192 and 194. The 1891 census just has the remark that no one sleeps on the premises, so that is no help at all, but an 1889 insurance map shows the name of Chas Baker & Co., outfitters, written across the two premises, so the Golden Fleece must have met its end in the second half of the 1880s.

1889 insurance map

Burke’s Landed Gentry Advertizer, 1871

(1) The tax records for the previous year show an empty property at number 91. William may have been the brother of Edward Churton of 140 Oxford Street as the latter names his brother William as one of the executors of his will, but he does not specify an address, so it is not a hundred percent certain it is the same William.
(2) The London Gazette, 26 December 1837.
(3) The Post Office Directory of 1848 only lists number 91 for the Churtons, but the 1851 edition already has 91 & 92 after their name.
(4) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1868 and 1869.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1874.
(6) The London Gazette, 19 December 1884.

Neighbours:

<– 92 Oxford Street

90 Oxford Street –>

Advertisements

Henry Churton, hosiery warehouse

Tags

clothing

Street View: 41
Address: 140 Oxford Street

According to the advertisement Henry Churton had in several of Tallis’s Street View booklets, he had taken over from the late E. Churton who had established the shop in 1781. E. Churton was Henry’s father who does indeed feature in early directories, for instance in Lowndes’s London Directory of 1786. The premises at 140 Oxford Street were situated on the corner of Old Cavendish Street and “nearly opposite New Bond Street” as Churton said in his advertisements. That is stretching it a little bit, but Churton no doubt thought that New Bond Street was a better reference for his shop than Old Cavendish Street. The corner property, and in fact, the whole block, is now occupied by John Lewis. The map from the Street View booklet is orientated south-north, so upside down from the usual orientation we nowadays use. New Bond Street seems to run north on the map, but it does in fact run southwards. The building, and many of the surrounding ones, belonged to the Duke of Portland who took out an insurance in 1814 and in 1817 for his Oxford Street properties. The Sun Fire Office entry lists Edward Churton as the tenant of number 140.

Edward possibly married three times. At least, three marriages are recorded at St. Marylebone, but all were by banns, so no additional information about occupation or parents is available in the online records that I have seen. The first marriage was to Harriet Barber in 1784, the second to Elizabeth Blinman in 1789 and the third to Mary Smith in 1809. There were apparently no children from the previous marriages, but Edward and Mary’s son Henry was baptised in December 1809 and his brother Edward on 9 July 1812. There were two more children, Maria and Frederick, but they play no role in the further story of the hosier’s business. Edward wrote a will in 1827, making sure that the silver that belonged to his wife went back to her and that the rest of the silver was divided between the four children. The executors were asked to sell all other effects and hold them in trust for the children until they attained the age of twenty-one years. The executors were either to sell the business or to continue it, whatever they though best. In a codicil Edward stipulated that if Henry wanted to continue the business, he had to compensate his siblings but on no account was he to be charged more than £1200 for the lease and the fixtures of the shop and the goodwill was not to cost him anything.⁽¹⁾

So, Henry took on the hosier’s shop of his father and he received a favourable mention in 1839 for the elastic rollers for horses’ legs in The Era of 27 October. The newspaper report tell the story of a horse after a long hunt which not only had to contend with the cross-country chase and the fences that need to be jumped, but also with the ride home which may be many miles. After such exertion, the legs of the animal need to be washed with warm water, rubbed and kept warm. This is normally done with flannel bandages, which, although it keeps the legs warm, are inflexible and will either be wound too tight and then hampering blood flow or too loose and then likely to slip down. But, Churton’s Cotton Webb is elastic and hence far superior to the old-fashioned flannel.

Despite this apparent success and the insertion of several advertisements in the Tallis booklets, a year later, bachelor Henry leaves England for New Zealand, so only just after Tallis listed him in his Street View of Oxford Street. The hosiery shop was listed for one Gilbert Wilson in the 1843 Post Office Directory. Churton travelled on the ship ‘London’ which sailed on 13 August 1840 and arrived four months later in Wellington on 12 December (see here). Henry was a cabin passenger, so certainly not fleeing from financial troubles and later reports of him suggest that he was rather well off. Why he went to New Zealand is unclear; he may have been drawn to the adventure or just sick and tired of hosiery.

Churton’s College at Aramoho, near Whanganui. Ref: 1/4-017192-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23132098

Henry settled in Wanganui on the North Island, which had only recently been reached by Europeans. The first traders only arrived at the mouth of the Wanganui river in 1831. According to David Young in his Woven by Water: Histories from the Wanganui River (1998), Churton ran a public house, which was presumably more profitable than selling hosiery to the early settlers. Henry seemed to have had a good relationship with the indigenous population and in 1880, he built a school/college/home for Maori girls. Read more about the building here or even more about it in the newspaper articles listed here. In 1845, some letters written by Churton in 1844 were published by his brother Edward, who had his business in Holles Street. The whole book can be read online here. The title-page contained a paragraph by Henry on his thoughts about the treatment of the Maoris.

“I much wish, that more was known in England about the real position of the Maoris and the Missionaries; and this can only be gathered by persons living, as we have done, in contact with them so long, and having no prejudicial interests to serve. I am more convinced every day, that as long as the present system is continued, the Maoris will not be improved, and no one is more anxious for their welfare than I am.”

Henry was known for his fair treatment of the indigenous population and his efforts to give them a better life. It may now seem like Victorian interference, but he certainly meant well. His brother Edward, the bookseller, also came to live in New Zealand. He arrived in 1862 and died in 1885. He busied himself with various societies and institutions, such as the Equitable Building Society, the Harbor Board and the Gas Company.⁽²⁾ The former hosier turned settler Henry died in 1887 and a notice in the newspaper about his death described him as a good friend of the natives.⁽³⁾

(1) PROB 11/1833/396. One of the executors is “my brother William Churton” who may be the hosier of 91 Oxford Street.
(2) Wanganui Herald, 27 July 1885.
(3) Wanganui Herald, 1 September 1887.

Neighbours:

<– 141 Oxford Street

139 Oxford Street –>

Rehsif, Ablett & Co., outfitters

Tags

clothing

Street View: 86 and 18 Suppl.
Address: 37 Cornhill and 27 King William Street

Wiliam Henry Ablett, hosier, was made free of the City of London on 26 October, 1824, as “the fourteenth of fifty”, in other words: he had not gone through the usual 7-year apprenticeship, but became a freeman via the Company of Fanmakers by paying a fine of 46s 8d. Sun Fire insurance entries place his shop from 1824-1829 at 37 Fish Street Hill, but at some point before 1832 he moved the shop to 37 Cornhill. When son William Henry junior was baptised in May 1830, the family still lived at the Fish Street Hill address, but when the next son, Charles Grey, was baptised on the 1st of April 1832, the family had already moved to Cornhill.⁽¹⁾ A case of attempted theft from Ablett’s shop helps us to narrow down the removal period. John Wheeler, shopman to Ablett, caught a thief trying to put a silk handkerchief under his apron in June 1831.⁽²⁾ The shop was then still in Fish Street Hill. The move to Cornhill must therefore have taken place between June 1831 (the theft) and April 1832 (baptism Charles). In November 1832, Ablett was assisted by his nephew John Lee Ablett who apprehended another thief who had walked off with six handkerchiefs.⁽³⁾ At the Old Bailey, John Lee stated that William Henry was an outfitter and an advertisement in The Spectator of 1840 tells us that Ablett sold ladies chemises, night gowns, collars, and all kinds of shirts: made from calico or Irish linen, with linen collars, with plaited fronts, etc., and all cheaper if bought per dozen.

N. Whittock published a book in 1840 On the Construction and Decoration of the Shop Fronts of London and for plate 5 he chose Ablett’s outfitting warehouse in Cornhill, which shows lots of drapery in the windows, two swords as window decoration and something indefinable hanging over the counter. No evidence of any of the shirts Ablett advertised, however.

An advertisement in The Morning Chronicle of 22 April, 1845, tells us that Ablett had removed his business from 37 Cornhill to 27 King William Street, where he was to be trading as Rehsif & Ablett. According to the earlier set of Tallis Street Views, those premises had been in the occupation of Carpenter & Co., also outfitters. The shirts Ablett was celebrated for could still be ordered from the new establishment as all the patterns of W.H. Ablett had been preserved. An advertisement in The Times later that year, on 4 August, lists the shirts that could be bought. The range of items was the same as in the earlier advertisement, and all, as before, cheaper if bought by the dozen. But it was not to last. In October 1846, one H. Hurst, a publisher, occupied 27 King William Street, with no indication where Rehsif and/or Ablett have gone, although they may have shared the building for a while as Tallis’s Supplement was published in 1847 and he only lists Rehsif Ablett & Co. Who Rehsif was, where he came from and where he went is unclear, nor is clear what happened to Ablett. There is a suggestion that he and his family moved to South Africa and that he died there in 1876.⁽⁴⁾

But is this the Cornhill and King Willam Street outfitter? A William Henry Ablett did indeed die in South Africa in 1876, but the record that I saw transcribed his age as 22, although the original document is so mangled that it is hard to make out. If it says 82 instead of 22, then it is possibly our outfitter as he was born in ±1793. But, other records help us out. In 1880, Sarah Ablett, relict of William Henry Ablett, 80 years old, died of kidney failure in Durban. The informant who reported her death to the registrar is her son William Henry. Other Abletts who died in South Africa were Charles Grey in 1874 and James Potter in 1917. The latter died of pneumonia when he was 82 years old, but Charles Grey was only 42 years old and died in Pietermaritzburg of “suffocation caused by his falling into the watercourse in Boom Street when in an epileptic fit”. It would be extremely unlikely that another Ablett family existed with the same first names, so I think we may conclude that is was indeed the outfitter who went to Natal.

More on Ablett’s family history can be found in the Campbell Collection of the University of KwaZulu-Natal. They hold four files of manuscripts, typescripts, printed material, and photographs on the Ablett family. The first file consists of two accounts by James Potter of trading trips made from Lourenco Marques to Port Natal in 1871-1872, and to the Gold Fields, Eastern Transvaal, in c.1873. The other files contain biographical data and photographs. The record description given by the university tells us a bit more about the family’s journey to South Africa and their life in the new country.⁽⁵⁾

“William Henry Ablett came to Natal on the ‘Amazon’ in 1850 with 3 of his sons, William, James and Auther [mistake for Arthur]. His wife, Sarah, and another child, Charles, followed in January 1854 on the ‘Lady of the Lake’. The family farmed in various parts of Natal. James Potter Ablett was born in England on 31 December 1835 and came to Natal with his father in 1850. He was married to Rosario Winn on 10 March 1863 at Verulam. In 1867 he went bankrupt and had to sell his sugar estate ‘Kirkly Vale’. In the early 1870s he went on trading trips up the east coast from Durban and appears to have been based at Lourenco Marques for a time from July 1870. Later he went to Kimberley and Johannesburg where he worked as an auditor for several gold-mining companies. He returned to Durban in 1916 and died on 19 May 1917, two days after the death of his wife Rosario.”

The sons that came with their father to Natal were obviously the four sons born to William Henry and Sarah between 1830 and 1836 (see footnote 1). No mention is made of eldest daughter Sarah Ann, so she may have stayed in England, or perhaps she had died young as her sisters had, but I found no record of her death.

(1) William Henry married Sarah Potter in 1827. Their children were: Sarah Ann (1828), William Henry (1830), Charles Grey (1832), Arthur Wilson (1835), James Potter (1836), Emily (1837, she died in 1838), Isabella (1839, she died that same year) and Eliza Emmeline (1842, she died in 1852 at Park House asylum, Highgate).
(2) Old Bailey case t18310630-146.
(3) Old Bailey case t18321129-14.
(4) Suffolk Roots, v.17, 1991 via Family History Library Catalog online.
(5) University of KwaZulu-Natal, Campbell Collection, Ablett Family Papers (record online here)

Neighbours:

<– 36 Cornhill <– 28 King William Street

38 Cornhill –> 26 King William Street –>

James Corss, tailor

Tags

clothing, footwear

Street Views: 59 and 60
Address: 16, 25 and 49 Shoreditch

The elevations at the top of this post show the three shops James Corss had at the time when Tallis produced his Street Views: number 16 is Corss’s boot and shoe warehouse and numbers 25 and 49 are the outlets for his clothing business. From various sources, we can work out when each shop was occupied by him. He was often listed as of Holywell Street, but that should not be read as another address, but as an older name for Shoreditch High Street.
It all seems – and I use ‘seems’ deliberately, see further on – to have started at number 49 where we find him paying the Sun Fire Office insurance premium from 1816 tot 1839. From 1829 onwards, number 16 is added with a last mention for that shop in an 1845 street directory. From 1839 till 1844, we also find number 25 in Corss’s occupation, but numbers 16 and 25 were superseded in 1844/5 by the larger shop at number 63.

Insurance records also place him at 48 Chiswell Street from 1826 onwards, but that may have been his home address. We also find him at 15 New Bond Street in early 1832 and at 348 Oxford Street in July 1839, but it is unclear how long he used those premises. They may just have been temporary outlets.

James Corss said in the 1847 advertisement in Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper we already saw in the post on Josiah Luntley, that he had removed his “Great Emporium” to 63 Shoreditch. In the same advertisement he claimed that his business had started in 1807 on the site of the present terminus of the Eastern Counties Railway”, so most likely at number 49 where he must have been some ten years before he paid his first insurance premium. Number 49 was situated on the corner of the alley that led to Webb Square, which disappeared completely to make way for the new railway line and terminus. Tallis probably only just caught Corss at number 49 before the demolishing began. The Shoreditch terminus of the Grand Eastern Counties Railway was opened on 1 July 1840 (see here).

Horwood’s 1799 map with Corss’s properties indicated

The Webb Square area was a notorious haunt of “pickpockets, house-breakers and prostitutes”, at least according to the reverend Timothy Gibson when he gave evidence to the Metropolitan Railway Commissioners in April 1846.⁽¹⁾ It is therefore perhaps no wonder that Corss had to suffer several attempted thefts from his shop. He is listed several time in Old Bailey cases as the victim of small thefts. The records do not specify his address exactly, so are no use in determining whether he had always been at number 49, but they indicate that his shop was in Shoreditch. For instance, in 1819, when a pair of shoes were stolen, and in 1820 when a pair of trousers were taken, he is said to be of Shoreditch.⁽²⁾
The 1845 notice in The London Gazette about James Corss and Stephen Roberts dissolving their partnership as tailors and drapers already mentioned no. 63 as their address, so the move from 16 and 25 to 63 Shoreditch must have been made well before the advertisement in Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper of 1847.

The vignette street view in Tallis’s booklet shows two of Corss’s shops. Number 16 on the right, that is, the boot and shoe department which he ran in partnership with Tuckett and number 25 on the left, the tailoring business. It is quite likely that the advertisement Corss had in The Times of 5 December 1828 had something to do with the opening of his business at number 16. In the advertisement he is asking for a “smart, active, single young man” for a retail shoe warehouse. Also wanted is a shop boy. The first official mention of number 16 as Corss’s shoe shop is in an insurance record of February 1829. The 1841 census shows Charles Tuckett and his family at number 16. Was he the – by then married – young man of the advertisement who got promoted to partnership? It is just a guess. But the partnership did not last much longer as it ended at the end of 1841.⁽³⁾ In the 1843 Post Office Directory, James Corss is still listed at numbers 16 and 25, without any indication that he was at that time in partnership with anyone else. The 1845 Post Office Directory, however, finds him at number 16 on his own, but at number 63 in partnership with one Roberts. Number 25 seems to have been relinquished and as the 1844 electoral register still has James for numbers 25 & 63, the change must have taken place in late 1844 or early 1845. On the 19th of February 1846, James Corss and Stephen Roberts dissolve their partnership with Corss to continue on his own.⁽⁴⁾ The premises at number 63 were a lot larger than the previous shops, so James’s business seemed to have flourished.

63 Shoreditch

Although the business flourished, Corss’s personal life was less rosy. We saw him in the 1841 census at number 25 with his wife Mary Ann and children Maria (17), James (15) and Eliza (13). Young James was to work in the business and most likely destined to take over after his father retired. But James junior suffered from depression, feeling himself wholly inadequate to deal with life’s challenges and one summer night he killed himself. He had been spending that Tuesday on business, buying goods at a warehouse in Wood Street. His father said at the inquest that he had not seen his son afterwards. But young James somehow ended up at an inn in Greenwich where he engaged a bed and wrote a letter to his father to explain why he could not go on and he then committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Corss senior said that the delusions of his son had no ground in reality and that he had good prospects, but that he had suffered at times from great depressions. He was know to have disappeared before and that time he ended up in America. The verdict was insanity.⁽⁵⁾

advertisement in The Star and National Trades’ Journal, 20 March 1852

Despite this tragedy, James Corss senior continued his Great Emporium business at 63 Shoreditch and in the 1861 census wife Mary Ann is given as the head of the family; she is listed without an occupation. James is not listed, but his daughter Eliza, an artist, and his son Clifford are at home. Clifford’s occupation is not easy to read, but it is [something] & tailor, so he is presumably working in his father’s business. Another son, Charles William, had chosen another career and was, in 1844, apprenticed to a Law Stationer, Alfred James Waterlow. On his marriage certificate (1863) Charles William called himself a lithographic artist. There was another link between the Corsses and Waterlows as Charles’s sister Maria married one of Alfred’s younger brothers, Albert Crakell Waterlow.

Father James Corss died in 1863⁽⁶⁾ and brother Clifford in 1864⁽⁷⁾; Charles then gave up his own career to take over the family business. Mother Mary Ann died in 1870⁽⁸⁾, but it is unclear whether she had run the business after her husband’s death, or whether it were just the sons who had taken over. The 1871 census lists Charles William in Brighton, but with the occupation “master tailor employing 10 males at 63 Shoreditch”. The 1881 census saw him at Southbrook, Croyden, as “clothier” without any further information, and the 1891 census as “retired woollen draper”, still at Southbrook. He died there in 1902.⁽⁹⁾ In the 1860s, the Corss firm seems to have specialised in boys’ school uniforms. I have not found any advertisements after 1868, but since Charles William still listed the business on the census papers in 1871, they must have continued for a bit longer.

advertisement in Reynold’s Newspaper, 9 April 1865

Recap:
49 Shoreditch: 1807?-1839
16 Shoreditch: 1829-1845
25 Shoreditch: 1839-1844
63 Shoreditch: 1844?-1871 or later

——————–
(1) Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the Commissioners Appointed to Investigate the Various Projects for Establishing Railway Termini, within or in the Immediate Vicinity of the Metropolis, 1846.
(2) Old Bailey cases t18190217-94 and t18200517-130.
(3) The London Gazette, 31 December 1841.
(4) The London Gazette, 20 February 1846.
(5) The Morning Chronicle, 24 August 1848.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1863. The estate was valued at less than £5,000. The executor was Walter Blanford Waterlow, another brother of Alfred. See for the Waterlow family here.
(7) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1864. The estate was first valued at less than £5,000, but later resworn as £9,000. The executor was Charles William Corss.
(8) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1870. The estate was valued at less than £1,500. The executor was Walter Blanford Waterlow.
(9) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1902. The estate was valued at over £14,000. The executor was a solicitor.

Neighbours:

<– 17 Shoreditch <– 26 Shoreditch <– 50 Shoreditch <– 64 Shoreditch

15 Shoreditch –> 24 Shoreditch –> 48 Shoreditch –> 62 Shoreditch –>

William Witcomb, tailor

Tags

clothing

Street View: 88
Address: 54 Moorgate Street

William Witcomb started his career in the City of London in 1828 when he was made free of the Feltmakers’ Company by redemption, that is, by paying a fine of 46s 8d for not having gone through the usual 7-year period of an apprentice. He originally came from Frome in Somerset and may already have been working as a tailor before he moved to London. According to the information he gave in the 1841-1871 censuses, he was born in ±1800 and could easily have worked somewhere else for a number of years before coming to London. As the freedom document shows, he began his career in Little Bell Alley in the parish of St. Stephen Coleman Street. In the same year that he acquired the City’s freedom, 1828, he married Sophia Mary Macarthur, and the baptism records of his eldest children tell us that he worked as a tailor and glover at no. 4 Little Bell Alley.⁽¹⁾

Little Bell Alley, not necessarily showing Witcomb’s property

Little Bell Alley was a very narrow street running from London Wall to Great Bell Alley; later in the nineteenth century it was widened and renamed Copthall Avenue. Moorgate Street (it later lost the ‘Street’ part of its name) was a new street of the 1830s, constructed as one of the roads to connect London Bridge with the north. Although Wikipedia says Moorgate was constructed in 1846, it must have been earlier as it is not only depicted in the Tallis Street View, but the inhabitants are listed in Moorgate Street from 1840 onwards in the tax records of the Coleman Street ward. The tax records show Witcomb for the first time in 1829 in Little Bell Alley, having taken over from one Savory. Witcomb is still listed in the 1837 poll book at 4 Little Bell Alley, but he must have moved to Moorgate between June 1837 – when three of his children are baptised at St. Stephen’s and his address is still listed as 4 Little Bell Alley – and June 1840 when his eldest son William is buried from Moorgate Street. The 1840 tax record for Little Bell Alley does indeed show a different name.

An insurance record of the Sun Fire Office, dated 21 October 1839, shows one John Joseph Tanner, solicitor of 53-54 Moorgate Street, paying the premiums for 47, 48 and 49 Moorgate. Tanner either acted for other proprietors, or he had invested in property himself and only used the address in Moorgate Street temporarily as he does not appear in any of these properties in the 1841 census. Proof that the Witcomb family moved to Moorgate around that time is given in the 1841 census where William, Sophia, and five children are listed, next to Thomas Johnston, the bookseller at number 53. Witcomb’s new property was next to White’s Alley and is nowadays known as 20, Moorgate. The 1887 insurance map below shows Witcomb’s property at no. 20 (was 54), with the entrance to White’s Alley on the south side of the building, leading to Moorgate Street Buildings. On the right-hand side of the map the southern section of Little Bell Street can be seen.

Goad’s insurance map of 1887

Things were, however, not going very well and in November 1842, William Witcomb, “late of no. 54, Moorgate-street, London, Tailor, Draper, and Glover” was in the Debtor’s Prison for London and Middlesex on his own petition. The 1843 Post Office Directory still lists him at no. 54, but that may have been because their information had been gathered in late 1842, that is, before Witcomb was imprisoned. In 1845, number 54 is occupied by L.J. Gaskill and Co., General advertising agents for the United Kingdom, France, America, and the Colonies.

top part of an advertisement in The British and Foreign Railway Review, vol. 1, 1845

And Witcomb? Well, he managed to be released from prison and in the 1851 census could be found as an accountant at 10 New Road, Stepney. An aptitude for administrative work apparently ran in the family as son Charles John is listed as a bookkeeper and son James Robert as a solicitor’s clerk. Ten years later, the youngest son Walter is listed as a clerk to a brandy merchant, George is a barrister’s clerk, and daughter Fanny has become a teacher. William himself is listed in 1861 as a clerk to a colonial broker. In 1871, William and his sons George and Walter are all listed as ‘clerk’ without any further specification. William died in 1874 and was buried at Abney Park Cemetery.

Bombing raids in World War II did a lot of damage to the buildings on Moorgate and in White’s Alley and Witcomb’s shop no longer exists (see here). The whole block of houses between Great Bell Alley (renamed Telegraph Street) and Great Swan Alley is now designated as 20 Moorgate and houses the Prudential Regulation Authority.

—————-
(1) The five eldest children were all baptised at St. Stephen Coleman: William (1829-1840); Sophia Maria (1834-1834, she died when she was just 4 months old); Charles John (1830-1912), James Robert (1831-1859) and Alexander (1836-?). I have not found a baptism record for George (1839-1871), but the two youngest children, Fanny Sophia (1841-1875) and Walter (1846-1921) were baptised in 1867 at Dalston Presbyterian Church.

Neighbours:

<– 53 Moorgate Street

54 Moorgate Street –>

Edward Cahan, tailor

Tags

clothing

Street View: 9 Suppl.
Address: 371 Strand

London as it is today: where to go and what to see during the Great Exhibition (1851) described all there was to see in London for “the visitors to the metropolis in this eventful year” and one of the attractions described and depicted was Exeter Hall in the Strand. For this blog post, we are very pleased to see that the neighbouring tailor’s shop of Edward Cahan at 371 Strand made it into the illustration, as it is always a good thing to have corroboration of Tallis’s information. Although there are a few differences, the overall picture of Cahan’s property is much the same in the elevation shown in Tallis (top of this post) and in the illustration for London as it is today, especially the large glass shop window in three sections can clearly be seen in both pictures.

Edward Cahan had only had his shop in the Strand for a few years before the book on London as a tourist attraction was published, as in the last quarter of 1838, when his daughter was born, he was still registered in the Bloomsbury district. In January 1837, Cahan testified in a case of theft from his shop that he was ‘a tailor, and live[d] in Little King Street’.⁽¹⁾ In April 1835, he had enrolled in one of the lodges of the Freemasons and was then recorded as living in Upper King Street. More moves followed as Pigot’s Directory of 1839 saw him at 3 Little Queen Street, Holborn, and the 1841 census and the 1843 Post Office Directory found him at 389 Strand. But then, in the 1845 Post Office Directory, he is listed at 371 Strand where Tallis’s 1847 Street View Supplement found him.

Patent Journal, 1846, p. 52

In January 1846, Cahan had registered a design for ‘The Omnium’ coat or cape. It was something of a hybrid affair that could be worn with the arms inside or out. Cahan seems to have been a bit of a clothing designer as in 1851 he marketed his ‘Anaxyridian trousers’, apparently meant to be worn when riding a horse, in which posture it was to “remain as a fixture to the heel without straps, produc[ing] a handsome fall over the instep’⁽²⁾, or, as The Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue to the Great Exhibition phrased it, “the peculiarity consist in the cut, which is so arranged that they remain a fixture to the heel without straps; and dispense with braces”. Well, if that is not useful, what is?

advert in The Daily News, 12 July 1852

If all this suggests that Edward Cahan was doing rather well for himself, you would be mistaken, as in May 1848 he was ordered to surrender his effects to the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy.⁽³⁾ He somehow got himself out of that mess and dividends were paid to his creditors from December 1848 onwards.⁽⁴⁾ But, in 1854, he, and his partner James Vicat the younger, were in trouble again.⁽⁵⁾ No more is heard of the financial problems for a while, but in 1858, Edward, “late of no. 371 Strand”, is residing in the Debtor’s Prison. He is described as formerly of no. 371 Strand, residing at no. 15 York Street, Covent Garden, then at 9 Wellington Street, Strand, and then of 24 Leicester Square, part of the time letting lodgings.⁽⁶⁾ Once again, he manages to stave off his creditors, but in 1861, things go wrong yet again and he is ordered to surrender himself to the Bankruptcy Court. He is then described as of 371 Strand and 2 Golden Square, tailor and dealer in jewellery.⁽⁷⁾

The 1861 bankruptcy notice in The London Gazette was the last mention of Edward Cahan that I found; he seemed to have disappeared into thin air. His eldest son Nicholas can be found at various addresses in the subsequent censuses until his death in 1922, but Edward is gone. There is, however, more to be told about his origins. The 1841 census is not very informative about people’s origins, it just lists a Yes or No for the question whether one was born in the county and if not, whether in Scotland, Ireland or abroad. The children of Edward and his wife Esther were all given a ‘Yes’, so born in London (their eldest son Nicholas was missing from the 1841 census), but Edward and Esther had a hard-to-interpret squiggle in the space for non-Londoner. The 1851 census fortunately gives more detail. The family is then living at 15 York Street and Edward is listed as born in Poland (place name looks like Sloncia) and Esther and Nicholas in Riga, Russia. Riga, on the Baltic Sea coast, is now the capital of Latvia, but in the 19th century, Latvia was part of Russia.

Google map showing present-day borders. In the 19th century, this whole area was part of the Russian empire.

In 1852, despite the bankruptcy threats, Cahan petitioned for naturalisation and from the documents, we learn that what appeared as Sloncia in the census was in fact Slonem, now usually spelled Slonim, in the province of Grodna, now in Belarus, but then – as Cahan described it – “in that part of Poland now subject to the Emperor of Russia”. He asked for naturalisation as he has been in England for 18 years and had always worked and paid his taxes, and might in the future be investing his property in land. As an “alien” he cannot buy freehold, so he would like to become a British citizen. He is assisted by four people who confirm that he is who he says he is and that they believe that he is “a respectable and loyal person”: Thomas Robertson of 17 Holles Street, tailor, Edward Allport of 2 Dalston Lane, trimming warehouseman, Robert Mason of 8 Mason’s Row Dalston, gentleman, and James Vicat of 15 Gresham Street, woollen manufacturer. The latter no doubt related to Cahan’s partner in the 1854 bankruptcy case.⁽⁸⁾

part of Edward Cahan’s request for naturalisation

Slonim and Grodno had a large Jewish population and judging by Edward’s last name and the first names of his wife – Esther – and daughters – Polina Yetta and Rachel, coupled with the fact that I cannot find any baptism or burial records in parish records, might suggest that the family was of Jewish origin, although they may no longer have been actively practising their faith. The membership list of the Freemasons’ Lodge of Joppa to which he belonged also showed a lot of Jewish names.⁽⁹⁾ I am afraid that the Cahan trail runs cold after the 1861 bankruptcy notice, and I will have to leave it at this. If anyone has access to Jewish records and can find the Cahans, I would certainly be interested in hearing the results. Please leave a comment if you can add to this post.

(1) Old Bailey case t1837010-535.
(2) The Daily News, 3 February 1851.
(3) The London Gazette, 9 May 1848.
(4) The London Gazette, 19 December 1848.
(5) The London Gazette, 10 October 1854.
(6) The London Gazette, 19 and 22 October 1858.
(7) The London Gazette, 17 December 1861.
(8) National Archives, Kew, Naturalisation Papers, Certificate 1351 issued 28 February 1852, HO 1/43/1351.
(9) According to a footnote in The Freemasons’ Monthly Magazine of December 1845, ‘the Lodge of Joppa (London) consisted of nearly all Jews’.

Neighbours:

<– 372 Strand

370 Strand –>

William Blundstone, broad silk manufacturer

Tags

clothing

Street View: 5
Address: 37 Newgate Street

Tallis lists the shop at 37 Newgate Street for W.J. Blundstone, but that should have been W. & J. Blundstone. In 1837, William Blundstone, Joseph Blundstone and William Brown dissolve their partnership as warehousemen at 37 Newgate Street.⁽¹⁾ The two Blundstones are to continue the business, but two years later that partnership is also dissolved and William is to continue on his own.⁽²⁾ In the 1839 notice, their address is given as 31 Gutter Lane and the 1838 land tax records already give a Mr. Milbourne as the occupant of number 37, indicating that Tallis’s Street View booklet number 5 was indeed published in 1838 as the preface to the facsimile edition surmises. The 1837 electoral register for Christchurh, Newgate Street, saw both Joseph and William still at 37 Newgate Street, but I do not know at what date the names were entered in the registry. So, the Blundstones moved the business from Newgate Street to Gutter Lane between March 1837 and (early?) 1838, and Tallis only just caught them, but they had not always been at Newgate Street.

trade card (© British Museum Collection)

An 1815 insurance policy with the Sun Fire Office and a trade card in the British Museum Collection tells us where Brown and Blundstone were before they occupied the Newgate Street property, as they are listed as silk manufacturers at 21 Foster Lane. The Rate Assessment book for St. John Zachary shows William Brown, from 1811 onwards, at number 21, which was next to Bell Square. However, the General Post Office had their eyes on the area for their new building and the Act of Parliament 55 George III c. 91 provided for a grand site, obliterating the houses between Foster Lane, St. Martin le Grand, St. Ann’s Lane and Round Court. Brown and Blundstone are listed in the rate book until 1820, but then the entry for the property said, “empty in consequence of the intended new Post Office”.

On the left Horwood’s 1799 map and on the right the 1892-95 Ordnance Survey map showing the same area with the position where Brown and Blundstone had their business indicated by a red cross

The later rate books show a separate section for the houses requisitioned for the Post Office:

The undermentioned Houses were taken down and form part of the Seite of the New Post Office in pursuance of the Act of Parliament of 55 George 3 C. 47⁽³⁾ and under the 8th Section of that act and the particular circumstances are to be rated according to the rates made for this Parish from the 25th day of March 1814 to the 25th day of March 1815 which was one rate for the whole year payable Quarterly wherein the said Houses are assessed as follows …

What follows is a list of ‘late’ owners with their assessments and rates; for W. Brown the value assessed was £75.-.- with a corresponding rate of £3.8.9. The Report of the Select Committee on the proceedings following the Post Office Act lists 21 Foster Lane as occupied by William Brown and William Blundstone.⁽⁴⁾ They are also the leaseholders, but the freehold is in the hands of Francis and Elizabeth Piercy. The assessment for the property tax is £60 in the Report, but at some point that must have been raised to the £75 that the Rate Book lists. The London Metropolitan Archives have several boxes of documents, dated 1770-1823, entitled “Suits in relation to property required for improvements”. Especially the ones of 1815 and later are of interest in the case of the improvements for the New Post Office and among the people taking up a case in the Mayor’s Court in 1816 are William Brown and William Blundstone (CLA/024/08/114). The names of the people who also filed a suite in 1816, tally with the names found in the list of householders in the Report of the Select Committee (see footnote 4). I have not seen the documents themselves, but the outcome of that case could very well explain the difference in property value, and hence the compensation awarded.

The London Gazette, 12 March 1839

Kent’s Original London Directory of 1823 duly lists Brown and Blundstone at their new address at 37 Newgate Street as silk manufacturers and warehousemen. We already saw that they left Newgate Street in 1838 for Gutter Lane, but how long William remained in business after Joseph retired is not entirely clear. The 1841 census has him as a 54-year-old silk mercer, living at Cloudesley Square, with his wife Elizabeth (52) and three children.⁽⁵⁾ William died in 1845 and in his will, which he wrote in September 1844, he described himself as ‘gentleman’ of 2 Cloudesley Square, Islington, so certainly no longer in business.⁽⁶⁾ We can get a bit closer to the date of his retirement as the 1843 Post Office Directory lists him as ‘esq.’ rather than silk mercer, so presumably he retired somewhere between 1841 and 1843. William’s widow Elizabeth died in 1855, and although she mentions her son William in her will, who was named ‘assistant’ in the 1841 census, she makes no mention of the silk business and it is not clear whether William jr. continued his father’s business.⁽⁷⁾

In 1838 or thereabouts, 37 Newgate Street became the address for Robert Milbourn, a silk warehouseman. In 1842, he, along with several other shopkeepers, was duped by Frederick Shackleford who pretended to be a Mr. Beamont who was buying goods for his new shop in Maidstone. ‘Beaumont’ came into Milbourn’s shop on several occasions and each time he ordered goods to be transported to the inn where he was staying. Each time he paid part of the sum required and was to pay the rest later. For references he gave the names of two people who could vouch for him, but as they were involved in the scam, their word was not worth a lot. The transcripts of the Old Bailey case give us several names of Milbourn’s employees and also the kind of goods he dealt in. Evidence was given by Donald Cameron, shopman, John Wells, counting house clerk, and one Freeborn (no first name given), a porter. Shackleford, alias Beaumont, bought yards of silk in various colours, artificial flowers, handkerchiefs, shawls, scarfs, crapes, and satinet.⁽⁸⁾ There is no way of knowing whether Brown and Blundstone sold the same articles, but their stock was probably not very different.

silk flowers of unknown age from Greys Court, Oxfordshire (© National Trust Collection). No, nothing to do with Blundstone or Milbourn, just a splash of colour on the page

(1) The London Gazette, 24 March 1837.
(2) The London Gazette, 12 March 1839.
(3) 55 George III. c 47: An Act for procuring Returns relative to the Expence and Maintenance of the Poor in England; and also relative to the Highways.
(4) Report by the Select Committee as published in Parliamentary Papers, volume 2 and The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, volume 6.
(5) Elizabeth Selby (22), Catherine (18), and William jr (20) who is described as ‘assistant’.
(6) PROB 11/2111/139. His burial took place on 4 April, 1845, at St James, St Pancras, but probate was not granted until five years later, No indication is given why it took so long to sort out.
(7) PROB 11/2215/210.
(8) Old Bailey case t18421024-3041.

Neighbours:

<– 38 Newgate Street

36 Newgate Street –>

Thresher, Son & Co., outfitters and shirt makers

Tags

clothing

Street Views: 28 and 10 Suppl.
Address: 152 Strand

Thresher’s was situated next to the Peacock Inn, and, although the inn was no longer to be found there at the time Tallis produced his Street Views, the peacock sign remained – until this present day – as the logo for the Thresher business. In 1779, Richard Thresher had taken sole possession of the business he had with one Mr. Newham, although the business itself had existed since 1696.⁽¹⁾ At the end of 1804, Richard retired and dissolved his partnership with George Miller, his nephew. Miller continued the business with another of Richard’s nephews, John Thresher.⁽²⁾ That partnership was dissolved at the end of 1815 with John Thresher to continue the business on his own.⁽³⁾

And now for a bit of confusion over the shops as it turns out there were two John Threshers. Until his death in 1835 another John Thresher had a shop at Panton Street, Haymarket, especially geared to the theatre world. It may have belonged to Richard Thresher as there is a memorandum of an agreement in the City of Westminster Archives, dated 1795, about the sale of the lease of 1 Panton Street and the sale of fixtures, furniture and stock by Charles Shuile to R. Thresher. The tax records for Panton Street show John Thresher’s name from 1801. Kent’s Directory of 1823 duly lists that John as hosier & mercer at 1 Panton Street, but for 152 Strand, they have Wm Threasher [sic]. The John Thresher of Panton Street died in 1835 and left most of his estate to his daughter Ann who is also named executor together with friend George Miller. The executors duly insure 1 Panton Street with the Sun Fire Office, but the business is not continued as a Thresher shop, but taken over by John Brumby, a bookseller. In John’s will of 1835, he makes no mention of the shop in the Strand, nor of the people running it, which may very well indicate that he had no stake in it. It is possible that the John Thresher of Panton Street was Richard’s son and the John Thresher of the Strand was his nephew. The entry in The London Gazette about the end of the partnership of Richard with Miller clearly states that Miller and John Thresher were Richard’s “nephews and successors”.

trade card (© Trustees of the British Museum)

Pigot’s Directory for 1825-6 correctly lists 152 Strand for John Thresher. Also living at 152 Strand was John’s sister Mary who died in 1828 and appointed him sole heir and executor of her estate.⁽⁴⁾ In 1833, this John Thresher, his son Henry Thresher and John Glenny insure the Strand property with the Sun Fire Insurance Company. The partnership of John Thresher with Henry Thresher and John Glenny is dissolved in late 1839 with Henry Thresher and John Glenny to continue the shop.⁽⁵⁾ Glenny married John Thresher’s daughter Henriette Jane in 1836.⁽⁶⁾ At the time of the 1841 census, Henry Thresher was living at 152 Stand with two apprentices and a couple of servants, one of whom is named Charlotte Glenny. In 1843, Henry Thresher married this Charlotte Glenny, thereby tightening the family relationship between the two families. In 1841, John and Henriette Glenny are living in New Street, Hampton, with retired John Thresher living next door; John T. died in 1846 (see footnote 6). From around 1847, Thresher & Glenny are starting to call their business the “East India Outfitting Establishment” and they advertise with ‘India Gauze Waistcoats’. And to transport these precious waistcoats and the other items of your tropical outfit, Thresher’s could also supply you with travelling cases for which they registered a design under the Act for Articles of Utility 6 and 7 Vic. Cap. 65 (28 February 1846, no. 660).⁽⁷⁾

advert in D.L. Richardson’s The Anglo-Indian Passage, Homeward and Outward (1845)

advert in A hand-book for travellers in Switzerland and the Alps of Savoy and Piedmont (1846)

According to a 1846 document in the Westminster Archives, Thresher and Glenny applied to the Metropolitan Board of Works for permission to make openings in the party wall in order to connect the two properties of 152 and 153 Strand. The 1851 census does list 152 and 153 Strand together as the abode of John and Henriette Glenny. Also living with them is apprentice Frederick Giles, who was the son of Somerset farmer and maltster James Giles and his wife Elizabeth Thresher. I do not know how Elizabeth was related to the Threshers of the Strand, but as the name is unusual, there must have been a family link between Frederick and his employers. Although number 153 had been added to the living space of the Glennys, the tax records continue to list number 153 for Philip Firmin. In 1860 Firmin takes over number 154, but he still pays the tax for 153 until 1877 when the situation changes. Firmin is from then on still listed as the occupier of numbers 153 and 154, but Glenny is now listed as the proprietor of 152 and 153 and the occupier of 152. More on Firmin in a later post.

Glenny, by the way, not only expanded the shop, but also the items on offer. In 1854, for instance, he introduced a portable camp bed for which he received a patent. At roughly the same time, Thresher’s branched out into military uniforms, perhaps not such a great leap as many of the travellers to India were or had been military personnel. At some point John Glenny went into partnership with Frederick Thresher Giles and after John Glenny retired in 1876, Frederick entered into a partnership with Henry John Glenny (John’s nephew), which lasted until 1902.⁽⁸⁾ The mortgage of the lease and the goodwill of the business were then transferred from Glenny to Giles, although the name of the business remained Thresher & Glenny.

Plan of the properties at 152 and 153 Strand from the Land Tax record of 1902

The property at 152-153 Strand looks rather sad these days, but then, it is no longer in use as a shop by Thresher & Glenny. Plans to destroy the houses at 152-158 for a development by King’s College have been averted – hopefully permanently – and Save Britain’s Heritage has produced an alternative plan, see here.

152-153 Strand, next to Somerset House, on an old postcard

Over the years, Thresher and Glenny had shops at various London locations (see Wikipedia), but since 1992 they have been trading from Middle Temple Lane, so only for a short period in the long history of the firm, but it looks as if they have been there for centuries. The outside of the building is like a time capsule and gives us a good idea of what an 18th or 19th-century shop might have looked like. Thresher & Glenny are still going strong, albeit no longer under family management. The last of the line to work in the business, Charles Frederic Glenny, the son of Henry John Glenny, died in 1967.

the Thresher and Glenny peacock sign taken from their website

(1) According to Thresher & Glenny’s website. Wikipedia gives 1755.
(2) The London Gazette, 12 January 1805.
(3) The London Gazette, 27 January 1816.
(4) PROB 11/1742/146.
(5) The London Gazette, 14 January 1840.
(6) It has been suggested that Henriette Jane was Richard’s daughter, but that is not correct. John clearly mentions Henriette Jane Glenny as his daughter in his will (he died in 1846, PROB 11/2030/133).
(7) The Magazine of Science, 1846, p. 352.
(8) The London Gazette, 2 January 1903.

Neighbours:

<– 153 Strand

Somerset House –>

George Albert Chapman, linen draper

Tags

clothing

Street View: 53
Address: 263 Tottenham Court Road

As Chapman’s shop was on the corner of Tottenham Court Road and Great Russell Street, it was know by both addresses: 263 Tottenham Court Road and 1 Great Russell Street. The shop had had various occupants and the Sun Fire Office lists the following:
1810 Jonathan Grove, fishmonger
1826 John Bradford, grocer
1828 Charles Ward, tobacconist
1831 George Blakeway, grocer
1834 Isaac Marsh, grocer
1835 Richard Taylor, esquire of Edgware Road, so presumably renting it out
1836 Lavell and Chapman, silk mercers and linen drapers

In an advertisement in The Morning Chronicle of 9 November 1835, James Alexander Lavell and George Albert Chapman announce a partnership at 1 Great Russell Street. They explain that Lavell had been a partner with Harvey & Co. of Ludgate Hill and Chapman was “from the same house”. The way they phrase this suggests that Chapman had not been a partner, but just worked there. They called their new business premises ‘Victoria House’ and sold “a choice and superior assortment of drapery goods, of every description, which, for fashion, variety, and extent, is not usually met with in one establishment”. The partnership only lasted a few years and in February 1838, they dissolved it with Chapman to continue on his own.⁽¹⁾

In 1841, the census lists George Albert at 1 Great Russell Street, apparently single, living with five male journeymen/servants and one female servant. Chapman’s shop was frequently visited by shoplifters and 1840 was a particularly bad year for him. It started in March 1840 with Isaac Eggenton who stole 22 yards of printed cotton. The Old Bailey record is unfortunately rather short and does not tell us much more than that Isaac was 19 years old [which was in fact, 13 years old], pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years transportation. We know that he was sent to the Isle of Wight, to Parkhurst Prison from where he, and many other “apprentices”, as they were called, were sent to Australia or New Zealand. Isaac ended up in Auckland, New Zealand, where he died in 1897 (see here).⁽²⁾

Some of Chapman’s shopmen had to give evidence in Old Bailey trials. Edward Griffith testifies that he is a shopman to Chapman in the trial of Catherine Broderick who had stolen several yards of cloth in March 1840.⁽³⁾ A month later, Margaret Callaghan is apprehended for stealing some printed cotton. In this case, William Harris, “in the service of” Chapman, gives evidence.⁽⁴⁾ Chapman’s shop must have been an attractive place for shoplifters, as a few month later, another female, Catherine Williams, attempted to steal a piece of mouseline-de-laine, but was caught hiding it in her shawl by Griffith. One Thomas Howes, a Manchester warehouseman of King-street, Cheapside, said he had known the prisoner for thirty years, and that “she had the best of character for honesty — she is of an absent character of mind — she scarcely knows what she is about”. She was found not guilty.⁽⁵⁾ Small cases of theft did not usually make it into the newspapers, but in this case, a journalist must have been short of copy and decided to do a write-up about the Williams case. Unfortunately, he got it all wrong and instead of Howes giving Ms Williams a good character, the newspaper wrote that it was a Mr. Williams who did so. He was reported to be a bookseller of 1 Great Russell Street, but that is hardly likely as that was Chapman’s address and the last name of the bookseller is the same as that of the alleged thief. And in the newspaper, Catherine Williams was not discharged after having been found not guilty, but was locked up and only released after two days when bail was granted. It looks as if the journalist combined the notes on two cases and came up with a muddle.⁽⁶⁾

Linen draper from The Book of English Trades (1818)

But Chapman’s woes were not over yet and the month after the Williams case, Martha Jones tried to nick a shawl, but Edward Griffith was on to her⁽⁷⁾ and in 1842, it was yet another shopman, Charles Hewitt, who stopped Peter Collins from wandering off with a pair of gloves.⁽⁸⁾ And in May 1844, it was Chapman himself who apprehended Mary Ann Watson for stealing 11 yards of mouseline-de-laine.⁽⁹⁾ Whether it was the frequent thefts or the less than perfect business acumen of Chapman himself, the drapery in Tottenham Court Road only lasted until 1845 when Chapman assigned his estate and effects onto John Bradury and Henry Sturt, both warehousemen, for the benefit of his creditors.⁽¹⁰⁾ What happened next to Chapman is unclear, so we will continue with the businesses who occupied the corner shop after him.

One William Hardwick, laceman, is next found on the premises, but he went bankrupt in 1849, so that business did not last very long either.⁽¹¹⁾ The 1851 Post Office Directory lists Henry Tautz & Co., silk mercers, on the premises; all still in the drapery line of business, but the 1856 Post Office Directory lists William Davies, hairdresser for 1 Great Russell Street, so a complete change. The 1871 census shows Joseph H. Starie, bookseller, on the premises, and in 1882, an advertisement appears in the Daily News for Benson’s, a company selling rubber hoses at number 263. They had another shop at 4 Tottenham Court Road, which was just across the road. We will sort their history out when we write the post on number 4, but for now, the story of 263 Tottenham Court Road / 1 Great Russell Street has come to an end.

Daily News, 29 May 1882

(1) The London Gazette, 16 February 1838.
(2) Old Bailey case t18400406-1078. Thanks go to Lyn Olds who is a descendent of Isaac.
(3) Old Bailey case t18400406-1161.
(4) Old Bailey case t18400511-1431.
(5) Old Bailey case t18400706-1862.
(6) The Southern Star and London and Brighton Patriot, 12 July 1840.
(7) Old Bailey case t18400817-2011.
(8) Old Bailey case t18420131-772.
(9) Old Bailey case t18440506-1501.
(10) The London Gazette, 13 June 1845.
(11) The London Gazette, 28 July 1849.

Neighbours:

<– 262 Tottenham Court Road

264 Tottenham Court Road –>

Peart & Dossetor, hosiery warehouse

Tags

clothing

Street View: 38
Address: 12-13 Poultry

In 1788, Joseph Peart, son of John Peart of Stanhope, Durham, acquired the freedom of the City of London through the Needle-makers’ Company, and from 1790 onwards, we find his name in the Land Tax records for 13 Poultry and from 1792 onwards, also for number 12. In 1790, his younger brother Cuthbert is apprenticed to him and at some point, the brothers are in partnership as “hosiers, traders and dealers” in Friday Street, but that partnership was dissolved in April 1819.⁽¹⁾ The business with his brother seems to have been in addition to the shop in the Poultry, as that continues to be listed for him in the various records. In 1805, Joseph took on another apprentice, Thomas Dossetor (also Dosseter), the son of Daniel, a Dagenham farmer. This Thomas takes over the hosiery business in ±1820. The tax records for the Cheap Ward of 1820 still show Peart’s name for the two properties at 12 and 13 Poultry, but from 1821 onwards, it is Thomas Dossetor who pays the tax, although the business continued to be called ‘Peart & Dossetor’.

top part of the oath of the Needlemakers

entry for Peart & Dossetor in the 1851 Exhibition

Thomas Dossetor and Harriet Richolls marry in December 1819 and their son Thomas Peart Dossetor is born in December 1821, or at least, he is baptised that month. The Bishop’s copy of the parish record does not give a date of birth. The 1841 census does not show the Dossetor family at the Poultry, just a number of shopmen, porters, apprentices and other servants, but in 1851, Thomas and his son Thomas Peart are to be found living above the shop. Ten years later, Thomas is still there, but Thomas Peart is lodging in Queens’ Road, Marylebone. He is still listed as a hosier, but without an indication where he is working. Still in the family business? Probably. He is certainly listed at the family address in 1863 in the probate record for his father⁽²⁾, and also in 1864, when he takes out the freedom of the City.

advertisement in Tallis’s Street View

But Thomas Peart’s real interest did not lie in hosiery as we shall see in a moment and in 1869, a notice in The London Gazette states that Thomas has granted by indenture to Joseph Solly and Thomas Bayley all his copyhold and freehold estate, and all and every stock in trade for the benefit of his creditors.⁽³⁾ Not that Solly and Bayley were to take over the business; they just dealt with the transfer to a new owner. The tax records for 1869 still show Dossetor’s name, but in 1870, the property is listed as “late T.P. Dossetor” and in 1871 its is Charles Sadler who pays the tax. Sadler was to remain at the Poultry until his death in 1888. More on him in a moment, but first the rest of the story for Thomas Peart Dossetor.

The 1871 census does not seem to list Dossetor, but in 1881, he can be found in Norwich as a lodger with occupation entomologist & wood carver. Well, that is certainly different than hosiery, and far less profitable. When he died in 1886, he left an estate of only £25 15s, to be administered by Henry Ralph Nevill, archdeacon of Norfolk.⁽⁴⁾ Thomas Peart had been a member of the Entomological Society since 1851 and in their Annuals his interests are listed as British Coleoptera and Lepidoptera (beetles and butterflies to you and me). In 1859, E.W. Janson, the secretary of the Society, wrote in the Entomologist’s Annual about newly reported insects and mentioned Thomas as having, “with his wonted liberality”, presented Janson with a specimen of Hydrochus, which he had found in Holme Fen.

illustration of the new building from The Building News, 4 February 1876

In the mean time, Charles Sadler had grand plans with 12-13 Poultry and in 1876, The Building News of 4 February reported on a new building, designed by architect Frederick Chancellor, to replace the former which “had become much dilapidated”. The new premises were “erected in red brick, with mullioned windows on each floor, executed in red Dumfries stone, but the principal features are 4 large panels in terra-cotta between each floor, representing scenes which have been enacted in the street below”. The panels were sculpted by Joseph C. Kremer. The Art Journal also reported on the new building and called it a “lofty edifice of four storeys, and dormers”. They describe the bas-relief panels in some detail:

The lowermost panel shows the procession of Queen Victoria at the opening of the Royal Exchange; the next above it, represents a presumed incident which occurred on the site of the newly-erected house on the occasion of Charles II making his public entry into London on the 29th of May, 1662, when his majesty saluted the landlady of the house of that date, which was then an inn: the good woman, though suffering much from illness, insisted on welcoming the monarch. Looking still higher up, the next panel shows the procession of Queen Elizabeth entering London in state, on the 28th of November, 1551: and above this, is the uppermost panel, representing Edward VI passing from the Tower to Westminster to be crowned, on February, 1546.

Despite the Grade II listing, the 1875 Sadler building fell victim to the re-development plans for the Mappin and Webb building at 1 Poultry, which had stood on the corner of Poultry and Queen Victoria Street for more than a hundred years. There was a lot of opposition to the plan, but it happened anyway and yet another part of London’s history disappeared. The new development at 1 Poultry, designed by Stirling and Wilford, is in itself now a Grade II listed building and all that is left of the original Mappin and Webb building is the clock. And all that is left of 12-13 Poultry are the terracotta panels which have been incorporated in the new building above Bucklersbury Passage. You can read more about the panels on the websites of London Remembers (here) or Ornamental Passions (here)

panels above Bucklersbury Passage (Google Street View)

The 1875 building is sometimes given as the property of Alfred Hawes, hosier, but that is not correct. According to the tax records, Charles Sadler occupied the building from ±1870 when Dossetor left to 1888 when Sadler died.⁽⁵⁾ It is true that Hawes is listed at 12-13 in The London Gazette in an 1880 bankruptcy notice, but before that he was listed at 40-41 Poultry (1873) and at 33 Poultry (1872). Tallis lists Hawes & Ottley at Nos 40-41. Hawes may just have rented some space in the Sadler building near the time of his bankruptcy. I will see if I can find out when I do some more research on him for the post on 40-41 Poultry. Also notice that the name of Sadler is on the building in the illustration in The Building News.

Advertisement in London: a Complete Guide to the Leading Hotels, 1872

(1) The London Gazette, 27 April 1819.
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1864. Estate valued at under £7,000.
(3) The London Gazette, 2 March 1869.
(4) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1887.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1888. Estate valued at over £7,600.

Neighbours:

<– 14 Poultry

11 Poultry –>