May 182013
 

A0 001Ordered of Messrs Johnson … your typical shopping list at the local grocery store a couple of centuries ago, if you were reasonably well-off:

28 pounds of Lisbon Sugar (yes, 28 pounds of it, and it probably lasted Richard Hall about a month. Some of it was needed for the currant wine he was busy making…).

1 small loaf (probably a loaf of sugar, rather than bread, because he bought bread from the baker, not the grocer). The Lisbon sugar was soft and off-white in colour and would have been used for cooking. The loaf sugar would have been broken into lumps and served  at the table).

1 pound sugar candy – presumably in case he felt the need for a sugar rush.

Half a pound of mint drops (might have been handy for disguising bad breath, which I am sure he would have had from consuming so much sugar and therefore having rotten teeth!)

One ounce of candied orange peel - good sort

2 pounds of coffee – four shillings

2 pounds Bohea Tea (3 shillings and two pence)

3 pounds Souchong (4 shillings, last not so good as usual)

1 pound green tea (4 shillings). Armed with these various teas  Mrs Hall would have been able to be her own blending master, mixing the leaves according to her taste.

Half a pound of Hartshorn Shavings (made from the horns of the male red deer and containing Ammonia. Used in medicine – as sal volatile – as well as  in baking and as a detergent).

A quarter of Isinglass (used  in confectionery and desserts such as fruit jelly and blancmange – and possibly as a flocculent for Richard’s home made wine).

Half a dozen lemons

An ounce of cinnamon

1 quart of hemp seed (I suspect he used then for feeding his canary, although they did have culinary uses!)

1 pound of Gingerbread Nutts.

Unfortunately I cannot be sure where Messrs Johnson traded from – probably Stow on the Wold, in the English Cotswolds. Richard lived a couple of miles away at Bourton.

May 082013
 

When my great grandfather Benjamin Hall died in 1936 (a wealthy man with a huge wine cellar) his two dreary sisters came to the funeral from their home in Mid-Wales. The fact that they were coke-heads (i.e.cocaine addicts) did not stop them from being teetotal (in other words they had “taken the pledge” to abstain from alcohol. Never a drop of the demon drink did pass their lips, but then, from all reports they were generally stoned out of their minds anyway…).

The story goes that after the funeral they traipsed back to the family home and set to with a fervent zeal, destroying every single bottle of wine to be found in the cellars. The whole lot was opened and poured down the drain.

I tell the story to indicate that the family may be weird, but we are not all the same! But what I like about the 18th Century is that it was a century of excess, not of moderation. The Temperance Movement really didn’t get going until 1833 when the word ‘teetotal’ was coined, and then had a renewed lease of life in the 1880’s. But none of their killjoy activities impinged upon the century which saw Hogarth rail against Gin, (as in Gin Lane) but condone and promote the consumption of beer (as in Beer Street). The earliest cartoon I can find giving a temperance view of the world is this one from 1828. It is entitled “The two fishermen : a dedication to the temperance society” and is by A Ducôte. It appears on the Lewis Walpole Library site.

On the left, under the banner of Habitual Drunkenness, the fisherman is in a spot of bother: his kids are fighting, his front door is falling off its hinges, his wife is embracing another man, and he has caught a fish marked ‘Sickness’. He cries out “The Devil”. Other fish in the sea are identified as Starvation, Hatred, Murder, Malice, Discontent ,Seduction, Rebellion, Atheism, Beggary and Enormous Taxation.

Contrast this unhappy scene with the prosperous happy family on the right blessed with Constant Sobriety, catching fish for their dinner. The waters abound with such delights as Civil and Religious Liberty, Peace & Quietness, Chastity, Happiness, Health, Wealth, Moderate Taxation, Cheap Bread and Contentment.

Just in case we haven’t got the message, the man on the left fishes in Gin, and on the right the supercilious young man with two ghastly children fishes in Water. The moral to me is quite clear: if you want ghastly kids and cheap bread, try being abstemious; if you want a bit of fun before you die, take another slug from the bottle.

For my distant ancestor Richard Hall, being a devout Baptist never seemed to prevent him from enjoying a prodigious quantity of wine (his tipple of choice). But he also brewed beer, and cider, as well as bringing a quarter Pipe of Port down from London whenever supplies ran short.

Late 18thCentury wine bottles – courtesy of Christies.com

But where I find his stamina truly remarkable is where he lists his household expenses for 1797 (when he was 68 years old). His account books show that he was spending roughly three times the amount on wine as he did on taxation. Way to go, Richard!

 

Apr 232013
 

Writing in his notebook about extreme weather conditions, Richard Hall notes:

Terrible

The Terrible, launched in Harwich in 1762, was the fourth of that name (if you include vessels captured from the Spanish and the French, and then re-named). It doesn’t seem to have had a particularly impressive life. It was classified as a ‘third rate ship of the line’ and had taken part in the First Battle of Ushant in 1778. Later she went on to feature in the Battle of the Chesapeake but was badly damaged in the encounter and was scuttled by fire (1782). A sad end for a crew which had already suffered the indignity of losing their shirts in a lightning storm!

Apr 192013
 

Three delightful trade cards from the Wellcome Institute to remind us of trades which we might otherwise have forgotten about. First up, this beautiful card promoting the wares of  William Woodward and his not-quite-so-beautiful business of emptying privies, drains and cess pools. Not content with carting barrels full of effluent through your house at night he could also sweep your chimneys and cart away your rubbish. A useful sort of contact to have….

Secondly, a lovely one about ‘buggs’ by the splendidly named Benjamin Tiffin “Bug Destroyer to His Majesty”

Handy knowing how to destroy’ buggs in  the walls’ with some neatly patterned wall-paper! And really, he comes across as a ‘Mr Rentokil’ of the 1750′s -  so much to fumigate each type of bed, and then a yearly contract to keep the bedroom bug-free. I would happily have paid the man a guinea to dis-infest my ‘raised  tester’ if I knew that the person carrying out the service had previously done the same in the Royal Bed-chamber!

Finally, if you are looking for lodging, bathing, sweating or cupping at the local hammams (hot baths), Gentlemen would be pleased to see that they could avail themselves of the service from this fine Cupper by the name of John Rigg. Being able to go in by the back door from Charles Street might have been a good idea – public baths, whether described as  a hammam or a bagnio, were often a pseudonym for a brothel. Ladies were admitted but only for sweating, bathing and cupping  “with great care and attendance”. Ominously, there is likewise a good cold bath – presumably to put paid to anyone wanting to behave other than with ‘the utmost Decorum’                                            

My ancestor Richard Hall records visiting  a colleague of Mr Rigg, in 1768. The experience cost him three shillings and sixpence….

But as we are on the topic of cupping, to end with a delightful cartoon from Rowlandson called ‘The Doctor is so Severely Bruised that Cupping is Judged Necessary.’  It shows the poor doctor lying starkers on the bed and suffering the indignity of hot cups being placed on his buttocks and shoulders. A number of female servants look on with differing degrees of interest. There never was, nor is, any dignity in being poorly…

Thomas_Rowlandson_-_'The_Doctor_is_so_Severely_Bruised_that_Cupping_is_Judged_Necessary'

Apr 112013
 

In 1758 Richard Hall was living in the area of Southwark called the Bridgefoot when London Corporation decided “to do something” about London Bridge. Until 1749 it had been the only structure linking the North and South banks of the River Thames, but the medieval bridge was hopelessly outdated. I rather like the description of it as “a wall with holes in it” since ships were held up for days trying to pass through the narrow gaps between the arches. Pedestrians jostled and fought their way across the carriageway, threading their way round the shops and houses cluttering up the road.

A View of London Bridge before the Late Alterations engraved 1758 by Samuel Scott circa 1702-1772

A View of ‘London Bridge before the Late Alterations’ engraved 1758 by Samuel Scott and shown courtesy of the Tate Gallery

Parliament finally got round to tackling the problem in 1756 when it passed a Bill enabling the Corporation to  buy up and demolish the buildings littering the superstructure, and to improve the access routes. A passage of thirty one feet open for carriages, and seven feet on each side for foot passengers, was to be constructed and it was directed that there should be a balustrade on each side. The Corporation were authorised to demolish one or more of the central piers so as to create the new Great Arch.

Pulling down the shops and tenements, and dismantling the central pier would have caused chaos if temporary arrangements had not been put in place to enable pedestrians to continue to be able to cross the river. A decision was made to construct a temporary wooden bridge immediately along the western side of the stone bridge, supported on the starlings (lozenge-shaped buttresses on either side of the piers).

The improvements didn’t go down too well with the ferrymen who made their living transporting people across the river: there is every indication that it was a disgruntled river worker who set fire to the temporary structure on the night of 11th April 1758.

bridge

A reward of two hundred pounds was offered to catch the culprit but no-one was brought to justice. The temporary bridge had been totally destroyed in the blaze and workmen had to start all over again.

bridge 2

Grace’s Guide has this picture of the fire , and I can well imagine Richard rushing down to the river bank at eleven o’clock at night to see the blaze which had just broken out.

Apr 022013
 

Writing in his note-book of extreme weather conditions my ancestor Richard comments:

A

In late November 1790 HMS Elephant narrowly avoided total destruction when lightning struck her whilst she was in Portsmouth harbour. The main topmast  exploded but was held in place by a top-rope, which prevented it plunging through the quarterdeck.

HMS Elephant,© National Maritime Museum

HMS Elephant,© National Maritime Museum

HMS Elephant was one of a class of a dozen ships designed by the brilliant naval architect Sir Thomas Slade (he also designed HMS Victory). Plans for the class of third-rate warships
were standardised and distributed to a number of individual boat-builders. In the case of HMS Elephant the builder was George Parsons who operated on the banks of the River Hamble in Hampshire. She was launched on 24 August 1786.

elephantShe was not a particularly handy ship – she was slow, she was unresponsive at the helm, but she had qualities which made her invaluable in battle: she could pack a huge punch, and she was built to take a lot of punishment. On the gundeck she sported 28 thirty-two pounders, with the same number of eighteen pounders on the Upper gundeck. On the Quarter deck she could call on 14 nine-pounder guns, plus another four on the foc’sle. Seventy-four guns in all…. a formidable fighting ship.

In addition she had a very shallow draft – an ideal feature when attacking a fleet at anchor.
Small wonder that Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson chose HMS Elephant as his flagship, when he was appointed to  lead the main attack on the Norwegian-Danish fleet anchored off Copenhagen in 1801. The squadron was under the overall command of Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, and the rival fleets clashed on 2nd April 1801 in what was to become known as the Battle of Copenhagen.

Battle Of Copenhagen

Reportedly, at some stage in the fiercely-fought battle Sir Hyde Parker gave the order to retreat. Nelson acknowledged the order but declined to pass it on or to implement the instructions – he is supposed to have stood on the deck of the Elephant, holding the telescope to his blind eye, and announced that he could see no signal. He stayed in position and led his ships to a great victory, one which many consider to be Nelson’s hardest-fought battle.

HMS Elephant ended up being re-fitted as a 58 gun fourth-rate ship in 1818, and finally ended her days when she was broken up in 1830. Not a bad life for a ship which was so nearly destroyed in that storm which swept Hampshire at the end of November 1790.

Mar 242013
 

Richard Hall rarely mentioned party politics in his diaries – I suspect that he simply wasn’t that interested. But he did mention politics and current events if he felt that they represented a threat to stable government and the rule of law.

This is his entry in a review of the year 1784.

Gt Seal

Thieves had broken into the Gt Ormond Street house of Lord Thurlow, the Chancellor, and had stolen the Great Seal, complete with its leather pouch and silk container. It was never recovered and a new seal had to be hastily made the next day. It was all part of a period of turmoil in Britain’s parliament linked to the rivalry between William Pitt, the Prime Minister, and Charles Fox, the leader of the opposition.

Pitt had been endeavouring to govern from a power-base in the House of Lords. Indeed he was the only member of the government to have a seat in the House of Commons, with all the other Ministers being peers of the realm. But Pitt enjoyed the support of King George III and managed to resist all of the attempts by Fox to force him to resign.

In March 1784 Pitt asked George III to dissolve parliament so he could hold a General Election. Foxite supporters were believed to have been behind the plot to steal the Great Seal, a symbol of royal authority. In the event Pitt was returned to power and 160 opposition M.P.’s lost their seats.

Lord Thurlow,From a painting by Thomas Phillips, R.A. By permission of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery.

Lord Thurlow, from a painting by Thomas Phillips, R.A.
By permission of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery.

But for Lord Thurlow it must have been an embarrassing time, losing the ultimate symbol of his authority. For Richard? Well, it was a time of turmoil and uncertainty – not good for business!

A wax impression of the reverse of the present Great Seal of England.

Mar 182013
 

The diary entry of my ancestor Richard Hall, for March 1800.

The destruction by fire of the British warship HMS Queen Charlotte on 17 March 1800 was one of the most disastrous naval accidents of the era. The flagship of Admiral Lord Keith was anchored off the Italian port of Livorno (otherwise known as Leghorn) in the Tyrrhenian Sea. It had been intended that the ship would sail to capture the island of Cabrona from the French; but the Admiral and a number of the ship’s officers had gone ashore for the night. At about six in the morning a match, which had been kept alight to fire a signal gun, accidentally set ablaze some hay left on the half-deck. There were some 900 men on board and for five hours they struggled to get the blaze under control. In vain they flooded water into the lower decks to stop the fire spreading. Equally in vain they tried to hurl buckets of water up into the blazing sails and rigging.

At about 11 in the morning the fire reached the massive gunpowder store and blew the ship to smithereens. 673 of the officers and crew on board perished, with only 165 survivors being picked up. The British Register ‘State of Public Affairs’ for April 1800 recounts the story:

We have the painful duty to state the loss of his majesty’s ship Queen Charlotte, of 100 guns, captain Todd, which was burnt off Leghorn on the 17th of March, when the commander and nearly 800 of the crew perished by the explosion. Vice admiral Lord Keith, whose flag was flying on board of her, was, at the time, with some of the officers, providentially on shore. Twenty commissioned and warrant officers, two servants, and 141 seamen, were the whole of the persons who escaped destruction. The particulars are detailed by Mr John Braid, carpenter of the Queen Charlotte: as he was dressing himself about six o’clock, he heard throughout the ship a general cry of ” Fire.” He then states the particulars until half past ten o’clock, when, finding all efforts to extinguish the flames impossible, lie jumped from the jib boom, and swam to an American boat approaching the ship, by which he was picked up and put into a Tartan, then in the charge of lieutenant Stewart, who had come off to the assistance of the ship. On the morning of the accident. Lord Keith being, as above stated, on shore at Leghorn, had the mortification of discovering the Queen Charlotte on fire four or five leagues at sea. This sight rendered Lord Keith almost frantic – he immediately gave orders for all the vessels and boats to put off, and every assistance to be given; and in this service he was zealously seconded by the Austrian General, and all ranks in Leghorn. They came to an anchor, as the wind blew strongly off the land, but the flames were so rapid that very little hopes could be entertained of saving her. Between eight and nine o’clock the masts and rigging caught fire, and made a most awful blaze; the crew, however, cut the masts by the board ; and, going over the ship, they no longer threatened mischief; but the fire had taken strong hold of the body of the vessel, and continued to rage. The guns began to go off, and the people in the boats and other vessels, who had gone from Leghorn, were much alarmed for fear of the shot, that they would not approach the ship.

It was an ignominious end to a ship named after the wife of George III, and built in 1790 only ten years earlier. In 1796 she had been Admiral Howe’s victorious flagship at the Battle of the Glorious Ist of June, and it is shown here guns blazing away at two French ships of the line. Six were captured and one was sunk.

The Glorious First of June was the first major fleet battle of the French Revolutionary War, 1793-1801. Fast forward to 1800 and it must have been a most appalling experience for Admiral Keith to have to watch as his pride and joy went to its watery grave in a ball of flame.

A carving of Queen Charlotte in full regalia in miniature. It was probably made before the full-size carving for the figurehead was commissioned, and would have been used to obtain Royal approval to the design.

Feb 252013
 

There is nothing new about worrying about balancing the books of Gt. Britain plc. My ancestor Richard Hall was horrified at the way the government allowed the National Debt to spiral out of control. He even listed the debt for each year over a  ten year period up to 1800 (with a summary of the figures for the previous sixty years by way of comparison):

His fears were echoed in this James Gillray  caricature from 1807  shown courtesy of the National Portriait Gallery.  It is called  ’John Bull and the sinking-fund – a pretty scheme for reducing the taxes & paying-off the national debt!’ and shows poor John Bull, pressed down against ‘The Rock of Broad Bottom’d Security’ under the weight of ‘The Sinking Fund  i.e. Taxations of 42 millions per annum’

Standing astride the Debt is the Chancellor of the Exchequer Nicholas Vansittart, Baron Bexley (1766-1851),  uttering the stirring words: “Patience, Johnny! Aren’t I tossing away as fast as I can? Aren’t I reducing your taxes to 17 shillings and sixpence in the Pound! Why, you ought to think yourself quite comfortable and easy Johnny!”

It is sort of reassuring to know that with or without George Osborne’s “help” we are still no nearer balancing the books after two hundred years!

Dec 262012
 

Old London Bridge, courtesy of Motco, with the site of my ancestor’s house at One London Brige arrowed in red.

In the second half of the 18th Century my family lived at One London Bridge – the first house and shop you came to as you entered the City of London  from the Southwark end. One of the things which I find incredibly sad about the family diaries from the 18th and 19th Centuries is the story of Francis Hall (the younger of two sons which my 4xgreat grandfather had by his first wife). After all, he never really wanted to be a shopkeeper – he was never trained as a haberdasher like his father and elder brother, and was only drafted in to the family business at Number One London Bridge when brother William got bored with the retail trade and deserted the shop for the freedom of being a silk-man. That was in the 1790′s.

Francis stepped into the breach without complaint. His life wasn’t easy – his first wife died in 1799 shortly after giving birth to a son. Her previous pregnancies had resulted in three live births (all three of them boys and all three of them dying within a couple of months) and a pair of stillborn twins. She was just 28 at the time of her death, which resulted from complications linked to the birth, but the latest child, another boy, somehow survived.

Bringing up a tiny infant while trying to run the business must have been a daunting task for the newly widowed Francis – it doesn’t bear thinking about! In practice he married again fairly soon afterwards, but never had any more children.

From the moment when he became an owner of the business (jointly with father Richard, who took no part in the running of the shop, but who paid all the bills and pocketed half the profits) Francis knew that he was in charge of an asset which had a declining value as the lease ran out. Richard had originally signed a 61 year lease from the Corporation of London at an annual rent of just under £28. It would inevitably expire on Christmas Day 1826, at which point Francis would have to move out and surrender possession to the Landlord. He must have felt the clock ticking every day, especially after his father died in 1801 leaving him the business. He would know full well that he would be 68 years old when the lease expired – and he would be losing not just his business but the home  he had lived in since he was twelve years old as well.

There was something else looming over Francis – the knowledge that all he had worked for, all he had done, was likely to be pulled down as soon as the lease was up. He would have known that plans had been mooted from the very beginning of the century to pull down the old bridge and put up a new one just upstream… and that the building at One London Bridge would be demolished so that improved access roads could be constructed. Year by year the knife would have been driven home – a competition to find the best design, parliamentary approval, detailed feasibility studies etc.

All the time the old bridge was deteriorating. The Great Arch had been constructed only seventy years earlier but the pillars were all constructed on their original 500 year old foundations and they were beginning to suffer subsidence. Bluntly the bridge was no longer fit for purpose – either for shipping or for pedestrians, let alone for vast numbers of carts carriages and wheeled vehicles, livestock and so on.

Rennie’s design for the new bridge showing the old bridge with its many arches and starlings.

In July 1823 Parliament finally authorised work to commence in accordance with the plans prepared by John Rennie. The first pile was driven on March 15th 1824 and a year later, on 15th June, the foundation stone was laid with great ceremony.

All day and every day Francis Hall would have had to contend with the noise and dust of construction work, especially with constant pile driving. It can hardly have been conducive to the business of selling fabrics and general haberdashery! To add to his misfortunes his second wife died in July 1825. By then his son had grown up and left home, so Francis would have been alone in the house in those final years.

The view from Francis Hall’s window, showing the new bridge on the right

The warehouse premises next door to Number One were pulled down, and Francis would have had a grandstand view from his living room window of the coffer dam being built to his right, and the excavation for a grand flight of steps leading to the water’s edge, immediately in front of him. The old bridge to the left was still in use, but shored up in places with wooden boards to try and stop any more masonry falling into the river.

Close up view of the starlings  beneath the old bridge, with St Magnus the Martyr in the background.

The excellent map by Greenwood dated 1827 shows the two bridges side by side, and I have highlighted in red the building where Francis would have watched the unfolding picture.

The stone blocks for the new bridge were cut and the arches laid out on the Isle of Dogs, and then lettered and numbered before being brought to the site and lowered into place. Everywhere cranes and derricks were loading and unloading, while stone-masons hammered away. Men swarmed over the scaffolding like ants.

The view towards the site of One London Bridge showing the lower half of the Monument in the background.

December 1826 must have been especially poignant for Francis as he found buyers for his remaining stock within the trade, and began plans for moving out. Maybe he over-did the furniture shifting. Or maybe he simply was heart-broken to be leaving – either way, the lease expired on Christmas Day, and Francis, whose birthday it was on Boxing Day, expired immediately afterwards.

This painting from 1827 looking at the Northern bank of the river from the Southwark side, shows the old bridge on the right, and is looking straight at the site of One London Bridge, It is low tide and the starlings supporting the pillars of the old bridge are exposed. The parapet above the fifth arch is shored up, and the subsidence in the old arches is clearly visible. Standing above the line of the parapet can be seen a number of the cupulas, designed to give shelter and protection to pedestrians, mentioned below.

Francis never saw the New Bridge being formally opened on the 1st of August, 1831, in the presence of His Majesty King William IV. The picture above (courtesy of the Tate) shows the opening ceremony with the old bridge in the background – demolition could not start in earnest until the new structure was fully operational

He never got to see the old bridge being pulled down arch by arch, and the old starlings, used to protect the foundations, being excavated and removed. Today very few pieces of stonework remain – although there are a couple of the old cupolas  to be found in Victoria Park.

 

What is especially interesting is the incredibly detailed record of the works as they progressed, drawn by a young man called Edward William Cooke. He started his drawings in 1826 when he was fifteen. Guildhall Library holds 69 of these drawings: according to their site they were presented in 1872 by Alderman Sir David Salomons, a close friend of Cooke. Twelve of the drawings were later selected for engraving and publication in 1833 under the title ‘Views of the Old and New London Bridge’

Here is his picture of the demolition of one of the pillars to the Great Arch:

Within a few years no trace remained of the old bridge, and the old family shop at Number One passed into history. But I do rather like this 1870 painting of the Rennie bridge, looking towards where the family ran their business for over 60 years. It is shown courtesy of the Atkinson Grimshaw website at http://www.johnatkinsongrimshaw.org  :