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 ‘gentlemen’ 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 –>

Solomon and Louisa Asser of Burlington Arcade

Tags

clothing

Street View: 71
Address: 9 and 59 Burlington Arcade

Tallis, in his Burlington Arcade Street View booklet, tells us that “this beautiful arcade was the first of that description of building in London, and is composed of elegant shops, principally for the sale of fancy articles. It forms a morning lounge for the fashionable, and is particularly adapted for such in inclement weather, since its skylight shelters it from rain and wind”. The situation has not changed much since the Asser family ran their businesses from the arcade as the roof still protects the shopper from the weather and the shops still sell luxury goods. I have chosen to write about the two establishments the Assers had in the Arcade together as there was a close family link. Louisa was a milliner and artificial florist at number 59 and Solomon an artificial florist at number 9, or, at least, that is how Tallis described them in his Street Directory. But things are not so straightforward when we look a little further. Solomon had put an advertisement in the Tallis booklet, which says that he is trading from numbers 8 and 9, and that, besides flowers, he also supplied feathers.

Number 8, however, is listed in Tallis’s directory for a cutler by the name of Underwood, and the 1843 Post Office Directory lists a Miss Mary Underwood, cutler, at number 8. I presume that Solomon used the whole of number 9 and part of number 8, but exactly how the division worked is unclear. The 1886 insurance map by Goad shows 8 and 9 as one shop without any internal division. I will come back to Underwood in a later post. But first Solomon who made it into the newspapers in 1846, when he was accused by a Mr. Martin, whip maker of Burlington Arcade, of assault. Martin said that Asser had suddenly rushed into his shop and given him a blow on the chest and one on the head with a whip. Asser defended himself by explaining that he had come to the rescue of Martin’s younger brother who was whipped by Martin for neglecting his duties as a shop boy, and the only way he could stop the fighting was by grabbing the whip. The judge commended Asser for trying to protect the younger boy, but in doing so he had been led into greater violence than was justifiable. Asser was to pay 40s and costs, which led to his aggrieved response that in future he would think twice before interfering when boys were beaten.⁽¹⁾

1886 insurance map by Goad showing shops no. 8 and 9 outlined in red

In the Tallis Street View, 59 Burlington Arcade was occupied by Louisa Asser who, according to the 1843 Post Office Directory, ran a baby linen warehouse from 56 & 57 Burlington Arcade, so she must have moved shortly after Tallis produced his booklet. The 1841 census confirms this, and, although it does not give any house numbers, we can work out from the order of the people listed that Louisa was resident at number 57. Living with her is Henriette Asser, also a milliner, and two younger servant girls. By 1843, Louisa had extended the business to include number 56 (Post Office Directory). Tallis, in 1839, listed number 57 for a Mr. Hadley, “Hair Cutter. Wig & Scalp Maker. Removed to 10 Marchmount Street, Russell Square”, and number 56 for shoe maker Durlin. We know that Louisa had had her shop in Burlington Arcade at least since 1836 as in March of that year a fire destroyed many properties in Old Bond Street, the Western Exchange and in Burlington Arcade itself. In a newspaper report, Louisa, still at number 59, is mentioned as one of the shopkeepers whose premises were severely damaged. Luckily, she was insured with the Globe insurance company.⁽²⁾

Louisa died in 1849 and provided a valuable source of information about the family relations between the Asser shops in her will. At the time of her death, she was living at 25 Westbourne Park Road, not far from Solomon, whom we find at number 33 in the 1851 census. Louisa mentions Solomon in her will as her brother and one of her executors. Louisa wanted her assets to be sold and invested with the dividend to be paid to various family members: her sisters Adelaide and Rachel, her brother Henry, and after the death of the last survivor of these three, to the daughters of her sister Mary Peck. Also mentioned are her brothers Nathaniel and Louis, and various nieces.⁽³⁾ So, Solomon, the artificial florist, is her brother, and indeed, after Louisa’s death, the baby linen shop at numbers 56 and 57 is taken over by Solomon.

Entry from the 1851 Post Office Directory

Louisa, Solomon and their siblings were all the children of Asher Asser, a stationer, and Joicey (or Joyce) Levien and over the years, several of them had had a shop in Burlington Arcade.⁽⁴⁾ Brothers Henry and Louis had a business as china and glass-men at Burlington Arcade, but their partnership was dissolved in July 1823 with Louis to continue on his own.⁽⁵⁾ Louis is later to be found as a glass and china dealer at 147 Regent Street (later changed to a “ready made linen warehouse”) and Henry at 406 Strand. Despite the end of the partnership in 1823, Henry could still be found at the same address as Louis in the 1841 census, apparently working in the same china shop in Regent Street. In 1851, Henry is living with his sisters Adelaide and Rachel at 57 Westbourne Street, all three living on their own means, no doubt facilitated by the capital their sister Louisa had left them.

Advertisement in The Pall Mall Gazette, 12 April 1866

Nathaniel can be found as a tailor at 52 Burlington Arcade in the 1822 and 1825 Pigot’s Directories. He married Mary Ann, the daughter (or possibly sister) of Thomas Sherwin, who also had a shop in Burlington Arcade. After a spate in Scotland, Nathaniel settled in Surrey Street where the 1839 directory finds him as a clothes dealer. After Nathaniel’s death, two of his sons are working in the games industry, no doubt because that was what the Sherwins were involved in. Nathaniel’s son James, who had worked as a solicitor, joined forces with his cousin Charles Sheppard Sherwin (the son of Mary Ann’s brother James) at 81 Strand as dealers and manufacturers of bags, dressing cases, games, and sport equipment (see here). James’s son Ernest, with John Arthur Turnbull, founded the shirt making company Turnbull & Asser, which is still in business in Jermyn Street (see here for portraits of the two founders).

Part of a poem by Joseph Barnard from his Among the Gods, 1874

But let’s get back to where we started. Solomon expanded his business as an artificial florist at number 9 to include numbers 8, 56 and 57. Besides flowers, he also dealt in ostrich feathers, straw hats, fans and various millinery wares. In 1861, the census reported him as employing 20 men, although that probably included more women than men, as the millinery side of the business tended to be a female affair. Solomon died in 1877, naming his second wife Emma, who, by the way, was 30 years younger, as sole executrix.⁽⁶⁾ Emma continued the business in Burlington Arcade and is favourably mentioned in a newspaper “column for ladies” about the latest fashion (see illustration below). She also supplied the hats for the wedding of Lieutenant Radcliffe and Miss E.M. Orpen in 1894.⁽⁷⁾ We still find her at numbers 8 and 9 in the 1902 Post Office Directory, listed as ladies outfitter. Burlington Arcade 56 and 57 had by then been relinquished and were occupied by Scott, a hosier. According to Dick Sherwin, Emma continued in the Arcade till 1918 and died in 1921.

Column for Ladies in Aberdeen Weekly Journal, 16 December 1882 (click here to see the whole article)

The Assers in Burlington Arcade (taken from information supplied by Dick Sherwin, directories, census and other records):

Solomon
8 (and 9) 1839 (or earlier) – 1877 (the 1861 census mentions son Edward and family on the premises)
56 and 57 1851 – 1856 (or later, see Adelaide)

Emma
8 and 9 1877 – 1918
7, 8 and 9 1883 – 1885

Louisa
59 1836 (or earlier) – 1840
56 and 57 1840 – 1849

Adelaide (Nathaniel’s daughter)
56 and 57 1861 (or earlier, see Solomon) – 1865⁽⁸⁾

Henry and Louis
? 1823

Louis
63 1823? – 1829

Nathaniel
26 1820
52 1822 – 1825
62 1826 – 1829 (Sherwin’s shop)

Burlington Arcade in festive attire (2014)

(1) Daily News, 30 September 1846.
(2) The Morning Post, 28 March 1836.
(3) PROB 11/2086/21.
(4) Thanks go to Dick Sherwin for providing me with lots of genealogical information on the Asser and Sherwin family.
(5) The London Gazette, 12 July 1823. Although the notice about the partnership only mentions Burlington Arcade, Henry had also been trading from 406 Strand since at least 1822 and where he continued to work afterwards (Pigot’s Directory, 1825).
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1877. Estate valued at under £1,500.
(7) Trewman’s Exeter Flying Post, 3 February 1894.
(8) Adelaide ran the business with her partner Mrs Lawledge. In 1865, advertisements announce their departure from Burlington Arcade to their showrooms at 5 New Bond Street. Even as late as 1871, there are advertisements about their departure from Burlington Arcade, but then their new address is given as 4 Vere Street.

Neighbours:

<– 8 Burlington Arcade <– 58 Burlington Arcade

10 Burlington Arcade –> 60 Burlington Arcade –>

Phillips and Sampson, tailors and drapers

Tags

clothing

Street View: 32
Address: 68 Lamb’s Conduit Street

We saw in a previous post that Isaac Salaman had his business at 69 Lamb’s Conduit Street, but next door Tallis found Phillips and Sampson, tailors and drapers. There is a link between the two neighbouring families as in 1854 Abraham Salaman, son of Isaac, the ostrich feather dealer, married Bloom Phillips, the daughter of Israel (Asher b David) Phillips, the tailor. They were married at St. James’s Westminster and from later census records, it appears that Abraham was – not surprisingly – also involved in the ostrich feather business. But let’s start with Israel Phillips who, in 1830 at the Western Synagogue, married Maria (Reina) Sampson, hence ‘Phillips and Sampson’ as her brother Simeon was also a tailor and lived with the Phillips family at 68 Lamb’s Conduit Street. Neither Phillips, nor Sampson, appear in the 1829 Post Office Directory, so it is unclear when exactly they started trading from Lamb’s Conduit Street, but presumably after Israel and Maria’s marriage. The 1841 census also shows another of Maria’s brother living with them, Joseph, who is described as a bootmaker. We will come across him again later on.

headstone on Israel’s grave (Source – with grateful thanks: Cemetery Scribes)

The Phillips and Sampson family were not as rooted to one address as the Salamans had been, as in, or just after, 1851, they moved to 40 High Holborn, possibly after the death of Israel in March 1851. The census, which was taken on 30 March, and the 1851 Post Office Directory still have the business at Lamb’s Conduit Street, but the 1856 Post Office Directory found them in High Holborn. The previous occupant of that shop, Joseph Robinson, a bookseller, had been declared a bankrupt in 1851 and apparently moved out shortly after that. A perfect opportunity for the tailors to move to busy Holborn.

Goad’s insurance map of 1886 for 68 Lamb’s Conduit Street, which was renumbered in the late 1860s to 21

The 1861 census saw Maria Phillips with four sons and four daughters at High Holborn.⁽¹⁾ Simeon and Joseph Sampson are not listed, but in 1871 Simeon is back and given as ‘retired tailor’. Maria was not at home at the time and the census taker duly noted in the margin “The head of the family, a widow, is absent”. We find her at 25 Clifton Gardens with her son Frederick Samuel David, a recent widower, and her grandson Raymond of just 3 months old. Frederick is described as ‘photographer’ in the 1871 census, and, although he lived away from the shop, still traded from 40 High Holborn. Somewhere in the 1870s, the tailoring family moved once again and in the probate record for Simeon, who died 19 December 1878, we find him described as “formerly of 40 High Holborn, but late of 46 Warwick Road Maida Hill.⁽²⁾ In the later 19th century, many Jews moved from the centre of London to Maida Hill and Maida Vale and the area became known as a predominantly Jewish district with the Spanish/Portuguese Synagogue on Lauderdale Road.

Charles Booth’s 1889 descriptive map of London poverty, showing Warwick Road and Clifton Gardens

Frederick continued with his photographic company at High Holborn, but we will follow the rest of the family to 44 Warwick Road and will come back to Frederick when the post on 40 High Holborn gets written.

In the 1881 census, we see Samuel Ellis Phillips (usually called Ellis), unmarried tailor, as the head of the family at 44 Warwick Road. Also living there is his brother Louis, also an unmarried tailor, his sister Annie, a widow, and her son Eddie, a scholar. We could assume from all this that Joseph Sampson, Simeon’s brother, left the family after the 1841 census to lead his own life. That is true, he did and became a furrier, but at the end of his life, he returned and the head stone at Brompton Jewish Cemetery reads “Joseph SAMPSON of 44 Warwick Rd Maida Hill who departed this life Sept 4th 1885 – 5646 aged 71”.⁽³⁾

From a list of bankruptcy cases in The London Gazette of 4 October 1887, we learn that Samuel Ellis had continued the tailoring business at 40 High Holborn and 44 Warwick Road. He managed to come to an agreement with his creditors and the receiving order was rescinded, so we know that the Holborn address was still in use as a tailor’s in 1887. In the 1891 census, Ellis and Louis have changed places with Louis now the head of the family, but they are still at Warwick Road. Louis died in 1898, but was then no longer living in Maida Vale, but in St. Ann’s-heath Virginia Water, Surrey.⁽⁴⁾ And the last of the tailors, Samuel Ellis died in 1917 at Cleveland Mansions, Willesden Lane. His sister Clara Alberts, widow, is named as the executor. In 1920, however, a new probate is granted to Clara’s daughter, Lilian Weil. Samuel’s estate had by then dwindled to a little over £500.⁽⁵⁾

Leeds Mercury, 8 January 1881

This all sounds very boring and straightforward and I was wondering what I could write about the family to interest my readers when I came across a notice in a newspaper about one Clara Govier, 23 years old, of St. Mary’s Terrace, Paddington. Govier was charged at the Marylebone Police Court with “wilfully disturbing the inhabitants by ringing the bell at 44 Warwick Road, without lawful excuse; also with assaulting Ellis Phillips”. Ellis appeared in court to give evidence with his eye bandaged, and claimed that Govier had followed him all day and had been ringing the bell at night. He managed to send her away several times, but she kept coming back and finally struck him with a roll of paper and that was why he had given her into custody. It had not been the first time she had struck him as two weeks before she had hit him on the mouth, but he had not appeared against her, because she promised not to do it again. When asked why she behaved in such manner, Govier said that she “had great provocation” and had five children by Ellis. Phillips said in reply, “I am keeping one child and doing the best I can for her, but she won’t do any good”. The judge ruled that “because you have been profligate, and had a child by a man, is no reason why you should persecute him all the rest of his life”. Sentence: two months hard labour.⁽⁶⁾ There does not seem to be any suggestion that Phillips’ behaviour was in any way reprehensible, but different times, different ideas and morals, I suppose. Having said that, Govier may not have been the easiest person to get along with and I could not find any evidence of the five children she claimed to have had. The only possibility is the baptism at All Saints, Harrow, of 15-year old Ethel Govier, daughter of Clara Govier. The 15 years would make 1884 her birth year, so definitely in the right time-frame. Another possibility (or maybe it is the same child?), is Ethel Philip Govier, daughter of Ellis and Clare Gouvier of 7 Lambs Conduit Passage, baptised on 25 February 1883 at St. John the Evangelist, Red Lion Square. Occupation father given as ‘tailor’. An Ellis Govier does not appear to have existed other than in this baptism record. If anyone can solve the Govier riddle, I’d love to know. [Update: Gaby Laws of Cemetery Scribes found an 1891 census for Ethel Govier as a foster child living with Edward Swain, a stonemason from Harrow, and his wife Sarah Ann, along with two other foster children (not named Govier)]

And to round off this post an advertisement for a tailor named Sampson, although this is John Sampson, and quite likely no relation of Joseph or Simeon at all, but as I have not found an advertisement for the ‘right’ Sampson, this will have to do.

1860 advertisement in E. Walford’s The County Families of the United Kingdom

(1) Frederick, Lawrence, Louis, Ellis, Jeanette, Annie, Rosetta and Clara.
(2) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1879. Estate valued at £600. Simeon’s brother Joseph and nephew Frederick are listed as the executors. Frederick is by then living in Bayswater, and Joseph in Hornsey Rise.
(3) http://www.cemeteryscribes.com/getperson.php?personID=I3536. England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1885. Estate valued at £800. His adress is given as “late of Tilekile-lane [= Tile Kiln Lane], Southgate”. Samuel Ellis Phillips, his nephew, is named as the executor.
(4) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1898. Estate valued at just over £930. His brother Frederick is named as the executor.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1918. Estate valued at just over £920.
(6) Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 7 September 1884.

Neighbours:

<– 69 Lamb’s Conduit Street

67 Lamb’s Conduit Street –>

Mademoiselle Salaman, milliner and dress maker

Tags

clothing

Street View: 32
Address: 69 Lamb’s Conduit Street

It may have been “Mademoiselle Salaman” who made it into the Tallis Street View booklet as milliner and dress maker, but 69 Lamb’s Conduit Street was firmly in the hands of Isaac Salaman, an ostrich feather manufacturer. In 1838, it is his name that appears in the insurance records of the Sun Fire Office, and we also find him in the census records of 1841, 1851, and 1861, although in 1841 the censor mistakenly lists him as John. His wife Jane, however, seems to have been the milliner mentioned by Tallis. She is listed as such in the 1841 census, but the 1851 census no longer gives an occupation for her. In 1841, daughter Betsy is called a milliner’s apprentice, but by 1851 she, and her sister Rachel, have taken up feather making. There need not be any conflict here; the ladies of the household may very well have been making bonnets and such like with the feathers Isaac dealt in.

feather worker from Tabart’s Book of Trades, part 2 (1806)

Tabart explained that – of course – geese were used to obtain feathers, but ostrich feathers were the most valuable and

round feathers, such as the woman in the plate is at work upon, are composed of a number of smaller ones: if they are taken from the cock’s neck, they are neatly tied on wire with thread; but if they are small ostrich feathers, they are twisted round an upright wire. The single ostrich feathers have usually a small piece of wire at the end, for the purpose of fixing into the cap, turban, or hair. Women that work at this business can earn two shillings a day. Feathers make a considerable article of commerce, being used for beds, writing-pens, &c. Those imported from foreign countries pay a heavy duty to the revenue. There is also a duty upon ostrich feathers, both in the undressed as well as in the dressed state.

In other words, a luxury product worth stealing, and the Old Bailey records frequently mention the “unlawful possession” of them, but a thief who made it into the Salaman’s house was after other goods. In an Old Bailey case of March 1851, Betsy tells the judge that she lives with her father Isaac whom she describes as a feather-bed maker. Curtains, a shawl and some vases have disappeared from the house and Betsy claimed that, although the street door was usually open during the day, the inner door was kept shut. That may have been the case, but the accused managed to get his hands on the items anyway and since nobody believed his story how he obtained them, he was found guilty and sentenced to transportation.⁽¹⁾ In 1859 and 1860, the Salamans were short of hands and applied for “ostrich feather makers” with “two good hands” and in 1863 they were looking for an apprentice girl.⁽²⁾ Jane Salaman died in October 1863 and was buried at the Jewish Cemetery at Brompton.⁽³⁾

portrait that may or may not be of Isaac (Source: Blackden Trust). See the link for another portrait of a much younger Isaac(?)

The year after his wife’s death, Isaac dissolved the partnership he had with Betsy, Rachel and his two sons, Nathan and Myer, as ostrich feather manufacturers at 69, Lamb’s Conduit Street and at 45, Monkwell Street. The four children continued the business for a while, but in December of 1864, Betsy and Rachel withdrew from the partnership. By then 46, Monkwell Street had been added to the business premises.⁽⁴⁾ Nathan obtained the freedom of the City in 1866 and he gives his business address as 46 Monkwell Street and his occupation as ostrich feather manufacturer. Myer did the same in 1882, also from 46 Monkwell Street. The 1871 census saw Isaac, retired, and his son Nathan, ostrich feather manufacturer, at 19 Lamb’s Conduit Street. No, they did not move, there had simply been a renumbering of house numbers. Isaac died in May 1872 and was also buried at the Jewish Cemetery, Brompton. Nathan went to live with his sister Rachel and her husband Abraham Simmons, and stayed with them until his death in 1905.⁽⁵⁾

headstone on Isaac’s grave (Source – with grateful thanks: cemeteryscribes.com)

After the deaths in 1896 of Myer and Aaron, another of Isaac’s sons, one of the properties of Isaac’s estate was sold and a deed of settlement clearly lists the then beneficiaries of Isaac’s trust. It turned out that besides sons Nathan, Myer and Aaron, Isaac and Jane also had a son Abraham and besides Betsy and Rachel, a daughter Fanny, so four sons and three daughters in total. Betsy is named as Mrs Feist of 43 Rue Chateaudun, Paris, widow, Rachel as the wife of Abraham Simmons, but Fanny seems to have died before her brother as only her children are listed as beneficiaries.⁽⁶⁾ Myer had expanded the feather business his father had started and established offices and warehouses in London, Paris, New York & Buenos Aires, and depots in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, so it should not come as a surprise that Betsy was living in Paris. The head office in London was named Monkwell House after Monkwell Street (see for a photograph here). The generous income of the family had over the years been invested into property, which turned out to be a very sensible move as feathers went rather out of fashion after Word War I and were by then only used for feather dusters, rather than as items to wear. By the 1920s, the Salamans were more or less the only ones left in London trading in feathers and they ceased trading altogether in 1943.⁽⁷⁾ And with the end of the Salaman feather business, this blog post also comes to an end.

French post card of a woman with ostrich feathers in her hat (Saved from Pinterest)

(1) Old Bailey case t1851003-759.
(2) Various advertisements in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 1859-1863.
(3) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1863. Estate valued at under £3,000. Isaac was named as the executor.
(4) The London Gazette, 19 January 1864 and 6 December 1864.
(5) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1905. Estate valued at over £198,000, later resworn at more than £374,000.
(6) London Metropolitan Archives, CLC/499/MS14743: Deed of settlement of proceeds of sale and stock, by Isaac Salaman, ostrich feather manufacturer, in favour of Nathan and Myer Salaman, 1864, with a deed of release and indemnity from the trusts of the 1864 settlement by Mrs Betsy Feist (nee Salaman) to Nathan Salaman and others, 1897. The LMA has more papers of the family, see here.
(7) T.M. Endelman, Anglo-Jewish Scientists and the Science of Race, in Jewish Social Studies 11/1 (2004), p. 52-92; S.A. Stein, Falling into Feathers: Jews and the Trans‐Atlantic Ostrich Feather Trade, in The Journal of Modern History 79/4 (2007), p. 772-812.

Neighbours:

<– 70 Lamb’s Conduit Street

68 Lamb’s Conduit Street –>

Alexander Cheffins, music seller

Tags

book trade, clothing, music

Street View: 65
Address: 4 Mortimer Street

The index to booklet 65 of the Street Views, lists Cheffin, music seller, at 4 Mortimer Street, but the elevation in the street plan gives the name of Morse, bookseller & stationer, so what is going on? The bookseller was Edward Morse, who could be found at number 4 in Pigot’s Directory of 1839 and in the 1841 census, but that is more or less the end of the story for Morse, as I have not been able to find out anything else about him; he must have had a very short career indeed. I will leave Mr. Morse for what he was and continue with Cheffin whose name was usually spelled with an ‘s’, so Cheffins. If you search online for Cheffins, you will invariably end up with information about Charles Frederic Cheffins, but that was Alexander’s brother. Charles was the elder of the brothers and baptised in December 1807 at St. Bride’s as the son of Richard and Jane Cheffins. Richard Cheffins worked for the New River Waterworks Company and was a member of the Pattenmakers’ Company, although he described himself as surveyor on the indenture document when he took Charles on as his apprentice in 1822. Charles had a glittering career as mechanical draughtsman, lithographer, cartographer, consulting engineer, and surveyor. He published many maps, of which the majority depicted new railways that were either proposed or being built.

London & Birmingham Railway Map, published by Chas. F. Cheffins, Surveyor, Engineering Draughtsman & Lithographer, 1835 (Source: Andrew Cox PBFA via Abebooks)

Charles became assistant to John Ericson who was working on a faster engine for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. This connection with Liverpool brought Charles into contact with Lucinda Harrison Grey, whom he married there in October 1830, but the couple went to live in London and the 1841 census finds them at 9 Southampton Buildings, Holborn, the address Cheffins continued to use throughout his life. Only in the very last year of his life, 1861, after the death of his wife the year before, did he move to 15 Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park.⁽¹⁾

portrait of Alexander (Source: Kateelliott50 at ancestry.co.uk)

But back to 4 Mortimer Street where brother Alexander Cheffins had his music business, or at least, he had for a short while. Alexander, as we saw, was the son of Richard and Jane Cheffins, and he too was baptised at St. Bride’s, on 17 July 1814. In February 1837, he married Ann Pattison at All Souls, St. Marylebone. The earliest I found him in Mortimer Street is on the baptism registration for their son Frederick who was baptised on 22 May 1838. Alexander gives his occupation as pianoforte maker, so he was definitely involved in the music industry. The next child for the couple to be baptised is Anne Louisa (21 Aug. 1839). Alexander is then listed as a musical instrument seller, but the address given is 15 Mortimer Street. That section of Mortimer Street is not listed by Tallis, so I cannot say who occupied number 15 before Cheffins. Pigot’s Directory of 1839 also lists Cheffins at number 15, so the occupation of number 4 was as short-lived as it was for Edward Morse. And so was their sojourn at number 15, as the 1841 census already reports them at Upper Rosoman Street, Clerkenwell. Alexander is then a “professor of music” (see the post on Anthony Brown, musical instrument maker, for other residents at that address). In 1844, the Cheffins family lives in Granville Square, in 1845-1851 in Weston Street, in 1852-1856 in Ampton Street, all the while with Alexander described as professor of music. But then, in 1859, when the youngest child, Percy, is baptised, the family is living at Brunswick Street and Alexander is suddenly described as surveyor.⁽²⁾ What happened? Was music no longer profitable enough? Or perhaps, he was not as musical as he made out? The only publication I found for him is a ballad, “The Happy Bride” which begins: They said she was married. The text is by J.H. Jewell and the music by Cheffins.⁽³⁾

Whatever the reason for Alexander’s change of profession, from 1859 onwards he is variously described as draughtsman or surveyor. In other words, he followed in his father and brother’s footsteps. And in 1865, he is given a provisional patent as a mechanical draughtsman for an invention to improve the construction of omnibuses.⁽⁴⁾ In 1871 and 1881 the census found him at Kentish Town. He died in 1885. Son Edwin had a similar job change as his father; in 1871 he was listed as a railway clerk, but in 1881 as a pianoforte tuner. Music, drawing and mechanics were apparently skills that went together in this particular family.

Milliner from Tabart’s Book of Trades, volume 2 (1806)

And 4 Mortimer Street? We saw Edward Morse there in the 1841 census and he had his name plastered on the front of the building in the Street View, but most of the building must have been overrun by the women of Anna Maria Hammans’s milliner’s business. The occupation of the building by the Hammanses pre- and post-dates that of Morse and Cheffin, so it seems that it was a multi-business property. The Hammanses were already there in early 1834, when Maria and Rebecca Hammans of 4 Mortimer Street dissolve their partnership, but possibly long before that.⁽⁵⁾ In 1841, Anna and at least nine women were living at the property, besides bookseller Morse, a porter and three gentlemen who were listed as independent. One of the milliners was Elizabeth Abrahall who is mentioned in Anna’s will of 1845 as her sister and who is left the business.⁽⁶⁾ The 1851 census does indeed see Elizabeth Abrahall at number 4 as dressmaker, although the 1851 Post Office Directory still has the name of Anna Maria Hammans for number 4. The 1856 Post Office Directory names the firm Mrs Elizabeth Hammans & Co. By 1861, however, her place has been taken by Eliza Johnson, a lodging house keeper. And is this the whole story? No, censuses and Tallis do not tell us everything. We know, for instance, that in 1848, one Jacques Robert Lavenne, heraldic engraver and fancy stationer, was listed as “late of no. 4” in the bankruptcy records. And the same goes for John James MacGregor, surgeon, who had to appear before the commissioners in 1855. What does seem clear is that 4 Mortimer Street, contrary to many long-running single-family businesses listed in the Street Views, had numerous occupants, as well as a resident family not mentioned in Tallis, in the years just before, during and after the period in which Tallis produced his booklets.

—————-
(1) Charles was buried at All Souls, Kensal Green 28 October 1861. England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1861. Estate valued at under £35,000. Sons Charles Richard and George Alexander were two of the executors.
(2) Children: Frederick, bapt. 22-05-1838; Anne Louisa, bapt. 21-8-1839; Henry Alexander, bapt. 31-10-1841; Richard Albert, bapt. 8-9-1844; Julia, bapt. 8-11-1845; Herbert George, bapt. 23-05-1852; Edwin John, bapt. 17-9-1854; Alfred Courtenay, bapt. 8-6-1856; and Percy Frank, bapt. 28-8-1859.
(3) British Library music collection H.282.o.(8).
(4) Patent Office, Chronological and Descriptive Index of Patents, Cheffins, 27th July 1865.
(5) The Hammanses came from Garford, Berkshire. Rebecca, Maria, Anna Maria and Elizabeth were all daughters of William Hammans and his wife Elizabeth.
(6) PROB 11/2022/350. Elizabeth Hammans had married John Abrahall by licence on 28 July 1828.

Neighbours:

<– 5 Mortimer Street

3 Mortimer Street –>

Everington & Graham, India shawl warehouse

Tags

clothing

Street Views: 6 and 15 Suppl.
Address: 10 Ludgate Street

On 12 February 1812, William Everington, linen draper, insured 10 Ludgate Street with the Sun Fire Office. A few months earlier, in September 1811, the partnership between Robert and John Waithman of Fleet Street and William Everington had been dissolved. And in 1840, evidence is given by John Francis, a silk manufacturer of Norwich, who stated that he had made shawls for 20 or 30 years and also made them “for Everington when he was in company with Waithman”.⁽¹⁾ I have no absolute proof that the Everington who was the partner of the Waithmans and who ordered shawls from Mr. Francis and the Everington who insured 10 Ludgate Street are the same – there are various William Everingtons around at that time – but it seems likely. [Postscript: Have since found out from William Ablett’s Reminiscences of an Old Draper (1876) that “Everington originally had been a lad occupying a very humble position in the establishment of Robert Waithman, who made him his partner; but on the occasion of the elder Waithman wishing to take his son into partnership also, Mr. Everington would not agree to the arrangement, and the partnership … was dissolved”. Ablett also says that to avoid the heavy import duty on India shawls, ladies coming from abroad would bring as many as they could as their personal clothing, “which they would sell to Everington, who had paid great attention to this part of the business”.]

trade card (Source: British Museum Collection)

Everington advertised in 1817 with Irish linens that he had obtained cheaply because of “the great depression in the price of Irish linens”.⁽²⁾ And two years later he has bought up “the whole of the elegant Cachemere Shawls, sent to her Majesty as presents from the different Foreign Courts”. The shawls had been Queen Charlotte’s who had died in November 1818.⁽³⁾ Things went well for Everington as in 1834, the Sun Fire insurance records suddenly hve him of 9 and 10 Ludgate Street. If we compare the frontage of the shop in the bill head below with the elevations Tallis depicted for the shop, you can see the difference. It is telling that number 9 (the right-hand side of the building in the Tallis elevations) has disappeared from the Tallis Index as if completely incorporated into Everington’s number 10.

bill head (Source: British Museum Collection)

elevation in the 1847 Supplement

Somewhere around 1839 or 1840, Everington must have entered into a partnership with John Graham as advertisements start to appear with both their names and Tallis has their joint names in index of the 1839/40 edition of his Street Views, although the elevation just shows the name of Everington. And in 1840 Nathaniel Whittock also depicts the shop with just the name of Everington. Whittock says that, despite the fact that the ceiling is low inside the old building,

the projector of this front exercised considerable ingenuity and skill in raising the windows so much above the brestsummer⁽⁴⁾, and adding to their light and elegant effect by a concave ceiling. The height of this front is obtained by intrenching on the windows of the first floor, yet by a skilful alteration of their form, they do not appear unsightly. The whole front is coloured in imitation of white-veined marble; the name and ornaments are gilt.

Plate XVIII of N. Whittock’s On the Construction and Decoration of the Shop Fronts of London (1840)

In the 1841 census, William Everington, then said to be 60 years old, is still living above the shop with 5 male assistants, 2 male porters, one male servant and 3 female servants. But at the end of 1842, the partnership between Everington and Graham is dissolved with Graham to continue the business.⁽⁵⁾ Everington retires and can be found at Gloucester Terrace in the 1851 census. He died in 1860.⁽⁶⁾

At some point John Graham may have entered into a partnership with George Smith. That partnership was quickly dissolved again, and in an 1845 advertisement George Smith describes himself as ‘late Graham and Smith, successors to Everington’ and now trading from 32 Ludgate Hill, the shop previously occupied by Rundell and Bridge.⁽⁷⁾ The following year, Smith had a very unusual visitor in his shop: a large Durham cow came in, walked round the shop and exited through another door without doing any damage to the china jars and glass on display.⁽⁸⁾ The Era of 29 August 1847 relates a story about an American lady who bought a shawl from the “ruination shop of Everington on Ludgate Hill” which elicited smirks from passers-by as she had failed to remove the price ticket, but the 1851 and 1861 censusus still see John Graham, his family, and a large workforce, living at 9 & 10 Ludgate Street. As no house number is given in the notice about the end of the partnership, nor in the story about the American, nor in the advertisements by Smith, these stories may have been about another Everington, as there were more Everingtons trading in the area.

Advertisement in Street View 6

In 1870, John Graham’s son, John junior, described as a shawl warehouseman, married Amy Attenborough. She was the daughter of Robert Attenborough, the pawn broker who featured in a previous post. The couple had two daughters, but all was not well. In 1875, divorce proceedings were started in which Amy, who was then living with her father again, claims that John threw a bottle of wine at her and that he, on various occasions, had hit her and that she had therefore left him. As can be expected, Graham denied the allegations and alleged that Amy was “a woman of extravagant habits and violent temper” who “habitually neglected her children and her household duties”, and that she was the one doing the hitting. And to top it all, she also had an affair with one Petrocochino, something Petrocochino and Amy denied. Amy continued to call herself Amy Graham, at least she did in the 1881 census when she is still living with her father, and given as ‘unmarried’. John junior and his father can be found at Brockhill Farm, Warfield, Berkshire, in the 1881 census (Google Street View here). John senior is listed as a retired shawl merchant and John junior, ‘unmarried’, is now a farmer, employing 4 labourers and a boy. In the 1891 census, Amy is still living with her father at 56 Avenue Rd, claiming to be a widow.

The Graphic, 9 February 1878

In 1878, John Graham senior had sold off his stock and Peter Robinson, a linen draper in Oxford Street, bought the whole lot to sell on again. Two of Robinson’s sons had also married Attenborough girls, but I am afraid these marriages ended in divorce as well; more on that in the forthcoming post on Robinson.⁽⁹⁾

The research on this post once again found unexpected links between London shopkeepers, an aspect of this blog that continues to amaze me and had not expected at all when I first started writing. I hope to show more interconnections in the future.

———————–
(1) Parliamentary Papers 1780-1849, Volume 8: Report from the Select Committee on East India Produce, 1840.
(2) The Morning Chronicle, 6 January 1817.
(3) The Morning Chronicle, 23 February 1819.
(4) Brestsummer is a variation of bressummer ‎(plural bressummers), a term used in architecture for a large, horizontal, supporting beam which bears the weight of a wall starting on a first or higher floor.
(5) The London Gazette, 6 January 1843.
(6) England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1860. Estate valued at under £180,000.
(7) The London Gazette, 22 October, 1844; The Examiner, 28 June 1845.
(8) Glasgow Herald, 16 February 1846.
(9) Frank Robinson married Catherine, daughter of James Attenborough; his brother Peter married Fanny, the sister of Amy. Both left their wives and established illegitimate families with other women. I am grateful to Nick Thomson for supplying the information on the Graham/Robinson/Attenborough links.

Neighbours:

<– 11 Ludgate Street

8 Ludgate Street –>

William Spratswill, tailor and draper

Tags

clothing

Street View: 3
Address: 36 Holborn Hill

It does not occur all that often in the Tallis Street Views that the name of the shop does not indicate the name of the owner, but in this case, the Spratswill that gave his name to the draper’s shop was long dead by the time Tallis came round to depict it. William Spratswill (sometimes given as Spratswell) started trading in Holborn in 1819, not yet at number 36, but at number 52. The land tax records find him there from 1819 to 1825 when he moved to premises a little closer to Fetter Lane. Number 36 Holborn Hill was the third house from the corner with Fetter Lane and was severely damaged not long after Spratswill moved in. In April 1825, a fire broke out which was first discovered at Mr. Davis’s, a perfumer, who had his shop at number 38. Next door, number 39, the premises of Mr. Gray, seedsman, also caught fire and it spread on the east side of Davis’s towards Fetter Lane, first to Mr. Harwood’s, a turner at number 37, then to Spratswill’s and finally to trunk maker Pratt’s at number 35. According to the newspaper report, the shops of Gray, Davis and Harwood (numbers 37-39) were totally destroyed, Spratswill’s partly and the back of all the houses mentioned were burnt. A fireman was seriously injured when he fell from Mr. Davis’s shop; he had contusions on the head and a broken thigh. Other people received injuries from falling rubble.⁽¹⁾ The Land Tax records for 1825 clearly show the affected buildings.

Situation in 1799 when Horwood published his map. Spratswill’s indicated by a red arrow

Spratswill died in May 1828, just 43 years old. He left most of his worldly goods to his widow Mary, but whether she continued the shop herself is doubtful. I think it was put in the hands of others and she lived on the income of invested money as she said in her will (she died in 1851) that her share and interest of the money held by the executors of her husband’s estate are to go to the three children of her brother Benjamin Figgins. She names John Wade of Winchmore Hill one of the executors.⁽²⁾ In 1830, the shop got broken into – it is still described as “of Mr. Spratswill”, by the way – and goods were taken to the value of £100. The thieves gained access to a cellar-flap which had not been secured by the carpenter who had altered it after a new pavement had been laid. A reward was offered for the apprehension of the thieves, but whether they were caught …..?⁽³⁾

Daily News 5 December 1853

From 1831 onwards, John Wade is mentioned as the proprietor of 36 Holborn Hill in the Land Tax records, but other resources still give the name of Spratswill, such as Pigot’s 1839 Directory. J. Wade & Son are given at 57 Holborn Hill, just as Tallis was to do. The son is William Benjamin who obtained his freedom of the City by redemption on 24 March 1846 and is then listed as tailor of Winchmore Hill and 57 Holborn Hill. Both number 36 and number 57 continue to be listed for the Wades in the Land Tax records, but number 36 is always referred to as Spratswill’s in advertisements and directories. That we are definitely talking about the same John Wade is proven by an Old Bailey Case of 1833 where Benjamin Wade gives evidence in a case of theft and where he says “I live on Holborn-hill; I carry on business under the name of Spratswell”.⁽⁴⁾ More on the Wades in a future post on number 57.

Punch used Spratswill’s as an example in depicting politicians ‘carrying other people’s bills’

In the tax records for 1866, number 36 still has the name of Wade as the proprietor, but also a note that the shop was empty. And not just number 36, but also numbers 34, 35 and 37. A year later, an advertisement in The Economist announces that Charles Meeking and Co have opened number 36 “for the sale of our new stock of mantles and cloaks”. The 1867 tax records do indeed show Meeking at numbers 34 to 36. Numbers 37-39 are in the possession of the City and vacant. The 1866 changes had all to do with the construction of Holborn Circus. Many shops were issued with a compulsory purchase order and moved out, but Charles Meeking saw an opportunity and bought up some of the empty properties. The October 1867 minutes of the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board show that surveyor Rawlinson Parkinson notified the Board that the three buildings at 34-36 Holborn Hill were to be altered under his supervision. Meeking seems to have bought up the whole block eventually and extended his own business, which had started at number 62, to more or less encompass all the shops from Holborn Circus to Fetter Lane. The store was later taken over by Thomas Wallis. More on them in a future post on number 62.

trade card. Do notice the window display continuing into the alley on the left-hand side of the building (Source: British Museum)

(1) The Examiner, 24 April 1824.
(2) PROB 11/1742/33 (William) and PROB 11/2144/90 (Mary).
(3) A Political Compendium, 18 December 1830.
(4) Old Bailey case t18330103-94.

Neighbours:

<– 37 Holborn Hill

35 Holborn Hill –>