FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
1689-1900
Towards the end of the 17th century cane chair making had developed into a distinct specialisation within chair making. Cane chairs became increasingly fashionable and there was rivalry between the Joiner’s and the Basket Maker’s as to which company should control the trade. To the Upholder’s the new fashion represented a threat and the "Company petitioned Parliament to prohibit the manufacture of cane chairs by adding a clause to a Parliamentary Bill to encourage woollen manufacture. The petition claimed that before cane chairs were popular sixty thousand Turkey-work chairs and about two hundred and fifty thousand with other coverings were produced each year and that the production of cane chairs had led to about fifty thousand people being put out of work in the upholstery and woollen trades". (Kirkham, p138/9).
The text of the 1689 petition is set out below.
For the encouragement of the Confumption of the Woollen Manufacture of this Kingdom, it is humbly propofed to the confideration of the Parliament now Affembled, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the making and vending of Cane Chairs, Stools and Couches for the Future. And for Reafons, are Humbly offered:
I. That before the abovefaid Chairs, Stools and Couches were generally made and ufed; there were yearly made and vended in this Kingdom above Six Thousand dozen of Setwork, (commonly called Turky-work, for Chairs though made in England) and above Ten Thousand dozen of Cloth, Serge, Perpetuanoes, Camlets, Says Kerfies, Norwich Cheniis, and Kidderminfter Prints; in the Cases and Coverings whereof was first fpent above Two Thousand packs of Wooll, which Wooll employs many Thousands of poor people.
II. To perfect thefe for ufe, there was expended great quantities of Nails, Girtweb, Sackcloth, Worfted, Fringe, Flax, Hemp, Hair, all our own Growth and Manufacture, and worth many thousands of pounds, by which four thousands more of their Majefteis Subjects gained their subfiftance.
III. To fit thefe up for Sale there was expended above Twenty thousand pound fterling of Silk Fringe, which Silk is the product of our Cloth from Turky.
IV. There was alfo at leaft 150 bales of Rufsia Leather yearly made up into Chairs, which Leather was the product of our Cloth from Rufsia.
V. Great quantities of thefe Chairs were alfo vended and fent yearly beyond the Seas.
But fince Cane Chairs, Stools and Couches (which generally the frames are made of French Walnut-Tree, and the Seats of Indian Canes) are become fo much in ufe, the confumption of Wooll, the Growth of this Kingdom, Silk and Rufsia Leather, which is the product of our Cloth, is greatly decreafed, many thoufands of their Majefties Subjects formerly employed in the Manufactury thereof, have loft their employments to the ruine of them and their numerous Families. (BL 1605/622[8]).
At about the same time as the 1689 petition (it is not possible to date it precisely) another petition was prepared and the text is shown below.
For the Encouragement of the Woollen Manufacture of England, Whereas, Till within few Years laft paft, there has been a very great Confumption of Wool ufed in making of Set-work Cufhions for Chairs, Couches, Carpets called Turky-work made in Yorkshire; Great Quantities of Cloth Serges, Perpetuanoes, Kerfeys, Camblets, Norwich Chenys, Bays, Kidderminfter prints, Says and Cottons, and all other Commodities of the Woollen Manufacture: As alfo many Bales of Silk wrought up into Fringes for Chairs, and divers bales of Ruffia Leather wrought up into Chairs which is the product of our Cloth from Turkey and Ruffia, whereby many Thousand Families have been Employed and maintained. All which Manufactures have been generally laid afide and little ufe of, to the ruine of many Families.
It is therefore Humbly Prayed that this Honourable Houfe will according to their great Wifdom provide, That all Couches and Squobs under the value of four pounds, and all Chairs and Stools under the value of Twenty fhillings a piece, (except fuch as are made of Leather) may not be Backt, Bottomed, Covered, Cafed, or made with any thing but what is of the Woollen Manufacture or the Growth of England (BL 1605/622[6]).
These efforts to supress the cane chair trade failed and it florished, particularly in the St. Paul’s Churchyard area, but cane chairs went out of fashion in the 1720s and the subsequent demand was insufficient to support specialists in cane furniture making. (Kirkham, p20/21)
In 1699, the Livery was returned at 121, in 1724 at 144, and in 1739 at 131. Just under 50% of the Livery in 1750 were upholsterers. (Kirkham, p137). Moses Farley was made Free of the Company in 1700 and it is believed he may be the same man of that name who appears in the records of the Royal Household for 1707/08 as a Yeoman of the Guard and supplier to the Household.
On 3 September 1701 John Trott of Bishopsgate was fined "for having severall Callico Quilts filled with Squibs and he making Quilts to sell to the Upholster". Later, on 15 October 1706 the Court decided to prosecute John Tatnell "being some years out of his time" for failing to take up his freedom despite his "keeping a Warehouse ........ and ........ he often cutt Ticks and other things by retail". (Minutes). However, by the middle of the century the Company had abandoned searches as a way of controlling the trade.
The Peter Jackson Charity is the principal charity supported by the Company and dates back to 1707 and the generous donation of £800 by Mr. Jackson. This sum would be worth about £56,000 in 1998 terms. The Court minutes refer to his "extraordinary kindness and bounty" and to the setting up of a committee to acquire a ground rent in Southwark as the main investment for the charity. The purpose of the charity as specified when it was established was to pay each year on St. Andrew's Day a sum of money to twenty necessitous persons of the Company. (Archives). A note on the development of the Charity into the present century is shown below:-
HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE PETER JACKSON CHARITY
1707 - Peter Jackson, Liveryman, gave to the Company in his lifetime £800 in the form of two East India bonds for the purchase of property out of the income of which pensions of £1 each per annum were to be paid to 20 necessitous upholsterers. The original Articles or Deed, if they existed, have not survived and the information set out in this note has been drawn from various sources including the Court Minutes.
1708 - On St Andrew's Day, 30 November, the first £20 was paid to 20 pensioners.
1709 - The East India bonds were sold for £872 1s 0d including interest. £200 was borrowed from a member of the Company at 6% interest (repaid by the Company as £100 with interest in September 1709 and £100 in 1712/13). Although originally thought had been given to the purchase of property in Southwark eventually two houses in Coleman Street were bought for £990, the rents being £19 and £39 respectively.
1735/48 - The Company spent approximately £100 in repairs to the property.
1767 - The Company spent £170 on property repairs.
1820 - After some difficulty and extensive advertising the two houses were re-let at £156 per annum, the outgoing tenant paying £62 8s 0d towards dilapidations and putting the property in good repair.
1833 - The two houses were acquired by the Corporation of the City of London for £2550 which was invested in 3% Consols (about £2600 nominal, producing £78 per annum).
1839 - The annual pension was increased by 10s per annum.
1870 - The trust fund having apparently been absorbed by the Company, although the pensions were regularly paid, it was recommended by a Special Committee that £800 be invested on behalf of the Charity in freehold ground rents.
1904 - The position of the Charity was reviewed and Counsels’ opinion sought. The joint opinion of Mr. H.T. Eve, KC, and Mr. J. Ellwood is thought to have been lost in the Second World War. Following the legal advice £2550 was earmarked for the trust fund, invested in Trustee securities (cost price, £2535) and 20 necessitous upholsterers were admitted as Freeman to receive the pension.
1915 - £200 War Loan was purchased by the Company out of the General Account to make up the depreciation of the Charity's securities.
1946 - It was decided by the Court to execute a Declaration of Trust which was accepted by the Inland Revenue so avoiding payment of tax on the income of the trust. £2000 was taken from the Company's funds and invested in £2000 3% Defence Bonds.
1948 - The Court decided that the excess of the Peter Jackson Fund after providing the required Trust Fund, namely £600 16s 0d, with the Company's Special Fund, both being the property of the Company, be transferred to the Company's General Fund.
1952 - The redemption money from the 3% Defence Bonds was invested in 3½% War Loan between 1952 and 1956, providing £2449 4s 11d Stock at a cost of £2020, and an income of £85 14s 6d.
1955 - The amount of the annual pension was increased to £3 per person.
1975- Gifts made by PM F.W. Mosey from his father's charitable bequest and placed in a Sustentation Fund were added to the Charity amounting to £207.77 and invested in 3½% War Loan.
1980 - Approved Scheme for the Charity set up and signed by the Charity Comissioners
1998 - The current pension is £250 a year.
The long connection between Upholders and the dismal trade of undertaking or funeral direction is shown by a play entitled "A Bickerstaff’s Burying; or Work for the Upholders - A Farce". This play by Centlivre was performed at the "Theatre in the Haymarket" c 1710. (British Library 11778.g.14). The play was dedicated to "the Magnificent Company of Upholders, whom the judicious censor of Great Britain has so often condescended to mention; to you then, worthy Sirs, whose Solemn Train keeps up the pompous State of Beauty, beyond the limits of a Gasp of Breath, and draws the gazing World to admire, even after Death". (Rogers).
The Bills of the Court Wardrobe 1719-27 (Royal Archives) show Thomas Phill, a Freeman of the Company, to have supplied upholstery goods and services to the Royal apartments at Kensington and St. James as well as the Royal Yacht.
In 1720 an Act was passed stating that from 1722 no one was to wear any printed or dyed calico with a penalty of £20 for the seller and £5 for the buyer and also a penalty of £5 for using this fabric in "Bed, Chair, Cushion, or other household furniture". This legislation was part of the growing protectionism of the time and does not seem to have been linked to any efforts of the Upholders’ Company. (Clabburn, p39). A London upholsterer, although not a member of the Company, apparently wanted to unload his stock before ratification of the Act and in 1722 the following advertisement was published in the newspaper "The Post Boy" on 15 November: "Whereas by an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament no callicoe Furniture can be made up after Christmas next under Penalty of Twenty Pounds:- This is to inform those who have Occasion for Beds of the finest Chince Patterns, callicoe Quilts, Carpets to cover one side of callicoe Gowns to make into Quilts, may be furnished with all sorts by Thomas Nash, upholsterer, at The Royal Bed on Holborn Bridge." (Heal, p123).
The town of Witney on the edge of the Cotswolds in Oxfordshire had long been engaged in blanket weaving. In 1711 the Blanket weavers of Witney and a twenty mile radius obtained from Queen Anne a royal charter of incorporation after more than seventy years of discussions and pressing the Crown on at least two occasions. (Witney, p11/12). A large proportion of the Witney Blanket Weavers’ output, whether for export or the wholesale domestic market, was sold through public markets in London. Sometimes small parcels of goods were sold direct to London customers. This was against the law as only Freemen of the City were allowed to sell retail within the City boundaries. In 1717, a Witney weaver called Edward Bird was prosecuted by the City Chamberlain for selling one pair of blankets by retail within the City. He pleaded he had "ignorantly transgressed" but before judgement could be delivered the sudden death of the Chamberlain stayed the proceedings and the prosecution appears to have failed. In 1723 the Upholders’ Company had seven Witney Blanket Weavers (Edward Busby, Edward and William Dutton, John Reynolds, John Edney, Richard Osborne and David Hayes) arrested and obtained judgement against four of them. The guilty weavers were fined £10 each and costs. This encouraged the Upholders to bring prosecutions against other Witney Blanket Makers and eventually the Blanket Makers petitioned the City for a stay in proceedings. The Court of Aldermen decided on 1 October 1723 that the Witney men could continue to sell their goods on a wholesale basis in the public market but must not engage in the retail trade. The Blanket Weavers were reluctant to give up their profitable retail trade in the City and the dispute with the Upholders’ Company rumbled on with prosecutions continuing to at least 1730 when William Cook was fined £5 with £2 costs. (Plummer, p43/44). (Repertories 97-154).
In 1724 a Parliamentary Bill was promoted "for the better Viewing, Searching and Examining of all Drugs, Medicines, Waters, Oyles, Compositions ..." giving extensive powers to the Physicians. Aspects of the Bill were opposed by the Company in a formal objection on the grounds that it would lead "to the great Detriment of our Company and their numerous Families." (Reasons). However, the objection was not successful and the Bill became an Act despite the Apothecaries also submitting a formal objection.
A writer on London in 1725 said "Near this Palace [reference to the Palace of the Savoy and the church of St. Mary in the Savoy] my good Friends, the Worshipful Company of Upholders rent a fmall Tenement....." (German, p22).
"The London Livery Companies each operated a system of welfare benefits which, although providing no more than short-term relief, offered some security for both masters and men. Fear of illness and accident haunted even the most skilled furniture craftsmen and both the Joiners’ and the Upholders’ Companies assisted members or their widows who met with difficult times. Payment was not automatic: members or their widows had to apply to the officers who considered each case .......Special payments, usually small sums, were made in the case of accidents ....... William Humphreys, who served in all the offices of the Upholders’ Company including Master, was ‘by reason of losses and misfortunes in trade’ reduced to poverty and forced to petition his company for assistance in 1732. Even then, the amount given to one of its former leading members was only sufficient to bring some small measure of temporary relief. He was given two guineas and a promise of six shillings a week for a limited but unspecified period. Similarly, ten shillings were paid to Humphrey Skelton, another leading member of the Upholders’ Company, in 1736 when he was ill, and one guinea was paid to his landlady for looking after him. The assistance given to Humphreys and Skelton, however, was exceptional in that it was largely given in recognition of past services. Rank-and-file members were not treated so generously ....... The Upholders’ Company also ran a loan fund from which members could borrow in times of hardship and repay when their economic circumstances improved." (Kirkham, p140).
As the craft developed, the upholder became rather more than the upholsterer he had previously been. Upholders became the co-ordinators and, sometimes, employers of various branches of furniture making. In 1747, an author writing on apprenticeships in London described the scope of the trade and the necessary skills as follows :
"..... has not only Judgment in the Materials, but Taste in the Fashions, and Skill in the Workmanship. This Tradesman's Genius must be universal in every Branch of Furniture; though his proper Craft is to fit up Beds, Window-Curtains, Hangings, and to cover Chairs that have stuffed Bottoms: He was originally a Species of the Taylor; but, by degrees, has crept over his Head and set up as a Connoisseur in every article that belongs to a House. He employs a Journeymen in his own proper Calling, Cabinet-Makers, Glass-Grinders, Looking-Glass Frame-Carvers, Carvers for Chairs, Testers, and Posts of Bed, and the Woolen-Draper, the Mercer, the Linen- Draper, several Species of Smiths, and a vast many Tradesmen of the other mechanic Branches. The Upholder, according to this Description of his Business, must be no fool; and have a considerable Stock to set up with .....". (Campbell)
Another writer on careers for young men wrote, also in 1747, as follows about the trade of the upholder.
Most frequently called Upholfterers, who are the abfolute neceffary Tradesmen for decently or fumptoufly furnifhing an Houfe, and a large Branch of Bufinefs it is, the working Part of which is not hard, but clean and genteel; (and if they were not fo, what would the nice Ladies do with them?) therefore fit for fmart Youths, who have no Strength to fpare; for they even employ Women to do fome of the Needlework.
Befides performing this Part many of them are great Shopkeepers, who have abundance of ready-made Goods for Sale always by them.
Most of them are also Appraifers. ....... and feveral of them are Undertakers too, which frequently is performed likewife by Coffin-makers, Box-makers, Carpenters and Joiners; notwithftanding there are fome eminent Undertakers, who only follow the trade of furnifhing Funerals and all decent Neceffaries.
The Upholfterers take with an Apprentice generally from 20 to 50 1., who will work from fix to eight; pay a Journeyman in common 2s. 6d. or 3s. a Day; or, if by the Year, 15, 20, or 30 1. and his Board.
If a Mafter only does Bufinefs in a private Way 100 1. may ferve his Occafions; but if he keeps a Stock of Upholftery Ware and Materials for Funerals he had need have 500 1.
They were incorporated into a Company in the year 1627, in the Reign of King Charles 1. Livery-fine 4 1. 10s ....... They have alfo a Stand near St.Paul’s, in which they generally fit, to attend the Lord-Mayor, on the Day of his Inftallation. (Trades, p49).
In April 1749 a committee was appointed by the Company to ascertain how an Act of Common Council could be obtained, forcing all those carrying on the trade of upholsterer within the City of London and seven miles circumference to take up their Freedom in the Company. In August the committee reported back that a petition needed to be presented to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and this was done in October. After giving evidence that control had been exercised over the trade the petition was allowed. On 31 July 1750 an Act for Regulating the Worshipful Company of Upholders was passed by the Common Council in the following terms :
"Be it Enacted, by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor,&c. And it is Enacted by the authority aforesaid, That, from henceforth, every Person not being now free of the City of London, who hath or shall have Right or Privilege to be made free of this City by Redemption, or otherwise, and who shall use or exercise the said Art, Trade, or Mystery of an Upholder, otherwise called Upholsterer, within the said City, and the Liberties thereof, shall take upon himself the Freedom, and shall be made a Freeman of the said Company of Upholders, in like Manner and Form, as he could or might have been in any other Company; and that no Person or Persons having Right or Privilege to be made free of this City, who shall use or exercise the said Art, Mystery, or Trade of an Upholder, otherwise called Upholsterer, within this City, or the Liberties thereof, shall at any Time hereafter be admitted by the Chamberlain of this City, in to the Freedom or Liberties thereof, in any other Company, than the said Company of Upholders; any Law, Custom, or Usage, to the contrary notwithstanding.
And Further, That if any Person, who is not at this Time made free of this City, shall at any Time hereafter use or exercise the said Trade, Mystery, or Art of an Upholder, otherwise called Upholsterer, within the said City of London, or the Liberties thereof, not being free of the said Company of Upholders; then every such Person so doing and offending, shall forfeit and pay for every such Offence, Ten Pounds of lawful Money of Great Britain, to be recovered by Action of Debt, Bill, or Plaint, to be commenced and prosecuted in the Name of the Chamberlain of the said City of London for the Time being, in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record, within the said City of London, and the Chamberlain of the said City for the Time being, in all such Actions to be prosecuted, by virtue of this present Act, against any such Offenders, shall (in case he do recover) be allowed his ordinary Costs of Suit, to be expended in and about the prosecuting the same." (List).
"Nineteen freedom admissions by rememption under the conditions of the act were recorded in the years from 1750 to 1759, rising to forty-eight in the years from 1760 to 1769. The figures dropped to thirty-three in the following decade while between 1780 and 1789 there were only fifteen recorded. Although the power of the act was waning in the 1780s, the Upholders’ Company was able to force George Seddon II, of the firm of Seddon of Aldersgate Street, to take out company membership, despite the leading role played by George Seddon Senior in the Joiners’ Company. This case is particularly interesting because it illustrates not only the power of the Upholders’ Company to enforce freedoms as late as the 1780s but also its ability to coerce a member of the largest furniture-making business in London." (Kirkham, p142). Once in membership he used the Company to bind some of the apprentices taken on in the family firm, including his nephew Thomas.
The three tents, tenters or spervers from the arms of the Company have been used in the design of trade labels for upholsterers and cabinet makers such as that of Henry Newton (c. 1760), upholsterer, at the Three Tents, at the corner of Cullum Street, in Lime Street. The use of the tent design as a trade label for a shop sign, or as an address, did not necessarily indicate membership of the Company - Henry Newton never achieved Freedom of the Company. (Heal, p124/129). Sometimes a design showing a single tent would be used for a trade label - as with Edward Cross (c. 1808-11), cabinet maker and upholder, 57 Barbican. (Heal, p32/44). The earliest recorded trade label for a Freeman of the Company is for Robert Webb, admitted in 1712, whose label depicted the three tents and who worked as an upholsterer at The Queen’s Head and Three Tents in Bedford Sreet, Covent Garden in the period 1712-24. (Heal, p191/197).
The Company’s surviving records of freedom admissions by all modes (servitude, patrimony, redemption, and the 1750 Act) date from 1698 and go up to the present day. The admissions have been abstracted for the period 1698 to 1803 (when the Company’s control over the trade had significantly decreased) and 1095 Freemen listed (Walton, p51). Company Freemen came from all over the country with about a third coming from London and the surrounding counties. Fathers’ occupations ranged from labourer to surgeon with about a tenth being gentlemen or esquires. The mode of admission has been analysed and the results are annexed.
Great names in eighteenth century furniture making such as Thomas Chippendale, William Vile, Ince and Mayhew, "were proud to call themselves Upholders first and Cabinet-Makers second. Bearing in mind that they were stockists of furniture, mirrors, fabrics, marble, wall-papers, etc. and that they waited on clients, prepared designs and also undertook the making and installation of furniture, draperies and blinds and hanging of wall-paper, they were retailers, house furnishers and, to some extent, interior decorators, as well as furniture designers and makers. Some of them employed several hundred workers. The pre-eminence of the upholder over the furniture industry lasted throughout the eighteenth and the first quarter of the nineteenth century". (History, p9/10).
Only a single register of apprenticeships survives amongst the Company records. Other Companies have generally been more fortunate with their records with, for example, the registers for the Paviors’ Company covering the period 1568-1800. The Upholders’ register is for the period 1704-1772 and covers 1,319 apprenticeships of which 360 went on to become Freemen by servitude. The apparent low proportion going on to become Free is by no means unique to the Upholders’. Sometimes the register shows entries such as "run away", "gone away", "dead", or "gone to the army". However, it is thought the bulk of those failing to take up their Company Freedoms were craftsmen taking up work in other trades, or working away from London and Company control, or, possibly, working in London in the upholstery and furniture trade but in a subordinate capacity. Most of the apprentices came, unsurprisingly, from London & Middlesex and, secondly, from the adjacent counties with the bulk of the rest coming from the remaining English counties. Only 13 came from Wales, 6 from abroad (including Jersey), 3 from Scotland, and just one from Ireland. A comparatively high proportion have gentlemen as their fathers (and one has a doctor of divinity and another a baronet) so, clearly, the trade was seen as clean, respectable and acceptable (Webb, p35 & 43).
John Phillips, admitted to the Livery in 1774, had an upholstery and carpet warehouse in Fenchurch Street (Heal, p 137). He was designated as Upholder to the City of London and supplied goods to the Mansion House. Among the goods supplied was the famous Nile suite, a set of 24 chairs and three sofas, supplied in 1803.
In the latter part of the 18th century the Company appears to have been bothered with the problem of recalcitrant Liverymen refusing to join the Court and papers c1776 show that Counsel's opinion was sought on the issue.
"The proportion of furniture-makers who belonged to City Companies in the eighteenth century is not known but the Upholders’ and Joiners’ Companies contained the largest number of furniture-makers. Some furniture-makers chose to be free of other companies particularly those in which they could obtain their freedom by right of their father’s membership. They belonged to a variety of companies including the Goldsmiths, Drapers and Merchant Taylors, members of the elite ‘Great Twelve’ mercantile companies which hampered the attempts of the lesser companies to re-establish traditional guild controls, as well as to the Longbow-stringers, Weavers, Leathersellers and others. But many chose to ignore the London companies despite the efforts of those companies to force them to take up membership." (Kirkham, p137).
Timothy Tyrrell, Citizen and Upholder, was the son of Timothy Tyrrell (senior) of Reading, Berkshire. He was admitted by servitude to the freedom of the City having been apprenticed to John Underwood, Citizen and Upholder, for 7 years from 1769 at a premium of £80. On 18 February 1794 he was Admitted and sworn by the Court of Aldermen as the 30th Remembrancer of the City of London having been previously elected by the Court of Common Council on 12 December 1793. He died in office on 14 July 1832. His son, Edward, born in Queen Street of the City in 1793, Citizen and Upholder, was admitted to the freedom of the city by patrimony in October 1816 having been made free of the Upholders' Company on 7 August of the same year. Two other sons of Timothy (junior), Charles and Timothy the younger, born in 1795 and 1801 respectively, were also admitted to the freedom of the City and of the Upholders' Company. Edward Tyrrell was appointed Deputy Remembrancer on 21 June 1827 and was elected by the Court of Common Council to be the 31st City Remembrancer on 26 October 1832. He was Admitted and sworn by the Court of Aldermen on 30 October 1832 and resigned on 2 July 1863. Between them, Timothy and Edward Tyrrell held the high office of Remembrancer of the Corporation of the City of London for nearly 70 years from 1794 to 1863 - a record which is unlikely to be equalled. (Correspondence (i) 14.7.92) (Correspondence 15.7.92).
"A proud moment for the Company came in 1801, when one of their members, William Rawlins, was elected a Sheriff of the City of London. Three new flags were bought for the occasion and sixteen Assistants together with the Clerk and Beadle provided an escort". (Walton, p48). Whilst in office as Sheriff he and his brother Sheriff boycotted a royal visit by the Prince of Wales to the City on grounds of principle and wrote explaining his actions. The letter is attached as an annex. The Times reported the next day that it "was the first instance in our memory that any of the great City Officers were absent from the Mansion House festivities of Easter Monday" and that it was because the Sheriffs believed that both they and their chaplains had not received due acknowledgement of their status. William Rawlins was one of the wealthiest men in the upholstery trade at that time. The letter did not prevent him from being knighted on 13 May 1802. The master/apprentice relationship within the Rawlins firm could be fraught as the following extract shows. "Thomas Dibden, apprenticed to the eminent upholsterer William Rawlins, showed more interest in making a model theatre than in the work set by his master. Rawlins finally threw the model on the fire and hit the youth. In this case, however, it was Rawlins who was chastised by the Chamberlain for degrading the boy and attempting to break the spirit of the London apprentice." (London Life, p 42).
To this day representatives of Bishopsgate Ward drink a solemn toast to the memory of Sir William Rawlins every other year at his tomb in St. Botolph without Bishopsgate churchyard. He was elected a Common Councilman in 1787 and represented Bishopsgate for the rest of his life. The drinking of this toast honours one of the great business minds of the City in the 19th century and the founder of the company now known as Eagle Star. On 23 October 1807 he brought together a group of City gentlemen at Cole's Coffee House in Cornhill and this meeting resulted in the founding of the Eagle Insurance Company. He was the motive force in the Company and Chairman to the end of his life. He attended his last meeting on 27 December 1837 and died at his home, 13 Liverpool Street, on 26 March 1838, aged eighty-four. The monthly Board meeting was postponed "as a proper respect for the day appointed for the Funeral of the late Chairman". His will provided instructions for the inspection and maintenance of his tomb and for the drinking of the toast. Eagle Star now helps to keep his memory by assisting towards the maintenance of both the tomb and the church. (Monograph). (Eagle Star, p69).
As the Company had no hall after the Great Fire and used various other premises for meetings and business, property had to be lodged at the houses or workplaces (often the same) of members. On 4 July 1812 a fire destroyed the premises of Messrs. Say & Kay, upholsterers and furniture makers, in Ludgate Hill and the Company’s "Box of trophies and chest of writings" was destroyed along with much else.
At a meeting of the Court of Assistants held at the King's Head Tavern, Poultry, on 4 July 1821 it was resolved :
"That in future the Invitations to the Livery Dinners of this Company be confined to such Liverymen as shall have served the Office of Steward, or paid the accustomed Fine for being excused therefrom. And that no Liveryman who shall not have served or fined for the Office of Steward, shall be permitted to Dine at any Livery Dinner, except by the special Invitation of the Master, Wardens, and Court of Assistants of this Company." (List 1822).
In the Company's lists of Liverymen from 1822 up to and including 1874 a clear distinction is drawn between those who had served the office of Steward (or been excused from office holding) and those who had not. A handwritten note attached to the 1860 list shows the Steward's fine to have been at that time £13 6s 8d, a sum unchanged since the Byelaws of 1679.
A good collection of 19th century livery lists gives a useful insight into the changes in the size of the Company in that century. Between 1822 and 1900 the numbers on the Court varied from 24 to 19 with a decrease towards the end of the century. The size of the Livery (inclusive of the Court) was 127 in 1822 rising to 139 in 1825 and 159 in 1829. After this date it steadily reduced in numbers to the range 86-66 in the 1850s, 64-45 in the 1860s, and 45-40 in the 1870s. It was in 1866 that the numbers of Liverymen who were Court members equalised with those who were not on the Court. In the 1880s the range was 40-28 and in the 1890s, 28-24. Then came the new century and eventual growth and rejuvenation. The Livery list for 1825 is especially interesting because it shows the number of Freemen who were not Liverymen and broke them down by type thus : Servitude 123, Compulsion 65, Patrimony 24, and Redemption 34. (Archives). To put the reduction of the size of the Company's livery in context the overall Livery roll declined from 12,000 in 1832 to 5,500 in 1855. (Doolittle).
Until "the early nineteenth century the system of guild control remained formally intact; and it was not until 1856 that the laws and customs of London preventing persons other than freemen, that is members of a guild, from retail trade or the exercise of a craft were formally rescinded." (Kahl, p3).
In 1834 a portrait of Henry VIII, taken from a panel at Rutland House, was presented to the Drapers’ Company by their upholsterer, William Henry Smith. The portrait is displayed to this day in Drapers’ Hall. Smith was the son of a Draper and was made Free of the Upholders’ Company in 1833 having served a seven-year apprenticeship under George Simson. (Correspondence (iii) 25.3.98).
The links between the Company and the Trade in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries are well illustrated by reference to the list of Masters at Annex A. When this list is compared with the standard reference book (Heal) more than 70 matches or possible matches of Masters and significant figures in the Trade may be identified between 1686 and 1851. Among the more interesting are the following with the election year shown in parenthesis :
Thomas Rogers (1686) is probably the upholsterer of that name at the "Blew Boar", next door to the White Horse Inn, Fleet Street.
Thomas Gamlyn (1721) is thought to be the upholsterer of Bedford Court, Covent Garden 1725-31 known to have supplied furniture to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea in 1731.
John Howard (1734) is the upholsterer and dealer in tapestries and oriental carpets of that name at "The Talbot", Long Lane near West Smithfield who died in 1742 and who was the father of John Howard, philanthropist and prison reformer. The relationship, if any, to John Howard, Master in 1699, is unclear.
James Gronous (1739) is known to have worked as an upholsterer at "The Black Lion", Wych Street, Strand in 1724-35. He has also been recorded under the name "Grouchonse".
Richard Say (1744) upholsterer at the front house, Racquet Court in Fleet Street 1717-34. He was the father of Francis Say mentioned below.
Francis Say (1774) was the son of Richard Say and known to have worked from an address in Ludgate Hill 1745-63. In 1763 he took Quentin Kay into partnership and traded as Say & Kay, again from Ludgate Hill. As mentioned in the Introduction, a fire at the premises of Say & Kay in 1812 destroyed many of the records and treasures of the Company.
John Peart (1777) is thought to be the John Peart or Peareth known to have worked at 21 Queen Street, Cheapside in 1783 and at 60 St. Martin's Lane 1783-93. He was a partner to Thomas Chippendale (Junior) for a period.
Alderman Samuel Swain (1787) worked as an upholder from 9 Broker's Row 1770-90.
John Boulton (1794) traded as an upholder at 48 Threadneedle Street 1777-94. He presented the Master's staff to the Company. A small bow fronted mahogany chest of drawers with his label was sold at Sotheby's in 1948.
Henry Blaxland (1799) was an upholsterer at 71 Old Broad Street in 1783-96 and later.
Abbott (or Abbot) Kent (1802) was an upholsterer at 65 & 67 London Wall in 1792.
Robert Herring (1803) upholder and cabinet-maker worked from two addresses in Fleet Street 1774-1817.
Sir William Rawlins (1811), Sheriff in 1801 traded as a cabinet-maker and upholder at "The Royal Bed and Star" 12 Broker's Row, Moorfields 1790-93. He acted as Master on a number of occasions. It was he who presented the William III silver gilt salt of 1697 to the Company.
Apart from Masters, comparison of Heal’s book against the Company’s membership shows various matches including the following.
Benjamin Dell (c1763-92), is described as making and selling "all sorts of Four Post, Turn-up and Standing Bedsteads, Desk and Table Bedstds. of all sorts in mahogany, wainscot, beach, etc. N.B. Bedsteads Dyed in ye neatest manner."
Robert Pluckrose, an upholsterer at The Sun and Half Moon, Fleet Ditch was the subject of press reports in the "Weekly Journal" of 4 and 11 June 1720 which read as follows: "On the occasion of a fire which broke out in his warehouse he was summoned to appear before the Lord Mayor on suspicion ‘that the man had designedly put fire to his own house’, it alleged that the contents were not of the value of £300 although lately insured to the value of £1,000."
Robert Sapp, cabinet-maker and upholsterer is shown as having supplied a mahogony writing table and a set of twelve finely carved chairs for the Board Room at the Treasury in 1740.
In 1845-6 Alderman William Hunter was Master of the Upholders Company and he went on to reach the Civic Chair. The son of Andrew Hunter of Bury St. Edmunds in the County of Suffolk he was born in 1781 in Bury and moved to London in 1807. He obtained his Freedom of both the Upholders’ Company and the City in 1809. In London it is known he lived at, or conducted business from, various addresses including 76 Coleman Street in the ward of that name. He became a Common Councilman for the ward of Coleman Street in 1825, Deputy Governor of the Irish Society in 1842-43, Alderman from 1843 until his death, Sheriff in 1844-45, Master of this Company 1845-46, and Lord Mayor in 1851-52. He died at 13 Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, on 22 September 1856 at the age of 75.
The Illustrated London News of 15 November 1851 carried a lengthy article on the new Lord Mayor and it incorporated a portrait sketch of him and his state carriage. Interestingly, in those days the Lord Mayor was sworn in at the Court of Exchequer, at Westminster. The Recorder in presenting the new Lord Mayor to the Barons of the Exchequer made a lengthy speech in which William Hunter was introduced as alderman and upholder and as a gentleman whose family had originated from Scotland before making their way to Suffolk. He is described as having founded an "extensive and lucrative business which he had subsequently carried on with so much success". The Recorder went on to say that Hunter's chairmanship of many committees had been most beneficial for his fellow citizens and special mention was made of the successful year of office he enjoyed as Sheriff in 1844-45. The year 1851 is associated with the Great Exhibition and, of course, he became Lord Mayor in that year. But he did so, as is the custom, in November, almost at the end of the year. We know from the Illustrated News article that it was his predecessor, John Musgrove, who took an active part in supporting the Great Exhibition although almost certainly as a major City figure William Hunter would have played an important role in representing the City at the "Exhibition of the Industries of all Nations". The Lord Mayor's State Coach is described in the ILN article as being painted a rich lake in colour and having a "rich yet chaste" style of decoration. The carriage displayed the City arms, the arms of the Upholders' Company, as well as William Hunter's private arms. The coach was lined with "rich white satin, and also trimmings to correspond; the roof ..... radiated with rich white satin, mounted in the centre with the City arms ..... finished with handsome crimson silk festoons, trimmed with gold-coloured fringe and tassels, and rich blue velvet to the glass frames .....". The soft furnishings of the coach were certainly sumptuous and worthy of a Past Master of the Upholders' Company with its long tradition of upholstery and furnishings. His mayorality was supported by Thomas Cotterell, Cordwainer, and Richard Swift, Spectaclemaker, as Sheriffs. In his year of office the usual round of civic business was transacted through the Court of Common Council with petitions being heard, reports received and commissioned, duties of officers agreed, applications for freedom considered, deeds & etc. sealed, leases renewed and accounts accepted. In January 1852 he laid before Common Council the Prize Medal awarded to the Corporation of London at the 1851 Great Exhibition and it was ordered it be deposited in the Guildhall Library. Following the death of the great Duke of Wellington the Common Council resolved that a committee should be appointed to consider what mark of respect should be paid to the late Duke in terms of a memorial. The committee comprised a Commoner from each Ward and met under the initial chairmanship of Alderman Hunter as Lord Mayor. Inevitably, it was known as the Wellington Committee and like all committees went on for far too long - in this case until 1857. In December 1852 Common Council resolved unanimously that the "Right Honourable William Hunter, late Lord Mayor" be presented with a framed, vellum version of the resolution of thanks and that a purse of 50 guineas be given to him "as a testimony of the esteem and approbation of his Court". The City Art Collection contains an oil portrait of William Hunter which was presented by Mrs Brand in 1917 and which is displayed in the Mansion House. In 1997 another version of the portrait was generously donated to the Company by Wickes plc. and now hangs in the City Livery Club.
The property on the old Wingfield House site was sold in 1863 to the City Corporation for £4,250 in order to enable City improvements to be made. (Origins, p3/4)
In the 1870s various reformers associated with the Liberal Party attacked the Livery Companies and the Corporation of London. They sought the taking back of the charters and the appropriation of company funds for utilitarian purposes. This caused Queen Victoria, at the request of Gladstone’s government, to appoint a Royal Commission with wide powers to investigate and make recommendations (Blackham, p70/71). Although the Commission was appointed in 1880, it was not until 1882 that the Commissioners commenced oral hearings (Doolittle). All the great Companies sent in more or less elaborate returns and fifty-nine of the minor Companies also reported to the Commission. The Upholders’ Company replied under protest as did a number of other Companies. Minor Companies declining to reply included the Dyers, Weavers and Broderers. On the conclusion of their deliberations the Royal Commission was unable to issue an agreed report so a majority report (going against the Livery Companies) and a minority report were published in 1884. The investigations and subsequent reports had little effect on the Livery Companies in either the short or the long term. The Upholders’ Company does not appear to have made representations to the earlier Municipal Commission of 1833/34.
William Crump, Clerk from 1894 to 1905 and Master in 1908, was the first Mayor of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington in 1900-01 being re-elected for a second term. He had the honour of presenting, on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs north of the Thames, a loyal and dutiful address to King Edward VII on the occasion of his Majesty's Coronation in 1902. (Thornley, p242) and in that year he was knighted. He was appointed High Sheriff of Middlesex in 1911. He was a solicitor by profession working in the City law firm of W.A. Crump & Son and played a part in establishing the Solicitors’ Company becoming Master in 1912.
![[Return to Company Index Page]](Thumbs/uphlogos.gif)
Click on this logo to go back to the Company Index Page